It’s becoming habit for me to take the side of the bad guy based on exculpatory technicalities and thus be dismissive of whatever public outrage. But, its consistently I think because the technical stuff is important, and these journalists are blind to nuance in constructing their stories to appeal to said outrage.
So Teague in Virginia was ‘witness’ say to a discrimination claim whose hook was Title IX, right.
And he didn’t disclose that to his executive recruiter, and the recruiter didn’t disclose that to the U. Is that unethical?
I don’t think so, I certainly doubt it was legally incorrect.
Teague probably wasn’t a defendant in the lawsuit, it was his employer. Yeah, you can ponder the absurdity that removes personal liability he may have had in creating VCU’s Title IX problem such that it was litigated, but fact is he’s shielded and he wasn’t the defendant. He doesn’t have to acknowledge it when a recruiter asks.
Should he have acknowledged it even if he didn’t have to? I think it’s unreasonable to ask / expect a job candidate to self-disclose something they’re not legally responsible for and under no legal obligation to disclose. That’s not the way the job market works, that’s not normative
Last…. we got kind of a self-righteousness after the fact thing going on here. I bet being privy to a Title IX suit in recent years hasn’t actually disqualified candidates like Teague. Title IX suits are common, often mundane collegiate institutional conflicts, and you’d disqualify a lot of people if you limited yourself to a pool of the unsullied. Which is to say the recruitment firm wasn’t malfeasant in not screening robustly for this such that they had no reason to ask Teague this question in context to disqualifying him. Anyway, now we know what we know, Title IX disputes are indicative of unsuitable candidates right? That can be a future search criteria. Talking to you there, Board of Regents / Search Committee. Good luck.
Jots w/ dots 8/18
When the dentist poached: There’s got to be more of a back story, but this was not ambiguous. Dude is not classy. http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos-black-bear-illegally-hunted-dentist-walter-palmer/story?id=33067963
It’s curious as well…. These pictures come from a FOIA request apparently. With the DOJ investigations on the IRS and Benghazi and Fast and Furious, you get the impression fulfillment of FOIA requests take years. This one looks like it only took a few days. That’s amazing, I wonder why that is?
I agree with this intuitive / counterintuitive notion http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/17/glenn-beck-on-sean-hannity-were-at-an-impasse-because-i-dont-understand-why-conservatives-trust-trump/ If there’s to be a choice between Beck and Hannity, I take Beck.
I agree with this intuitive / counterintuitive notion http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/amazon_abuse_of_white_collar_workers_i_worked_at_microsoft_and_google_and.html IE, that however much of a whip cracking rock quarry Amazon might be, that sort of workplace conflict is ameliorated by the fact you can push tech people only so far lest they go work for someone else. Replacing people is expensive.
Many have hazy, romanticized notions of the time when their German ancestors came to America. Says Conor with the Teutonic last name http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trumps-immigration-principles-wouldve-barred-his-own-grandfather/401600/ Yes, it would be hazy for me. I don’t know why the Germans came, I’m not under the impression they were starving like the Irish and the Scandinavians. But I’ll guess it was because feudalism / the guilds sucked nonetheless. But I don’t get the Germanic thing with all the fiefdom states prior to 1871, don’t know how that worked. I’m a little Prussian and then maybe that frenchy kind of German from down south, such that it can be traced.