« December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007 | Main | December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007 »
December 22, 2007
Yale Professor decries Chinese Plagiarism
From the Chronicle of Higher Education
But plagiarism is no rarity in America, either. See story below:
December 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Would your university fire Dan Brown?
Would Your University Fire Dan Brown?
by Jim Castagnera
“Capitol Concerns”
November 2006
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is the biggest bestseller of all time, boasting more than 60 million copies in 44 languages. Brown’s net worth is reported to be about a quarter billion and climbing. But if another author, Lewis Purdue, is to be believed, most universities, if they played by their own rules, would fire Brown from their faculties.
Perdue, author of 1983’s The Da Vinci Legacy and 2000’s Daughter of God, possesses an expert opinion from Director John Olsson of Britain’s Forensic Linguistics Institute, who has publicly called Brown’s book, “the most blatant example of in-your-face plagiarism I’ve ever seen.” Unfortunately for Perdue, when Brown and Random House hauled him into the federal court in Manhattan, seeking a declaration that Code did not violate Perdue’s copyrights, the judge disallowed the expert report.
Although Perdue is pursuing the case into the U.S. Supreme Court on a motion for certiorari, the two lower courts ruling against him may be dead right. Current U.S. copyright law protects only the actual expression of an author’s ideas, not the underlying ideas themselves. Copyright infringement is not synonymous with plagiarism.
Perhaps it should be. So suggests an article by Harvard Law Professor Arthur Miller in the January issue of his law school’s journal. In the article, entitled “Common Law Protection for Products of the Mind,” Miller, citing Perdue’s case among many others, contends that the law should look at how the plaintiff’s idea enriched the defendant… not at whether the defendant ripped off an exact copy of the plaintiff’s work. This approach matches what most universities tell their students about plagiarism. At my own institution, Rider University in central New Jersey, the sweeping definition of plagiarism in the student handbook includes:
“1.1 Ghostwriting-Written work submitted by an individual student (or group of students working together as approved in advance by the instructor) is expected to be the work of that student (or approved group).…
“1.2 Word for Word Plagiarism-Copying, word for word, from any source (book, magazine, newspaper, Internet source, unpublished paper or thesis) without proper acknowledgment by quotation and citation within the text of the paper….
“1.3 Patchwork Plagiarism-The submission of work which has been constructed by piecing together phrases and/or sentences quoted verbatim (word for word) or paraphrased from a variety of unacknowledged sources is an act of academic dishonesty….
“1.4 Unacknowledged Paraphrases-Submission of another author’s facts or ideas in one’s own words without acknowledgment by proper citation is an act of academic dishonesty.”
The academic penalties for plagiarism can be as severe as this definition is expansive. The career-busting equivalent of capital punishment is often invoked. For example, in mid-September the University of Cincinnati announced initiation of steps to terminate its director of German-American studies on the grounds of numerous plagiarized passages in a 2000 tome, The German-American Experience. Charges were first made on the website H-Net (www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=104811076280447 ), which claimed in 2003 that roughly half of the first 180 pages were lifted from a 1962 book, The Germans in America. A more ancient volume, 1909’s The German Element in the United States, also allegedly was looted by the Cincinnati faculty-member/librarian for his own book.
If the University of Cincinnati imposes workplace capital punishment, the author of The German-American Experience will join a long line of academic plagiarizers who were marched up the steps to that same guillotine. Some casualties, however, have refused to lie down and play dead. Chris Dussold, a former Southern Illinois at Edwardsville faculty member, for instance, is fighting a multi-front campaign against his former employers. Fired in 2004 for allegedly lifting a two-page teaching statement, Dussold has since sued. Dussold apparently doesn’t deny that he borrowed the statement, which he considered mere boilerplate, from a colleague. He says, simply, that plagiarism never crossed his mind. He adds that a false rumor, that he was sleeping with a student, is the real reason he was fired.
Not satisfied with suing, Dussold launched a “glass houses” campaign, pointing out for example that the school’s chancellor copied several passages of a speech from a web site. The chancellor owned up and apologized. Earlier this year the chancellor of Southern Illinois’s Carbondale campus admitted that portions of his 2005 state-of-the university address came verbatim from a 1986 book he hadn’t written. Both chancellors blamed staffers, but Dussold contends that since he was fired, so too should they be.
Dussold’s counterattack calls into question how hypocritical plagiarism rules really are. Earlier this year, President Scott D. Miller of Delaware’s Wesley College survived a plagiarism investigation and a faculty no-confidence referendum that came out even. A panel chaired by former Penn President Judith Rodin blamed public relations staffers under tremendous pressure to provide their boss with an outstanding speech. Miller promised to put safeguards in place. Professor Dussold presumably would say that this is another case of too little, too late.
Superstar profs, such as the late best-selling historian Stephen Ambrose, often likewise successfully weather accusations of plagiarism, shrugging them off as fair-use or inadvertence. Author Dan Brown and his publisher have thus far weathered two trials, one the Perdue hearing, the other a courtroom drama played out last year in London, where British authors unsuccessfully challenged Brown’s right to borrow from their non-fiction Holy Blood, Holy Grail. In a classic example of the superstar shrug, Brown told Today’s Matt Lauer, “When DaVinci Code debuted at No. 1, I actually got a lot of calls from best-selling authors… saying, ‘Well, get ready, because there are going to be people that you never heard of come out of the woodwork sort of wanting to ride your coattails’.”
In recent correspondence and conversation, Perdue conceded to me “mistakes and misjudgments” which landed him in a federal court across the country from his California home, grappling with a mass-media Goliath, like some David who’d forgotten to pack his sling. Even today, as he awaits rulings on whether he might actually owe Random House its attorney fees and whether the Supremes might stoop to review his case, Perdue admits, “I also realize I am too close to this issue to be as cool and rational as needed.” Still he persists, as does Illinois’s Professor Dussold. As Dussold uses the Internet to further his “glass houses” attack against Illinois’s chancellors ( see, for example, http://economy-chat.com/aggy/tag/chris-dussold/ ), Perdue employs extensive web sites and blogs to sustain his counteroffensive against nemesis Dan Brown (see, for example, http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/ and http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/ ).
The Perdue and Dussold cases --- implicating as they do high-stakes litigation and high-profile guerrilla warfare on the web --- require industry-wide recognition that hoary academic-plagiarism policies, intended mainly to squelch student cheating, need reexamination. Is your university’s policy overly broad? Is it uniformly applied to students, junior faculty, tenured superstars, and high-ranking administrators alike? Does it comport with federal copyright law and your institution’s IP policies?
No one size fits all. Harvard’s Miller may make a telling point about protecting ideas as well as their expression. But unless your trustees would drop the blade on Dan Brown (if guilty), you’d best not be too quick to terminate the Chris Dussolds on your faculty or to expel the Polly Plagiarizers among your student body.
As seen in the Greentree Gazette
December 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ferrets rejoice!
Cleveland's Case Western Reserve medical school will stop using live ferrets (and dogs and cats) in its lab classes.From the Cleveland Plain Dealer
December 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New year brings visa filing-fee increase
Following the last week’s announcement that the Department
of State (DOS) will publish fee increases for nonimmigrant
and immigrant visas, the U.S. consulates are advising that
as of Jan. 1, 2008, the application fee for a non-immigrant
visa will increase from $100 to $131. This increase, which
will be implemented worldwide, is the first since October
2002.
According to the DOS, this increase allows them to recover
the costs of security and other enhancements to the
non-immigrant visa application process. The DOS must
periodically adjust fees, whether for visas or other
services provided, to comply with the U.S. federal
legislation requiring it to recuperate the costs of services
through fees charged directly to the users of those
services. Advances in security, information processing
systems and inflation have increased processing costs for
both immigrant and non-immigrant visas, as well as for
certain services provided to U.S. citizens. Due to new
security-related costs, new information technology systems
and inflation, the DOS states the $100 visa fee is lower
than the actual cost of processing non-immigrant visas. In
fact, the $100 fee was already lower than the cost when the
fee was reviewed as a part of the cost of service study in
2004. The DOS has been absorbing the additional cost.
Applicants who paid the prior $100 application fee before
Jan. 1 will be processed only if they are scheduled and
appear for a visa interview before Jan. 31. Applicants who
paid the prior $100 application fee and appear for visa
interviews after January 31, 2008 must pay the $31
difference before they will be interviewed. Please check
with the U.S. consulate you intend to use for your visa
interview to find which fee will apply
December 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 21, 2007
New Standard for Title VII Class Actions in Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals’ Panel Announces New Standards for Certifying Title VII
Class Actions in the Ninth Circuit
Revised Decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc. Sets Forth Better Standard
Governing Class Certification But Still Approves a Grossly Outsized Class
The Ninth Circuit panel that announced permissive standards for class certification
of Title VII actions last February in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 474
F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2007) (Dukes I), now has revised its earlier
class certification rulings in a decision that supersedes the February
decision. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., __ F.3d __, Nos. 04-16688 and
04-16720, 2007 WL 4303055 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2007) (Dukes II).
Compliments of Morgan Lewis (PHiladelphia)
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NACUA's annual conference announced
Save the Date!
NACUA’s 48th Annual Conference
Marriott Marquis at Times Square
New York, NY
Sunday, June 22 – Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Plenary Session Speakers
NACUA is pleased to announce that Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Professor Floyd Abrams will serve as Plenary speakers for the 2008 Annual Conference.
Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, will speak at the Opening Plenary Session on Sunday, June 22. Commissioner Kelly is the former Senior Managing Director, Global Corporate Security, at Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, and former Under Secretary for Enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department, supervising the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Professor Floyd Abrams will speak at a Plenary Session on Monday, June 23. Professor Abrams is a leading national expert on First Amendment law, partner at the New York City law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, and William J. Brennan, Jr. Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia University School of Journalism.
Hotel Block and Registration will open March 2008
NACUA’s hotel room block will open concurrently with conference registration in March. Preliminary information about NACUA’s 48th Annual Conference will be available to all NACUA members on the NACUA website in late January.
NACUA’s hotel room block will open concurrently with conference registration in March. It is our hope that this timing will help NACUA to avoid the financial penalty issues that have occurred with its hotels when individuals reserved rooms very early to secure the conference rate, but did not ultimately attend the Conference, thus precluding other registrants from getting rooms and bringing us dangerously close to not meeting our contractual room block requirements. NACUA does not impose a cancellation fee for last minute hotel cancellations and while we understand that last minute cancellations are sometimes not avoidable, we hope that this additional time will enable you to confirm your plans to attend the conference prior to registering at the Marriott.
NACUA's 48th Annual Conference
Sunday, June 22 –
The NACUA Annual Conference provides opportunities for attendees to examine and discuss current issues and legal developments in the field of higher education law. Plenary sessions address challenges in the field, while more than 60 panel and small discussion sessions focus on specific issues of importance to higher education lawyers and their institutions. Networking opportunities abound throughout the Annual Conference, where attendees have the chance to share formal and informal insight and expertise with hundreds of higher education attorneys.
Pre-Conference Workshop for Lawyers New to Higher Education
Saturday, June 21 –
The Pre-Conference Workshop for Lawyers New to Higher Education provides lawyers new to higher education law with an orientation into key areas of practice, including key federal statutes and regulations affecting higher education, student discipline, immigration law, and faculty concerns. Taught by skilled and accomplished NACUA members, this foundation-building workshop is designed to bring you up to speed whether you are a recent law school graduate or an experienced attorney advising colleges and universities for the first time.
General Counsel Roundtables
Saturday,
June 21, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
General Counsel Roundtables will be offered for new and newly appointed General Counsel, as well as experienced General Counsel. These programs will provide members serving as the chief legal officer for their institutions with the opportunity to spend an afternoon with fellow General Counsel and exchange ideas on their experiences, problems, and successes.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more information regarding hotel
reservations or the NACUA Annual Conference more broadly, please contact Meredith McMillan
All NACUA members receive periodic email communications regarding upcoming NACUA member events and benefits. To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
National Association of College and University Attorneys ● One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 620 ● Washington, DC 20036
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Journal of College and University Law
The new issue is now out:
| ARTICLES The Evolution of Affirmative Action and the Necessity of Truly Individualized Admissions Decisions (Article Summary ) |
The Journal of College and University Law on NACUA.WEB
The Journal of College and University Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An "open source" for legal documents
|
|
This email was sent to castagne@rider.edu.
Please Remove Me
Docstoc, Inc | 8888 West Olympic Blvd sutie 201 | BEVERLY HILLS | CA | 90211 | US
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NACUA seeks nominees
Dear NACUA Members:
I am sending this reminder on behalf of Georgia Yuan, NACUA's Immediate Past President and Chair of the Committee on Nominations and Elections, regarding this year's call for nominations for NACUA Board service. The deadline for receipt of nominations is Friday, January 11, 2008.
We encourage you to take a few moments to nominate one or more of your NACUA colleagues for the Board of Directors. In addition, as part of the Association's ongoing efforts to provide information to the membership about its governance activities, a general description of the process for nominations is located on the front page of NACUA's web site at www.nacua.org.
We look forward to receiving your nominations, which you may submit to nominations@nacua.org.
Deloise Butler
Assistant to the CEO, NACUA
1 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 833-8390
Fax: 202 296-8379
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Former defense sec weighs in on Iranian nukes
A DANGEROUS WORLD
Stupid Intelligence on Iran
If Tehran did slow its weapons program, Bush policies probably had something
to do with it.
BY JAMES SCHLESINGER
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The release earlier this month of "key judgments" from the National
Intelligence Estimate--including the bald assertion "that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"--has caused both astonishment
here at home and consternation overseas, where it has resulted in confusion
about America's policy goals and steadiness.
Let us stipulate that the intelligence community has acquired evidence
sufficiently persuasive to lead it to reverse its prior judgment that Iran
was hard at work developing nuclear weapons. For that it has been praised,
particularly in traditional intelligence quarters, for "speaking truth to
power," and thereby dissipating some of the distrust generated by its faulty
earlier judgments on Iraq.
The NIE's about-face on Iran's nuclear weapons program represents a
reversion to an earlier style of intelligence analysis--featuring a renewed
determination not to get beyond the "hard evidence." But as we shall see,
this has led to a decision not to consider several crucial elements that lay
behind the presumed 2003 decision in Tehran.
Clearly, the key judgments in the NIE were overstated. And that, in turn,
may reflect the very late decision to declassify the key judgments, written
in a kind of shorthand, and thus incautiously phrased.
The crucial decision, hidden in a footnote, was to define the "nuclear
weapons program" which had been halted to mean only "Iran's weapon design
and weaponization work and covert . . . uranium enrichment-related work."
Thus it excludes Iran's overt enrichment program monitored by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
We have long understood that the production of fissile material, whether
overt or covert, remains "the long pole in the tent" in the development of a
nuclear capability. Thus the NIE defines away what has been the main element
stirring international alarm regarding Iran's nuclear activity.
Yesterday Tehran announced its Bushehr nuclear power plant will be operating
at full capacity by the end of next year. Yet even though Russia supplied
the nuclear fuel for Bushehr, the Iranians insist on maintaining their
"civilian" uranium-enrichment program. Weapon design and weaponization, at
least for the simpler weapons, is a far less demanding and less
time-consuming task than uranium enrichment.
Let us examine what else has not been considered. The NIE asserts "that Iran
halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure"
and that "indicates that Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit
approach." Now what might have constituted the principal elements in that
"international pressure" to induce Tehran, at least temporarily, to halt its
covert weaponization program?
* The American invasion of Iraq, resulting in the seizure of Baghdad in 10
days time--something that had widely been suggested could not be
accomplished.
* The earlier destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, another
display of American military prowess.
* The decision of Col. Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear program and to
renounce and make amends for terrorism.
* The exposure and partial demolition of the A.Q. Khan nuclear technology
network, Khan's confession and his confinement by the Pakistani government
to his home.
Does it not seem likely that Tehran took notice of these events, and may
have been intimidated by them into more circumspect behavior? The NIE argues
that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach." Given those
successful American actions, those who guide decisions in Iran may well have
decided that the potential costs of being caught with a clandestine program
had risen sharply, and that the presumed benefits of early clandestine
weaponization efforts could safely be deferred.
In brief, since the "long pole in the tent" remains the production of
fissile material, Iran likely decided that the prudent course of action was
to pursue an open enrichment program ostensibly to produce fuel for nuclear
reactors. It is a course that had been chartered by North Korea--and
arguably was legitimate under the Nonproliferation Treaty. This central path
to obtaining fissile material--the focus of international concern--has been
treated in the NIE as quite distinct from the "nuclear weapons program."
Still, the achievements of American arms and American policy during that
period were undoubtedly noted in Tehran. Why not mention them in the NIE as
possibly influencing Tehran's decision in 2003?
The answer, in brief, is that it would have been speculative and in
violation of the renewed commitment of the intelligence community to stick
to the "hard evidence." There was no intercept; there was no agent's report
that such calculations were, indeed, the source of Iran's switch. So in
order to avoid the kind of speculation that had gotten the intelligence
community into trouble in its judgments regarding Iraq, these realities were
left up to the imagination of others and the intelligence community stuck to
what it had evidence for.
What was obvious about events in and around 2003 should have been obvious at
least to the American media. The media, Lord knows, have no inhibitions
about engaging in speculation or urging us to "connect the dots," or feeling
any obligation to limit themselves to hard evidence. The NIE almost begged
for others to follow up on the nature of "international pressure" and the
calculations behind Iran's "cost-benefit approach."
But the American media today almost reflexively treat any development as a
setback for the administration of George W. Bush. So, the media quite
clearly ignored the obvious: that a surprising decision by Tehran in 2003 to
halt the covert weaponization effort likely was a tribute to the successes
of American policy and arms during that period. Thus, administration
policies and actions that likely induced caution in Tehran could be
characterized, ironically enough, as an administration defeat.
Little more need be said about the process by which what might have been
heralded as a victory was transformed into a defeat and echoed overseas. But
a few words do need to be added about the intelligence community's decision
to restrict its key judgments to "hard evidence." Many in the intelligence
community embrace this as a return to virtue. Yet in itself it has severe
drawbacks. As in this case, reading the key judgments may now require
something akin to Cliffs Notes listing other relevant events and
considerations that may be necessary in interpreting an Estimate limited to
the hard evidence.
Exclusive reliance on hard evidence not infrequently results in deliberately
blinding oneself to the most obvious explanation of what has occurred. The
classic example of this failing occurred during the Vietnam War, when
intelligence analysts stubbornly refused to accept that enemy supplies were
pouring through Sihanoukville ostensibly on the grounds that there was no
hard evidence. (Actually, there was an agent's report that revealed the
activity, but it was dismissed as insufficient.) Intelligence based on hard
evidence requires supplementation by other forms of intelligence.
"Failures of imagination," to which the 9-11 Commission referred, can come
in a variety of modes.
Mr. Schlesinger is a former secretary of defense, secretary of energy and
director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
December 21, 2007
1:47am EST
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Export restrictions found ineffective
The "Deemed Export" Rule is found not to work vis a vis university research.The Report
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New 990
Herewith the new Form 990 from the IRS. Form 990
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Scholar denied visa
A federal judge has upheld denial of a visa to a prominent European scholar who donated money to an organization that supports Hama.From the Chronicle of Higher Education
December 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2007
Coach's sex-bias case reinstated
Report compliments of Michael Ossip, Esquire, of the Philadelphia law firm Morgan Lewis:
Sex Discrimination
Seventh Circuit Revives Sex Bias Claim
Of Fired Coach Denied Progressive Discipline
A female tennis coach fired in violation of an Indiana
university's progressive discipline policy has her sex
bias claim revived Dec. 14 by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit because less successful male
coaches with similar behavior were warned and not fired (
Peirick v. Ind. Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athl.
Dep't, 7th Cir., No. 06-1538, 12/14/07).
Allowing Debbie Peirick to move forward with her Title
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act sex discrimination case
against the athletic department of Indiana
University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the Seventh
Circuit found that Peirick provided evidence that male
coaches who also were criticized for their treatment of
players were disciplined through the university's
progressive discipline process, but they fired Peirick
without warning.
The Seventh Circuit also found that the events
surrounding Peirick's termination represented the kind of
evidence that a jury could consider suspicious when
evaluating IUPUI's rationale for skipping the progressive
discipline process guaranteed by the university.
"[W]e find IUPUI's post hoc explanations, delay,
exaggeration, and unusual conduct more than enough to
create a question of fact concerning the legitimacy of
its explanations for Peirick's termination," Judge Ann
Claire Williams wrote for the court.
Best Season Ever
Peirick began coaching women's tennis at IUPUI in 1990
and in her final season, the team had its best record in
school history and qualified for its first National
Collegiate Athletic Association tournament. The team also
had the highest grade point average of any team at the
school and she received numerous awards for her coaching
and involvement in tennis.
Despite her successes, players complained to the athletic
department about the way she talked to athletes and other
coaches, her poor driving, and they accused of her being
disorganized in managing the team. The athletic
department said they took the complaints seriously
because athletes rarely complain in the middle of a
season.
Although the athletic department allegedly had a series
of concerns about her performance, Peirick said she was
never informed of the concerns until the time came to
terminate her. In explaining his decision, the athletic
director stated that he wanted to take the women's tennis
program in a "new, different direction" and offered to
give her the option of retiring. The university said it
did not have to follow the progressive discipline process
because Peirick was a half-time, hourly employee.
Ultimately, Peirick--who was 53 at the time--was
terminated at the end of the tennis season and replaced
with the 23-year old sister of the men's tennis team
coach. Despite having no prior coaching experience, she
was paid more than Peirick, who had been with the school
for 12 seasons.
She filed her sex bias and Age Discrimination in
Employment Act claims against the university and its
athletic department in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, which granted summary
judgment on the claims, finding she failed to prove sex
bias and that the university was immune from the reach of
the ADEA.
Men Did Worse Things
In resurrecting the sex bias claim, the Seventh Circuit
found that there were two male comparators who also
performed poorly but were still given a warning and an
opportunity to improve their performance.
Pointing to the men's soccer and men's tennis coaches,
the Seventh Circuit found the two men committed more
serious violations of university policy--including
allowing underage athletes to drink alcohol and "verbally
and emotionally abusing athletes"--yet they kept their
jobs after a warning.
"They both engaged in serious violations of Indiana
University's Statement of Principles on the Conduct of
Participants in Student Athletic Programs and were
consistently provided progressive discipline," Williams
said in finding they were appropriate comparators.
Once the comparators were found, the Seventh Circuit
moved to the next step and found that the reasons given
for Peirick's behavior could be seen as pretext.
"We ... think a jury could find that IUPUI overstated
matters to justify its actions," Williams said, in
rejecting the trial court's contention that all the
athletes on the team were upset with the coach's
performance.
Co-Workers Were 'Baffled' by Firing
The Seventh Circuit said that in addition to waiting
several months after receiving complaints and overstating
the concerns, there was also evidence that Peirick's
termination was viewed as highly unusual and suspect by
her colleagues.
Citing other coaches who said they were "shocked" and
"baffled" by the termination, the Seventh Circuit said
the reactions bolstered the argument that Peirick's
treatment by the university was outside of the norm.
"Although the opinions of nondecisionmakers as to
Peirick's performance cannot carry the day, their
responses to the termination decision provide some
indication of the type of conduct historically considered
termination worthy," Williams said. "The termination of a
coach with Peirick's qualities appears to have been an
unprecedented event in IUPUI's history."
While allowing the sex bias claims to move forward, the
Seventh Circuit agreed that the university could not be
sued under the ADEA.
"Many courts have held that the governing bodies of their
state universities enjoy the same immunity from suit as
the universities themselves," the Seventh Circuit said in
finding that listing the board of regents did not salvage
the lawsuit. "So it seems to follow that the Board of
Trustees of Indiana University, like the university, is a
state agency. And an examination of the factors relevant
for determining whether an entity is an agency of the
state leads to that exact conclusion."
Judges Joel M. Flaum and Daniel A. Manion joined in the
decision.
Kevin W. Betz of Betz & Associates in Indianapolis
represented Peirick. Ellen E. Boshkoff of Baker & Daniels
in Indianapolis represented the university.
Text of the decision may be accessed at
http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/r?Open=mtrt-79vuqz.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic07970.gif)End of
article graphic
By Michael R. Triplett
Michael J. Ossip, Esq.
December 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 18, 2007
Latz's new negotiation column
December 18, 2007
James-
Hope you enjoy my December Business Journal Negotiation Column.
Know When It`s Time To Stop Pushing and Sign the Deal
By Marty Latz
"When should we just stop asking for more and sign the deal??
I usually answer by noting that, at the end of the day, you must evaluate whether
the value on the table is better or worse than your best alternative -- your Plan B.
If it`s better than Plan B, sign the deal. If it`s worse, ask for more or walk. It`s
a classic leverage decision.
But there`s more to it than leverage. Also consider these factors:
1. Does it satisfy your goals and interests?
Strategic negotiating involves setting goals, exploring interests and implementing
strategies to achieve them. It also involves keeping these goals and interests front
and center when making major strategic decisions.
So, circle back and re-evaluate whether the value on the table satisfies your goals
and interests. If it does, strongly consider signing. If not, take a walk or ask for
more.
Of course, many want to exceed their goals. If so, consider the risk/reward ratio
involved. Is the potential additional value you could get worth the risk of the deal
blowing up? If so, give it a shot. If not, be satisfied with achieving your goals.
Also consider your relationship goal: Do you want a future relationship with your
counterpart? If a longstanding business partnership is involved, you may not
want to exceed your financial goals if it`s at your partner`s expense. That might
come back to haunt you later.
2. How is leverage changing?
Have you done all you can to improve the value of your Plan B or create a better
Plan B? Let`s say you`re the purchasing director for a retail store, and you have a
bid from a supplier. It satisfies your goals, but you want to do better.
Before you evaluate whether to request more from that supplier, consider soliciting
bids from other suppliers. Strengthen your leverage by increasing the likelihood of
a better Plan B.
Of course, your counterpart also may be strengthening their Plan B to doing a deal
with you. So find out their Plan B if you can. This will help you evaluate what
they will do if you push harder.
3. How long and how much do the parties typically move?
An experienced lawyer once told me he can predict with a reasonable degree of
certainty when most of his cases will settle, and for how much.
How does he know? He pays extremely close attention to settlement trends and
patterns in his particular practice area -- how long most cases take to settle, how
many moves most parties make, and how much the parties typically concede. Because
these patterns largely drive our expectations and what we do, he`s usually pretty
accurate.
So how should you decide whether the other side has made its last, best offer?
Analyze the patterns -- what typically occurs -- in that context and with your
counterpart.
If most personal injury cases in City A settle with insurance company X a year or so
after filing; after each party has moved three or four times; and after the
plaintiff has reduced its initial demand by 300 percent and X has tripled its
initial offer, you can view offers made within less than a year as not-yet-final
moves.
Also pay attention to the increments in which your counterpart moves. Parties often
taper their moves -- conceding in smaller and smaller increments, signaling that
they are getting closer and closer to their end points.
4. Does their language signal a ?best and final? offer?
When parties indicate ?best and final? or a ?take it or leave it? Plan B that`s just
slightly worse than what they`ve just put on the table, they signal total
inflexibility. Understand this message, then evaluate whether they mean it.
How can you tell? Do your strategic due diligence and talk to folks with whom they
have negotiated in the past. Find out their reputation in this regard.
5. Are you close to a firm deadline?
Firm deadlines tend to focus parties on their bottom lines. And offer-concession
patterns and moves tend to get condensed into the time frame possible for
back-and-forth moves.
The closer a firm deadline gets, the more likely the parties are to be approaching
their end points. And the further away it is, the more room they probably have to
move.
Speaking of firm deadlines, I`ve got one looming for this column. And that`s my
?best and final? word on this subject.
Marty Latz is the founder of the Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation
training and consulting company and the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get
What You Want:
www.gaintheedge.com
He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or at mailto:Latz@NegotiationInstitute.com.
To order Marty`s new book, Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want, click or
paste this link into your browser:
www.GainTheEdge.com
For FREE negotiation advice:
www.negotiationinstitute.com/contact.aspx and click on "Columns"
Latz Negotiation Institute (LNI)
Customized Training. Seminars. Consulting.
6242 East Shangri La Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
w. 480.951.3222
f. 480.951.3224
e. Latz@NegotiationInstitute.com
www.NegotiationInstitute.com
December 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Some new higher-ed cases compliments of NACUA and Westlaw
Abuse and Harassment
Allen v. McPhee, (Tenn.)
<http://www.nacua.org/westlaw/newcases/westredirect.asp?WestlawPath=www.
westlaw.com/find/default.wl&serialnum=2014250089&dbe=RL%5E+LAY6LF%40F&SV
=FULL&findtype=Y&sp=nacua%2D1000&spou=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enacua%2Eorg%2Fw
estlaw%2Fnewcases%2Fwestredirect%2Easp&rs=WNL2.0&vr=1.0>
December 14, 2007: Abuse and Harassment - Faragher/Ellerth affirmative
defense to hostile work environment claim applied, even though harasser,
a university president, was a proxy for the employer. The
Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to employer liability for hostile
work environment sexual harassment is not precluded by the harassing
supervisor's status as a "proxy" or "alter ego" of the employer. Thus, a
public university could assert the defense to a hostile work environment
claim raised by an employee who filed a sexual harassment complaint
against the university president.
Judgment
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, (C.A.11
(Ga.))
<http://www.nacua.org/westlaw/newcases/westredirect.asp?WestlawPath=www.
westlaw.com/find/default.wl&serialnum=2013180711&dbe=RL%5E+LAY6LF%40F&SV
=FULL&findtype=Y&sp=nacua%2D1000&spou=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enacua%2Eorg%2Fw
estlaw%2Fnewcases%2Fwestredirect%2Easp&rs=WNL2.0&vr=1.0>
December 7, 2007: Judgment - A district court failed to make findings
sufficient to enable an appellate court to assess whether it abused its
discretion in dismissing, for failure to prosecute, an action brought by
a former employee against a university's board of regents, thus
warranting a remand for further proceedings. While the court's order
stated that the dismissal was without prejudice, the dismissal was
effectively with prejudice assuming that the limitations period had
expired. The court did not find that the employee's failure to comply
with an order to notify it if she wished to proceed pro se or needed an
extension of time to hire substitute counsel was a clear pattern of
delay or willful contempt, nor did the court explicitly consider whether
a lesser sanction would prejudice the board.
Labor and Employment
Evers v. Regents of University of CO, (C.A.10 (Colo.))
<http://www.nacua.org/westlaw/newcases/westredirect.asp?WestlawPath=www.
westlaw.com/find/default.wl&serialnum=2014349530&dbe=RL%5E+LAY6LF%40F&SV
=FULL&findtype=Y&sp=nacua%2D1000&spou=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enacua%2Eorg%2Fw
estlaw%2Fnewcases%2Fwestredirect%2Easp&rs=WNL2.0&vr=1.0>
December 14, 2007: Labor and Employment - Genuine issues of material
fact existed as to whether statements in an audit report charging a
state university official with financial misconduct were false, thus
precluding summary judgment as to his claim that he was denied a liberty
interest in violation of the Due Process Clause when the university
disseminated the report without providing him with a name-clearing
hearing. The official expressly disputed the report's assertions, and
his version of the events was materially different from the findings in
the report.
Torts
Boyd v. Tietze, (Okla.Civ.App. Div. 3)
<http://www.nacua.org/westlaw/newcases/westredirect.asp?WestlawPath=www.
westlaw.com/find/default.wl&serialnum=2014277538&dbe=RL%5E+LAY6LF%40F&SV
=FULL&findtype=Y&sp=nacua%2D1000&spou=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enacua%2Eorg%2Fw
estlaw%2Fnewcases%2Fwestredirect%2Easp&rs=WNL2.0&vr=1.0>
December 13, 2007: Torts - A genuine issue of material fact as to
whether a faculty physician employed by a state university was engaged
in teaching duties at the time of alleged medical negligence, and thus
whether the physician was entitled to immunity under the Governmental
Tort Claims Act, precluded summary judgment in a mother and father's
action against the physician for damages that allegedly resulted from a
breach of standards of medical care and treatment for the management of
the mother's labor and the delivery of a son. It was undisputed that the
physician's employment duties included clinical duties supervising
patient care by resident and intern physicians as part of the graduate
medical education provided by the university. But based on the record,
reasonable minds could have differed as to whether teaching duties were
occurring at the relevant time.
December 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ellis Islan Foundation Heritage Documents on Offer for the Holidays
Holiday Email #4 Final, December 17, 2007 :: The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. Please add "ellisisland@email.ellisisland.org" to your Address Book to ensure delivery to your inbox. ellisisland.org : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ellis |wallofhonor.org : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/wall |statueofliberty.org : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/statue December 17, 2007 Last Chance! You can get your Ellis Island Heritage Documents for Christmas, but you can only save on purchases through December 21 : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ellis , so act now. (Holiday discounts do not apply to framing.) Act today to receive discounts of 15% on all purchases of Ellis Island Heritage Documents, which include ship manifests, ship pictures and passenger records.* This Holiday Season - IN ADDITION TO YOUR DISCOUNT ON DOCUMENTS -when you search for and purchase any of your ancestors' personal Heritage Documents from Ellis Island Online : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ellis , you will receive FREE OF CHARGEa set of two (8½"x11") vintage historic photographs of old Ellis Island! HOW ABOUT THAT HARD-TO-SHOP FOR RELATIVE? OUR UNIQUE GIFT SHOP OFFERS INSPIRING GIFTS! Our Elegant Heritage Document Holder http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/docholder 2007 Collectible Holiday Ornament http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ornament The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ornament can help you enrich your special holiday traditions with wonderful gift ideas, like our Fifth Annual Limited Edition Collectible, "Lady Liberty 2007"(pictured near right). Visit us at Ellis Island Online : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ellis for yourFREEADVANCED SEARCH : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/advsearch of the records documenting your family's arrival in America, and then use your once-a-year-only discountto purchase your personal heritage documents on archival paper. They can be displayed in our elegant "eight corner" document holder (shown above). Visit our online Gift Shop : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/poster for many more unique gift ideas, including our new ELLIS ISLAND VINTAGE STEAMSHIP PHOTO COLLECTION : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/poster . Here's another fine Holiday idea: Make a contribution toThe Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/donate , and your gift will count as an end of the year tax deduction. A contribution to The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/donate is a gift that directly supports Lady Liberty and Ellis Island, our two greatest monuments to freedom and opportunity. Proceeds from all purchases help the Foundation continue to serve its non-profit mission, which since 1982 has been the restoration, preservation, and enhancement of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. Your contribution supports our free heritage search service, available to all Americans who want to find an ancestor. Do your search right now, fill in the boxes below with your family information. Enter passenger information, then click Start Search. First Name (optional) Last Name Approximate Year of Birth Gender Exact Year + or - 1 year + or - 2 year + or - 3 year + or - 5 year + or - 7 year Any Male Female *Limited Time Offer, expires December 21, 11:59 p.m (pst). To ensure Christmas delivery, regular delivery charges will apply to all orders placed by midnight, December 18; expedited shipping charges will be necessary for all orders placed after December 18.Offer extends only to paper Heritage Documents; does not include Custom Framing, Wall of Honor Registrations, Memberships, Gift Shop Purchases, Gift Certificates or Donations. Foundation Members can receive existing 10% Membership discounts off of discounted paper documents or 5% discount when using your Discover Card. HONOR YOUR FAMILY - CELEBRATE YOUR HERITAGE www.ellisisland.org : http://email.ellisisland.org/a/tBHZp9rAY76hCBn-52EAB5g7cte/ellis The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. 17 Battery Place, Suite 210 New York, NY 10004-3507 Copyright © 2007 by The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. You received this message because your are registered at www.ellisisland.orgIf you do not wish to receive future email correspondence, click here : mailto:rm-0b0xpct9a1hgb4da7f4mxgbyuhead3k@email.ellisisland.org .
December 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A VPAA Search that may be of interest
Dear Dr. Castagnera,
Our Lady of the Lake University has announced a national search for a
Vice President for Academic Affairs to take office in the summer of
2008. I write on behalf of Dr. Roy B. Shilling, Jr., Senior Consultant
with Academic Search, Inc., who is assisting the institution in its
search.
Our Lady of the Lake, located in San Antonio, TX, was founded in 1895 by
the Sisters of Divine Providence. The Vice President for Academic
Affairs will report to the Executive Vice President and provide
leadership for academic programs and support services. OLLU, a
federally designated Hispanic Serving Institution, is further
distinguished by the multicultural emphasis of its programs and
services, its reputation for excellent traditional and innovative
programs and its Catholic identity. Strong candidates will possess a
visionary, democratic and transformative leadership style; a commitment
to higher education in the Catholic and Congregation of Divine
Providence tradition; the ability to lead strategic planning and
evaluation; an appreciation for cultural and economic diversity and a
commitment to academic programs that foster cultural expertise;
experience with both undergraduate and graduate education; experience
with developing on-line programs; and a firm grasp of finances in the
academic context.
Dr. Shilling would appreciate your taking a few moments to review the
statement of qualifications at:
http://www.academic-search.com/PDFs/Ads/OLLUAd.pdf and the institutional
profile: http://www.academic-search.com/PDFs/Profiles/OLLUProfile.pdf
<http://www.academic-search.com/PDFs/Profiles/OLLUProfile.pdf> .
Additional information about the University can be obtained through its
web site at www.ollusa.edu <http://www.ollusa.edu/> .
The search committee will begin reviewing applications immediately, all
materials received by February 7, 2008, will be given full
consideration. Materials should be sent electronically (MS Word
preferred) to olluvpaa@academic-search.com. Applications should consist
of a cover letter, resume or vita, and a list of at five references.
If you know of individuals capable of providing outstanding leadership,
we would be grateful for your response, indicating how we may contact
them, with email address and phone numbers included if possible. If you
wish to contact or visit with Dr. Shilling, you may contact him at
rbs@academic-search.org, or at 512-328-6769. I will, also, be pleased
to receive your response and pass it along to him immediately. Please
be assured that any information you provide will be held in strict
confidence.
December 18, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Directory of Physicians on Offer
The package below is valued at over $2000 when purchased individually
Licensed Physicians in the US
788,929 in total * 17,450 emails
Lots of Physicians in specialties like Orthopedics, Surgery, Radiology, Dermatology,
Neurology, General Practice etc..
Can easily be sorted by 16 different fields
Directory of US Pharma Companies
47,000 names and emails of the major positio