Ben, curb your enthusiasm!
Ben Edelman denied tenure -- HBS NOM is officially a dumpster fire
-
I'm sick of this identity politics stuff. This is pure millenial pc bulls**t stuff. wha wha wha, the guy was an asshole to a chinese restaurant owner. wha wha wha let's destroy his career.
You know what I noticed about ejmr? Yall a bunch of hypocrites. You make fun of whiny liberals on twitter and all, but you're no better. you're just a different breed of s***j**w. You're like the anti-elitist middle white male ULRMs getting an orgasm at the idea that some "ben elderman" type is getting trashed.This is not an example of identity politics.
-
Sociobro to the rescue
I'm sick of this identity politics stuff. This is pure millenial pc bulls**t stuff. wha wha wha, the guy was an asshole to a chinese restaurant owner. wha wha wha let's destroy his career.
You know what I noticed about ejmr? Yall a bunch of hypocrites. You make fun of whiny liberals on twitter and all, but you're no better. you're just a different breed of s***j**w. You're like the anti-elitist middle white male ULRMs getting an orgasm at the idea that some "ben elderman" type is getting trashed.This is not an example of identity politics.
-
yes it is. IT's like "I won't vote for him because he's a bad person" where "bad" is completely subjective. You can apply the same principle within the hiring context: "I won't give him tenure because he's not a nice guy. wha wha, change my diapers".
And this thread is evidence of what ejmr has become: a giant cesspool. You guys are as pathetic as the whiny twitter liberals.
I'm sick of this identity politics stuff. This is pure millenial pc bulls**t stuff. wha wha wha, the guy was an asshole to a chinese restaurant owner. wha wha wha let's destroy his career.
You know what I noticed about ejmr? Yall a bunch of hypocrites. You make fun of whiny liberals on twitter and all, but you're no better. you're just a different breed of s***j**w. You're like the anti-elitist middle white male ULRMs getting an orgasm at the idea that some "ben elderman" type is getting trashed.This is not an example of identity politics.
-
I can't believe I'm about to defend Ben Edelman (I've got as much reason to dislike the guy as anyone), but I feel that most of the posters here don't know or understand him.
First, the Chinese restaurant was not a mom and pop store. Ran Duan has been on the cover of GQ for gods sake. Everyone loves a story about a Harvard douchebag trampling over the little guy, so that is the way the media took the story.
Second, the fact that it's stupid to sue over $4 is exactly why he did it, and exactly why triple damages exist. If a company can make the stakes small enough, they can fleece thousands of people without any individual having an incentive to take action. This fits with his modus operandi - not as a douchebag but as the person that takes on the individual responsibility to take down the big guy.This x1000. He was 100% right, at least in the Chinese restaurant case. The "little guy" was in fact much more savvy and wrecked him in the media. He's had a long time commitment to consumer protection and I've always thought he was treated unfairly in this case.
Maybe he's a douchebag otherwise, dunno, only met him once. But I hope this incident didn't figure into the decision.
-
Confirmed that he did not make it and it was because he rubbed some important people in the wrong way. He also did not make a very large impact in their areas of evaluation, as people from HBS think of it, despite getting along with many people. He has many outside options, is making a ton of money from legal consulting, so not a large loss for him.
-
Trial by media is terrible. I would hate the idea that someone got denied tenure because there was a bad story about him. The media generally has every incentive NOT to report these stories in a way which is fair to all parties. Outrage sells.
If he got denied because he's a lousy colleague, that's another issue.
-
I can't believe I'm about to defend Ben Edelman (I've got as much reason to dislike the guy as anyone), but I feel that most of the posters here don't know or understand him.
First, the Chinese restaurant was not a mom and pop store. Ran Duan has been on the cover of GQ for gods sake. Everyone loves a story about a Harvard douchebag trampling over the little guy, so that is the way the media took the story.
Second, the fact that it's stupid to sue over $4 is exactly why he did it, and exactly why triple damages exist. If a company can make the stakes small enough, they can fleece thousands of people without any individual having an incentive to take action. This fits with his modus operandi - not as a douchebag but as the person that takes on the individual responsibility to take down the big guy.This x1000. He was 100% right, at least in the Chinese restaurant case. The "little guy" was in fact much more savvy and wrecked him in the media. He's had a long time commitment to consumer protection and I've always thought he was treated unfairly in this case.
Maybe he's a douchebag otherwise, dunno, only met him once. But I hope this incident didn't figure into the decision.TOTALLY agree - Ben was brought down by lack of (or disregard for) media training...ironic as that's what HBS is all about (and values most - thus someone so utterly media-blind cannot be a permanent representative of the community). Feels weird to be defending him - but ultimately, at HBS, being able to make HBS look good or even better than it currently does...well, that's part of the package. And Ben didn't bite.
-
Ben is a good person clearly on the autism spectrum. That doesn't qualify him for tenure at HBS - nor should it disqualify him given the other people NOM has tenured.
If he went up today, he’d probably get it- but HBS is weird, it’s always been weird. At a normal place, even at the Kennedy school, I think he would have been fine