Of course faculty would listen more seriously. Correctly or not, they have been metood which right now is equivalent to being called out as a N a z I. What is clear is that there are quite a few senior people receptive to job offers right now and this wasn't the case 6 months ago
Questions for Wisconsin Grad Students
-
I am puzzled by such a strong response to signing the letter. Two thirds is a big #. Were you all convinced that there were credible allegations against multiple faculty members? And aren’t you all surprised or shocked that no action has been taken by the University? Or is the view that you all want to campaign against federal law (title 9)?
I don't know about the university, but the department has done a lot. The chair set up a committee to respond to each of the asks and has already delivered on a few of them. See my other response about the content of the letter to get an idea of why so many of us signed. The content was very reasonable.
-
I am puzzled by such a strong response to signing the letter. Two thirds is a big #. Were you all convinced that there were credible allegations against multiple faculty members? And aren’t you all surprised or shocked that no action has been taken by the University? Or is the view that you all want to campaign against federal law (title 9)?
I don't know about the university, but the department has done a lot. The chair set up a committee to respond to each of the asks and has already delivered on a few of them. See my other response about the content of the letter to get an idea of why so many of us signed. The content was very reasonable.
What is the committee expected to do that Federal law cannot?
-
^I do not understand. You all accused multiple faculty of sexual misconduct. RW is one thing. Who else? Nothing has come to light. I have searched EJMR. On what basis did you all sign this letter?
See my re-posted response about the content of the letter. The letter didn't accuse anybody.
What is the committee expected to do that Federal law cannot?
The asks didn't include investigating or firing people. It was about informing students better about reporting processes and hiring policies.
-
Well, the letter accused multiple faculty. Was there any basis for that?
Dang it. I'm going to give up on posting a detailed explanation of what was in the letter. It didn't accuse anybody. I don't know who ever told you that, but they're wrong. It was a set of asks about institutional changes.
-
Well, the letter accused multiple faculty. Was there any basis for that?
Dang it. I'm going to give up on posting a detailed explanation of what was in the letter. It didn't accuse anybody. I don't know who ever told you that, but they're wrong. It was a set of asks about institutional changes.
"Your letter states "Unfortunately, we have also become aware of accusations made against members of our own faculty." And your student newspaper article says that student leaders in Econ gave them four names.
-
Well, the letter accused multiple faculty. Was there any basis for that?
Dang it. I'm going to give up on posting a detailed explanation of what was in the letter. It didn't accuse anybody. I don't know who ever told you that, but they're wrong. It was a set of asks about institutional changes.
"Your letter states "Unfortunately, we have also become aware of accusations made against members of our own faculty." And your student newspaper article says that student leaders in Econ gave them four names.
Right. When I read that line, I assumed it just referred to the public accusation against RW. I signed the letter because as a whole it was reasonable. During the signature-gathering, nobody talked about four names or even RW. I can probably guess two of the other three based on talk around the department of who to avoid, but I don't think that's really the point.
-
It seems as if the seminar culture in macro is now less serious than before. And no major change has come about department wide. I am surprised to hear that the chair was behind the letter. My advisor tells me that his friend in Wisconsin says that there was no basis for the student letter. And a lot of what you all were proposing is already being done. Something smells bad. Labor is Wisconsin is apparently dying with one being the chair and the other retiring.
-
Well, the letter accused multiple faculty. Was there any basis for that?
Dang it. I'm going to give up on posting a detailed explanation of what was in the letter. It didn't accuse anybody. I don't know who ever told you that, but they're wrong. It was a set of asks about institutional changes.
"Your letter states "Unfortunately, we have also become aware of accusations made against members of our own faculty." And your student newspaper article says that student leaders in Econ gave them four names.
Right. When I read that line, I assumed it just referred to the public accusation against RW. I signed the letter because as a whole it was reasonable. During the signature-gathering, nobody talked about four names or even RW. I can probably guess two of the other three based on talk around the department of who to avoid, but I don't think that's really the point.
So you and others signed the letter without knowing or seeing concrete evidence on members but based on cheap talk? Don't you think a public letter of this sort warrants more scrutiny than that?
-
It seems as if the seminar culture in macro is now less serious than before. And no major change has come about department wide. I am surprised to hear that the chair was behind the letter. My advisor tells me that his friend in Wisconsin says that there was no basis for the student letter. And a lot of what you all were proposing is already being done. Something smells bad. Labor is Wisconsin is apparently dying with one being the chair and the other retiring.
You seem to think you know a lot about the department for somebody who's only applying for programs right now. Your advisor has one perspective, and according to my experience, it's a rare one. If "less serious" is how you describe professors treating students with more respect, then that's on you. If you prefer a more dehumanizing macro seminar environment, apply to Penn
-
So you and others signed the letter without knowing or seeing concrete evidence on members but based on cheap talk? Don't you think a public letter of this sort warrants more scrutiny than that?
dude, you're so fixated on the acknowledgement of a public accusation in a way that nobody else is or was. The letter was about broader issues in the profession. I don't have any interest in arguing with a straw man. Nobody cared to question the stuff about RW for reasons that are obvious to anybody who knows him. There are a dozen EJMR threads for you to peruse if you're curious
-
Take it easy dude. Trust me, I'd love to go to Penn but I ain't good enough.
I want to be trained well. I don't want to go there with a toxic culture or a culture of distrust between fac and students or a culture wherein faculty do not ask difficult questions just because they feel students may unfairly malign them. That is a horrible scenario for a grad student.
I am stunned that you guys signed the letter bases on what you stated. Or that the chair would encourage this letter to be released. Perhaps there is much more to all this. But if there were, title 9 would have taken action. This smells bad all around.