It is not hearsay. Emails are documented evidence
Universities cannot do that based on one-sided hearsay. If the offers are outstanding, they will stay such until the stated offer dates, which they can choose not to extend. There would be major legal implications, especially at a State University like UCLA.
Hopefully all SS tenured offers will rescinded. Unacceptable behaviour by an academic who himself benefited hugely from patronage by influential seniors (like JVR, Propper)
But what if the actual QUESTION in ST paper originated from PS and SS ? There is nothing in the published emails categorically excluding that PS and SS might have had a huge contribution to that. Note that they started the project with HS years before he started with OT.
Here's the crucial SS's e-mail to HS:
"Despite there being some differences in the two papers, they do share the same model at its core, which is a model that was developed by Pasquale, you and me for our paper! The model is a central part of the contribution of our paper and hence it cannot be appropriated by a different paper."
If you read the rest of the e-mail, the assertion that the model was developed by PS/SS/HS is the sole basis for SS's claim to coauthorship.
And we now know (from HS's reply and the history of the papers) that this assertion incorrect: The core model was not developed by PS/SS/HS, but pretty much entirely by OT. So, the best SS/PS could come up in their pleading with HS/OT is a demonstrably incorrect claim that they developed the model.
If the "actual question" originated with them, as you suggest as a possibility -- and assuming that coming up with a question is a good reason to be made coauthor on the paper of the guy who actually executed it, which is of course a very big assumption -- would you not think that SS/PS would have used that argument, instead of making a silly and demonstrably wrong claim that SSS had come up with the model first? The fact that they used the latter, weak argument -- and when that failed, resorted to mafia tactics -- shows to me that these two idiots had NO CASE AT ALL.
Maybe people here are using the word model in a different way. I can write down a model of how, given certain data, I can learn certain important properties of a function from those data. Let’s call this idea.
Then I can try to estimate the model and - in trying do - realise that I can donut if I assume f() has s certain form but not another. In the process I might also end up with a different model - eg I first thought that a dynamic model is really exciting, but then later realise that even the static model makes an important contribution.
With this terminology in mind it is entirely possible that PS and SS had a major role in the idea, maybe in understanding what could be the important contribution, etc etc.
Again, aweful aweful aweful emails and behaviour. No question. But people jumping to conclusions from OT posted material about intellectual contribution are either in bad faith or not very smart. It seems they can’t live with the complexity that both PS email is outrageous AND OT is not giving us a 100% accurate version (even if he wanted, it would be difficult to be objective given how emotionally involved in this he is)
Maybe people here are using the word model in a different way. I can write down a model of how, given certain data, I can learn certain important properties of a function from those data. Let’s call this idea.
Then I can try to estimate the model and - in trying do - realise that I can donut if I assume f() has s certain form but not another. In the process I might also end up with a different model - eg I first thought that a dynamic model is really exciting, but then later realise that even the static model makes an important contribution.
With this terminology in mind it is entirely possible that PS and SS had a major role in the idea, maybe in understanding what could be the important contribution, etc etc.
Again, aweful aweful aweful emails and behaviour. No question. But people jumping to conclusions from OT posted material about intellectual contribution are either in bad faith or not very smart. It seems they can’t live with the complexity that both PS email is outrageous AND OT is not giving us a 100% accurate version (even if he wanted, it would be difficult to be objective given how emotionally involved in this he is)
They never mention anything about ideas in their emails.
Everything is possible but read HS emails, the absence of answer from PS and SS, the bizarre email from PS claiming to have developed the model...
It really seem like one of these very rare stories with some objectively evil characters.
Maybe people here are using the word model in a different way. I can write down a model of how, given certain data, I can learn certain important properties of a function from those data. Let’s call this idea.
Then I can try to estimate the model and - in trying do - realise that I can donut if I assume f() has s certain form but not another. In the process I might also end up with a different model - eg I first thought that a dynamic model is really exciting, but then later realise that even the static model makes an important contribution.
With this terminology in mind it is entirely possible that PS and SS had a major role in the idea, maybe in understanding what could be the important contribution, etc etc.
Again, aweful aweful aweful emails and behaviour. No question. But people jumping to conclusions from OT posted material about intellectual contribution are either in bad faith or not very smart. It seems they can’t live with the complexity that both PS email is outrageous AND OT is not giving us a 100% accurate version (even if he wanted, it would be difficult to be objective given how emotionally involved in this he is)
Everything is possible but read HS emails, the absence of answer from PS and SS, the bizarre email from PS claiming to have developed the model...
It really seem like one of these very rare stories with some objectively evil characters.Maybe people here are using the word model in a different way. I can write down a model of how, given certain data, I can learn certain important properties of a function from those data. Let’s call this idea.
Then I can try to estimate the model and - in trying do - realise that I can donut if I assume f() has s certain form but not another. In the process I might also end up with a different model - eg I first thought that a dynamic model is really exciting, but then later realise that even the static model makes an important contribution.
With this terminology in mind it is entirely possible that PS and SS had a major role in the idea, maybe in understanding what could be the important contribution, etc etc.
Again, aweful aweful aweful emails and behaviour. No question. But people jumping to conclusions from OT posted material about intellectual contribution are either in bad faith or not very smart. It seems they can’t live with the complexity that both PS email is outrageous AND OT is not giving us a 100% accurate version (even if he wanted, it would be difficult to be objective given how emotionally involved in this he is)
PS does have reputation of a liar
Someone posting something without headers or a chain of evidence won't stand up.
SS made no threats; his co-author did. I don't think he was being fair, but rescinding a formal offer is an exceptional thing to do, and could be challenged legally, particularly at a state institution.
It is not hearsay. Emails are documented evidence
Universities cannot do that based on one-sided hearsay. If the offers are outstanding, they will stay such until the stated offer dates, which they can choose not to extend. There would be major legal implications, especially at a State University like UCLA.
Hopefully all SS tenured offers will rescinded. Unacceptable behaviour by an academic who himself benefited hugely from patronage by influential seniors (like JVR, Propper)
^^ According to what we know, SS is complicit in Schiraldi's threats. He knew of the threats, benefited from their consequences, and did not object. Then this was deliberate complicity on his part, unless there is evidence to the contrary. One would think such evidence would come out sooner rather than later. If it exists, of course.
No school will act because there is an ejmr board on someone. There is an ejmr board on a lot of good people.
You cannot pull a tenured offer if it is officially out, unless the tenure case was still being processed and internally whoever is processing the case is alarmed to shut down the offer. Or if the case was still being processed, then outside letter writers would probably not be as positive if they hear about this, given evidence of free-riding. That is all.
But seniors who process these cases are also free-riders. They probably do not care so much.
You cannot pull a tenured offer if it is officially out, unless the tenure case was still being processed and internally whoever is processing the case is alarmed to shut down the offer.
That is usually the case. The formal tenure process is not triggered until/unless the candidate accepts the offer - before that, everything is verbal/"conditional on successful tenure review."
You cannot pull a tenured offer if it is officially out, unless the tenure case was still being processed and internally whoever is processing the case is alarmed to shut down the offer.That is usually the case. The formal tenure process is not triggered until/unless the candidate accepts the offer - before that, everything is verbal/"conditional on successful tenure review."
Clearly the board is full of economists and not lawyers. Employments contracts can be pulled at anytime. University contracts often have language that says that the offer is pending some approval. Also, even if you sued, you cannot compel someone to hire you. You can also sue for damages for having turned down some other job (e.g., your moving expenses, wages from the delay in getting another job). Most likely you would settle for something like $100k, which is cheap for a university wanting to back out.
This topic has been closed to new replies.