On Moore

In response to this post. I will be quoting then replying.

This is the first official confirmation we have had that Moore’s second appointment was for three years. And that is the scandal! The College knew, or should have known, by that point that Moore was a shoddy scholar and horrible teacher.

What credible information I have suggests that the college was not aware of the depth of Professor Moore's ineptitude at the time he was offered a reappointment. It was aware that he had low scores on the feedback forms, but the scores were not as bad as his methods. I strongly doubt that Moore would have been reappointed if a quarter of what students have said was known then. It should also be noted that Prof. Moore very much wanted to be tenure-tracked, and the college didn't go anywhere near that direction.

It is one thing to take a one-year flier on some visitor because you think he has important Washington connection.

Moore wasn't hired for his connections; he was hired as a run-of-the-mill visitor, with the added component of a policy position in DC. Williams was pleasantly surprised by the event he put together.

It is another thing altogether to offer someone with zero scholarly credentials/ability and a demonstrated record of sub-standard teaching a three year position.

At that point, Moore had credentials and had demonstrated ability. Many students loved him (leading to the feelings of betrayal), and while the school knew he wasn't strong as a teacher, the three-year Schumann position (and I'm assuming that the Schumann role requires as such) only required on class/semester, which Williams felt satisfied cost/benefit needs, espeically with teaching improvement. Knowing what they knew, I can't say it's a decision I disagree with, but I think the school is guilty of not practicing proper diligence. I've also heard rumors that Moore leveraged people into writing scholarly work for him, so Williams might have been judging Moore on fake writing samples.

But there is no good excuse for the College’s current policy of stonewalling.

There is an ongoing lawsuit/legal complaint. There is every reason to stonewall.

Still unknown is the precise date when the college offered Moore the three year position. (I assume that it was well before July 1, 2009.) Does anyone have further information on that? The time line, as best I understand it, was that Moore first applied for a tenure track position, in the fall of 2008, and was turned down. Kudos to the Political Science Department. After that, he applied for (or was offered?) the visiting position. But we don’t, yet, know when that offer was made or who made it. Any ideas?

I thought he applied in the spring of '09, but might be wrong. I'd love to hear a good reason why we should publicly humiliate the person who accidentally hired a con artist and got the college into legal trouble, besides being cruel.

Going forward, the central policy question for Williams is: What should the standards/procedures be for visiting appointments? The system clearly failed in Moore’s case. Is anything being done to fix it?

I think David can rest assured that the college is not very interested in hiring more ex-cons who bring lawsuits.