No, Jeet is right and your trust in the Cromwell Report is misplaced. See here for a round-up of critical responses from Canadian academics and free speech watchdogs.https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1388944453491113986 …
-
-
Replying to @JeffreyASachs @jonkay and
Let me take a close look at those pieces and see if I find them convincing. You may have a point. Let me take a look
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
@JeffreyASachs I read the links. Mr. Wong argues that Cromwell confused a thing being 'a factor' in a decision with it being the 'primary factor' Cromwell twice discussed external forces being "factored in" or "a factor" in the decision. So I think he did consider that.pic.twitter.com/cYIBhQZ06q
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
I also read Mr. Moon's account. His list of reasons for the Deam decision appears incomplete, and avoids one ot the reasons explicitly listed by the Dean and discussed by Cromwell: There were qualified Canadian candidates including one who got a second interview....pic.twitter.com/XmlOdxrWnZ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
That seems relevant and is left out of Mr. Moon's account. I do think Mr. Moon's does say one very clear thing very well when he says Cromwell doesn't understand how instutitional influence works. This is the bone of contention...pic.twitter.com/S6Th9qPbhR
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
Mr. Wong and Mr. Moon both see the reasons given as pretext for a decision made due to instutional influence wielded by outside forces. Cromwell says otherwise. That seems to me to be the real point of disagreement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
As someone familiar with Universities I understand the point, but I'm not convinced by these essays. I would like to add one more thing....
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
My experience suggests the committee picked Azarova *BECAUSE* of her political views and had her in mind from day 1. A cynical person could argue the committee was a sham (Zero qualified people in Canada? Really??) to enable them to hire the person the committee wanted all along
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
I am not saying that happened, nor am I naive. My point is that circumstantial cases need to be tight, and this particular circumstantial case seems to hang, as Mr. Moon points out, on a particular view of how influence works in institutions. I am cynical of universities...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wokal_distance @JeffreyASachs and
But every bit as much of the professors as the administration. And I'll trust Cromwell before I'll trust a professor whose close to the process. But I appreciate the exchange
@JeffreyASachs, and thanks for bringing up things I hadn't yet read. I do appreciate it.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Why would you trust Cromwell on the point of contention (the weight of outside influence) more than the professors?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.