1) Cepeda, Martin, Rua, Brown and Garbarini got tenure.
2) At least one person in Economics was denied.
Previous discussion here. What have you heard?
I echo DCat's comments on point in the prior thread. I'm not a big fan of Ephblog Page 6 — it is the sort of thing that harms the blog's campus reputation, without any sort of benefit whatsoever. What is the point of speculating or spreading rumors when the actual tenure recipients will be announced soon enough? Weight the benefit of announcing who received tenure a few weeks early (which I'd put at zero) against the potential harm of incorrect speculation, in either direction (definitely greater than zero), and again, I just don't see the point.
1) When wearing my reporter hat, I report the news at EphBlog. (Perhaps I should not use the term "rumor" but I am not sure what word would be appropriate.) Anonymous faculty member(s) in a position to know the truth have told me those things. Could they be wrong? Sure! But in many years of reporting on tenure, I don't think (corrections welcome!) that I have ever made a mistake.
2) Did you complain when we reported the rumor that Adam Falk was going to be the next president of Williams? No, you didn't. So, the standard is that it is OK to report rumors about who will be president but not OK to report rumors about who is newly tenured? I am confused.
3) Whether or not a post like this "harms the blog's campus reputation" is a matter of dispute. My understanding is that posts like this (and especially our Bernard Moore coverage) make us very popular reading among the faculty. And that is a good thing!
What is the point of speculating or spreading rumors when the actual tenure recipients will be announced soon enough?
If the College were going to announce both the tenure recipients (in a nice news release) and the tenure rejects (in a discreet tip to the Record) so that the Williams community knew both who got tenure and who did not, that would be one thing. In that world, I might refrain.
But the sad truth is that the College, in recent years, has occasionally tried to keep hidden who was denied tenure. I will do everything possible to fight that sort of secrecy. And discussing tenure news beforehand helps with that, I think.
Summary: If you think it is important for students and alumni to know who was denied tenure, then posts like this help flush that information into the open.
One thing that's fun about Dave (and there are not very many), is his pomposity on the position of his value.
Here he is working the phone lines from his table at the Six House. The young Sidney "Ronit" Falco watches with admiration.
"Attention, Mr and Mrs America and all the Ephs at sea!".
What is your source that someone in Economics was denied?
Based on your earlier list, that would imply one of Watson, Gazzale and Rolleigh were denied. Never had Rolleigh, but I thought both Watson and Gazzale were excellent, and would be very surprised if they were denied.
I don't reveal my sources.
Members of the faculty have known the outcome of the tenure decisions for a month. Dave is still speculating and rumor-mongering. Ask yourself why.
EphBlog is powered by WordPress and delivered to you in 1.040 seconds using 36 queries..