More administrative corruption

Administrative Corruption, Part 2

 

     Last time around I discussed the extensive fraud of Dean Chang, who used scholarships as a means of acquiring personal servants. With so many acts of corruption briefly mentioned in Ginsberg’s The Fall of the Faculty, it’s hard to choose, so I had to think what I wanted to show.

     As I mentioned before, there is little oversight at the administrative level; at best, the board of trustees is all there is; an average trustee spends a little over an hour a week overlooking the institution (good lord I wish I had that job…). With so little energy for honoring that trust, it’s no surprise that university presidents, the top of the heap, are cornucopia of opportunity for tales of corruption.

     I want to avoid such an easy target; any American who follows politics knows the guy at the top is probably a huge crook. I’ll look instead at what should have been a run-of-the-mill embezzlement case at Tufts university:

     An anonymous call triggered an investigation at the Office of Student Activities at Tufts, where supposedly some money had gone missing. It seems the Director, Nealley, had apparently lifted hundreds of thousands for her own benefit, using a thought-defunct part of Tufts as a cover for the money— larger, older institutions have hundreds of departments with names far more inscrutable than “Office of Student Activities” (each with administrators doing inscrutable administrative things), so nobody caught on to her thefts, which, as usual, went on for years, and she probably never would have been caught but for that phone call. Money was stolen from Tufts Community Union and Tufts Student Resources as well…seriously, every institution of any size is like this in terms of little fiefdoms.

 

Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman had no comment on how Nealley could have had access to the TLS account after it was thought to be closed.

 

--No comment, indeed. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, and nobody noticed? It doesn’t work that way.

 

     Unfortunately that phone call triggered an investigation that caught the person who made the tip…another administrator in that Office of Student Activities. He’d taken about $600,000 himself, again from a variety of sources, and again administrators at the University are very, very, vague on how exactly he had access to that money in the first place, much less was able to funnel it, over the course of years, to himself.

     I want to take the time to point out here, that when I want money from my institution, even for a tank of gas spent on institutional business, I need to fill out a form. That form needs to be reviewed. Then that form needs to be approved before the check is written. Then the check has to be approved. Then I get the money. Past my paycheck (only signed off by at least three administrators) I can’t get $50 extra out of my institution without at least FOUR different administrators signing off on it. But Tufts somehow managed to lose track of nearly a million dollars in one department, and nobody is sure how that happened. Hmm.

     Anyway, both administrators pled guilty, serving 2 years of jail time and 5 years probation.

     While this story may seem completely different than the tale of Miss Chang and her “personal servant scholarships,” I feel the need to point out important similarities.

      First is the notion of the administrative fiefdom. The massive growth in administrative positions in higher education has led to the creation of swarms of busybodies, each looking to create turf worth defending. There really are so many splinter “Departments of Student Assistance” of one form or another, each with its own legion of support staff, that there could be dozens of departments with embezzlers in them and it wouldn’t surprise me. Note what happened here—there were TWO embezzlers operating separate schemes just in this one department; one reported on the other, presumably not believing his own thievery would be caught.

     Another important theme complementing this corruption is deafening in its lack of discussion in the news articles: much like with Dean Chang, there is simply no way, no way at all this could have gone on without numerous other administrators being involved. In this case, I imagine there were quite a few envelopes stuffed with $100 bills passed around, to ease the process of hundreds of thousands of dollars simply vanishing into this department.

     I again point out these administrators were making salary numbers several multiples of faculty. Do students really go to Tufts because of the Office of Student Activities there? Do the skills of the administrators attract students? I humbly submit “no”. The purpose of institutions of higher education is research and education…faculty, those that are integral to research and education, must grovel for $50 to cover travel expenses, while administrators get hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend protecting fiefdoms….or for personal benefit, provided they don’t get caught.

    Most institutions of higher education are a Byzantine morass controlled by a caste of rulers that aren’t even vaguely aware that these institutions are about research and education. Many of these institutions are constantly short on funds, and use this shortage to justify cutting expenditures on teaching and research, and raising tuition. I’ve only given a few examples of how corrupted the system is. More will follow. How many will be necessary for the reader to believe that the financial troubles in higher education probably have more to do with mismanagement than with money spent on faculty or tuition being too low?

    

 

Think about it.

Learning From The Enemy: A Look At A Diversity Guide

By Professor Doom



     Of all the corrupt, money-sucking fiefdoms on campus, none are more dangerous than the Diversity fiefdoms. Most people think our campuses are divided into departments and those certainly exist, but the departments only generate revenue for the school, providing classes for students to take. Much of that revenue pours in “institutes,” little fiefdoms which few, if any, students know about, and are given such a blank check to spend money that it’s not unheard of to have multiple embezzlement schemes in the same fiefdom.


      These places are also hotbeds of Social Justice Warrior activity, and are generally packed with “NPCs” all thinking the same thoughts and chanting the same words. Recently, a Diversity fiefdom at Amherst college, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, released a guide to have shared language about identity. I’ll just say “I can’t make this stuff up” only a single time, right here, though so many of these “definitions” are beyond belief as well as my apparently quite limited imagination.


This is a list of carefully researched and thoughtfully discussed definitions for key diversity and inclusion terms…




     I want to point out from the above, these aren’t the ramblings of some late-stage psychotic alchemist or something, a group of lunatics actually thought about what they were writing, considered it, and published it. Granted, these people are self-evidently insane…but I feel like picking on them all the same.



Accomplice: A term coined by Indigenous Action Network to critique the ways in which “ally” as an identity term has been deployed absent of action, accountability, or risk-taking.




      Is that really the definition of accomplice the gentle reader is familiar with? I’m not even sure what’s trying to be said here. Keep in mind, they thought about this new definition, and thought it superior to the usual definition of the word.



Collusion: Thinking and acting in ways that support dominant systems of power, privilege, and oppression. Both privileged and oppressed groups can collude with oppression. Example: Able-bodied people who object to strategies for making buildings accessible because of the expense.




     Whew, good thing there was an example there. Seriously, how does anyone think like this? Maybe this is why the Russian “collusion” investigation fell apart? Even when the definition starts out pretty clear, they toss in extra stuff to create confusion:


Equality: treating everyone exactly the same. An equality emphasis often ignores historical and structural factors that benefit some social groups/communities and harm other social groups/communities.




      As near as I can tell, these aren’t so much definitions as they are total crap something else. For the most part, this guide is just weird, but sometimes it goes off the deep end:



Myth of Scarcity: Used to pit people against each other, this is the fostering of the belief that resources are limited…




      The “belief” that resources are limited? Seriously? Yes, they’re serious. I hardly know how to manage the cognitive disconnect here. If they honestly believe resources are not limited, then how can they ask for affirmative action, inclusion, reparations or anything else? What does it matter if there are infinite resources?


       It just goes on and on:


Reverse Oppression: There is no such thing as reverse oppression….



      ?????????? They literally define an existing term as not existing. The “definition” of this alleged non-concept finishes with an example of it not happening:


…women cannot be “just as sexist” as men because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.




      Wow, Hillary Clinton never held any political power as Secretary of State? No institutional power in The Clinton Foundation? What? I’m just so puzzled here. The term Social Justice is used often, and thankfully (?) the guide gives us a huge definition:



Social Justice:

1.      An anti-oppression orientation to social and political organization.

     For this first part, note how “social justice” usually leads to anti-white discrimination. I’d call this reverse discrimination, or reverse oppression, but apparently that doesn’t exist. Good thing I have this guide to assist the way I think, Orwellian-style. The definition continues:

2.      The process and goal of addressing the root causes of institutional and structural “-isms.”

We’ll have to get to ‘isms’ later…but how can you address them without oppression?

3.      A vision of the world where all groups of people can live (and be perceived) as fully human on all levels (personal, social, institutional, and structural).

      Huh, isn’t this a bit circular? I mean, if they are people, they’re human, right? The fourth definition is long, and completely demented. I’ll edit it down for semi-coherence:

4.      A vision of the world not rooted in the dominance of any one group…not be rooted in a scarcity model that devalues things that are abundant…and highly values that which is scarce or rare.

       This is a viable model? Human reality has always valued the scarce over the common, it’s how things have worked for thousands of years. I really want to point out that all communist movements make the above claim and, in short order, food becomes very scarce, every single time. What also happens every single time is this scarce commodity only ends up in the hands of the people at the top. You’d have to be a lunatic to think of this as a “model” humans should pursue, and yet we have a whole fiefdom here which thinks this way.


      So let’s get to those –isms. Ageism is simple enough, but things quickly turn weird:


Cissexism: the system of belief that cisgender individuals are the privileged class and are more natural, normal or acceptable than transgender, genderqueer, nonbinary, and/or gender-nonconforming people. This believe manifests as denial of rights to trans and nonbinary people and their routine mistreatment.




       I’ve mentioned before that words like “normal” and “natural” are well-defined terms, and absolutely apply to what this manifesto is referring to as cisgender (i.e., heterosexual) people. As far as rights, well, we do have a system of law here, I really don’t think people who are not cisgender are “routine” in having such rights denied. It’s an unsurprising definition, since the insane often have hallucinations.


       If you ever want to know what racism is, the guide provides a huge definition. Hysterically, this definition includes the unequal distribution of resources—fundamentally impossible if you believe resources are infinite. Again, mental inconsistency is par for the course for the irrational.


      It’s a 40 page guide, and after a mere 8 pages I feel much stupider for reading it. I will not continue. I only include the link for the particularly iron-willed to peruse. I have my doubts concerning the ability to get useful information about the lunatics slowly taking over our campus, for one simple reason: these people are nothing if not hypocritical. They don’t believe or adhere to any of this stuff the second it doesn’t suit them, ever.


     That said, the link is very hard evidence that such maniacs really do exist on our campuses, and are paid huge sums of money to come up with this dross. They’re paid from the student loan scam. End it.



www.professorconfess.blogspot.com









    

Wide Open Korean Conspiracy Revealed

By Professor Doom

     US higher education has degenerated to the point where academic scandals hardly make the news anymore; decades ago, a professor or university president caught plagiarizing was actually a notable event, and today scandals are so common, scandals involving rape, embezzlement, open fraud, or all put together, that the academic frauds of yesteryear no longer rate much. Those of us working in higher ed know about the academic frauds…we also know that it’s hopeless, that nothing will be done if admin chooses to look the other way. So, when we see another professor manipulate his publication numbers through shamelessly getting his name on papers he couldn’t possibly have contributed meaningfully to, we say nothing.

      It’s seriously gotten to the point that a 33 page paper can have over 5,000 names listed as contributors, and nobody bats an eye—9 pages of research, 25 small print pages listing alleged authors…more than one unique author for each unique word of research. We’re all part of it, I admit.

      I can’t blame this on the student loan scam. No, it’s our fraudulent administration that’s the culprit here. Many of our blustering “leaders” in higher education are academic frauds, completely incapable of standing for the integrity necessary to clean up this part of education. Truth be told, the fraudulent nature of our “leaders’” research is so obvious to our academics, that we “collegially” let it go, in exchange for these unqualified “leaders” not giving much scrutiny to the academic publications.

     Another reason this fraud continues is our higher education system is just so huge now; it’s pretty easy to slip under the radar and claim publications that were never actually published, because so many journals have real readership that can be counted on one hand…we all know what’s going on, but it’s huge, and the people in power dare do nothing, lest scrutiny fall on their own frauds. Thus, hope for eventual cleanup must start in a small system and the help must come from outside. 

     A recent article detailed how over 200 professors in over 50 universities in Korea, a smaller education system by far than here in the US, are going to be prosecuted for plagiarism, in the legal (not academic) system. The perpetrators will likely lose their jobs, at the very least.

      I can’t emphasize strongly enough how the corruption at the top spawns corruption everywhere below. We see the frauds running the place, see that our own jobs depend on inflating our publishing numbers as much as possible, and honestly it’s hard to feel like we’re disrespecting academia when plundering fraudsters run academia. The corruption at the top, corruption that seems to have no penalty, inspires the corruption at the bottom:

Most recently, Changwon National University president Choi Hae-bum was involved in a plagiarism scandal as 33 professors from the school took issue with his doctorate thesis. 

--administrative degrees are as questionable there as here.

     If the guys at the top can get away with it, why not everyone else? The modern Korean system, like most every other higher education system on the planet, is similar enough to US higher ed for the gentle reader to get an idea of the reality in the US.

     We really are at the point where nobody is putting much effort into covering up the fraud:

The professors, mostly in science and engineering majors, are accused of publishing others’ works under their own names by simply changing the book covers to boost their academic profiles ahead of assessments for rehiring.

     How can we faculty laugh at students’ lazy attempts to plagiarize, even as academics can’t be bothered to put more effort into plagiarizing whole textbooks than changing the cover of the book.

     Now, realize this can’t be done without the publishers’ assistance, someone has to print those textbooks after all. So, the publishers are in on it too—they sell more books this way, and profits, not integrity, are the sole purpose of publishing corporations. As long as the money flows, publishers won’t complain.

     This level of plagiarism also can’t be done without the authors of the original books also consenting—it’s a small world, academically speaking, there’s no way you can get away with stealing whole books like this without someone saying “Gee, your book on the inside looks exactly like the book I was using two years ago, but with a different cover.” So, the authors get paid off:

The original authors also allegedly turned a blind eye to the practice under pressure to maintain a favorable relationship with the publishers for future book deals. Some of them are suspected of having taken kickbacks from publishers in return for keeping quiet. 

      Now, the reason for the plagiarism is because professors with books on their resume are more likely to get tenure and pay raises and such…and if the administrators were legit, they would have the skills to catch this sort of thing. Higher education administrators are no more legitimate in Korea than in the US, I suspect.

     I want to add one more important quote here:

“The practice has been prevalent since 1980 in the publishing sector, but it has never been caught,” said Kim Young-jong from the prosecutors’ office. “We will take stern action against the university professors who have little morality to protect innocent students from them.”

     This conspiracy went on for over 30 years. 

     This conspiracy involved hundreds of faculty members, several large corporations, scores of authors from all around the world, and many students (some of whom had to have been using the older texts with the legit covers), who all had to have known the truth of these books with the suspicious covers.

     For over 30 years.

     Nothing was done. I promise you, at least a thousand people knew full well about the blatant frauds going on in the Korean higher educational system. And it took over 30 years before news of this open conspiracy finally became documented public knowledge.

Admin: “We have over 1,000 students taking our night courses! We’re growing!”

Me: “Then why is it that the parking lot at night, during class time, has less than a dozen cars in it?”

--I didn’t quite say that last line, but with a 1,000 student names, each receiving a check, dozens of faculty, supposedly teaching the classes, and highly paid administrators, looking the other way, I think this could qualify as a conspiracy. One that anyone with eyeballs could tell was a fraud.

      Please, keep this in mind when someone advances a conspiracy theory, you cannot simply dismiss it because “too many people would have to know the truth for such a secret to be kept.” Being in higher education, I’ve seen sufficient mass conspiracies to discount anyone else’s theory simply because too many people would have to be involved.

      I’ve discussed many similar “open conspiracies” on this blog and in my book. I’ve tried calling fraud hotlines, writing the governor, and other methods of doing something about the criminal behavior going on in higher education, especially in the community college systems, and accomplished nothing. Perhaps I should ask the legal system of Korea to help me out?

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com