Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lotta Booze" data-source="post: 648789" data-attributes="member: 4471"><p>Fair enough. hakunamatata</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I pointed out that she was not renewed for her position mostly because the link posted said "fired" and those terms have different implications though you could chalk it up to semantics. But I think the Washington Times chose "fired" (or "dumped") for exactly the reason it would seem. And I pointed out her payment from a conservative/climate skeptical think tank because that could be a legit conflict of interest. I don't know. I've done about 10 minutes of research and am left with more questions than answers. Does she have an obligation to disclose those payments? What was her relationship with her superiors? What is her role as an adjunct professor? Is it to represent the university on panels hosted by the same think tank? Does/should the university have a say in who she speaks for/to? I don't know the answer to a lot of these questions. But I'm guessing a lot of the people posting/sharing the link as a grievance don't know all of those details either. Just see headline of "climate skeptic dumped by liberal university" and roll with the grievance narrative. </p><p></p><p>And, also do you feel she's entitled to employment there? Should her contract/application be renewed automatically? Do you support here unionizing to protect her job? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lotta Booze, post: 648789, member: 4471"] Fair enough. hakunamatata I pointed out that she was not renewed for her position mostly because the link posted said "fired" and those terms have different implications though you could chalk it up to semantics. But I think the Washington Times chose "fired" (or "dumped") for exactly the reason it would seem. And I pointed out her payment from a conservative/climate skeptical think tank because that could be a legit conflict of interest. I don't know. I've done about 10 minutes of research and am left with more questions than answers. Does she have an obligation to disclose those payments? What was her relationship with her superiors? What is her role as an adjunct professor? Is it to represent the university on panels hosted by the same think tank? Does/should the university have a say in who she speaks for/to? I don't know the answer to a lot of these questions. But I'm guessing a lot of the people posting/sharing the link as a grievance don't know all of those details either. Just see headline of "climate skeptic dumped by liberal university" and roll with the grievance narrative. And, also do you feel she's entitled to employment there? Should her contract/application be renewed automatically? Do you support here unionizing to protect her job? ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top