< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Friday, December 01, 2006

From the Puffs of Smoke

I can't stop laughing because of this post in our comments below and decided to put these images on a regular post:


Notice something else about this "response": It says the pivotal date was September 27 and claims that because the faculty resolution was there on the 26th, it wasn't included. As I read the feasibility study, however, it is dated November 20! The second page of the feasibility study states "REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF....Dated: November 20, 2006" There is a date stamp on the letter of transmittal "NOV 21 2006"

Does the Dean really mean to imply that the faculty resolution was too late to be included in a "revised" edition that was produced nearly a month later?

I'd like to bolster the criticism made in the parody memo about the faculty meetings: The dean is the natural facilitator of the faculty meetings -- as such, he is the one that would schedule and run a regular meeting of the faculty. As such, it would be interesting to see how many "regularly constituted" faculty meetings he scheduled around the time of these decisions -- my guess is that he scheduled none for a long time.

When were "regularly constituted" faculty meetings held in relation to these events? Notice that the Dean did not mention this fact -- my guess is that he was unable because it would cast aspersions on his own comments. The reason being that if he was able to show that this meeting occurred temporally close to a so-called regular meeting, he would have said it as it would be a far better argument in his favor.

Why include Safranek's single memo instead of one from a collective of faculty members? I think it is telling that this signed collective resolution was excluded in favor of including comments of a single faculty member -- attachment C of the study self-admits that the focus of the group is "human capital" and "social capital" -- is not a collective comment made by several people more weighty than a comment of one voice?

Can you really reconcile the Dean's explanations with the hard facts: that the study was revised over a month following the alleged deadline, and that one named person's comments were included, austensibly becuse he failed to ask for confidentiality, while that same person was also a signatory on a collective submittal that also had not asked for confidentiality? It only follows that, if the study was truly unbiased, the ability to gather evidence about one person's comments to compare against the comments of that same person in a collective comment would provide a far better insight to the actual beliefs of key interest groups. Instead, the study must have used a biased approach to weighting evidence.

This observation casts serious aspersions on the ability of the study authors to include anonymous comments reliably.