Wed 11 Nov 2009
Moore’s Dissertation
Posted by David under Bernard Moore at 9:36 pm
Proquest provides this information (may require college/university ID) about Bernard Moore’s dissertation.
America’s race to incarcerate: Locking up communities of color
by Moore, Bernard, Ph.D., Howard University, 2009 , 304 pages; AAT 3350304
Abstract (Summary)Research findings support the conclusion that incarceration in the United States has increased, and numbers of African-American male prisoners have increased. The problem is that it remains unclear whether mandatory sentencing acts have resulted in increased African-American prisoner status. The purpose of the study was to determine if mandatory minimum statutes and the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the SRA and the PROTECT Act of 2003 have resulted in higher rates of African-American prisoners. Archival and survey research were used for this study to address relevant research questions and hypotheses. Archival data were from the BJS (2007), the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities (2007), and the USSC (2007). The survey sample consisted of 15 parole officers, 15 probation officers, and 30 prison officials from state and federal prisons. Findings were that no difference existed between African-American prisoner status due to sentencing laws alone and most hypotheses were not supported; only sexual abuse and drug trafficking led to significant findings. Survey findings supported the notion that many factors affect prisoner status.
Indexing (document details)Advisor: Morris, Lorenzo, Frazier, Michael
Committee members: Davis, Donn, Woodard, Maurice, Davis, Danny K., Watson, Diane E.
School: Howard University
Department: Political Science
School Location: United States — District of Columbia
Keyword(s): Black politics, Judicial politics, Minimum mandatory, Racial disparity, Sentencing, Sentencing guidelines
Source: DAI-A 70/03, Sep 2009
Source type: Dissertation
Subjects: Political science, Criminology, Ethnic studies
Publication Number: AAT 3350304
ISBN: 9781109079852
Document URL: http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pqdweb?did=1692529801&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=11201&RQT=309&VName=PQD
ProQuest document ID: 1692529801
Comments:
1) Can you spot the path which led this fraudster to Williams? I bet it starts with his academic connections . . .
2) Proquest reports that “At the request of the author, this graduate work is not available for purchase.” Can you guess why?
3) I cringed when I read that abstract. It is barely literate. I would do a sentence-by-sentence mocking, but the refereee would surely stop the fight in the first 50 words. My 8th grade daughter’s science experiment write-up is higher quality. Is this typical of the sort of work that earns a Ph.D. from Howard? No wonder that Williams does not have a single faculty member with a degree from there.
4) Love the fact that committee members included noted scholars like Diane Watson and Danny Davis.
5) What odds would you give on there being substantial fraud/plagiarism/incompetence in this dissertation? My guess: 50/50.
6) Do you think that Moore’s race — he is African-American — played a role in Williams’ decision to hire and reappoint him?
Print • Email| « Best of the Record – 11 November 2009 | AF ROTC: Uniforms on Campus … » |
23 Responses to “Moore’s Dissertation”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
Ronit says:
You’re jumping the gun, David. Slamming Howard U. and focusing on Moore’s race is not a productive path for this conversation to go to at this moment. My advice to you is to put this aside and focus on getting facts about the specific circumstances of Moore’s hiring and time at Williams (as opposed to unfounded speculation about his race and plagiarism in his dissertation). While the abstract of his dissertation is interesting and should be posted here, your speculation does not add anything substantive to our understanding.
I would also add that such speculative posts risk turning people off from more solid things on the situation that you might post later, and may generate reader backlash. I think it should be possible for Ephblog to conduct a thorough and critical conversation about the situation without losing credibility, alienating readers, or making Moore look like a sympathetic figure and a target of race-baiting.
David says:
I agree! You think that even mentioning Moore’s race is out-of-bounds, even as a question? At what point would such questions be acceptable? As best I can tell, we have already established that Moore was a horrible teacher and an indifferent (at best!) scholar. I can not find a single article, working paper, book review or other piece of written work by him. Can you?
Needless to say, I admit that we are early in the process. Once more information comes out, we may very well decide that Moore is, actually, a brilliant teacher and genius scholar. Keep hope alive!
With regard to Howard, I don’t take back the slam. That abstract is pathetic, not “interesting.” If we Ph.D.’s don’t take our degrees seriously, then we can hardly expect anyone else to do so.
Jr. Mom says:
@Ronit:
Well-said.
wslack says:
Moore’s race is not out-of-bounds. Raising it only undermines your other points because of past controversy.
hwc says:
Then, I would suggest that Williams College needs to move with some urgency in providing an explanation of the thinking that led to his hiring. Until they provide an explanation, members of the Williams community are going to be questioning the logic. Honestly, the only thing I can come up with is that he’s black.
I am a strong proponent of affirmative action hiring, probably the strongest advocate on this blog. Nothing makes my blood boil worse than seeing a laudable effort undermined by the hiring of an unqualified candidate. To be perfectly honest, Moore’s job should not be the only one on the line at Williams tonight.
Ronit says:
@David: Say what you will about his dissertation, but I guarantee you that if you continue down the path of basically unfounded speculation about the racial aspect of this issue, you’re going to turn off readers and lose the sympathy of many who would have agreed with you a few hours ago. Making this discussion about race from the get-go is a very good way for you (and, by proxy, EphBlog) to lose relevancy and credibility. I don’t deny that race may be relevant, but we have no real facts to back up the speculation at this point. The race card is not your strongest card right now (especially, as Will notes, because of your past history). Playing it was a bad move.
rory says:
ronit: keep going. great stuff
oh five says:
I think this gets at one of several important angles from which we should attempt to figure out how the whole debacle came to pass:
1. Given Moore’s lack of teaching skills and poor writing, what would have made a person like him attractive to Williams? I suspect it’s more the connections and experience with Congress that he could, and did, bring to Williams’ campus for educational and networking purposes than his race.
2. Is this a valid goal for hiring a professor at a liberal arts college? I believe it has its pros and cons–Moore certainly opened up doors but also let down students in his classes. Must every professor be a top-notch instructor or can/may/should we value other contributions he or she can make?
3. On a different note, what are the typical background/reference/degree checks colleges conduct on potential new faculty? What is Williams policy?
Ronit says:
This is more meta stuff. I try to avoid doing this, but too late now.
David, you can log into Twitter right now and scroll through the posts for the last few hours, and see the number of alumni and current students talking about this situation. Many of them are getting their updates from EphBlog. Most are agreed that Moore did a terrible thing and are far from sympathetic to him, though some have a more complex reaction than just “FIRE HIM NOW”, based on their personal acquaintance with him, the work he did with student orgs or helping students find jobs, etc. (Note: do not quote private twitter feeds without permission)
This post is at best going to make some of the people who’ve been following the story think “oh boy, David Kane is going off the deep end again” and might encourage them to tune out future EphBlog posts on the topic; at worst, it makes Moore look a little more sympathetic. If David Kane is playing the race card against him, he can’t be all bad, right?
Either way, you and EphBlog lose. You may think I’m being overly politically correct, but I’m actually interested in helping you. I think you’d be on much more solid footing if you were more cautious about the way in which you approached race. You may think you’re encouraging uncomfortable learning, but the fact is, you’re not very good at it when it comes to race.
The last line of your post was stupid. The conversation about Moore’s situation at Williams, including whether or not it had anything to do with race, will happen as the facts come out; you don’t have to force it.
Also – @oh five:
This is much more relevant than ham-handed racial speculation. I would also want to know if the College gives visitors like Moore a less thorough vetting than more traditional (tenure track) new faculty members.
Jocelyn Shadforth '88 says:
I’ve been reading the post about Moore with a growing sense of dismay and anger. I agree wholeheartedly with David, something I don’t think I’ve been able to say. Part of the reason is that, despite having a legitimate PhD in political science from Rutgers, I have never even considered applying to positions at Williams. Why? Having concentrated on teaching, I have no publications, although I do have lots of conference papers. At the same time, a number of my grad school friends have applied for positions, and one was hired as the visiting professor to fill Tim Cook’s slot right after Cook left for LSU. Without going into too many other identifying details, only the one with the most stellar credentials even managed to get an on-campus interview for a tenure-track position, which was turned down for spousal hiring reasons. (He ended up w/a tenure-track position at an Ivy.)
In addition, I am not blown away by the argument that, with his connections, Moore brought notable people to campus. I can think of any number of fellow political scientists who are equally, if not more, well-connected and have the ability to invite comparable contacts. In fact, while an ABD in my first full-time teaching position, I developed a personal friendship with Sen Maj Ldr Mitch McConnell & his wife, former Labor Secy Elaine Chao. This contact has given me a point of access with, just off the top of my head, George Schulz, Madeline Albright, and Bill Bradley. I am by no means the most adept networker out there. It’s just not that difficult to develop these relationships, especially if you do any research dealing with Congress.
Further, Moore abstract is pretty lame. It reads like a first-draft of an abstract for an undergrad thesis, written by someone in way over his or her head. I’m amazed that any credible dissertation committee would allow this to go forward.
I am also quite troubled about the effect this will have on support for affirmative action. Having seen the faculty-hiring process from both sides, I do still believe that affirmative action has a place in the system. It is understandable, however, if this situation hardens opposition to such policy. Given the continued tightness of the academic job market, it is hard to imagine any scenario other than affirmative action which would have led to this guy’s hiring and continued retention. It’s an embarrassment for all concerned.
Finally, its clear that Williams has not joined the increasing number of institutions conducting background checks on new hires. I hope this incident makes that a no-brainer for the administration.
Invisible Mom says:
It is difficult to understand how/why Moore was hired in the first place.
Scholarship: This dissertation abstract is not written at a PhD level. Also, it is very unusual not to have a preview of your dissertation available nor allow anyone to purchase it. If David is correct, and there are no articles, books, book reviews,… written by Moore, then what is his scholarly expertise?
Teaching: My daughter complained about him last year for being unorganized, not teaching well,… and seeming to have ‘connections’ as his major credential. Other students have voiced similar experiences in his classes. What was his college level teaching experience prior to Williams?
Honesty/Character: Moore lied about having a BA to both Williams and Howard. Was there any background check?
Moore did not willingly go to the Williams administration earlier this week and admit/explain that he was going to plead guilty to fraud. Instead, Jim Kolesar said the college found out from the media. When was he planning to tell them? One would think Moore would resign, before he can be fired.
RealityCheck says:
Long time reader, first-time poster. The entire situation is distressing. It appears Williams was conned by a professional. But the con happened with the College’s complicity. The issue of race and other tangential elements are a red herring.
From reading all the blogs I believe the issue may be boiled down to have 3 key parts:
1) There has to be a TV script in here somewhere;
2) On a more serious note, I am deeply concerned about the Wm’s College process for evaluating professors. Assume all the appropriate vetting was done and Moore’s lies were just too difficult to uncover – ok. But how did his lack of performance, ability and standards pass muster for even ONE year on campus? This is not some junior college we are talking about. This the top ranked liberal arts college in America. With that stature comes responsibility and a higher bar. The Provost or Poli-Sci Dept head needs to answer this question;
3) How did he even get hired? I was President of a large Little League and we did background checks on every manager and coach. These parents were only paying $150 versus $50,0000 a year and we checked the records on all adults. For about $10 and with a SS# you can do an entire national background check for arrests, warrants and pending criminal actions. These checks cover an individuals entire adult life. So the only conclusion I can draw from this is that none of the professors at Williams have had a complete background check.
hwc says:
He was (or so he says) a staffer for a back bench Congressman. There are several thousand of those. It’s not like he was Under Secretary of State. My daughter’s 24 year old roommate is a staffer for a very senior Committee Chairman in the US Senate. That and a PhD from Howard would hardly make her an attractive faculty applicant at a top liberal arts college.
BrotherSpotless says:
David, the problem with your comment is that the lone statement you made regarding how Moore arrived at Williams is directed at his race.
I am not saying you can’t (or shouldn’t) ask your question re: race, but why not offer more options regarding his hiring, since you don’t have evidence suggesting any one reason why he was hired? Otherwise, you turn the question away from Moore and toward (yet another) discussion on race. And in doing so, you risk martyring Moore for folks who are really simply defending the hiring of minority professors.
Additionally, since discussions about race almost always focus on the person who initiated them (especially in this forum), you get comments regarding your statement instead of comments regarding the issue at hand (for some reason the term “regarding” is at the forefront of my mind; please forgive me…).
We know this issue is about Moore and his fraud; we have no clue as to whether his hiring concerns race, directly or indirectly.
My two cents…
chillin says:
Bernard Moore was brought in on as one of the Endowed Chairs in Political Science, so he was not tenure-track. I do believe that he was applying for a tenure track position, once his contract ran out. It is also important to note that though he had no articles or books, he had written several pieces of legislation.
Lastly to be granted tenure one need only make a significant impact on the College community (in the official wording that is). I am sure that a great argument could have been made that all his accomplishments were a significant positive impact, though who knows if that would have been enough for tenure.
Anon says:
Chillin –
I have no idea where you found that definition of the tenure standard at Williams. From the Faculty Handbook:
The criteria by which the CAP judges a candidate for reappointment or promotion in the professorial ranks are the following: (1) above all, interest in and talent for sound and effective teaching of undergraduates and promise of continuing growth in ability to do so; (2) demonstrated capacity to contribute to the arts or to scholarship in the appropriate field and a perception of its relation to liberal learning; (3) significant usefulness and contribution to the College community – student advising, committee service, and so forth. Given the shifting needs of the College and the differing circumstances of departments, no precise “weights” can be attached to each of these three areas. Of the three, however, it may be said that the first two are of central importance, and exceptional strength in both is usually a requirement for appointment to tenure.
I would have thought that this is the official wording; perhaps you have some other official document in mind?
Dick Swart says:
@BrotherSpotless:
And 2¢ well spoken. Brother Spotless, it has been too long!
The extant driver is Moore’s fraud, not his race. And next is the process of due diligence.
How did he come to the college attention? How were his credentials presented and to whom. What mission, if any, was established a priori? Who vetted the concept for the department? Who did the actual vetting of the man? What benchmarks were in place for measurement of performance after he was retained?
There are any number of questions to be explored rather than the race card.
concerned says:
“Lastly to be granted tenure one need only make a significant impact on the College community (in the official wording that is)”
This is completely and utterly untrue. Where on earth are you getting this from? The “official wording” says nothing of the sort, nor does any “unofficial” wording I’ve ever heard.
hwc says:
RE:17
Dick,
At the end of the day, I think it is going to prove difficult to ignore “Mr. Moore’s” race. A recurring theme, in both the “Ad Hoc Diversity Report” and the Accreditation reports, has been the difficulty Willimas has had increasing the number of minority faculty and the need to redouble the efforts. The college cites various minority earmarked seats (such as the Bolin Scholars) as an important part of their minority recruitment.
I believe we will find that this visiting prof slot was earmarked and that there was pressure from somewhere in the College to short-circuit the normal procedures and hire “Mr. Moore”. His race is not an issue, but the perceived need to hire more professors from minority racial groups is almost certainly a contributing factor here.
Questions:
a) Who made the decision to hire this guy?
b) Did the Poli Sci department want to hire him, or was teir pressure? From whom?
c) Who signs off on faculty hires: the Povost or the Dean of Faculty? Did they question this candidate’s teaching credentials.
d) Why was he retained for a second year despite what were obviously devatating performance evaluations?
rory says:
hwc–at the end of the day, not as the first (or second) thing the day after the situation is discovered.
rory says:
@hwc: here again is an example of casting things in as bad a light as possible. How many policy fellows are there? He wasn’t some recent graduate reading letters from constituents when he worked as a CBC policy fellow.
the rush to paint everything beyond his fraud in the worst possible light is really quite ugly of posters.
He’s an ass, he’s a criminal, he needs to be fired. Williams should figure out why they got played (as should everyone else he conned) and fix it. but a lot of separate agendas are showing and it seems rather brutish.
hwc says:
The guy is a fraud. According to public records, he wasn’t even on the Congressional payroll after 2006 when he makes his grand claims of authorship of a bill.
rory says:
@hwc: wow…he’s a fraud! I didn’t know that. smh.
maybe he’s not on the congressional payroll because he was a CBC fellow and not a congressional staffer? or are you asserting he openly lied about his position with danny davis?