I believe you.

Feel free to offer me a hanky, I guess.

Need a hankie to catch your drool?

Not only did he use his blackberry in class, but while we were giving our presentations on the inane glorified book reports, he would be on his blackberry and completely ignoring anything students said. One specific instance, he got a call, and got up and left, without saying a word, during the presentation.

That just makes me cry. That’s not what Williams is about. That’s not what Williams students deserve. That’s not what Williams’ parents pay $50,000 year to receive.

I’m still reeling at the reference to “book reports”. That’s not what Williams is about either.

Of course, with $465,000 in unpaid credit card bills and a US Attorney breathing down his neck, he was probably a wee bit distracted!

I very much respect your intentions and your vigilance.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29428.html

Interesting that he was able to organize a symposium of sorts that makes his symposiums at Williams seem like small potatoes. This isn’t just some typical Congressional staffer; far from it. He either has very unusual connections or very unusual ability to convince people in high places that his events were worth attending. It seems like Williams and the victims of his financial fraud were but a few of those seduced by whatever quality he had that made his b.s. ring true / seem appealing. To me, the biggest lesson here is that classroom performance (combined with publication record, certainly) does not lie. I am all for (generally speaking, not in this particular case) hiring people who may be a little unorthodox in their backgrounds, to broaden the Williams experience. While the hiring here was, in hindsight, a mistake, Williams is at least in good company in making that mistake. But at the very least, those more experimental hires should be VERY closely watched, and it is indeed mind-boggling that he was kept on after his first year of teaching exposed his utter lack of substance.

What I would really be interested to see if an analysis of the legal history.

I only ask that any/all speculation be withheld.

Heh…

Or, in other words, [citation needed].

Concerning the lack of clear response from profs who were “told of” this situation, you have to consider that you didn’t see their entire reaction. They may well have gone to a dean about it. They may well have been concerned themselves. They’re not about to have a chat with you about this disastrous appointment.

I am more concerned about the process that led to his hiring at Williams. Was the Political Science department in favor of his hiring? Was the Provost in favor of his hiring? Or were they overruled and by whom?

Let’s not engaging in witchhunting for its own sake and the pleasures of the hunt; give the Truth time to come out; let’s bother to form an informed opinion before we speak.

Agreed. Also, I am fairly sure that the students who are reporting their firsthand experience of his teaching are in a good position to provide an informed opinion.

The guy has just pled guilty to fraud totaling over $800,000. A second offense after serving jail time for a previous conviction on similar charges. He has acknowledged that he lied about his academic qualifications. I think we can go a little bit further than saying “it may be possible that Moore should never have been hired.” I think that is pretty much a statement of fact at this point.

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations of how Williams was duped by this con man. I can’t conceive of anything that would permit us to conclude, knowing what we know now, that he should have been hired.

and that a witchhunt/scapegoating/kick the man who is down, is occurring.

https://www.msu.edu/~holekamp/images/crocuta/HyenaFeedingFrenzy_Engh_smaller.jpg

My retort would be, all of which may be true– but we may still “have a witchhunt.”

As to Ronit’s claim… well, I did create a dichotomy (which runs the usual threat of being false)… and I’ve just said enough on another thread.

It may be possible that Moore should never have been hired and is guilty of moral turpidude etc, and that the hiring and oversight process is broken, and that a witchhunt/scapegoating/kick the man who is down, is occurring.

In fact, I rather think that all three are occurring, and are “part in parcel” of each other.

I think we have enough information about his academic credentials, teaching experience, and professional life to question what made him even remotely qualified to be hired as a professor at one of the top colleges in the United States.

And, that’s before we consider that he is a con-man, convicted felon, who didn’t even have a college degree.

On the issue of teaching: I hope we’re not hitting someone when their down. Williams’ standards– I also believe in Williams’ standards– but in grad school, “didn’t follow the syllabus” to the point of “I don’t have any idea what the reading is supposed to be this week, or what the lecture is going to be about” was the norm at greater than 80%. (Maybe Berkeley is Berkeley; maybe Berkeley at the time had particular problems; maybe Williams is unlikely to hire the kind of professor Berkeley produced; and certainly I’m attacking Berkeley).

So: in my unclear sort of path: I’m saying that if Moore was as bad a teacher as some are claiming — what the heck is going on at Williams??? — but– how far is Williamstown from Salem?

Let’s not engaging in witchhunting for its own sake and the pleasures of the hunt; give the Truth time to come out; let’s bother to form an informed opinion before we speak.

* Emma Davenport

I check Factrack and he’s not on there. Had he been on it, I probably wouldn’t have taken a class with him because I always check it. Also, I should add that a group of students (four in a class of 16 or so) in my class almost went to the chair of the department to complain about the COMPLETE absence of teaching and critical discussion or lecture in that class. Why didn’t we talk to the Chair? Because we were all stressed out with finals and packing up to leave in the spring, and the idea fell through.

Those who like them think he’s a “nice guy”, “has connections”, and “gives all straight A’s”. No one takes him – who knows him – because they think they can learn in his classes. Anyway, I would the majority of the class thought it was a joke. But I know I’m the only one speaking here, so it’s not really fair for me to state that on here.

Why wasn’t he on factrack anyway? Who has to add a prof on factrack?

Thanks for the cheers Cameron. ;-)

* Rhassan Hill

Emma,speak for yourself please,thanks.

* Maria Tucker

What, you didn’t get an A? If nothing else, the College at least should have noticed that an entire class received A’s in this course and taken some sort of action, unless poli-sci professors routinely hand out grades like candy. (Why did no one tell me? jk) But seriously, I’ve never had him, yet judging from the reviews I’ve read so far he was hired by Williams for his connections, not his exceptional qualities as an educator. No PhD, no bachelor’s–and he’s only a staffer? What was he doing teaching at Williams? I mean, unless you’re looking quality instruction on how to schmooze your way to Washington…oh wait, maybe that is useful for poli-sci…

Anyway, this is absurd. And I mean both our corrupt government and that Williams would hire this mess.

* Cameron Nutting

Would you seriously argue that you got your money’s worth out of that class last Spring? That Moore led the class responsibility? Followed the syllabus? Had any intellectual goals for our class or encouraged any intellectual engagement with the material? That he graded (or even read) our papers to anything close to a Williams standard? I understand that he has become something of a mentor to some students (perhaps yourself included) but to say that he was anything like a quality TEACHER is a pretty difficult argument to make.

* Jennifer Ewing

emma can speak for me too. i was in the con law class last semester, and i skipped more than half the time because he never bothered to learn my name. still got an a. when i was there, he had no idea what was going on (“is someone presenting today?”) and either talked about his grand political experiences or what he thought about certain supreme court decisions. i now feel extra justified in saying that the course was a waste of time and money.

Most disturbing are the reports from the classroom on “Moore’s” teaching performance.

I hate to (be the one to) say this given some of the current dynamics on eB. Let me put it this way: I think most alumni here have the experience that the Record has not or will not or cannot investigate such issues with any sort of ability or integrity (count-examples post-1965 welcome). I would thus be glad if they did a good job, whatever that is (I say sarcastically in the sense that no one here will agree on what that is; but I do think that one is possible).

That said, “it is not the Record’s job,” either.

((P.S. This author did found and publish a Williams newsmagazine because of general sickness with the Record of the time, so I claim less objectivity that my usual entire lack. Perspective, however, is another thing.))

I agree with Ben Fleming. The College is not in position to request that people “hold off” on this one. The College hired him.

Ben is also correct in being very concerned about the possibility that Moore got his hands on the laptop with alumni social security numbers.

It is not your job to investigate this. Please hold off, and trust me/the Record to ask these questions.

Yeah, no.