next »

[untenured]

Fair enough.  Someone mentioned Penn State earlier, but that example is probably too different to be usefully analogous.

So OP should have told the gossiper to, bluntly, put up or shut up.

[octoprof]

Fair enough.  Someone mentioned Penn State earlier, but that example is probably too different to be usefully analogous.

So OP should have told the gossiper to, bluntly, put up or shut up.

I wouldn't have worded it that way but, yes, that's really what needs to happen. The gossiper needs to go to the authorities (if appropriate) and shut up (regardless).  OP needs to walk away from gossiper, perhaps far away.

[fishprof]

Would we still be so uniform and vocal in dismissing the evidence outright?

What evidence?  (And Untenured, I know you've already accepted this, but I think it bears repeating)  The Penn State analogy is a poor one, but illustrative nonetheless.  At Penn State, there was an eyewitness account.  That is not hearsay. 

"I know someone who knows someone who heard someone say she heard the spouse say...."  Hearsay ad infinitum nauseum.

 I would hope that we (collectively) would have the same response to any other report of unacceptable behavior - "Really?  How do you know that?  What's the evidence?" 

How many times have we seen unsubstantiated (even demonstrably false) accusation later used to discredit or diminish legitimate claims of discrimination/assault/bigotry etc. etc?   Incidentally, for purposes of advice to the OP, speculating on the motives of the rumormongers isn't particularly useful either.  Regardless of why they are spreading the rumor, there is either evidence (and it should be pursued) or there isn't (and it should be ignored).  They could be sexist a-holes and correct in their assertions.

 

[oldfullprof]

Someone mentioned Penn State earlier...

I heard Penn State was in receivership, and was becoming a sub-campus of IUP.

[proftowanda]

. . . .The reason I am asking is that critiquing someone on the verge of tenure is something faculty don't approve of generally. . . .

. . . .Idle rumors can ruin a career, whether alleging research misconduct, alleging sexual misconduct, alleging racism, etc.  Rumors should be always nipped in the bud. Evidence should be taken to appropriate authorities. There are no other equitable choices, in general. Both of these should be done (stop rumor mongering or at least choose not to take part in it and take evidence to authorities).  If the "rumors" are true, then the authorities can investigate and take appropriate action.

+1

If I have been read as misdirecting anger at you, OP, apologies.  But as I noted, I have witnessed the impact noted above, a dear friend who was put through this h*ll and never really recovered, and I still am angry about it.  

I'm glad to read in your most recent post about how you will handle this, staying above it and staying away from the petty sorts who spread rumors, if you are not in a position to do anything about resolving them.  Those who are and are not doing so are unprofessional, at the least.  I pity the juniors in such a place.  

[infopri]

What if OP were referring a similar story with similar thin evidence, but the misconduct was an administrator unfairly denying tenure to faculty while only granting it to friends?  What if the misconduct was sexual assault of students, racism, or a subversive effort to close a department and layoff tenured faculty?  Would we still be so uniform and vocal in dismissing the evidence outright?

I don't think the scenarios of misconduct call for grossly different reactions. I think in all these scenarios if we are only talking about bar chat (i.e. random gossip), then that's all it is, gossiping.

Would we still be so uniform and vocal in dismissing the evidence outright?

What evidence?  (And Untenured, I know you've already accepted this, but I think it bears repeating)  The Penn State analogy is a poor one, but illustrative nonetheless.  At Penn State, there was an eyewitness account.  That is not hearsay. 

"I know someone who knows someone who heard someone say she heard the spouse say...."  Hearsay ad infinitum nauseum.

 I would hope that we (collectively) would have the same response to any other report of unacceptable behavior - "Really?  How do you know that?  What's the evidence?" 

I agree completely with octoprof and fishprof.  If the "evidence" suggesting that an instructor had engaged in sexual misconduct or any of the other activities you named were as flimsy as it is here--so flimsy that one cannot in good conscience even call it evidence--then my reaction would be exactly the same as it is in the OP's described situation.  As fishprof says, we are obligated to ask, "How do you know that?  What is the actual evidence (versus hearsay, which is not evidence)?"  And if there is no actual evidence, it's time to shut down the rumor mill.  I have seen way too many cases where there appeared to be "smoke" when in fact there was no fire at all--and people suffered from the gossip and false accusations.  To engage in these activities or encourage them is unconscionable.  (Again, theodosia, I'm not talking about you here, but about the people you called the "tongue waggers.")

If there is evidence of wrongdoing, then it should be brought to the attention of the proper folks and in the proper venue (the P&T committee in this case).  A whispered smear campaign is never the appropriate way to handle alleged faculty misconduct.  And, if there's no actual evidence, then the rumors should be shut down and otherwise ignored.

[mleok]

A bit off topic, but:  Has anyone else noticed misspellings slipping into comments here?  Are fora on auto-correct?

I get a bunch of interesting typos due to autocorrection when posting from my iPad.

[alleyoxenfree]

I have seen way too many cases where there appeared to be "smoke" when in fact there was no fire at all--and people suffered from the gossip and false accusations. 

One should also question the motives of the spouse of the other TT faculty member who is the actual source of these rumors.  Their spouse is said to be struggling.  One wonders at the gender dynamics in that relationship too, as well as any possible advantage to discrediting this apparently successful academic.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious best choice of action: break up the marriage!  THEN it'll all become clear.  It sounds like there are enough interested parties on this prize of a campus that a key party could easily be organized.  Better yet, with all the group's skill at rumor-mongering, why not just start rumors that she is also cheating?  That should get rid of the real "brains" of the marriage and show her for the charlatan that a successful woman in academia must obviously be!