And If You Believe This…
Posted on March 13th, 2013 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Faust’s statement further said that she had been informed in September of a potential breach in confidentiality surrounding the school disciplinary board’s handling of the cheating case and was also told the concern had been resolved, but was not “informed of specifics.”
A claim that doesn’t pass the smell test…
3 Responses
3/13/2013 10:33 am
I believe that to be 100% true.
It’s actually much easier to believe this than to envision a world in which both of the following are true:
1) The Dean of the Faculty believed that the ABRDs were important enough to justify seeking clearance from the President before searching their e-mail; and
2) The Dean of the Faculty believed that the ABRD’s were unimportant enough to have their e-mail searched without complying with the search-notification policy.
3/13/2013 10:43 am
But SE, you also believed that Smith and Hammonds’ statement. And look where we are with that.
Also, I don’t think statement #1 is as clear-cut as you do, but in any event Faust could have been told after the fact.
In any event, your construction is fallacious. The dean didn’t have to believe the *ABRDs* were important, but that finding the source of the leak was important. So by saying in point 1 that the dean believed they were important, but that in point two he believed they were unimportant, you’ve constructed a deceptive logic.
3/13/2013 11:09 am
“finding the source of the leak was important”
Yep — that’s why they told the President that they were going to find it, and then told her when they had found it. Totally consistent with the story we have: she needed to know what was going on but did not need “details” about the way low-level deans were being handled. I wonder if she would have known that ABRDs are in fact “faculty”? It seems likely that Hammonds knew it (at some point), and that OGC knew the faculty policy, but the two dots never got connected.
I have explained the other falsehood in two posts now; it is MUCH more parsimoniously explained as a mistake (arising from leadership failures of communication, and outsourcing to lawyers) than as a lie.
To be frank, I find communication failures like this one (having a lawyer write your statement to the community you lead) more insidious than lying, because more commonplace and reconcilable with a typical bureaucratic self-image.