 |
| As of a few minutes ago, the above "faculty profile" of Derek Reeve was still available at the Saddleback College website. |
Judging by data available on Concordia's website, Reeve had been the university's only Poli Sci instructor for recent semesters.
Some have speculated that (1) Concordia let Reeve go and that (2) they did so because of a recent report that he plagiarized several political articles on the San Juan Capistrano Patch. Neither idea has yet been confirmed.
Meanwhile, as far as we know, despite his habit of presenting others' works as his own, Reeve continues to be employed as an instructor at Saddleback College. He was observed teaching his two Poli Sci courses there last week. Further, I just looked at Saddleback College's schedule of courses for the Spring of 2012, and, there, I found that Reeve is scheduled to teach two Poli Sci courses:
The two colleges where Reeve teaches political science, Concordia University and Saddleback, declined to comment on [Reeve’s apparent plagiarism]. A Saddleback spokeswoman suggested it would be inappropriate for the school to say anything because Reeve produced his blogs outside the academic forum. [My emphasis.]Does the latter suggestion imply that Saddleback College is OK with Reeve's repeated plagiarism? I guess so. Wow.
And where's Saddleback's Academic Senate in all this?
18 comments:
Well, it looks like he's got a lot to fall back on... Perhaps he doesn't really need to teach?
For better or for worse, Reeve is the architect of his own ruin.
There are no penalties in the code of conduct.
That's PERFECT. We have a code but if you violate it, there are no penalties. GREAT. WUNDERBAR. That's some catch, that Catch 22. DAMN. Go Saddleback!
This smells a lot like a witch hunt. I am not a supporter of Reeve at all, but come on.
I thought a witch hunt was the systematic persecution of women thought to be "witches" by misogynist religious zealots. The women, of course, were not witches but were killed anyway. Variations in the 50s with McCarthy.
How is attention to this matter - covered in the press - a witch hunt?
I don't see a witch hunt here either.
I see a person - a teacher, a lawyer, a local elected official - doing his damnnedest to draw attention to himself by making a deliberate series of calculatedly provocative public statements in a variety of venues - all in order to catapult himself to greater fame. When some of those statements are examined it is revealed that he plagiarized them.
His own defense is so late and so weak that it defies credulity and certainly brings into question his ability to teach.
Paying attention to this, seeing how our institutions react is not the same as hunting witches.
The trolls have been busy this weekend. One of them dumped a list of dates and events into half a dozen or so "comments." I deleted all but one (to illustrate the trollery).
Evidently, the trolls are getting their "information" from something called the Patriot Update, which is exactly what one might expect it to be: history by incompetent amateurs. Use the link above (provided by one of the trolls). Watch the video at the bottom of the article. Amazing. Conspiracy theories (why MLK supported JFK) mixed with an absolute ignorance of U.S. history combined with cherry picking. The fool on the video even suggests that Democrats/liberals are "changing" history to wash away their record. Hence, the term "Dixiecrats" has now (!) been invented. Etc. Wow.
One more time: after the civil war, southern whites refused to be members of the "Party of Lincoln," the GOP. They became Democrats. That is why, in the 50s and 60s, southern Democrats figure so prominently in the push back against the Civil Rights movement. Starting in the 60s, these southern whites overcame their historical rejection of the GOP and, gradually, they joined the Republican Party. That is why the well-known racist Old South types of Congress since the 60s (Strom Thurmond, et al.) are Republicans, not Democrats.
bvt, the best example of what you're talking about is Jesse Helms. He started out a racist southern Democrat, but in the last forty years of his life, he was a racist southern Republican.
IVC has no code. Go wild!
Please do not feed the troll.
Check this out:
http://americanpolicy.org/more-issues/%e2%80%9cprogressives%e2%80%9d-and-the-art-of-civility.html/
Working on a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Claremont, huh? Looks like when he graduates next year, bvt’s going to have some serious competition. Hurry! Better work on getting him expelled from Claremont as well!
Reeve is not working on a degree in philosophy. He is working on a degree in Political Science.
There’s something interesting about the recent wave of lawyers emerging on the scene. They seem to have a certain over-abundance of self confidence, believe they can do whatever the hell they want, and that they’re somehow untouchable. Case in point is the district’s former VC of HR, Bob King. I guess the bigger their heads are, the harder they fall… This Reeve guy does have a pretty big head too.
Bvt, it does say Doctorate in Philosophy, 2013 there in that graphic. Something about that guys face that just doesn’t add up. Ya think he’s had transplants or something? His nose doesn’t match well with his chin, with his teeth, eyebrows, etc…
7:49, in this country, almost all "doctorates" are Ph.D.s, and thus "doctors of philosophy." So, if one has a Ph.D. in Political Science (or, say, Linguistics), one is a "doctor of philosophy."
Ultimately, the reason for this concerns the history of "philosophy," broadly understood to be the search for knowledge or wisdom. Isaac Newton was not called a scientist; he was called a "natural philosopher." Adam Smith was not called an economist; he was a "moral philosopher." Note, too, that the first scientists were called "philosophers"--or, rather, the first philosophers were both scientists and philosophers. The pre- (and post) Socratics did not divide what today we call philosophy and science. They were all engaged in "philosophy."
--One more thing. Let's leave off commenting on Mr. Reeve's physical appearance. It's irrelevant to anything we should be talking about.
Post a Comment