The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Doctor Cleveland's picture

    Not About Tenure. Seriously.

    By Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 11:41pm | Social Justice, Personal

    Friday, at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a biology professor named Amy Bishop murdered three of her colleagues and wounded three others. Two of the people she wounded are still in critical condition, and I offer my sincere hopes for their complete and swift recovery. The murderer had been denied tenure in the department, and media coverage has centered on the question of tenure. Tenure, that strange and exotic academic rite, is obviously the hook for this story, and the resulting coverage is appalling.

    The New York Times headline for their story today (which doesn't deserve a link) is "At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly, Official Say." There's something appalling about the passive construction in that sentence, as if it's the "setback" that did the killing. But the story, with its emphasis on "the pressure-cooker world of academic startups" is worse. It also undermines its own angle: the killer's potentially lucrative biotech startup was going well. Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed fautously links to an old article about faculty who have minor breakdowns after being turned down for tenure, as if one could compare a shouting incident or a distarught person climbing up an ivy trellis with cold-blooded murder. (No link for you either, IHD.) The general thrust of the coverage is that the tenure process is so painful and stressful that an otherwise normal person might snap and become violent.

    Let me just say, as someone going through the tenure process: bullshit.

    On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough. [UPDATE: It is now clear from the testimony of eyewitnesses that Bishop shot her victims based on where they were sitting, going down the line until her gun jammed. So there is no evidence of racial intent on Bishop's part.]

    These murders are not about tenure. They are about Amy Bishop's moral failings. Those failings might or might not include racism. But a person who responds to a career setback by cold-bloodedly murdering three people, and attempting to kill three more, is not the victim of a difficult process. Amy Bishop is a horribly defective human being. Whatever complaints she may have had a week ago, she has forfeited any right to make them.

    I'm as conscious as anybody can be about how tense the tenure process can make a person. I've spent the last year going through it. And even the smoothest and most successful process has some moments that are absolutely infuriating. Sometimes over the last year, reading bureaucratic documents about myself, I've felt myself turning into a thin-skinned prima donna. (I've since reverted to my normal personality, for better or worse.) Sometimes, one sentence or paragraph could becloud a whole day. My case is fairly close to the end, but there have certainly been moments when I've imagined myself being turned down, and considered game plans for denial. But you know what never crossed my mind? Doing anyone physical harm. Some of my friends have had disputed cases, been turned down, been forced to appeal the final decision. You know what I've never heard them talk about? Retaliating against anyone personally. You know why not? Because that would be insane. It never even crosses a healthy person's mind.

    UPDATE (for our friends at vdare):

    Apparently we've gotten a link from James Fulfiord at vdare, who claims that Bishop shot her minority colleagues because they were on her tenure review committee. There are two problems with this.

    First, Fulford just made it up. Fulford offers no evidence of who was on Bishop's hiring committee. He just asserts that it was composed of nearly all of the minorities in the department. Arguments, of course, are easier when you can make up your own facts.

    Second, the known facts contradict Fulford's assertion. Two of Bishop's victims (one who died and one who was wounded) are listed on the UAH website as assistant professors, which means they did not have tenre themselves. Procedures for tenure vary slightly from discipline to discipline, but untenured faculty are almost universally excluded from voting on others' tenure decisions (for obvious reasons, I think). So Bishop shot two people who could not have been involved in the decision to deny her tenure (a decision made during the 2008-2009 academic year). But those two victims happened to be an African-American and a Latino.

    As I said before, I have no idea whether Bishop was motivated by racial animus or not. But insisting that she wasn't or couldn't be seems peculiar.

    Topics: 
    Social Justice
    Personal

    Comments

    There is the possibility that Amy Bishop has been taking antidepressants since the death of her brother over 20 years ago.

    The Physicians Desk Reference states that SSRI antidepressants and all antidepressants can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, hostility, etc.  These side effects can also appear during withdrawal. Also, these adverse reactions are not listed as Rare but are listed as either Frequent or Infrequent.

    Go to www.SSRIstories.com where there are over 3,600 cases, with the full media article available, involving bizarre murders, suicides, school shootings/incidents  [53 of these] and murder-suicides - all of which involve SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc, . The media article usually tells which SSRI antidepressant the perpetrator was taking or had been using


    by Rosiecee (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 12:33am

    Race? Why would it be about race? This lefty moonbat loved Obama. This murderer was obsessed with Obama.

    "A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0

     


    by Daves (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 1:12am

    I don't know. I only brought it up because she killed all the black people in the room. And I tend to think when someone kills or tries to kill all of the minorities in a room, discussing race should be on the table.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 1:32am

    But, you don't seem to have any more evidence that racism played any part in these murders than Fulford and his "hiring committee" theory has. Killing minorities doesn't in and of itself make one a racist; killing minorities because they are minorities does. And while there is ample evidence of the former, there is no evidence of the latter. And really, there isn't evidence that she tried to kill all the minorities in the room, either. Most reports I've read suggest she was trying to kill everyone in the room, one by one, in order. (In fact, the argument can be made that it was the people in the room to whom she was closest--physically, but perhaps emotionally, as well--Who do you sit next to, in staff meetings?--who she aimed at first, and had the most chance of killing.) I'm not saying racism needs to be removed from the table, but I would like to see more than just speculation about it, if it is to remain...

    And as far as the tenure argument... I read the coverage differently. It isn't that the tenure process is so stressful that a normal person may snap, but that it is so stressful that an already abnormal person might... (keeping in mind that such everyday things as being terminated from one's job, losing a love, or finding dirty dishes in the sink... ...again!!; have been enough to send the right (or perhaps "not-so-right") person off on a killing spree.

    No, it ain't tenure... it's her reaction to being denied tenure, together with her psychological make-up, and other factors that we may or may not ever know about.


    by repsac3 (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 3:07pm

    Yes, respac. That's why I say I have no idea of  Bishop's motives. I really don't.

    And my read on it has been said much better by Prudence Gourguechon in Psychology Today:

    Stress, disappointment, PTSD, frustration, burnout, loss,  shame and humiliation DO NOT LEAD A HUMAN BEING TO PICK UP A GUN AND START KILLING HIS OR HER FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. Not having examined them, I can  not know what is wrong, psychiatrically, with these killers, but I know that something is. And it's not these human difficulties I just listed that are constantly referenced in the media stories.

    It is important to distinguish between triggers--what might light the fuse--and the explosives that lead to the catastrophe.

    (h/t to University Diaries, who has been, for my money, the absolutely best blogger on this story)


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 4:50pm

    I believe you when you say you have no idea of Bishop's motives. But when you also list the racial makeup of each victim, talk about a racial purge of the biology department, and wonder aloud whether or not she intended to do so (again, with no more evidence to say she did intend it than those who speculate that it was the stressfulness of failing to get tenure that set her off), you seem to be writing as though you believe racism could've been a motive. (and at least one blog is quoting your wording, and suggesting that that is exactly what you are saying.) It isn't that the question of a racial motive isn't exotic enough; (indeed, as someone else here commented, the media would jump on that like the ebony & ivory of a piano keyboard, if there was even a whiff of a possibility. The reason so few are discussing it as a possible motive is that there's nothing in the way of evidence for it. She simply started with the person closest to her on her right (or maybe left), and went down the line, in order. No one is saying she chose the people who were not white, first. She simply chose the person next to her, and then the person next to him, and so on, in order. The only reason minorities were shot is same reason that only biology professors were shot. They were the people in the room at the time. If one of the professors had brought his spouse from the PoliSci department to the meeting, there's a good chance that a PoliSci professor might've been shot (or shot at), as well. In fact, from reading the post @ UD about Bishop's friend, Professor Debra Moriarity, one gets the impression that Bishop was anything but discriminatory in choosing her victims. If she was picking and choosing only those who her warped mind was telling her deserved killing--whether it was the non-white folks, the men, the professors with the most seniority or power over tenure decisions, or the ones who were wearing brown shoes--the number of injured & dead might be lower. I agree that you have no idea of Bishop's motives, or that I do either. But I still maintain that speculation is permitting you a racial flight of fancy that the facts cannot fuel. (And, even that would be fine, if other bloggers weren't grabbing hold of your fancy flights and pretending they bear any resemblance to reality)

    by repsac3 (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 11:12pm

    being obsessed with obama doesn't negate the possibility that her shootings were racially-motivated. given the demographic profile of biology professors in the U.S., it would be highly unlikely that this event occurred randomly.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 10:59am

    As James Fulford at vdare has pointed out -- though not in so many words -- the relevant population is *not* the overall biology faculty of US institutions, it is those who sit on hiring/tenure committees. Given the push for 'diversity' , it seems likely such committees are disproportionately 'minority.' Just a hypothesis, but one that has face validity.


    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 11:55pm

    I suspect that might have been what was going through her head and may be why she shot them. Whether or not they were "disproportionately" represented, that she shot all of them does make one question whether it was a coincidence. Even the most liberal person might suddenly get symptoms of racism if they feel that they were denied tenure because they weren't the "correct" race (it doesn't matter if it's true or not, just if that's what she felt). I hope it's clear I'm not excusing her behavior, I'm merely attempting to understand what I can about it. The behavior itself is inexcusable.


    by Nebton on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 10:05am

    As James Fulford at vdare fails to understand, the population of those who sit on tenure committees is made up of people who already have tenure.

    Let me be clear: Bishop shot two people who could NOT have been involved in her tenure decision, people who are still listed as assistant professors on the UAH website. One of those people was black, and one was latino.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 11:48am

    As Racist McRacist at Racosity.com said in his normally racist tone with undercurrents of racismness, I blame Affirmative Action.


    by William K. Wolfrum on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 2:35pm

    Looking more into the case, I accept some of your point. I originally thought the shooting occurred at the actual tenure committee, when it took place at a scheduling meeting. Having said that, both Davis and Johnson are said by the Chronicle to be associate, not assistant, professors. I have looked to find the actual committee members, but have not had success. At any rate, as more emerges, it is pretty clear this lady had serious problems for a long time.

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 10:40pm

    I can't help but recall a similar massacre in my home town of Iowa City in 1991. A physics graduate student murdered three professors, a fellow grad student, and a university administrator because his dissertation didn't win the department's top prize. But in that case, the murder was a Chinese immigrant, so the coverage of course focused on the murderer's nationality and culture rather than academic stress.

    Once again, you have a great eye for challenging the received wisdom of the media narrative.

    David Byrne - "The Moment of Conception":

    Blame my school and blame my parents
    And the genes that I inherit
    Blame it on my older sister for showing me her dirty pictures
    Blame the TV and the movies
    Blame the lawyers and the juries


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 9:53am

    I hope YOU do not get tenure.  Not only are you trying to make this a story about "racial purge" (which is dispicable of you), but you clearly seem to think that you are somehow more clever than everyone else.

    Not only is tenure on its way out (thankfully, after far too long) but those in higher education (yes, ALL professors and department heads) who weild their tenure like a weapon are to be partly blamed for the growing sense of frustration with the whole tenure process.

    Tenure is NOT about academic freedom. Tenure is about POWER. When academics lord their presumed power over their students, their colleagues and their schools, they are NOT shouting about academic freedom and job security. The power of tenure is used to crush graduate students, to defend lazy work habits and crap science, and to cause a stale stench to fill the halls of academe.

    TENURE NEEDS TO GO. And this is one reason: You.  Look at this crap article you have written where your REAL intent is to try to say, "Look at me! I'm up for tenure and I'm fine."  I hope you don't get it -- especially if this is the quality of your writing and thinking.

    You seem to want to make this about "racial purge" when it is merely about being flipping crazy. The woman was nuts. That's aside from her tenure woes.

    Tenure sucks. Everyone knows it and no one can do anything about it. It turns normally nice people (like junior professors in my department) into blithering idiots who kowtow to any and all stupid demands of their department. In short, tenure turns nice people into assholes.

    TENURE NEEDS TO GO IN AMERICA. GET OVER YOURSELF AND WORK FOR YOUR JOB ALWAYS, not just for 3 years during some review process.  I'm surprised more people don't blast their way out of messed up meetings where colleagues (who stand to gain) belittle and disregard work.

    "Oh, we can't do that...we're up for tenure", is a disgusting refrain and it needs to end. Tenuring professors halts advances in science, not the opposite.  There is plenty of "academic freedom" (and freedom in general) in the U.S. that we do not need to give shitty professors and mean people any more job security than the rest of us.

    Tenure turns people into jerks, it stops progress, it provides a "stupid shield" where people are allowed to be lazy and mean.  More universities have been getting rid of tenure lately (over decades) and that is a GOOD THING.

    TENURE NEEDS TO GO! KILL TENURE, NOT PEOPLE.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 12:35pm

    Tenure turns people into jerks, it stops progress, it provides a "stupid shield" where people are allowed to be lazy and mean.

    Sort of like the blogosphere. Thanks for sharing.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 12:46pm

    Congratulations to you on nearing completion of your tenure track, however there are a few facts and observations that I would like to point out:

     

    1. Not all disciplines are alike, even within such a diverse and broad heading of arts and sciences. How you can speak for the tenure obligations of all disciplines across all institutions is beyond me. It smacks of the intellectual hubris commonly found in academe.

     

    2. While this is a blog and not an actual piece of journalism, you may be forgiven for rendering your judgement on stories that, not only appear in respected journals, but have to go through a more rigorous process than merely recording personal meanderings. However, it does nothing to establish yourself as impartial.

     

    3. Since there has been a push within most institutions for ethnic diversity (affirmative action notwithstanding), it might be common to find a plethora of people of diverse racial backgrounds within any given academic department. It may be that their bad luck just happened to be that they happened to be there.

     

    4. As far as what thoughts cross a sane's person mind or not, last I checked, the jury was still out on that one. I will state, however, that certain evolutionary psychologists (like David Buss from UT Austin) might take exception with your rather narrow criteria for sanity.

     

    In conclusion, Dr. Cleveland, I will venture that your tone and your quick judgement, both to all of the facts surrounding this case (which is still under investigation), as well as the moral failings and defects of Mrs. Bishop, whom you may or may not know personally but who, in our judicial system, is still innocent of any pending charges, bespeak the continuation of the very same arrogance that gave rise to the tradition of tenure in the first place. I am not familiar with your work or any of your academic publications, but I would hope, for the sake of the most basic academic standards of competence, is more wholly thought out than what you have written in this blog.

     

    Good luck to you, sir!


    by B. Castillo (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 7:37pm

    • Job security in general and the tenure process in particular certainly are stressful and, like any major stressor, people respond differently. Even “normal” people respond within a wide range of behaviors.

    • “…Inside Higher Ed fautously links to an old article about faculty who have minor breakdowns after being turned down for tenure, as if one could compare a shouting incident or a distarught person climbing up an ivy trellis with cold-blooded murder.” Certainly those reactions can be compared. They’re simply varying degrees of breakdown.

    • “The general thrust of the coverage is that the tenure process is so painful and stressful that an otherwise normal person might snap and become violent.” You’ve backed yourself into a corner by having to define normal. Aside from that, how can we say it absolutely could not happen to an “otherwise normal person”? Simply because it’s not common? Simply because neither you nor your colleagues have had the urge?

    • I feel the race of those she killed is irrelevant, and, trust me, the question is “exotic” enough for the press to explore (given America’s race obsession); I merely think they found no basis for the question (especially seeing as how she respected Obama) so they’re focusing on tenure instead.

    by M. Williams (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 7:48pm

    im sorry - a couple of people commenting here have tried to argue the legal definition of sanity (and one even reminded us not to forget that this person is thus far to be presumed innocent) - but for the majority of us who don't have to be hamstrung by legal arcana, such arguments are asinine. Normal, sane people don't go around killing people in their workplaces. It's as simple as that. And it's why i find all three of your first bullet points very odd.

    i do agree with your last point, and i found that to be a curious point the Good Doctor seemed to be making - if there is a race issue here, it would absolutely be 'exotic' enough for the press to explore.


    by Deadman on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 10:44am

    Egads! I see where all the nutballs are coming from. Cleveland, you've been linked by vdare.com. Vdare is a blog/forum where xenophobes and white-supremacists frolic. It was founded by Peter Brimelow, a former editor at the National Review until Buckley purged the staff xenophobes in the late 90s. He gained fame for his bestselling anti-immigrant screed, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, which is especially amusing because Brimelow is himself an immigrant from the UK. VDare originated the "War Against Christmas" that became such an obsession to the good folks of FOX News.

    Brimelow is also known for his mesmerizing hipster hairdo...


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 9:35pm

    No, vdare is a website that features the writings of immigration restrictionists who hold a variety of opinions about politics and race. And zero of those are 'white supremacists', though some can fairly be called white nationalists -- think Marcus Garvey or Malcolm X, but for white folks.

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 11:58pm

    I see. So these white nationalists don't hate blacks and hispanics; they just want to protect white people from being victimized by the black and hispanics. Have I got that right?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 12:28am

    Sadly, Mr. Young did not take the bate. So let's go straight to the horse's mouth. Here's Brimelow on "white nationalism:"

    We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they  unashamedly work for their people—exactly as  La Raza works for Latinos and the  Anti-Defamation League works for Jews.

    See, white supremacists have a bad rap these days due to poor dental hygiene and an unfortunate tendency to string black people from trees. But the white nationalists are separate-but-equal kind of guys. They have no problem with dark-skinned folks so long as they stay in their own countries and don't mess up America with their low IQs, laziness, and criminal tendencies. They just want to protect the white folks.

    But there aren't too many cross-burning white supremacists these days. The folks that used to call themselves white supremacists have embraced the vocabulary of civil rights. For instance, there is an Anti-Defamation League for white people. It's called the Christian Defense League. The founder is a former Klansman who wrote in a fundraising letter, "The NAACP represents the negro; the ADL represents the Jews; who represents YOU — the white Christian?" There's also an NAAWP. You can probably guess what that stands for. The founder is also a former Klansman. You may have heard of him. His name is David Duke.

    The thoroughly modern racist understands that the days of white-hood-chic are long past. The new game is called "hide the hate." And vdare.com is one of their favorite places to play.

    For more on vdare, go to http://www.splcenter.org/vdare-foundation.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 7:07am

    Genghis, if vdare published David Duke you might have a point, but they don't. Indeed even Jarrod Taylor doesn't publish David Duke, so you can't even get vdare through 'linking'. Duke has attended Taylor's Amren conferences, but as a a paying, non-invited attendee AFAIK. So, big swing and big miss, great Khan.(And no, I have not attended Amren events.

    Moreover, linking to the so-called southern poverty law center to 'discredit' vdare is like linking to the Socialist Worker to discredit Bill Gates. The spcl has an agenda and that is anti white folks asserting any sort of collective identity or organizing to protect their interests. They attempt to make such activity beyond the pale -- but it is not and shouldn't be.

    Of course there is good money in it and the spcl leadership profits handsomely. Here is a great exposé published in Harpers, unfortunately behind a pay wall.

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709

    Here's one by noted lefty Alexander Cockburn

    http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05152009.html

     

     


    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 10:29pm

    You missed my point. I referenced Duke to discredit "white nationalism," since Duke offers the same "protect the white people" b.s. that you and Brimelow try to get away with. I believe that Duke also rejects violence and calls himself a white nationalist. So what's the difference between a Taylor and a Duke?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:38am

    "I believe that Duke also rejects violence and calls himself a white nationalist. So what's the difference between a Taylor and a Duke?" First Duke actually was in the klan. Second Duke used to parade around in a Nazi uniform. I'm not an expert on David Duke's )or Taylor's for that matter) policy position, but I'll be there are quite a few other differences. Now I have a question for you. What's the difference between La Raza -- and yes, La Raza means biological race or breed, as in 'un perro de raza pastor aleman' -- advocating for their choosen group and Taylor's advocating for his?

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 8:01am

    NCLR advocates against racial intolerance. Taylor pretends to advocate against racial intolerance as cover for promoting racial intolerance. Like David Duke.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 8:45am

    NCLR advocates for what it sees as 'La Raza', it is an ethnic/racial interest group. What percentage of its press releases, or its staff's time, is spent on trying to stop the racial killings between 'Latino' and black gangs in LA

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/17race.html

     

    versus trying to get more of their own group into the US, whether by amnesty for illegal immigrants, legal harassment of those who enforce immigration law, or other means?

     


    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 11:24am

    You're changing the subject.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:06pm

    No, just pointing out what La Raza does... and what it doesn't do.

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:36pm

    No, just changing the subject from the intolerance of vdare contributors to the alleged misdeeds of the people these contributors despise, thereby rationalizing the intolerance. It's an old trick.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 3:38pm

    The 'tolerance' that La Raza preaches is for the tolerance of illegal immigration.

    If La Raza was about tolerance, we'd seem them fighting the sort of activity I've linked to. Likewise, the ADL is *intolerant* of anyone who criticizes Israel (see the campaign against Mearsheimer and Walt). 'Tolerance' is the first, last, and only refuge of the ethnic activist group.


    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 12:21am

    That might be true (I don't know anything about La Raza, so I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), but La Raza isn't the subject.


    by Nebton on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 9:58am

    And ... someone whom takes the screen name 'Genghis' shouldn't be complaining about any sort of supremacist.

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 12:00am

    Uh...touché?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 12:29am

    Nice to see some good humor from a vdare critic...should have known from your post on Brimelow's hair you'd be a good sport.

    by Mitchell Young (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 1:14am

    That department effed with the wrong person that time.  Amy was a pretty good shot.  I appears she hit all in the head!  Bullseye!


    by ScottD (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 1:41am

    1. The additional aspect of the shooting taking place in a region historically known for its intense racism makes the racial/ethnic aspects newsworthy. While the accused shooter was not Southern, the school is located in a part of the country where brooding resentments over affirmative action and ultimately desegregation remain part of the cultural landscape. The election of a black president has only intensified those tensions.

    2. Clearly the context is not the only aspect of this event any more than the woman's mental health status. But all of these factors must be considered if we truly wish to understand this event rather than simply come to a quick - but largely erroneous - judgment for purposes of blame.

    3. Having watched a number of tenure processes, I can relate to the pressures but also to the politics often involved. The former is enough to make one hostile, the latter enough to make one paranoid. If this woman's history is any indication, her manner of resolving conflict involves violence. But having the entire future of one's life dismantled by a tenure committee could be enough to tip anyone across the line toward aggession if not violence under these circumstances. Note, I do not blame the department or the university here, but I can readily see how this could occur.

    4. The hostility of the comments here regarding tenure and university faculty generally is precisely the reason tenure exists. While laziness is clearly alive and well in higher education, like any other profession, it is as much the exception to the rule here as it is anywhere else. That people begin with presumptions that teachers of all stripes are lazy, incompetent, et al means that we do our work in an adversarial context of suspicion and often hostility. That's why tenure exists - to protect educators from the largely irrational, generally uncritical negativity of the public. Add to that the political aspects - both in terms of personal ambition and concerns for security as well as the ideological dimension - of administrators, and the need for tenure is readily apparent to anyone willing to see it.

    For the record, I am an instructor at a public mega-university. I have no protection of tenure. I am ata best ambivalent about the rigors of a tenure track pursuit and the potential protection attainment of tenure would provide.

     


    by frharry (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 9:13am

    The race card is always dealt in situations in attempt to answer the impossible. Millions and millions of tax dollars are at stake every year in attempts to understand criminals, or the criminally insane. While I do not believe Amy Bishop can use a defense of incompetent by reasons of insanity, she does not have a decent head on her shoulders.  The University of Alabama, Huntsville has a making of 32% minorities in the year 2007. With a great number of minorities on campus the probability of randomly firing would be around 1 in 3, if Amy Bishop was to shoot six bullets she would approximately hit two in six minorities. With that being said, the race card should be thrown into the muck.

    The underlying “cause” to this is dead money, the idea that a person needs a reason to kill is lacking in the knowledge of what actually happens in the justice system.  A criminal act, in order to be prosecuted must have two things, mens rea, and actus rea; you must have the guilty mind, and commit a guilty act. Amy Bishop was on tilt, she was carrying a gun before receiving the verdict of being denied tenure.  Amy Bishop was going all in with nothing.

     You say “it never even crosses a healthy person’s mind” and killing never does, because criminals can hold a good bluff.


    by PSU Student (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 11:33pm

    The race card is always dealt in situations in attempt to answer the impossible. Millions and millions of tax dollars are at stake every year in attempts to understand criminals, or the criminally insane. While I do not believe Amy Bishop can use a defense of incompetent by reasons of insanity, she does not have a decent head on her shoulders.  The University of Alabama, Huntsville has a making of 32% minorities in the year 2007. With a great number of minorities on campus the probability of randomly firing would be around 1 in 3, if Amy Bishop was to shoot six bullets she would approximately hit two in six minorities. With that being said, the race card should be thrown into the muck.

    The underlying “cause” to this is dead money, the idea that a person needs a reason to kill is lacking in the knowledge of what actually happens in the justice system.  A criminal act, in order to be prosecuted must have two things, mens rea, and actus rea; you must have the guilty mind, and commit a guilty act. Amy Bishop was on tilt, she was carrying a gun before receiving the verdict of being denied tenure.  Amy Bishop was going all in with nothing.

     You say “it never even crosses a healthy person’s mind” and killing never does, because criminals can hold a good bluff.


    by PSU Student (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 11:35pm

    The race card is always dealt in situations in attempt to answer the impossible. Millions and millions of tax dollars are at stake every year in attempts to understand criminals, or the criminally insane. While I do not believe Amy Bishop can use a defense of incompetent by reasons of insanity, she does not have a decent head on her shoulders.  The University of Alabama, Huntsville has a making of 32% minorities in the year 2007. With a great number of minorities on campus the probability of randomly firing would be around 1 in 3, if Amy Bishop was to shoot six bullets she would approximately hit two in six minorities. With that being said, the race card should be thrown into the muck.

    The underlying “cause” to this is dead money, the idea that a person needs a reason to kill is lacking in the knowledge of what actually happens in the justice system.  A criminal act, in order to be prosecuted must have two things, mens rea, and actus rea; you must have the guilty mind, and commit a guilty act. Amy Bishop was on tilt, she was carrying a gun before receiving the verdict of being denied tenure.  Amy Bishop was going all in with nothing.

     You say “it never even crosses a healthy person’s mind” and killing never does, because criminals can hold a good bluff.


    by PSU Student on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 11:39pm