<p>CIA: Thanks for pointing out that this occurred at Huntsville campus vice the Tuscaloosa campus. My son is considering the Huntsville campus due to its proximity to the Cummins Research Park, its great OOS merit aid (better than Tuscaloosa campus) and its Chemistry program which has 8 separate tracks (he is interested in Materials Science).
As far as whether denial of tenure equals termination, the NY Times reports that at this university, after 6 years, if a professor is not offered tenure, that is actually signalling termination. Supposedly, Ms. Bishop was not offered tenure and had appealed, and her appeal was denied.</p>
<p>I have just one comment - guns are the problem.
I know that it is people that shoot, but the ease of buying a firearm…</p>
<p>Not her first killings–WOW.</p>
<p>[UAH</a> shooting suspect Amy Bishop accidentally shot and killed her brother two decades ago | Breaking News from The Huntsville Times - al.com](<a href=“http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/amy_bishop_suspect_in_uah_shoo.html]UAH”>UAH shooting suspect Amy Bishop accidentally shot and killed her brother two decades ago - al.com)</p>
<p>jaw dropping here.
OK!<br>
wondering how peculiar this woman has been from the get-go, and guessing that this accidental shooting was unknown in her community as part of her personal history</p>
<p>sorry also to see she has four children who are now without a mother.</p>
<p>WOW is right!</p>
<p>!!
this is tragic, now it’s just getting plain interesting, how long before speculation that her killing of her brother was not accidental? I have no basis for this, but I imagine once you’ve shot someone to death it takes the “mystery” out of it - at the very least this is an indication that she knew precisely what she was doing.</p>
<p>Heard (on CNN) yesterday that her husband held the door open for her as she did it - have not heard that since. I wonder what (if any) his involvement really is?</p>
<p>I guess an accidental shooting on her record would not be enough to hurt her chances of being hired, esp. if it can be explained rationally. I am hoping against hope that here were no screaming red flags surrounding this action.</p>
<p>Now, even more than ever, I just cannot wrap my mind around this one. Her children cannot be that old. How tragic for them! I wonder what affect the killing (reportedly accidental, hmmm) of her brother had on her actions yesterday. Why in the h*ll would she even have a gun around after what had happened with her brother??? I presume she wouldn’t have been able to run out and buy a gun the same day - in our state there is a waiting period. So, she made the choice to have a gun around again, having experienced accidentally shooting and killing her brother? Incredible.</p>
<p>What a horrific event.
Several years ago, there was a concerted effort on the part of reporters to include information about whether occupants of motor vehicles were wearing seat belts at the time of motor vehicle accidents. This helped people to have information about this, and it helped to shape laws that could protect public safety.
I think that the same thing should happen after crimes involving guns. The NYT says that the gun has not yet been recovered. When it is, the public should know about this gun. Was it registered? To whom? Where was it obtained? What about the ammunition? What are the laws concerning gun ownership and concealment in the state or country where this gun was obtained, and also where the crime was committed? Would a background check have turned up the prior shooting? Would the law in the state where the gun was obtained have prevented her from registering a gun with her history? If the gun was unregistered or registered to someone else, what is the history of this gun? The public should know about the guns used in every crime and every suicide, and the laws surrounding those guns, so that the public can have the right information to make judgements and policy involving public safety.
I know that gun ownership becomes an emotional issue, but consistent reporting would allow people to analyze this issue more rationally.</p>
<p>the gun has been located in a bathroom…see Huntsville papers</p>
<p>Faline2, my experience with university promotions is that they are different in intensity and duration from corporate promotions and I’d guess from law or accounting firm promotions. First, the tenure review can effectively take a year, in which people are sort of poking or prodding you (I don’t know if this is universal but I’ve only been on the faculty at one school as I chose to leave academia well before a tenure decision to go into the private sector). Second, you prepare this elaborate document explaining everything you’ve done and what your contributions are and how they fit into various literatures. (I’ve read a few of these). At the university where I taught, they send all of your material to outside reviewers and ask if you are the best person in the world in your field today – not taking into account that you’ve only been working for a few years and they’ll be comparing you with others who’ve been at work for 20 or so years. And, short of molesting students or killing other faculty members, it is permanent. Law firms can and sometimes do get rid of partners who aren’t producing like they were expected to. In companies, people who are not doing well often get one or two negative reviews, but the firing is all hush-hush and rehearsed so that you say nothing actionable but it is foisted in surprise on the employee. What Bishop did is still workplace violence, but the process is probably significantly longer, significantly more involved, and significantly more intense.</p>
<p>If an Assistant Professor is denied tenure and leaves the university, how difficult is it for that individual to obtain tenure at another university? Is the tenure denial a black mark against that person which makes finding new employment difficult? I am just curious if this woman assumed this was the end of her career.</p>
<p>Also, what is the difference between as Associate and an Assistant Professor? Sorry for all the questions but the issue of tenure has always interested me. Thanks.</p>
<p>[At</a> an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly, Officials Say - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14alabama.html]At”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14alabama.html)</p>
<p>Here’s another link to the story. According to the article, she used a 9mm hand gun—of course, she didn’t have a permit for the gun.</p>
<p>shawbridge, I don’t agree that the travails of tenure are worse than the same critical moments in the lives of people in many other professions…look what just happened to Chrysler Dealers across the country and you can’t equate that to homicide as an outcome. I would agree that the tenure system is destructive and hurts a talented core of people who worked to get doctorates and to master a great deal of knowledge.
I have two friends who made it into tenured positions, in each case, a close scholar colleague and friend was essentially “cut loose” and not offered a slot, which was described in detail to me as traumatic for all, regrettable, not a good system… but the way the game was played, with slimmer prospects than before for the person passed over. Same thing in major law firms…hire two people, seven years later as one ages up, starts balding, gets a home mortgage etc, one associate gets to stay and enter a very slow partnership track… the other gets to shop for a job with the onus of being let go on his/her resume. I am surprised tenure is getting this much airtime.<br>
This woman is likely insane. I get that the tenure system is painful and fraught with issues. But try firing anyone based on their mental health issues. I am guessing that her mental health issues were very much part of her problem and that the staff tried to let “the process” move her out quietly as they feared her and feared litigation.</p>
<p>BobbyCT:</p>
<p>The answers to your questions depend on a lot of factors. Denial of tenure from Harvard or similar is NOT a black mark against you insofar as obtaining another tenure-track, or even already tenured position, at a good university, assuming the denial was not based on some really flagrant violation of behavioral norms, or refusal to teach undergraduates, etc. In some fields, young faculty take positions at Harvard assuming they will not be getting tenure, but spend their time assembling a good research record, making contacts and so on.</p>
<p>However, as Marite state upthread, denial of tenure from a satellite campus of a mid-ranked public U system may be another story, especially in a case like this, where the person seems to be older and has probably already been in other positions that did not pan out. At the least, it would probably be difficult to get a position that included her own research laboratory. She may well have seen this as the end of the road for an academic life.</p>
<p>While not all systems use the same terminology, those I am familiar with call all new, non-tenured faculty assistant professors if they have a PhD (instructors if they haven’t finished the PhD). In general, being granted tenure–often the six-year mark is standard–brings with it a promotion to associate professor. Some faculty never move past associate, but many earn promotion to full professor after a few years. The differences include pay, assignment to departmental committees (i.e. a say in departmental governance), and the title probably helps bring in research money.</p>
<p>However, I have seen departments with heavy undergraduate enrollment in fields like chemistry and math in which many teaching faculty are granted tenure but remain as assistant professors forever. They have a ‘permanent’ job but do not participate in departmental governance.</p>
<p>Again, there is a lot of variation among schools and departments within schools.</p>
<p>The Boston Globe story has some talk from police who were involved at the time that there was some kind of cover up surrounding the shooting of her brother – that it wasn’t just an accident unloading the gun, but that she was arguing with him before she killed him. Who knows. A horrible tragedy. My sympathies are with the victims, not with the woman who did this. A lot of people deal with unfair employment decisions without resorting to murder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that is interesting. </p>
<p>I concur with Faline that this woman was perceived to be dangerous and that contributed to the negative tenure vote, no matter how many inventions she had developed.</p>
<p>midmo-the same thing happens in law firms-associates can become partners, just not equity partners. They could remain in those positions forever.</p>
<p>This story is not about the tenure process. I have my qualms with tenure, both the concept and the process as it plays out, but that is not relevant here. This woman is violent, possibly not sane, and may well have wreaked havoc on co-workers (or students) at some point even if she had been granted tenure.</p>
<p>Can’t wait to hear more about this cover-up from 1986.</p>
<p>notre dame AL. Yes, I have heard that. The permanent assistant profs I have known are not unhappy in their positions. They get to concentrate on teaching and interaction with undergraduates. They are not expected to do research. If you don’t like research, there are worse ways to make a living than hanging around a university developing intro. level courses. Not a lot of money, no travel to fancy conferences, but it is not a bad life for those who like it.</p>
<p>I don’t know if that is the case for non-equity partners in law firms.</p>