How does this compare to the Gangelhof paperwriting scandal?

[dbmn]

What an a..wipe. Nobody asked you to comment.

 

[ShushPush]

It doesn’t compare at all. The Gandelhof fiasco ruined my gopher basketball team for 27 years. Where in this one, some lady did something stupid and got fired or quit and I don’t give a damn.

IDK about your comments and invalid points to the entire argument going on between 2 people. Originally, I wanted to know why the academic employee was given 30 days before being fired. What does anything you said contribute to answering that question. Answer: nothing.

Because Jan Gangelhoff self-reported and was the whistle blower she received time to complete her voluntary testimony. I am surprised you didn't raise any hackles about Mark Dienhart's treatment.

 

[atsgopher]

IDK about your comments and invalid points to the entire argument going on between 2 people. Originally, I wanted to know why the academic employee was given 30 days before being fired. What does anything you said contribute to answering that question. Answer: nothing.

Just getting into the thread. So following your oosts through.

It is interesting questions you bring up.

This researcher doesn’t appear to have been fired. Instead, the article claims she is leaving of her own accord. I found that corroborated. A bit shocking.

Moreover, the First complaint, was not done by the current accuser; someone else complained about this specific instance of plagerism a year before. Apparently this was acknowledged by the U. Obviously nothing occurred. The official

Reading up on her reveals it isn’t the only accusation.

Moreover, her groundbreaking research was crapped out, upon replication anyhow…. She forgot that statistics actually is a science that needs to be practiced.

It appears to me that the U is buying the, “this is just a mistake,” excuse. Which to me is available only to an crappy undergrad. That is limited to their first 2 years….

What a sham.

 

[ShushPush]

The investigation was done prior to the firing/termination of guilt so the "proof" was already determined... The issue I have is why a person employed by the state/government has a different set of rules than the other 99.9% of people working in the "real" world.

So, your concern isn't about the law of the land but your perception that people get different treatment when they get vilified in the press. I can tell you, both employees had sufficient time to address the issue and present their side of the story. They could have chosen to file their own wrongful termination suits and did not or did not win. Either way, the system was available to them to utilize. That is the real world and just because you color it differently doesn't make your claims any more valid.