When it comes to Jessica McBride, is Ed Flynn the cop who can't stop? That's unclear.
But it is clear that some at UWM view the school's journalism department as a joke as they gave Jessica McBride the nod for the equivalent of tenture.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Bucher's divorce filing comes less than a month after the executive committee of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's department of journalism and mass communication voted 3-2 to recommend that McBride be given indefinite status - the equivalent of tenure for academic staff.
McBride, a lecturer in the journalism department and a columnist for The Freeman, was represented by Bucher during the process. The recommendation for indefinite status still must be approved by the dean and provost.
Why is this disturbing? It's not because Jessica McBride is deeply ignorant, it's not because of the affair, it's not because of her politics. It's because she is a disaster as a journalist. The Brawler and others have long documented her history of character assassination, her disregard for accuracy (not the same as objectivity) and general slipshod journalistic ethics.
And, grudgingly, Milwaukee Magazine editor Bruce Murphy (who previously defended McBride) shed light on Jessica McBride's behavior as a practicing journalist when this sordid affair came to light.
Bruce Murphy:
I think I was too defensive in reacting to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story reporting the affair between McBride and Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn. Worse, I am guilty of the same thing I accused JS reporter Daniel Bice of: I failed to do due diligence regarding the situation.
Specifically, I neglected to demand from McBride all of the e-mails between her and Flynn. I have now done that and was taken aback at what I received. (Brawler's bold) The e-mails do confirm that, other than their one interview in December, McBride and Flynn never met face-to-face until May 1, at their now-infamous encounter at an Irish bar. (In fact, Flynn was using his office e-mail account until then, which suggests neither McBride nor Flynn thought they were doing anything wrong; these are all public records.)
But the e-mails also suggest the two got chatty and friendly – strictly through e-mail, granted, but it’s a lot of e-mail – as soon as McBride finished reporting her story on Jan. 5. I’m also not confident I’ve seen all the e-mail, as McBride couldn’t be sure she hadn’t erased some. That’s all rather disturbing. (Brawler's bold)
Let's be clear. It takes a lot for an editor to call out a writer -- it takes a lot more for an editor to call out a writer who he defended. It takes a lot for an editor to say he lacks confidence in a writer (and McBride's lack of certainty as to whether she erased email is a howler).
What does one look for in a journalism teacher. Obviously one looks for someone who can competently teach the nuts and bolts of journalism -- and in this economy, finding people who can do that ain't hard. But one also looks for someone who has an exemplary record as a practicing journalist, who's been in the trenches, who's operated ethically and who's conduct hasn't been called out by an editor.
The fact that three people on the executive committee thought Jessica lived up to those standards is more than a little confounding.
It's worth noting that attaining 'indefinite status' for an academic staff member in the UW System (which McBride is) isn't just a matter of attaining tenure-like job security, it's also a matter of keeping one's job. UW System code requires that an academic staff member is 'non-renewed' if they are still in probationary status (the status leading to indefinite) after their 7th year.
More here.
And, actually, it's pretty rare that an academic staff member doesn't attain indefinite status, so the fact that it was such a close vote for McBride (and she felt the need to have an attorney 'represent' her in the process) is fairly telling.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 20, 2009 at 09:32 AM
What's weird about this story is that McBride was represented by an attorney during the process (never mind it was her soon to be ex- husband). In 30 years teaching at the UW, I've participated in the awarding of indefinite status about a couple dozen times, and never once has a candidate had legal representation.
Posted by: Barry (not the Alvarez) | November 20, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I'm just a lowly sous chef. Are lawyers SOP in tenure review?
Posted by: Grant | November 20, 2009 at 02:24 PM
No, really, it's not tenure. As the Journal Sentinel said, it's the equivalent -- for her job group. But that group goes first, before faculty, in the event of fiscal cutbacks.
Indefinite status is essentially just a recognition of years in the job -- and unlike tenure, a staffer doesn't have to go up for indefinite status after six years. Nor, if the indefinite status is refused, does a staffer have to leave the university. By contrast, faculty must go up for tenure within six years -- and if turned down, they have to leave.
Anyone ever heard of anyone getting turned down for indefinite status?
Posted by: Sooze | November 20, 2009 at 06:12 PM