Said one UW regent, Timothy F. Nixon, quoted in "Top Regent Defends Firing of Wisconsin University Leader/In testimony before state lawmakers, regents suggested that Jay O. Rothman had been well aware of the board’s concerns about his leadership" (NYT).
There's also: "Mr. Nixon, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln, also cast doubt on Mr. Rothman’s contention that he had not known about the board’s misgivings, saying his claim had 'all of the substance of the shadow of a starving pigeon.'"
The oft-repurposed Lincoln hyperbole is: "as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."
Posts
27 comments:
Too much of nothin’ good…
What the hell is it about university boards and their hires? U of M in Ann Arbor goes thru "leaders" like it's a contest or something to see what institution can "recalibrate" the most.
Nixon sounds like an excitable theater kid. The dramatic quote adds nothing to the point. If you are explaining why you fired someone don’t go ape with irrelevant language, engage with the issues that made you fire him. I would assume his tirade means he had no good reason for what he did.
He's a Republican and the board is very liberal. On the other hand, the vote was unanimous. Apparently, he had threatened to resign multiple times. This time, they asked him to resign, and he said, "Nope." So they fired him.
It's an at-will position, so they don't need a reason. He's complaining that they had no cause to fire him. And the board's response is that they had plenty of cause, but they can't say anything because of confidentiality requirements. If he waives those, they would be glad to give their reasons.
“That decision was not made lightly. It was not political. It was not retaliatory,” said Ms. Bogost, who noted that “boards of regents do not reach 17-to-0 decisions on a whim.”
Ouch.
Meanwhile, down in North Carolina, our basketball coach was fired. I'm like, "What the fuck? Our best player was injured!" But Hubert Davis is a class act, so no complaints in the paper.
Dean Smith was hired in 1961, and he was almost fired in 1965. They hung him in effigy after he lost to Wake Forest 107-85. Lots of people wanted to fire him, but the AD made the right call. So the best coach of all time kept his job.
Damn AI is reporting that students "hanged Dean Smith in effigy after he helped recruit Charlie Scott, the school's first Black scholarship athlete."
Wow, that is so wrong. I've noticed that AI is particularly bad with historical events.
Dean Smith integrated UNC in 1967 (when I was born) with Charlie Scott, who was super popular and took the team to the Final Four twice. Athletic success in the South is a bigger deal than racism.
What made a big impression on all the basketball diehards was tiny Texas Western (five black guys) beating the five white guys of Kentucky. That was 1966. Dean Smith immediately recruited Charlie Smith after that.
Archived here: https://archive.ph/taAxe#selection-4725.0-4725.187
"...That decision was not made lightly. It was not political. It was not retaliatory,” said Ms. Bogost, who noted that “boards of regents do not reach 17-to-0 decisions on a whim....”
But on the other hand:
"...Senior Republicans in Wisconsin have sharply questioned whether the board, which is controlled by appointees of Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, had partisan motives for removing Mr. Rothman......."
No further questions, except this one: But, if you had to guess the political valance of a committee that votes unanimously to evict somebody with the opposition's valence, which valence would you guess? I agree it wasn't 'on a whim', but is that a clear denial that politics was involved?
There’s no such thing as at will employment since the Left made the huge against-public-policy loophole. He should shove their heads into their own loophole and bugger them to death. Judicially/metalhorically, of course. CC, JSM
"A researcher invented a fake eye condition called bixonimania, uploaded two obviously fraudulent papers about it to an academic server, and watched major AI systems present it as real medicine within weeks. "
https://x.com/HedgieMarkets/status/2042430442448548273?s=20
Grok didn't fall for it. He says because he has built in satire detection.
I agree that peer-reviewed double-blind controlled research is the best stuff we have, but it all falls apart when the peers are worthless.
Here's a great clip about what really happened when Dean Smith integrated UNC.
I wonder if 2026 is really more important than 1966. Or any other year!
I hope it is, considering the hard work being done to make it so.
Am I missing some context? Why was he fired?
University presidents are like football coaches with a 5-year plan and a 4-year contract...
I have no idea
“Am I missing some context? Why was he fired?”
You are not missing anything. This is the most context I’ve seen so far.
We didn't do this "on a whim" but we "don't have time to be deliberate".
Riiiigggghhhhttt.
Context:
As of April 2026, Governor Tony Evers has appointed 16 of the 18 members of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. These appointees constitute the vast majority of the board, although 10 of them have not yet been confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate.
The other two members consist of the state school superintendent (a far lefty) and a representative from the Wisconsin Technical College System Board (lefties).
They are upset that Rothman negotiated and end to some DEI jobs in exchange for funding from the legislature.
Anyone who thinks DEI is dead is delusional. It's coming back bigger and better as soon as D's have power anywhere.
BarrySanders20 said...
Context:
---
Thanks!
Political retaliation for his concessions to Republican legislators, was it not?
As of April 2026, Governor Tony Evers has appointed 16 of the 18 members of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
I saw that. On the other hand, a lot of the same people hired Rothman in 2022. The make-up of the board hasn't changed all that much.
"It is his nature to be very deliberate. We [do not] have time to be very deliberate in the year 2026."
Was there anything in NYT that clarified or explained that? Why is it better to act on impulse? Why especially so in 2026?
They are upset that Rothman negotiated an end to some DEI jobs in exchange for funding from the legislature.
That's NYT speculation; they don't know. That DEI deal was done three years ago (2023), right after he was hired (2022). I would think any bad feelings about that would have dissipated by now.
Why wait until 2026 to fire him? What's so important about 2026?
My immediate guess, because of his name, was that it might be Israel. He's a Zionist and they don't like that. And so that performance review did not go well. But that's total speculation on my part. It was probably a mix of things. They don't need a reason, it's an at-will appointment.
Meanwhile, down in North Carolina, our basketball coach was fired. I'm like, "What the fuck? Our best player was injured!"
I've been a Tarheel fan since 1982. I love Hubert Davis. His firing goes far beyond just Wilson being injured.
Do recall - just this season - a fully healthy team lost to SMU, Cal and blew TWO 12-point leads against Stanford.
And a healthy Wilson or not, you don't blow a 19-point second half lead to anybody ... not to mention blowing a 15-point halftime lead to Kansas in the National Championship game in 2022.
"Saint Croix said...
Dean Smith was hired in 1961, and he was almost fired in 1965. They hung him in effigy after he lost to Wake Forest 107-85. Lots of people wanted to fire him, but the AD made the right call. So the best coach of all time kept his job."
John Wooden and Coach K want a word with you.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.