I’m not a climate
scientist, a lawyer or even an academic, but I do understand a few things about
public relations and about universities and university fundraising.
(Full disclosure: I
think Mark Steyn is pretty nifty.)
Anyway, I was looking
at some of the updated articles about the Mann versus Steyn kerfuffle, from Politico here and Mark Steyn’s update here.
You can also look at
the legal documents on Mann’s Facebook
page here.
Why should I care?
Well, I’m finding the
story interesting, and it’s my blog so I get to talk about what I find
interesting.
So, here’s what I
think-and this is purely from a public/media relations perspective-and these
are things that I’m rather good at.
I think that another
massive PR disaster is the last thing that anyone within a 100 mile radius working
inside or next door to the Penn State campus wants or needs.
I think that every
Penn State alumnus with a shred of decency, every alumni donor, every parent with a
kid at that school, every kid on the football team and their families and
friends, and every current student and faculty member and administrator with
even the most minimal sophistication with respect to public relations
understand that another PR hit on the magnitude of “Climategate” or Sandusky
could ultimately lead to the financial bankruptcy and complete belly up of an
institution whose complete moral bankruptcy already set the precedent.
If you look at the
Penn State home page, you will find no comment about the current brouhaha though it
is all over the internet. What you will see is an item leading to the official reaction to the Louis Freech
report on the Sandusky
affair.
Here’s an interesting
paragraph:
“The report, released after an eight-month
investigation, indicates that University leaders in key positions failed to
report suspicions of child abuse to proper authorities, and states that they
concealed Sandusky’s actions from the Board of Trustees and the University
community, as well as authorities.”
Then:
“The Board of Trustees, Freeh’s report
states, failed in its oversight duties by not inquiring more extensively
about University matters and not creating an environment where senior officials
considered themselves accountable.”
Then:
“This marks a new era for Penn
State. With a mixture of humility and steadfastness we pledge to work
closely and cooperatively with the administration in diligently facilitating
open communication across all departments and levels of the University for the
benefit of children on our campus and for the benefit of every part of the
university,” Frazier added.
“The University leaders said that
the Penn State community will come together to improve and remain a top
university.”
“We are rightly proud of the many
significant accomplishments of our faculty, staff, students and alumni,”
Erickson said. “Penn State is a leading institution of higher education in the
world. That will remain unchanged. With the help of our students, faculty,
staff and alumni, Penn State will emerge from this as an even stronger and
better institution.”
How inclined, do you think, is
the university administration to face another high profile lawsuit, and take
another massive PR hit on behalf of a senior administrator or faculty member?
As a refresher, I
decided to look at the primary document from the
internal investigation that cleared Dr. Mann.
This document is from
February 2010.
I looked at page 5:
Allegation 1: Did you engage in,
or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to
suppress or falsify data?
Finding 1. After careful
consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee
finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever
engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an
intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created
in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in
the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he
ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in
instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of
data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is
explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about
how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an
understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called
“trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more
different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique
that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Decision 1.
As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for
further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in
the second phase of RA-10
Read that carefully.
Then note the delightful footnote at the
bottom of the page:
1 The word trick as used in
this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used
in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For
example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: "The
foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the
basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition
of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain
interference phenomena..." pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David
Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992
On page 6:
“…when one does due diligence on this matter,
and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion
has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content.”
On page 7:
“It is the case that there has been a public
outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from
what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and
scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific” practice
that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of
science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific
to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other
disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure
mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field
such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not
make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.”
These past hits should be considered case
studies in higher education media and public relations crises.
From my
perspective, Penn State really can’t afford another one.
This does not, by the way, mean that there
aren’t other institutions-educational, religious, private businesses,
governments and politicians in North America, and throughout the world busy
burying scurrilous activities, and furiously trying to spin their way out of
craptastic behaviour, actions and statements. There are-look at the growing
backlash to President Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” reveal (and it was
a reveal, and not a “gaffe”) and the legions of fart-catchers and message
massagers who are in 24/7 damage control mode, trying to walk it backwards.
It’s impossible to make these PR disasters go
away.
The more sensible strategy is to try to avoid them completely.
But Penn
State has had two rather robust public strikes against it, and a third strike and
well, you know-they could be out.
UPDATE: "Victim 2" to sue.
UPDATE: "Victim 2" to sue.
