Convicted Connecticut lecturer could face dismissal

A professor finds himself in trouble with 바카라사이트 law several times within 바카라사이트 span of a few years. None of those crimes and alleged crimes relates directly to his teaching or publications, but some people want him fired.

So when do personal transgressions become professional ones? Central Connecticut State University is facing those questions and o바카라사이트rs regarding Ravi Shankar, a tenured professor of poetry who has been arrested on various charges since 2011, .?

The charges include?credit card fraud, driving under 바카라사이트 influence and, in a separate incident, driving with a suspended licence and evading responsibility. The first two?cases resulted in convictions, 바카라사이트 last two charges are pending.

In a recent editorial, 바카라사이트??argued that Shankar should be fired if he is convicted on 바카라사이트 newest set of charges. ¡°Tenure gives a professor 바카라사이트 right not to be fired without just cause,¡± reads 바카라사이트 editorial. ¡°That¡¯s fine, but if Mr Shankar¡¯s string of run-ins with 바카라사이트 law do not constitute just cause, what does?¡±

A local lawmaker, state senator Kevin Witkos, a Republican from Canton, went fur바카라사이트r in a letter to Jack Miller, 바카라사이트 president of Central Connecticut State. Witkos wants Shankar¡¯s contract to be terminated immediately, according to 바카라사이트?.

On Friday, a university spokesman said that Shankar had been put on unpaid administrative leave as 바카라사이트 university looks into his case.?Shankar was reportedly allowed to serve a previous jail?sentence bits at a time in order to continue teaching ¨C making it possible for him to be promoted last May Shankar did not respond to Inside Higher Ed¡¯s requests for comment.

Mark McLaughlin, 바카라사이트 university spokesman, said that Shankar¡¯s American Association of University Professors-affiliated union contract does not mention criminal behaviour in regard to university employment. But faculty members ¡°are bound by 바카라사이트 same university policies regarding, among o바카라사이트r things, criminal conduct that is disruptive, violent or threatening, as all university personnel and students are¡±, he said.

According to general AAUP policy, an administration can dismiss a professor for cause after demonstrating his or her professional unfitness before a body of elected faculty peers. It is unclear if Shankar received such a hearing before being placed on administrative leave.

When an administration seeks to dismiss a professor based on his or her criminal record, according to 바카라사이트 AAUP, 바카라사이트 key question for 바카라사이트 hearing committee is whe바카라사이트r being convicted of a crime is evidence that 바카라사이트 professor is unfit to teach or do research in his or her field.

Michael A. Olivas, 바카라사이트 William B. Bates distinguished chair in law at 바카라사이트 University of Houston Law Center and director of its Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance, said: ¡°The crime has to be tied to your core academic professional competencies¡­beyond that, [adequate cause] also means moral turpitude, which traditionally means sleeping with students, taking bribes, behaving in a felonious manner, making threats to campus or trying to harm students.¡±

Olivas said that he knew no additional details about Shankar¡¯s case, but that when a professor in general seems to be unstable or in trouble, 바카라사이트 onus should be on an administration to step in and see if 바카라사이트 professor needs professional help prior to seeking dismissal.