Comments on: Univ. of S. Carolina clarifies purging Dr. Rekers

By: TheraP

TheraP — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:34:00 +0000

They’re not gonna get involved is how I read this. Well and good. We can therefore read between the lines – to our hearts’ content!

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:33:19 +0000

I don’t buy the line that “recent media coverage called attention to the fact that his information was still on the site”. If they had previously thought it was gone or forgotten about it they wouldn’t have had any reason to think it was there. They knew his profile was there prior to the coverage or they wouldn’t have thought to remove it after the story broke.

By: Erica B.

Erica B. — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:07:38 +0000

I think their explanation is plausible. I attend USC, and their web pages are fairly well maintained but far from perfect — and that’s important stuff like the Bursar’s or Registrar’s office, so I’m not surprised faculty pages are given little attention. If Rekers didn’t ask for the page to be removed when he left, it’s unlikely anybody else would have thought of it.

Of course, having a professor emeritus publicly embarrass himself will expedite the cleanup process :-)

There is a wide range of “retired” — sometimes professors retire from teaching classes, but still do research and are thereby affiliated with the university. (Basically, that allows USC to avoid paying for classes taught, while still having access to the professor’s research funding…) If Rekers is no longer “affiliated,” then he’s fully retired.

By: Graham Shevlin

Graham Shevlin — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:45:26 +0000

My initial response to this piece of doublespeak would be “Nice try…”. It will be interesting to see what their criteria are for keeping retired (probably anything that includes phrases like “as long as they don’t behave like hypocritical wankers in public and embarrass us”).