Is this place closed?
Could it be that the comment by "steve powder" is a plant ... put here to make Ms. Jackson's critics look racist?
SOUNDS just like OBOZO...Stealing Ideas and TAKING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING SHE NEVER DID...if she was white then she would have been dismissed of forced to resign by now..being black...WELL hell thats just par for the course
There are at least two different issues here.
1. She is accused of plagiarism. Many examples seem to support the accusation. Seems pretty clear cut case to many.
1.1 If yes to plagiarism, what happens to her? What is the message to the community?
1.2 If no to plagiarism, why is it not plagiarism, and what should be the message about what plagiarism is?
2. Staff are fearful to have an open conversation with the principal about this and other issues. History of interactions with administration does not support open conversation for fear of retribution. So far the approach is to be annoyed by it. A healthy approach would be to acknowledge it and begin to put in safeguards and develop trust.
A larger question centers around the recognition over the last few weeks that these issues with Principal Jackson were problems at her prior school. What else is next for us with her?
Small correction: Kiran Sande is not editor of FACT magazine! He left journalism in January 2013
I hope this is on the school board behind closed doors agenda for thursday. While others in her position have had the sense to resign (hard to say if they were forced out), she mocks the issue. Her thanksgiving message to faculty apparently contained lifted works as well. The district is currently on record saying this is much ado about nothing. What is the message to the students?
Jackson as quoted in the article:
"I've never intentionally said these are my words, these are my thoughts."
Jackson in an email message to staff regarding the memos she is now accused of plagiarizing (sent prior to the allegations of plagiarism):
"As I reflected on how the relationships were built at my last school, I remembered that I sent them my thoughts on a weekly bases for over five years . . . I will do best to share my thoughts with you weekly so you get to know my belief, values, and thoughts about educating children at CHHS. Notes from the Principal's desk are attached, please read and reflect."
Sounds to me as if she DID say that they are her thoughts.
One suspects that Jackson cannot write clearly or easily, so she "borrows' liberally. Not exactly a great reflection of her credentials. Wonder if anyone has examined her past academic work. Could be lifted whole hog from other sources.
The address is wrong. It's 119 W. Main St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701
I'm not familiar with the information you mentioned. But apparent sea level may rise or fall at any particular location depending on whether that area is subsiding or lifting, that is, whether geological forces are pushing the land up higher or allowing it to sink lower. That happens often, can vary by location and can change over time. So while the total volume of water in the oceans may be increasing due to thermal expansion and melting ice sheets and glaciers, what actually happens to "sea level" as measured at any particular spot also takes into account the subsidence or lift experienced by that spot. That's why there's all sorts of evidence that can appear to be contradictory, but in reality it's complications caused by variations in subsidence and lift. Satellite measurements of sea level are made independently of subsidence or lift, so are more accurate indicators of the actual level of the water in the world's oceans. The problem is that satellite measurements only go back a couple of decades. Hence the study I cited where the scientists tried (successfully) to match up the satellite measurements with recent coastal sea level gauges (subject to but corrected for subsidence and lift). When you can match up the two (coastal gauges and satellite measurements), then you can try to use the much older and longer record of sea level gauges to compare rates of sea level change in the past with current rates of change.
Reading all this, I just had this thought.
Most everyone agrees that Sea Level has been rising very very slowly since the last Ice Age (glaciation) , and even NOAA and Sea Grant acknowledge that there has been " no signal" of acceleration for the NC coast. So why have we had an acceleration of Accretion by 11% and a 13% decline of erosion of NC Sea shore since 1980? Irrespective of acceleration, why do we have more Accretion and less Erosion if Sea Level is rising? Or is all this just mumbo - jumbo Political FoSi?
Bill Price USLandAlliance.US
Dear Dave Burton,
Before you say I am mistaken, please read the rest of the article! You merely quote from the article's Introduction, where the authors summarize PAST work in the area. If you had any scientific training, you might have known that.
"To reconcile the nearly factor of 2 difference in the tide gauge and altimeter global rates, reconstructions of global sea level from tide gauges have been made using empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs) obtained from satellite altimeter data..."
---this sentence you quoted ended with this reference to a paper, (Chambers et al. 2002). It is Chambers et al. in 2002 who used the satellite altimeter data.
Merrifield, Merrifield, and Mitchum, the authors of the 2009 paper I cited, used tidal gauges for both time periods, and verified that the tide gauges agreed with the satellite altimeter data. You might read through to the Methods, Results, and Summary and Discussion sections next time you look at a scientific study if you want to understand what they did, what they found, and what it means. You won't find that in the Introduction.
I like your style, Lisa Sorg. As a human being and as a journalist.
As a Hokie I really wanted us to go to the ACC Championship but respect the fact that Duke beat us and now they are going on . SO as a gift to all Duke fans I did come across this as I was browsing for Cyber Monday http://www.teespring.com/bluedevils
You ARE more than just a basketball school now.
It is a taxpayer funded email account. Anyone in academia should understand that no email is ever confidential if on a government or employer provided system. Use the US Postal Service if you want privacy or sign up for a free gmail or hotmail account and use it for personal or political interest! Open and transparent government is granted by the First Admendment which gives free press to not just reporters but to all individuals who wish to seek public records or print their views!
We ought to draw a distinction between the procedural accountability of public institutions and the personal constitutional rights and liberties of individuals working for those public institutions. A person does not check his or her individual constitutional rights and liberties at the door in reporting to work for a state university campus or other public institution.
A measured and reasonable confidentiality of personal communications within a public institution or even an office or department of government at the federal, state or local level is not out of harmony with the principles of timely and responsible public disclosure of the ultimate decisions made and actions taken by those institutions and organizations.
A proper expression of views and opinions on public issues and public policy by those in the employ of public institutions need not be accompanied by a breach of constitutional rights pursuant to the preparation of those views and opinions for those eventual forms and forums of expression.
David Proctor McKnight
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation