Faculty say they launched a near coup to remove the former dean of the GW Law School, who unexpectedly announced last fall he would resign after holding the position for just 18 months.
Paul Schiff Berman stepped down in January and moved to a new vice provost position after professors drafted a petition to reject his leadership, citing staff tensions and poor decision-making about how to restore a reeling legal education system, The Hatchet has learned.
Professors said they could have held the first successful vote of no confidence in GW history. But University President Steven Knapp and Provost Steven Lerman plucked him out of the No. 20-ranked law school before a formal vote could take place, according to interviews with more than a half dozen professors who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Paul Schiff Berman was hired to bolster fundraising and help raise rankings. He was the third-youngest dean at a top 20 law school.
June 2012
Berman threatened to pull funding from a $3 million stipend program that paid graduates who could not find jobs. He reversed course 24 hours later, after professor and faculty backlash.
Mid-October 2012
Professors drafted a 17-page document outlining grievances against Berman. Many were smaller issues, like suspicions that he had no regard for faculty governance rules. Others claimed he was verbally abusive to staff.
Late October 2012
University President Steven Knapp and Provost Steven Lerman attended a law school faculty meeting and asked professors not to go forward with a vote of no confidence against Berman. Professors said they had enough votes for the first successful no-confidence vote in GW history.
November 2012
Berman announced that he would resign from the law school in January. Administrators praised Berman's move to the position of vice provost for online learning and academic innovation.
The accounts of the law school friction reveal a different story than the one initially told when Berman stepped down from one of GW’s top programs.
Professors described a fall semester of private email chains and contentious meetings about Berman’s intense leadership style.
“I kept thinking of that old proverb, ‘If you go after the king, you better make sure you take the king out,’ ” one full-time law professor said. “We didn’t take the king out, but the king took himself out.”
Faculty presented a 17-page document to the former dean which outlined, corroborated and footnoted complaints during Berman’s tenure. About a dozen professors contributed to the document created in mid-October and viewed by The Hatchet.
Some of the most senior professors campaigned against Berman, resenting him for allegedly subverting faculty governance rules and verbally mistreating staff. In October, 15 professors wrote a letter to Berman outlining their frustrations, including what they considered Berman’s disregard for faculty governance. About a dozen professors met with the provost in mid-September about their concerns with Berman.
Berman declined multiple requests to sit for an interview. He also declined to comment in an email on the faculty grievances, saying he was not forced out or asked to step down.
“I was honored to serve as dean of the law school during a time of change for both the law school and the legal profession generally,” he wrote. “I have now been entrusted by the president and the provost with a strategically important portfolio for the University’s future, I am 100 percent focused on this new opportunity and I am enjoying every minute.”
Knapp also declined to comment on the faculty grievances, adding that he did not ask Berman to step down. It's a challenge for academic leaders to get students, faculty and alumni to buy into new initiatives, he said.
He called deanship a “tough job,” especially during changing times.
“In recruiting university leaders, you look for individuals who have a deep understanding of what is happening in higher education and an ability to draw others into their visions of the future,” Knapp said in an email.
A campaign with sealed, secret ballots
Two professors said that before Berman left, half the full-time faculty signed petitions in sealed, secret envelopes – more than enough to pass the one-third threshold to send a petition to the chair of GW’s Faculty Senate executive committee. A successful petition would have forced a formal vote of no confidence, which to pass, would require half of the faculty to vote affirmatively.
The University's president determines the fate of deans who are hit with a vote of no confidence, according to the Faculty Code.
There was no smoking gun against Berman. Instead, professors pointed to an “accumulation” of concerns, like rumors that he pushed out an associate dean and sought enrollment increases in law clinics to go past capacity.
“When you add it up, it was a dysfunctional atmosphere. Many members of the faculty were avoiding going into the building,” one senior professor said.
Knapp made a rare visit to the fifth floor of the Burns Law Library in October to tame the dozens of law faculty seeking Berman’s removal.
He told them there were no legitimate grounds to eject Berman and urged them to accept his leadership. Knapp and the provost took no questions in those 10 minutes, according to accounts from four professors. The meeting lasted hours after he left, inciting faculty discussion on whether or not to take a formal vote.
About two weeks later, Berman announced he would move into the provost’s office to become vice provost for online education and academic innovation, stepping down before a formal vote could take place.
Professors said they were scheduled to vote in late November.
“There was some disquiet that made it easy for him to accept the vice provost position,” said law professor Richard Pierce, who declined to discuss specific grievances. “This was a stable environment and a person who was a very aggressive person, and that will serve him very well in this new position.”
On Nov. 12, Berman sent an email to law school faculty and students reflecting on his upcoming January departure with “a sense of gratification regarding all that the law school has achieved over the past year" and citing fundraising successes, the start of new programs and strides in career services.
Michael Castleberry, chair of the Faculty Senate executive committee, said he was aware that some faculty were disgruntled with Berman. But he was never approached about a formal vote of no confidence.
Castleberry said he thought Berman’s switch made sense because of the University’s growing focus on online learning.
“I don’t think he was pushed out. If there was anything like that, I thought I would have heard. A man like Berman doesn’t leave because people are unhappy with him,” Castleberry said.
The tension comes as law school enrollments and revenues slump nationwide. With a sluggish legal market, experts and administrators around the country are plotting changes to legal education.
Great expectations fade
Berman came to GW after four years at the rising Arizona State University law school. At the age of 46, he became the third-youngest dean of a top law school.
He arrived in the dean’s office in May, two months earlier than planned. Professors questioned his moves soon after.
The cyber-law expert had an impressive and quirky resume. He directed plays in New York City and clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In the document to Berman, faculty pointed to his mistreatment of staff members, like when he reportedly told one staffer, “I’m going to make your life hell.”
The professors also wrote that he fumbled during presentations to donors and alumni and raised his expectations for the median LSAT score during a poor admissions season, creating an even smaller first-year class. They also took issue with Berman’s announcement of health and environment law programs before they had been approved.
One professor said faculty began bracing for a rough deanship after Berman formed a committee of professors upon arrival over the summer, but disbanded it that winter. Instead of creating broader strategies, one professor said, Berman was more interested in “splashy things that he could tell Rice Hall about and what they could tell the Board of Trustees about.”
Berman denied disbanding the committee. During his tenure, he promoted several student life and career services initiatives. In particular, he approved a program for first-year students called Inns of Court, which established peer groups and advisory boards to cultivate a sense of community. Faculty said they were not opposed to that initiative.
“There was then, and always is, a lot of discussion among faculty members about the school’s direction. These days in particular, it’s heavily overladen with anxiety about what in the world is going to happen to legal education generally and at this school,” Pierce said. “It causes people to engage in more conversations of that type than usually occur.”
Professors also grew suspicious that Berman was trying to sidestep faculty governance rules.
Last January, he said the school would launch a health law and policy program starting this fall, after procuring a $1 million gift. But professors protested the quick move, because the school had few faculty who specialized in the area. One professor said faculty went “back and forth” on the issue with Berman, because he wanted to hire a health law leader without first consulting faculty. He later appointed a faculty committee, which hired a consultant to map out the program.
Though frustrated with Berman's leadership, professors could not point to a specific faculty governance rule he broke.
“When he was confronted, he backed down in each instance. But he paid no attention to the rules of governance until he was confronted,” one professor said.
Berman, who controlled the law school’s $80 million operating budget, also hit a rough patch last summer when he threatened to pull funding from a stipend program that paid jobless graduates to work internships.
Berman backed off 24 hours later and kept funding for the $3 million-a-year program. But the incident earned him poor press and more faculty ire.
“We are a faculty who, as a group, care about our students. It reflected badly on us as well,” one professor said. “A lot of damage was done. We had to talk to students to reassure them.”
Those suspicions came to a head at the first faculty meeting of the year in September, several professors said. Berman addressed faculty and denied the rumors. Two professors at that meeting said they thought he was lying, creating a tense back-and-forth discussion.
Tension worsened. One staffer who has spent several years at the law school said Berman micromanaged more than any other administrator and often demeaned workers, creating a toxic atmosphere.
Some faculty stayed in Berman’s corner. One, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the faculty leading the charge against the dean were also initially against his appointment.
“There are people who like the status quo, and there are people who like to change things up. Paul is a change guy. Paul is a 'we can always do better’ guy,” the professor said, adding that “if there was a problem with the dean that’s serious enough to get rid of them, I’d be the first one in line to say, ‘Do it.’ But on flimsy, false charges? No. I’m not interested.”
A return to old faces
The law school will likely face a year and a half of temporary leadership under interim dean and professor Gregory Maggs, who took over in January after previously serving as interim dean before Berman arrived.
Maggs declined to comment on the events preceding Berman’s resignation, but said the switch was a “smooth and uneventful transition.”
Faculty who spoke out against Berman praised Maggs as a prolific fundraiser and a good manager.
“I believe the faculty has complete confidence and a universal feeling of strong support for Dean Maggs,” one full-time professor said. “I think he’s going to be careful and cautious, but I would think that he’s going to make decisions that are in consultation with the faculty.”
In an interview three weeks ago, Maggs stressed that he would emphasize group decision-making.
He also announced he would form a faculty planning committee to suggest changes to legal education over the next two years.
“The most important thing is to involve more people in decision-making at all levels. That includes making sure that all initiatives be sent to standing committees,” Maggs said. “It’s not like I have all the answers.”
The school will begin searching for its next dean by this summer or fall.
Joan Claybrook, a consumer advocate who sits on Georgetown Law’s Board of Visitors, said the attempted ousting of Berman would not help the school find its new leader.
“Some potential deans will be really turned off by this,” she said. "They’ll ask why they need to deal with that. Why would I want to deal with an antagonist law faculty? It might be hard for them to get a new dean.”
Of course someone from Georgetown chimes in about how the “antagonistic” faculty will hurt the dean’s search. A top 20 law school with one of the most renowned and principled faculty is going to be just fine.
It is unfortunate that the wrong candidate was chosen, may the faculty and school find the best next dean, someone who is not only innovative but a good leader and business person. Good luck to GW, all will be fine.
I saw nothing but good come from his deanship, so I don’t think he was the wrong choice. I am no stranger (sadly) to the unprofessionalism and abusive/toxic/unresponsive management that have plagued the law school since LONG BEFORE Dean Berman’s time. I believe this is what Prof. Pierce referred to in the article as a “stable environment.” Let me note that Kim Jong-Un sees North Korea as having a stable environment as well — regimes tend to facilitate and promulgate that view.
This is a tough time for all law schools (I say this as a law professor myself). Being a law school dean right now is like being captain of the Titannic as it steams towards the iceberg. Paul Berman, whom I’ve known for almost two decades, is someone who cares deeply about steering GW Law safely through a field of icebergs, and I’m sorry to see him step down.
But I don’t think there’s any huge conspiracy here, despite the insinuations in this article: as Paul’s colleagues and friends know, his wife, GW Law Professor Laura Dickinson, has been struggling with a dangerous heart condition over the last few years. Being an energetic and successful dean is something that’s hard to square with family responsibilities even at the best of times, and these aren’t the best of times.
Paul Berman has his priorities right: faced with a choice between an all-consuming, unforgiving job– staying on as dean at a time when he’d be facing a national crisis and a restive faculty — versus finding a different role at GW that lets him take on important challenges while also giving his family the time they need, Paul made the only responsible choice. Good for him.
It’s shameful that the faculty went public with this if it’s true. This kind of publicity isn’t helping but faculty don’t care — what worry do they have with their tenure? They say that they care about students… is this publicity across the blogosphere going to help students when they’re applying for jobs and internships? How about for our enrollment? Why even bring this all up if Dean Berman is already gone? What good does it serve? The only good it does is to make Dean Berman look bad, which really says a lot about the faculty and their motives for keeping this subject in the public eye.
As for me, I never heard anything about Dean Berman being toxic, abusive, or a micromanager, so all these “reports” were not the norm among the staff, probably just anecdotal from some staff that didn’t like how he wanted to change things or whose opinions he diagreed with — can you imagine someone in a law school not wanting to change or having different opinions? Maybe the Hatchet should have reached out to some staff to validate these claims or how they felt about Dean Berman’s changes. Oh sorry, I forgot, staff don’t matter. The only thing that matters is that everyone listens to the faculty and what they want.
If all this is true, at least Dean Berman tried to do some damage control for the school and let it fade away, which can’t be said about the faculty. Unlike faculty, my job isn’t tenured, and so if enrollment drops (and this kind of publicity doesn’t help — “he tried to change things but we don’t want change!”), guess whose job might be on the chopping block? Whatever changes Dean Berman made for the school, it was probably to keep the school competitive in the dwindling pool of applicants.
If the law school doesn’t take action to keep enrollment up, we’ll probably have layoffs. I like Dean Maggs just fine and he did a good job last time he was Interim Dean, but I don’t see a fire in him like Dean Berman had. I think “group decision-making” with the faculty is just going to slow everything down and leave the school with low enrollment and probably staff layoffs as a result. So here’s a big thank you from the staff to the faculty for that.
As an alum of the law school whose last year was under Dean Berman, I can add that while he may have been great for fundraising, his approach to student events and his colleagues was mediocre at best.
He recycled the same speech for every event.
He rarely interacted with students (I understand how much time other dean responsibilities require, but when you take over from a dean that thought student contact important enough to walk the halls and teach a first-year class, non-engagement with the student body, even at prestigious student-run events with small attendance numbers, is glaring).
I personally watched him throw a colleague under the bus at a law school event for first years (1L asked a question critical of the way GW handled 1L grading to Dean Berman, whose response was to push the entire policy (and any related complaints) onto an associate dean).
He repeatedly bragged in school-wide and alumni e-mails about events at the law school and the benefit those events were to students – leaving out that students were not allowed to attend a number of them.
I understand that none of this arose to the level necessary to push him out, but cumulatively, they raised doubts in much of the student body that he was an effective dean. For my part, good riddance and better luck in the online learning arena.
You must be already out of touch with what’s going on at the law school. Dean Berman taught a class last semester for 1Ls (I think it was Con Law) and he held weekly office hours for students from the beginning. One time when I couldn’t make office hours, he told me to make a normal appointment on his calendar for some other day and time that worked for me. Maybe he wasn’t roaming the halls but he was accessible and willing to make himself available when asked. I know other students feel the same.
Also to note: this article says he was accused of micromanaging, and here you are criticizing him for delegating an issue to one of the associate deans,,, So which is it? Does he micromanage or does he delegate too much?
Kudos to the Dean for taking on a 1L class – he must have decided to take that on after my first year and I think that was a great step in the right direction.
Re: the delegating, I did not say he delegated to the associate dean – I said that instead of fielding the complaint and dealing with it as admirably as he seems to do via e-mail (per the comment below), he turned to the dean standing next to him, implicitly declared the complaint to be her fault (faculty turning in grades is solely the fault of an associate dean?) and absolved himself of responsibility. While neither dean is solely responsible for things like grades, when you ask to take questions and complaints from the audience and then blame your colleagues in front of hundreds of students, you cannot be surprised that your colleagues dislike your management style.
You heard Berman give a speech? Because all I ever saw was semi-incoherent ramblings.
I note the three related stories above about deans facing faculty unwilling to change. Looks like other deans at GW are challenged to bolster the value of a university degree in a bad economy. From the point of view of a law school board advisor, I think it is unfortunate a faculty can’t rise to the challenge facing universities in general and but law schools in particular.
I never met Dean Berman. But from a number of e-mail conversations with him and his surprising commitment to making changes to what is a poorly run, bureacratic school, I was very impressed. I have a strong feeling that the many faculty members want a “Yes man” dean who is willing to accept mediocrity and the status quo.
During his short tenure, I e-mailed Dean Berman about the following items, all of which he either fixed immediately or promised to consider when determining the following year’s budget. These items should give a sense of how backwards and student un-friendly GW Law is. The faculty and, more importantly, the mid-level deans, should be ashamed.
– Evening transfer students received less than 48 hours notice of orientation, a week-long event that took place during business hours (when most evening students work or care for their children). Most area law schools w/ an evening program offer a separate evening orientation for part-time students (I know because I transferred from one).
– Transfer students who were unable to attend orientation were screwed over when it came to registering, because the “only” person who could assist–Dean Monroe–was running the orientation. Quite the welcome! Dean Berman changed this entirely.
– The IT help desk, which assists new students in registering for WiFi access, setting up their accounts, etc. regularly closed at the whim of the students and supervisor who worked there.
– The Copy Center previously required students to visit in person and place orders. No phone-ahead orders were possible. So students (including those who work full-time) would have to physically come to the law school during Winter Break and sit around for 2-3 hours while their copies were made. The Copy Center also had no web presence, so students had no idea who to contact, what the hours were, etc. Dean Berman changed this.
– The University and the Law School have separate photo processes (for GWID and student accounts), both of which involve long lines and waiting times. The Law School’s photo team regularly lost student photos, requiring many to re-take them (during business hours, of course). Dean Berman made valiant efforts to streamline the processes and permit students to take photos of themselves using their laptops for class seating charts.
– The law school registration process is a foray into 1990s-era technology. To make an informed decision, students must pull infornation from the following resources: Banweb, student reviews, syllabi, class meeting schedule, class description, credit unit list, etc. Each is stored on a different website, so you have to have a million browser windows open. Dean Berman agreed to consider an integrated system that would make this process easier and more efficient for students.
– Several rooms in the law school had severe temperature issues last semester. Faculty either never complained or complained and accepted no change. One e-mail to Dean Berman got Dean Molinengo involved, who communicated with students about the HVAC issue and had technicians working on it that night.
This doesn’t mean that Dean Berman was perfect. Some of the accusations in this article may be true…students wouldn’t know because we’re left in the dark about everything. But the fact that he was willing to act quickly to address issues that should never have arisen at a top-20 law school in the first place tells me that he was a no-BS kind of guy. And I’m not sure that’s something that tenured faculty at a prestigious University can handle.
Can we all stop referring to GW as a “top-20 law school”? I know the temptation is great when your school lands close to the top of the US News list, but it is, in reality, a meaningless statement — something for marketing the school to credulous students and nothing more.
As for Berman, I was singularly unimpressed with his willingness to discuss serious legal education reform (such as the elimination of the third-year of law school which, going back to the days of Justice Brennan, has long been understood to be little but a profit center for schools).
@David: I referred to GW as a “top-20″ law school to indicate the disparity between its prestige and how poorly it is administered. Trust me, I’d be first in line to criticize the US News rankings. But, for the purposes of describing the law school, it’s one of the few quantifiable ways to convey the quality of the education.
I would be a little more understanding of a poorly-ranked law school with limited financial resources, lower-quality faculty, etc. being so poorly managed.
I had a great education at GW Law School, no question. I did well and doors opened as a result. But, frankly, I’ve never seen much evidence of a prestige factor. Locally, it is almost lost in the bigger shadows of Georgetown and UVA, and, regionally, it is fairly lost altogether. Even at the height of the market, the number of GW able to land the high prestige jobs and clerkships was fairly limited (which isn’t to say those are the best positions to take, but they are a measure of prestige to be sure). It is critical for GW, as a result, to focus like a laser beam on fitting into the new paradigm, with a significant focus on lowering the debt burden of graduates. Based upon hiring my firm has done over the past ten years, the debt burden has clearly risen to the top in terms of factors most impacting career success. Those with stellar credentials end up having to go to firms that don’t necessarily provide the best path to happiness and success because their happen to pay more at the outset. Those will poorer credentials are often forced to look outside the law. I saw no sensitivity on Berman’s part to this issue.
Very sad by this whole situation. Dean Berman was trying to reposition the law school in a ever changing environment. Dean Friedenthal (from the mid 90s) was supported by the faculty but handed over 40% of the schools revenue to the University. Berman came in with a mission for change and shockingly a bunch of tenured professors who have no interest in a change from the current status didn’t like it. This ouster along with this public airing will set the school back decades and ensure GW remains a top 40 law school.
Perhaps everything started when he insinuated alums without a job weren’t working hard enough to get one. When career services had been a joke under his watch (and that of many others, to be fair). And that parents could support law grads after accumulating a crushing debt.
The optics weren’t right, and his attitude wasn’t right. He might fit in elsewhere, but not in this post at this school. Best of luck to him in his new position.
When did he “insinuate” alums without a job weren’t working hard enough to get one? Please provide some evidence. Was this a speech, an article, etc?
And, in fairness, some alums may not have a job for that reason. I can’t imagine why a dean would comment on that, but let’s be serious — some people don’t get jobs because they don’t perform well enough in school, because they don’t get applications in on time, etc.
“I have now heard several anecdotal reports of graduates turning down paying work so that they can remain in the Pathways Program and hopefully find more desirable work later. This is not how the Program is intended to be used. You should jump at any paying legal work opportunity, and if it’s not your ideal position, then use it as a launchpad for your next search. In order to make sure both that the incentives are properly aligned and that we can continue to fund the Program for the many students who have enrolled, we will be adjusting the payments from $15 per hour to $10 per hour beginning December 1.”
Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/law-school-cuts-stipend-on-own-employment-program-for-recent-grads-thinks-they-need-more-incentive-to-find-a-job/
Thanks. I don’t see where this insinuates students aren’t working hard enough for a job. It implies some are working the system, which I’m sure was true. I don’t see anything wrong with his statement. If the law school is funding students until they find paid work, they should be required to accept paid work when it’s available.
The whole legal education system is on the brink of collapsing. Do a google search on law schools and the dystopian future that awaits them: smaller and less qualified entering classes, downsizing, closures. etc. Many tenured faculty will be on the street soon. Seriously. This Berman business is just the tip of the iceberg.
Out damn spot?
With the law school’s dirty laundry hanging so garishly out the window thanks to the cabal that overthrew the Dean apparently happily leaking the evidence of their deed, perhaps we should let it all hang out to find some disinfectant in the sunshine.
The story I heard about this from a surprised and anonymous faculty source last Fall as it was happening, is far more concerning for the future GW Law as it pit the younger faculty versus the older faculty—and in this instance the old guard won. I was told that one of if not the oldest Professor on staff led the charge because Berman was attempting to oust him for things like falling asleep while teaching his classes. Not something that made him incredibly popular among his students who in no small number resented the insult.
I do know that a small number of younger, more open-minded professors who are willing to look at the way the field is changing and how to change things to support students who are struggling to stay afloat post-graduation were willing to support Berman (whether wholeheartedly or simply in opposition to the idea of the cabal) and his admittedly aggressive, MBA approach.
It is time for the old guard to lay down their swords. As the artist Rothko once asked, “are the young artists plotting to kill us all?” The answer in art, in law, and in every walk of life is unequivocally (of course metaphorically) yes–unless you stand aside. But much like the unwillingness of partners at some of the biggest law firms to undergo proper succession planning and pass the torch, there are those at GW law whose heads are in the sand and are unwilling to see that the old ways will not suffice in today’s world. Perhaps their heads of clouded with grandeur thinking that they are akin to the Federal Judiciary where sadly we force Senior Judges to stay on the bench to near senility because Congress cannot work out appointments–but back in tenure-land there is no small number of highly qualified replacements who would make better teachers simply waiting for their elders to pack it in.
Surprise, for better or worse management and the legal industry has changed over the last fifty years, and there are new ways of running institutions. Clearly Berman failed to manage change at this one, but whose fault that is cannot be easily deduced with only convenient leaks here and there. This story has two sides, and Berman at least has the decency to realize that no one wins if he ventures into this public display. But we would be remiss to let all the spoils go solely the victors here, because they played dirty pool with this leak.
What is so devastating is that this is an entirely normal fight for an institution. What isn’t normal, is that resistance to change won so heavy-handedly and in such a disgusting way. That Berman had to be plucked mid-year before a vote of no confidence was a disgrace to the institution. Not on him but on those who would have removed him at that time and in that manner. I would have hoped that the faculty at GW law would have shown more dignity instead of selfish demands for satisfaction. But for actionable cause, there is no reason that this skirmish ever should have seen the light of day, and I hope those responsible feel some shame for making a mockery of an institution that so many believe in and depend upon. Next time the faculty wants to oust a Dean, we can only hope that at least they wait until the end of the academic year, for pity’s sake.
To round out the story above, here are some other ways to consider his record:
1) A smaller class with higher LSATs, which they found so offensive, is not a mistake. The rule of educational institutions is to improve the elite status of the school year on year through faculty acquisition and rising standards for incoming classes.
2) Micromanagement from an executive sucks if you are the recipient, but most anyone other than someone in a cushy law school professorship has had to struggle through that at one time or another. As seasoned professionals in one of the most cut-throat professions of our day, it seems a rather weak claim to make. They should try being a first year associate sometime.
3) Insufficient coalition building probably was a mistake of Berman’s, and the central one. But as Congress has so aptly proven, an entrenched opposition who opposes the idea of change will create havoc all around.
4) Another major mistake was the complete alienation of the 2012 class with an insensitive and unfortunate remark about the Pathways-to-Practice program. This was an epic blunder. But as someone who went to his office hours several times, he was always warm, engaged, and made time to see every student who scheduled face time with him no matter the issue.
Fundraising I will leave in the air, because there too few facts are in evidence in this thread, at least, to judge. Perhaps there are other more damning facts on either side of the isle.
But either way, GW law learned that hard way that mistakes get made, and change is hard.
Lucky for GW law, after this mess though, they’ve ended up once again with a well-loved interim Dean. I do not know whether a permanent Deanship was not offered last round or whether Dean Maggs previously declined it. But we need a peacemaker to steer what may well now be a creaking ship. Several rumors suggest that Professor Maggs stayed well above from the fray, completely declining to comment or to offer a position on the attempt to remove Berman. He walks into the interim Deanship with much respect from faculty, alumni, and students. I hope that GW offers and that he accepts the Deanship everyone wants him to have. And if he takes it, I hope he takes the road towards change, carefully as I know he would. There is a reputation to be healed and a future to be built.
“This story has two sides, and Berman at least has the decency to realize that no one wins if he ventures into this public display. But we would be remiss to let all the spoils go solely [to] the victors here, because they played dirty pool with this leak.”
“I would have hoped that the faculty at GW law would have shown more dignity instead of selfish demands for satisfaction. But for actionable cause, there is no reason that this skirmish ever should have seen the light of day, and I hope those responsible feel some shame for making a mockery of an institution that so many believe in and depend upon.”
COMPLETELY AGREE!
I’m not so sure this isn’t Paul Berman airing the laundry, no one else would want to after so many months, only him.
That’s a cheap, petty shot, and I only hope he doesn’t read it. I can only imagine the last thing someone in his shoes would want to do right now is rehash any of this. His chapter here is closed.
What remains is what those who will have a continuing relationship with the school (faculty, staff, students, & alumni) think about the institution. As an alum, I was not excited when I heard this was happening and am now appalled to see it hit the press.
Oh lookie, GW made ABL for something crappy, AGAIN. Go team: http://abovethelaw.com/2013/02/how-to-oust-the-dean-of-your-law-school/
As they so aptly said at the end of their post “But one of these days, a true reformer is going to get one of these jobs. And I shudder to think what a law school faculty will do to that martyr.”
As Paul Berman’s assistant, I have seen first-hand the good work that he has done for students, faculty, staff, and the school as a whole, and I find these accusations absolutely ludicrous.
In my opinion, the title of this article tells the whole story: “Law faculty PLOTTED to oust Dean.”
His opponents have likely been collecting any and every rumored complaint against him from even before he stepped onto campus so that they could build a compelling-enough “story” to “sell papers.” Remember: it doesn’t have to be true, it just has to sell.
There are many wonderful staff and faculty at the law school who are dedicated to education, students, and the institution, and whom I am truly proud to have as colleagues. It is therefore very unfortunate that a small number seem to be putting so much diligent effort into tarnishing the reputations of both the law school and a hard-working person like Paul Berman.
Yes, law professors have entered into an elaborate plot to unjustly depose the dean in an attempt to manufacture sensational stories and up the sales of a free student newspaper.
Exactly.
Perhaps some of the professors wanted to protect “special relationships” with staff.
Well, Mary, as a former colleague of yours who left a job I loved because of Paul Berman, just know that you should be grateful for your uniquely positive experience with him. This was part of his “thing,” to create circles of people who were in, and people who were out. If you were in, it seems you were treated very, very well. If you were out, you were made completely miserable.
I fully appreciate the we had different experiences in the same workplace. I did not feel that I was ignored/unappreciated by other faculty or administrators because I didn’t have a JD. This seems like a case of “your mileage may vary.” But I can honestly say that never have I felt more humiliated, stressed, unappreciated, ignored or deliberately mistreated than I felt as his employee. I’ve moved on and I wish the law school and the university well. But I honestly believe he treated a lot of people very badly…and he divided people into camps of his “in crowd” and his “outcasts” while he did it.
While I appreciate the fact that differences between us and our positions at the law school affected how we viewed and interpreted our experiences and those of others around us, I believe that your experience was uniquely negative, and not that mine was uniquely positive.
Many others thrived, like I did, under Paul’s meritocratic administration where he sought to build a more open organizational culture that valued excellence, rationality, and contributions of new ideas from all members of the community — a drastic change from the “power by position/title/background/connections” and “that’s the way we’ve always done it so don’t try to change it” culture that I was quickly taught when I first started working there before Paul’s arrival as dean.
Again, while I respect that we have interpreted our experiences at the law school in very different ways, it is wholly inaccurate to say that “he treated a lot of people very badly” as a general statement about his relationship with staff. That is false.
I sincerely beg to differ–my negative experience was not unique, and my assertation that he mistreated many is not false. I can name colleagues who felt the way I did across several units–Development, Alumni Relations, Career Development, IT, Records, Student Services, the Copy Center, Marketing/Communications, Admissions, Dean’s Office and faculty support staff, just to name a few. Look at the number of people who left and/or were trying to leave! Alumni Relations alone had three people leave in rapid succession–and let me tell you that was directly because of the way Paul treated them. The Career Development dean was ousted (but was, admittedly, more than happy to go.) Development had departures. Marketing had two (or three?) departures. IT had departures. The Dean’s Office staff had departures. I am of course aware that some of this was timing/circumstantial, but I know of at least five people who would gladly go on record, as I would, to say he is the reason they started looking for other opportunities. These are people who went to the faculty with their concerns, and the faculty listened. And luckily, many staff who also would go on record to say he treated them badly decided to stay. It is a credit to them that they were patient enough and had enough faith in the institution to stay through the tough times.
I truly do believe that your positive experience with him is valid, and I think it’s a very good thing–I’m not saying he’s a categorically bad person, but it is just a fact that he treated some people very poorly. And we’re not talking about one or two isolated staff members here…we’re talking a lot of good people who were treated badly. It’s not right, but thankfully the faculty took us seriously and advocated for us by paving the way for a better leader to take the helm; hopefully someone who will always treat people with respect, kindness and humanity. No matter how busy they got or how much pressure they were under, Fred Lawrence and Greg Maggs were always courteous and supportive of ALL staff, not just a chosen few who were lucky enough to be in the “inner circle.”
IT had departures? Really? Because it seems like a lot of the usual over there.
As a student, I’ve had contact with staff in many of the offices you’ve mentioned. And more often than not, I’ve encountered people who are incompetent, unwilling to help, etc. Are they the same people that left? I don’t know. But what I do know is that when a new leader comes in, sometimes people who do not perform well have to go.
I know in the world of academia that there’s this sense of entitlement–”I’ve worked here 25 years, and I’ll never leave!” That’s not how the real world operates. The fact that people left or were let go may say something about their performance, not the performance of the Dean.
I will not continue this discussion in a public forum. You say that you and others “will gladly go on record,” but do not identify yourselves. You say that you and many others had legitimate complaints against Paul but apparently no one ever reported them to Human Resources (the department that systematically investigates claims such as these), and instead you say that you complained to the faculty (who have no formal mechanism or capacity for such investigations). Also, I can name people in all of those same departments who have personally told me that they are worried about reverting back to the previous way of doing things now that Paul is gone.
At the end of the day, it is obvious that there were people that appreciated him and there were those who didn’t, which is the case for any leader in any position (from President Obama to the manager of a McDonalds). This chapter is over but for some reason some people won’t let it go, and I agree with another who said that it is simply due to personal vendettas that they are putting so much effort into this campaign against him. You said you’ve moved on, so just let it be.
Again, you don’t have your facts straight. Complaints were made to HR. I was one of them. Why are you making statements like “no one ever reported them to Human Resources” and “your experiences were uniquely negative” when you don’t have the proof to back up those claims? And I don’t need to identify myself in this forum as I already identified myself to HR and to the faculty–and they took me seriously.
Paul Berman has been thrust involuntarily into the public eye, and an open forum has been created for every anonymous negative comment anyone wants to make about him. Those making accusations, such as yourself, are too cowardly to reveal their identities, and although you say you have identified yourself and your claims to HR, that doesn’t do anything to support them here.
I put my name out there to stand behind my positive experience working with Paul Berman, because I know that employees still at the law school will fear retribution from faculty if they publicly support him. As I have stated, there were obviously people who felt strongly for and against Paul when he was dean, but now he is not dean anymore, and everyone needs to just move on.
Top 20! Top 20! That’s all I ever seem to read in the Hatchet-job in stories referencing the law school. Well you know what, in the industry folks refer to the T14, T6, HYS. Not the top 20. Move up six places and I’ll be impressed. The only thing you got going for you these days is that you’re better than American.
don’t forget the university of DC. we are better than the university of DC.
Says the butthurt g-town student who also doesn’t have a job.
Well, we’re ranked among the Top 20, so it’s not “BS.” If you’d like to use the arbitrary “industry” definition, whatever that means, go right ahead. The law school is highly ranked, and rightfully so.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but deans aren’t “kings.” They’re effing politicians and Berman had limited skills as a politician and got recalled. Move along, nothing to see here…
Agree. Much ado about nothing.
The biggest concern here was that Dean Berman didn’t take the time to earn the confidence of the school generally. Change is hard. It’s easier when you have a mandate from those that you lead. Dean Berman acted as though he had been popularly elected to bring change to the school on day 1. He could have done a better job to earn the trust of the school and implement change over time. With a school as old and as entrenched as GW, it’s hard to push through policies as quickly as Dean Berman tried.
top 20, t14, Dean Berman, Dean Maggs, who gives a $hit. Give me my J.D. and let me move the f*ck out of Washington.
GW, on the whole, is a terrible joke of a University.
Law students are, collectively, the biggest bunch of annoying, entitled, self important, anxiety ridden douchebags this side of the republican party. At least there a few hot chicks sprinkled in amongst the cattle at GW compared to the trainwrecks at other law schools.
Thanks for your sexist comments! I can’t wait for you to get out of Washington, either.
I’m guessing you slot in with “cattle”
GW has a bunch of professors who are scared about not getting tenure and losing their jobs. Any kind of change is a reason for fear.
I am not saying all change is good change, or the Berman was the right choice long term for the school. But you do see echoes here of what is happening to the Dean of the Business school. He is thinking outside the box, trying to make the school better, and ruffling some feathers in the process. Professors need to face the reality that GW has a long ways to go towards becoming a great university. Many of its programs and schools are stuck in the mediocre lane and not improving. Somebody needs to shake things up a little, or it will just be more of the same. With the prices people are paying to attend GW, more of the same is just not going to cut it going forward.
I think part of it has to do with the way tenured professors are compensated and reviewed. There is absolutely no impetus to depart from the status quo. In the real world, things work differently when you can watch your stock price fall in real time.
Many law professors spend less than 8 hours per week actually on the law school premises. They teach their one or two classes, keep a couple of office hours, then it’s splitsville. Seriously. I’m sure they’d respond that they work real hard from home. Many many hours on their laptops writing their law review articles that nobody reads. “Scholarship” (or, as the law students and practicing attorneys call it, “scholarsh*t). Yes, yes. You must not overextend yourselves you hard-working law professors…we are all depending on your hard, hard labor that you perform from home. Or while on sabbatical to exotic locales. I understand that some of you even blog from time to time. Oh my, so much to do and they only pay you $200,000/year to do it. Good thing those kiddies keep paying you with their student loan money. Oh, wait…the kid’s don’t apply to law school anymore. Uh oh….
Bottom line is that people come and go all the time and usually there is back story. Rarely is there one side (or right or wrong side) to any back story. That seems to be the case here. The faculty who are anonymously sharing inside information should stop now. They are tarnishing the law school’s reputation and harming students and alumni. While reveling in their “victory”, they and the administration should ask themselves about their own culpability here. Did they adequately vet Dean Berman and subject him to an unbiased hiring process that put the law school first? It was reported that Berman had a reputation for gruffness and had other blemishes that were publicly known while he was at Arizona and before GW Law engaged with him. Did the learned law professors and savvy administrators at GW Law do their due diligence and get to the bottom of these reported flaws of the then- candidate Berman? If these blemishes were known, were they properly analyzed, or did a pro-Berman camp overrun a pro-process or anti-Berman camp to bring in Berman as Dean? If this was the case, then Berman’s days were numbered from the start, his process-skirting supporters did him no favors. That is the more interesting and potentially instructive story here. Please investigate that angle of this story and report. Students and alumni are entitled to know how the law school is being managed by the tenured and other long-timers. With that kind of information, the same mistake and internal dysfunction might be avoided the next time around.
“We chose a guy for dean that we really didn’t want. Then we chased him out based on pretextual reasons a short time later.”
Hi faculty, horesplay time is over. Need some help finding some constructive work to do?
here are few certainties anymore in legal education, but it is certain that law schools will look very different in a decade. Having recently returned from the ABA deans’ meeting, it is clear that many law schools are trying to become laboratories for change and innovation as a means to recalibrate the law school experience with the realities of a rapidly changing legal market.
I have known Paul Berman for a decade, and he is clearly committed to change and innovation in legal education and now higher education. Faculties are notoriously resistant to change, however, and it sounds like the prospect of change was the source of discontent among a faction of the faculty at GW. This is despite the many achievements of Paul’s deanship, including significant fund-raising and development of innovative mentoring, professional development and career strategy programs (that many deans across the country strive to emulate).
If law schools are going to survive, we must be supple, nimble and open to new realities. Deans need to be change agents, and faculties need to accept that business-as-usual can no longer be the norm. Our students deserve none less.
Let’s not overstate the role of the ABA in bringing about change. The financial crisis is now in its fifth year. The legal market and hiring boom of the 8 years or so preceding 2008 was an historical anomaly (see the data). The ABA and law schools should have tracked the market closely and proactively explored (in a very public and accessible way) contingencies, changes, and improvements to education and market practices, with market trends in mind. Where was the ABA when it mattered most? Probably in meetings like the ABA Dean’s meeting you mention. Who attended the ABA dean’s meeting? Entrenched deans and their cheerleaders? Where is the report of that meeting? To whom has that report or other meeting information been directed– ABA dues paying members, select ABA leaders only? The ABA is perceived by some as political and a clique at the leadership levels. The leadership is packed with friends and friends of friends. How can the ABA be a change agent or even part of a solution when it appears to be part of the problem?
What’s happening to GW lately? First GW undergrad falls off the rankings list and becomes the most elite unranked school in the nation. Then we have this scandal at the law school. At this rate AU will overtake GW rather soon.
What old proverb are you talking about? I was the one who said “You come at the king, you best not miss.” That’s poor sourcing GW.
“Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.”
Emerson’s Journal, September 1843
I worked for Berman at Arizona State University and this sounds oh-so-familiar. Everything from putting on a great show, but not listening to students, to publicly belittling employees in front of others (i.e., called me “stupid” and a co-worker a “whiner” in front of colleagues in meetings), to the fact that if you weren’t one of “his people,” you were a nobody. Many good people left the ASU law school in droves while he was there. I left solely because I could not work for him any longer. Ask around in the Connecticut law school, where he was on faculty before ASU, and you’ll get the same stories.
That he was forced out of the GW law school doesn’t surprise me at all. That he’s now in charge of an online learning effort does. This is the man, who in an interview before he was hired as dean of the ASU law school, answered a question about online learning by saying that he didn’t personally believe that it belonged in law school, but if the university president said it was important, he’d think about it.
Wait, I thought droves of people were flocking to ASU Law because of its new #26 ranking on the U.S. News rankings list. Am I wrong?
Considering how far ASU jumped in the rankings from his efforts there, it seems those “droves who left” may have been keeping the school down. Just saying… Maybe some of these schools, including GW, need some tough love when it comes to staffing instead of the laissez-faire approach that seems to be the norm.
Dean Berman, while at ASU, actually initiated some online undergraduate law courses and even taught an online law course for K-12 educators. In any event I was a staff person when he was there, and I can say definitively that there was very little turnover in the staff of any kind during the time he was there, and I’m not aware of anyone leaving because of him.
As an outsider, what I’m most surprised at in reading this article is that this dean got another high-ranking, well-paying job in the administration of the same school. Why? If he were a janitor or secretary who couldn’t get the job done, he’d be canned. I don’t mean to further rag on the guy. Being ousted is tough on the ol’ psyche. It just surprises me that they hired an under-performer (not him, personally, but any under-performer) for another administrative position.
As a thirteen year member of the George Washington Law School Board of Advisors I am thoroughly disgusted by the non-stop ad hominem attacks by some infantile faculty members against the Deanship of Paul Berman. These professors, by their venomous anonymous accusations, are more concerned about perpetuating some sort of personal vendetta, than they are about the GW law students, and, the disastrous effect their insane behavior is having upon the reputation of the law school and its standing in the legal community.
It took nearly a year to complete the dean search process. Scores of the best minds of the law school: alums, faculty, and President Knapp, were involved in the selection and hiring of Dean Berman. Notwithstanding, there was a small vocal faction of the faculty who did not agree with the Berman choice.
So, what happened? Well, according to this small anonymous boisterous faculty cabal, Paul Berman, Princeton graduate, NYU, J.D. (managing Editor of the NYU Law Review), law clerk to Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards, law clerk for Justice Ginsburg, and four year Dean of Law for the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, once becoming the GW Dean, suddenly became an out of control, ill mannered bully, who wreaked terror and havoc upon staff; and, bruised the sensitivities of a small group of petulant faculty. One can only further conclude that these same bureaucrats, who are heavily invested in maintaining the antiquated legal school model for their own selfish interest, became threatened by this young visionary (read troublemaker), who dared to implement required transformative change.
Objectively, as a Board member, I witnessed what happened during the short Berman Deanship: this period was one of the best for fund-raising in the school’s history; he reached out to an unprecedented amount of alums to reintroduce them to the GW community; he developed relationships with Board members; he created much needed new student-centered programs; and began the commencement of a twenty-first century branding for the law school.
Hopefully those more influential at GW than I can stop this irrational campaign that continues to publicly disparage and embarrass our school.
Robert L. Patron, Esq.
Robert-
Great argument. Because I’m sure there are no Princeton graduates, NYU graduates, law review editors, law clerks, or Deans who are “ill-mannered” or “bullies.” The fact that Paul Berman is just one of these things makes it clear that these allegations cannot be true.
Tell us more about the search process. What was the law school looking for? Who were the other candidates? How was negative information about Berman processed? How many faculty and administration members were against Berman’s appointment? What did you and other “advisers” bring to the table? What is the action plan in light of this debacle? What lessons have been learned? How will the next search process be different? How will GWU address the obvious dysfunction in the faculty and administration ranks?
Reply
Mr. Patron: By resorting to name calling ( “infantile faculty members”) in a public forum like this, you, like the “infantile faculty members” about whom you complain, appear to be “more concerned about perpetuating some sort of personal vendetta.” Clearly this is a battle of kettles against pots. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the composition of the Law School Board of Advisors.
Indeed, let’s “reconsider the composition” of the board of advisors (normally the biggest donors). We don’t need their money in these times of dropping enrollments, or their connections for getting students jobs. We also don’t need their “real world” perspectives from outside the walls of the law school… so over-rated!
Here’s a thought. Professional Responsibility and Negotiation courses should be mandatory for all GW Law faculty, administrators, staff, and “advisers.” The handling of the Deanship matter damaged client (law school) interests, is being litigated at a high cost and in public to mutual detriment, and client confidences have been betrayed. Practice what you preach!
Tell us more about the search process. What was the law school looking for? Who were the other candidates? How was negative information about Berman processed? How many faculty and administration members were against Berman’s appointment? What did you and other “advisers” bring to the table? What is the action plan in light of this debacle? What lessons have been learned? How will the next search process be different? How will GWU address the obvious dysfunction in the faculty and administration ranks?
maybe if the administration would have hired Helen Dragas as a consultant, you wouldn’t have had any controversy getting rid of this guy.
I hesitate to enter into this fray but I feel compelled to provide my perspective on this sad situation. I am a long-term member of the Dean’s Board Advisors and was appointed chair of the Board by Fred Lawrence before his departure. In that capacity, I was honored to serve on the most recent Dean Search Committee. I can without hesitation say that the process for picking the new dean was rigorous and well run. The Search Committee was very diverse with members of the law faculty working closely with alumni, members of the university administration, and a student member. We reviewed hundreds of resumes and selected approximately 25 candidates to interview in depth. Out of those 25 or so candidates, the top prospects were invited to campus to meet faculty as well as student and alumni committees. We had many qualified candidates but Paul Berman stood out as a dynamic candidate with strong views as to how to bring GW Law to the next level of prominence in legal education. Having worked closely with Dean Berman during his tenure, I think most would agree that his strategies and initiatives were creative and in almost all cases well considered. I don’t know whether his execution of his initiatives was the most diplomatic or sensitive, but I can say that, in my experience, Paul Berman is a man of good will who would not intentionally seek to antagonize or abuse his co-workers.
I am totally committed to GW Law. I have spent much time and effort in assisting the law school to become the premier law school in D.C. and the nation. I am truly saddened that the concerns of some have led to a public airing of allegations, whether true or not, that can in no way benefit the school, its faculty, or the GWU administration. We started the dean search with the highest aspirations and expectations. Hopefully, the next Dean Search Committee will be able to overcome the damage done by this unfortunate and complex situation. I, for one, will not be deterred in my support of an institution that serves a very important role in legal education and the legal community.
I am a board member of the Alumni Association and had much contact with Dean Berman during his brief tenure. The only reason I am writing is to express my dismay over “anonymous faculty members” driving this “story.” Exactly who benefits from this? Certainly not the reputation of our law school, its faculty, or its students.
Absent from this extensive discourse has been any examination of the structural bases from which this unfortunate incident arose. GW is apparently unique among American institutions of higher learning in the power possessed by its schools’ faculties, which groups literally hire (and apparently defacto fire) their bosses, a phenomenon unknown in the business world.
Like Messrs. Patron and Kahan, I have been a member of the Dean’s Law School Advisory Board for many years. I am also an Elliot School and law school alum, a financial contributor for years, an adjunct professor at the law school, and even a Hatchet alum, besides having invested many hours as a member of a search committee that helped find and hire Paul Berman. I am therefore dismayed by the sordid spectacle that has sullied the good name and reputation of Paul Berman while casting an outstanding faculty of many well-meaning and honorable people as petulant ingrates.
Change is coming to law school education. Paul Berman was clearly a great choice to guide our law school during such challenging times. Frankly, unless GW Law’s unique governance is not changed, who could conceivably guide such a school through challenging times while handicapped by an obligation to please those he or she must supervise?
As an avid consumer of journalism, I am always highly skeptical of the motives and accuracy of sources quoted anonymously. It is especially disappointing to see budding journalists rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources to challenge the accomplishments and leadership abilities of a highly successful individual. For these reasons, among others, I was saddened to read The GW Hatchet’s recent article about Paul Schiff Berman’s departure from The George Washington Law School. Weinberg, “Law faculty plotted to oust dean,” The GW Hatchet, Feb. 25, 2013.
As a 1979 graduate of George Washington Law School, a member for many years—under several Deans and Interim Deans—of the Law School Dean’s Board of Advisers, as a donor to the Law School, and as a partner and employer of many fine graduates of the Law School, I have maintained a strong relationship with and interest in the school. Although I do not claim first hand knowledge of the faculty machinations described in the article, if accurate they strike me as at best unbecoming and at worst short-sighted, self-interested, and petty.
I do, however, know, respect, and admire Paul Schiff Berman. The challenges facing legal education at this moment are epochal. Nevertheless, during this time of unprecedented challenge for legal education, Dean Berman’s energy, passion, and enthusiasm for the Law School and legal education were invaluable. His ideas and efforts to help GWU Law realize its great potential as the center of legal education in the Nation’s capital were inspirational and effective. His fundraising prowess impressed each of us on the Dean’s Board of Advisors, especially during a challenging economic time. And his effort last spring to telephone each student admitted into the entering law school class for Fall 2012—every single one— reflected both a calm recognition of the cold, hard facts of declining law school applications and a near-heroic investment of his own time over the course of many weeks.
Now, Paul Schiff Berman has taken a position as Vice Provost for Online Education and Academic Innovation. He is enthusiastic about this new and exciting role, and the University is fortunate to have him in it. With his vision, energy, and enthusiasm, I am confident he will help position George Washington University as a leader in online learning.
Don’t get lost in the details. Selfish, incompetent people are accusing other selfish people of being incompetent. Incompetency here meaning fulfilling the mission of a law school – to graduate students that are good stewards of the legal profession and who will have a reasonable chance at getting a job that will pay enough to service the costs these schools charge. If you look at the statistics GW isn’t close to reaching this mission. Everything else is a distraction. A distraction that allows certain employees of higher education (and the majority of law school employees) to make a living that puts them in the top 10% (at least, for many, top 2%) of wage earners. That wage has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to fulfill the mission of their business. It is a wage that can only be met because of an endless sea of loan money washing up on their shores. Your darn right their is panic and disagreement. And it’s not surprising to hear that those closest to retirement are those most desperately clinging to the status quo. Whether they know their actions harm many does not matter.