Brewing a tempest in a teapot

Most of the time, Queen's' name usually only comes up in stories about research or gripes about lack of funding.

So it was a surprise to learn from my friend that Queen's University's name appeared in the New York Times. And then I read the story from the Globe and Mail and the Kingston Whig-Standard...

Apparently our new Principal, Dr. Karen Hitchcock was embroiled in an ethics inquiry (during her transition from SUNY Albany to Queen's) regarding a supposed discussion with a developer about guaranteeing a construction contract at the university in exchange for endowing a chair that she could fill when she left her position of Principal at SUNY. The New York Times article apparently questioned why Queen's would hire her while she was involved in ths inquiry by the state's ethics commission.

State law in New York prevents further inquiry once she left her academic position. Her lawyer responded that Hitchcock answered all the commission's questions and that everyone was aware of her resignation, that it hadn't been accelerated or anything. In fact, she already had tenure, so why she would need an endowment from outside was also questioned. Our Chancellor Charles Baillie back her and the school's decision fully, saying that she had been forthcoming with the inquiry and that Queen's own investigation showed no reason to delay her hiring.

I would have to read the NY Times to see what the big deal really is about. This seems like one of those situations where it sounds and looks worse than it actually is. Had the inquiry actually found some substance to those allegations, I'm sure it would've come up during the hiring process and that local media would've picked up on it sooner rather than now. And I have confidence in Queen's that they wouldn't hire someone who may be ethically compromised. Therefore, I'm really intrigued as to why the NYT would bring it up now...but frankly, I can't be bothered to register their website.

What's really irksome is the response to Hitchcock's hiring. A friend who works for campus fundraising apparently had to prepare responses for her callers if alumni were to ask about these current 'allegations' (that have since been picked up by no one, thank goodness) or why Queen's decided to an American (gasp!) or a woman (gasp gasp!!). The American question was also made by sources of the Globe article.

If alumni are seriously asking these sorts of questions, then I'm truly ashamed. These are the same people who graduated from a university that prides itself on cultivating 'global citizens.' But apparently, we can't even donate money without bad-mouthing our neighbours to the south. Can someone give me a good reason why an American can't be our Principal? American universities attract our administrators all the time (ask UofT) because they look for the best, not because they're looking for a particular nationality. Why should we disqualify someone just because they're American? It's this type of knee-jerk anti-Americanism that gives the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada), Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson's ilk ammo for their mouths. And if you're asking why Queen's hired a woman, then you need to go back to the 1950s and stay there. There's no point in arguing with you. You're hopeless.

For most people, this is a non-story. For the Queen's alum readers out there, hoped you enjoyed this post with your afternoon tea.