The media absolutely screwed Ben on this story. He’s a hero—the only business school professor I’ve ever known who even considered fighting for the little guy, let alone who actually did—and did not deserve the treatment he received.
To make it sound like I was out of line, FRB had to twist evidence. I explain in my video www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ at 32:04. The real story here isn't that I did or didn't find a projector problem, but that FRB went out of its way to try to make me look bad.
"Projectorgate" refers to staff seeking to reduce MBA classroom projectors by 17% to 31% without telling faculty. I found out and told a few colleagues, who complained to a Dean, who insisted on reversal. Some people thought I was rude. I thought teaching & learning more important than saving face.
Ultimately, I'd say Edmondson and FRB were just out to get me. They had decided the 2014 incidents meant I had to go. But there was no consensus in broader faculty for that decision. They had to find something else to torpedo me, hence these pretextual reasons. Not permitted under P&P rules.
In a 2015 meeting, FRB members discussed learnings from interviews. P.9: Edmondson: says "everyone loves him" (meaning me) and explains why -- that I'm useful to know ("gets them free stuff"). www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-e... I do try to be useful. Why is this grounds for criticism?
When Edmondson gathered evidence, it kept portraying me positively. For example, first two interviews were positive. www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-e... To that, she proclaimed "sigh." www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-e... She WANTED people to criticize me and was annoyed when they didn't.
"Projectorgate" - check out www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ at 32:04 as to FRB's remarkable effort to conceal favorable evidence. IT leaders had blunderously made screens 16% to 31% smaller without telling faculty. Thanks to me, this was fixed and did not affect teaching or learning.
Now, to senior IT leaders, maybe I was more threatening. If they had an idea I disagreed with, I would state my view and insist on a rigorous discussion on the engineering merits. Felt it was worth the time for high-stakes decisions affecting thousands or tens of thousands of students.
And I had warm relationships with junior IT staff. We worked hard at fixing bugs, finding better ways to get things done--I relished this stuff, and they liked having a faculty member in the trenches with them.
Not as simple as "cultural fit". I loved HBS. I enjoyed writing cases (which many junior faculty did not). I cared about teaching so much that I wrote software to make me (and others) better at it, so much that I pre-tested my classroom to make sure everything worked. These are HBS core values.
And a decade earlier, I had asked Associate Dean Jean Cunningham what approval if any was required to originate lawsuits. She (correctly) told me none. Somehow those crucial facts--that I asked, what she told me, that there truly was no such policy--are all absent from FRB report. Out to get me!
In deposition, FRB member Stu Gilson said my class action against American Airlines (re bag fee overcharges) was improper bc it could cause AA not to enroll in HBS executive programs. Transcript below. www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-d... page 10. But I violated no policy. Big company bias.
You're right that Edmondson wanted me out. Representative quote: “obvious that we shouldn't have him on the senior faculty" (before collecting any evidence in 2017). I don't know what led her there. Compare widespread praise for me in her interviews www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-e... .
The mistake I allege in this lawsuit is that HBS FRB did not follow its procedure. HBS in turn says the policy is not binding, not a contract, so it doesn't matter if they followed or not.
Did you watch the video from which that screenshot is taken? www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-video2/ The quotes sound terrible. But each one is seriously flawed. For example 10 and 12 are FABRICATIONS, not in interview notes. Even H's lawyers couldn't find them in the emails they're supposedly from.
Ultimately universities are run by faculty, versus companies by and for shareholders. It does not surprise me that a group of faculty would vote to create significant procedural protections *for faculty*. Indeed this is how HBS FRB policy arose--widespread concern that prior policies were unfair.
In contrast, my general sense is that in most parts of the economy, skills are somewhat more transferable. Can a successful marketing manager at Starbucks become a successful marketing manager at Chipotle? I think so, maybe to a slightly greater degree than HBS->Wharton or what have you.
At HBS, specifically, junior faculty make school-specific investments. HBS wants junior faculty to write teaching cases, and learn to teach in a style that is only common at HBS. If faculty thought promotions would be arbitrary, it would be a bad deal to invest time in these ways.
Deep question! Narrow answer is because the policy says so. Indeed, I wanted nothing more than what the policy promised.
Andrew King posted an incisive series on LI:
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
Many discussions on X including a closer look at the restaurateur who intentionally overcharged customers for years. Ex-partner says he hid income and drove a $279k SUV, while I cycled. Who's the bully? And tragedy: He offered drugs to a date, who declined. She was dead, overdose, the next morning.
Update in my lawsuit against Harvard: Judge ruled against me on all key points. FRB P&P is not a contract. I can’t prove H violated P&P. Any procedural violations didn't harm me bc Dean Nohria says he would not have recommended tenure regardless. My remarks: www.edelman-v-harvard.org/reflections-...
Glad you found and enjoyed Andrew King's remarkable series. Latest, today, is www.linkedin.com/feed/update/... .
Previously: www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
Even "abrasive" is not disqualifying. The policy at issue is supposed to evaluate alleged "misconduct"--not a personality test. www.edelman-v-harvard.org/docs/frb-pan...
I just wanted to be evaluated in accordance with the posted rules. HBS plainly did not do so. www.edelman-v-harvard.org
As to "abrasive": I don't think we've met, so your information is probably what you read about me or what you inferred. Respectfully, you may be wrong. Check out these excerpts from my submission to FRB as I fought to clear my name. More at www.edelman-v-harvard.org/sj-docs/ja-e... p.42
People thought I was bullying the restaurant. But family court docs say he drove a $289k Mercedes, while I rode a bike. Who's the bully? I wrote in my personal capacity. He figured out I was Harvard faculty, saw a way to get free publicity at my expense. I got played on multiple levels.
Much more to the restaurant kerfuffle than most people know. Restaurateur had overcharged for years, other customers complained, and he once called the police in response to a customer complaint. Some screenshots here. I have more.
Preformed conclusion. When chair Amy Edmondson received evidence that presented me favorably, she said she was "anxious". Called that subject "not the right one to pick"--meaning the "right" subject would be one that presented me negatively. Opposite of following the evidence.
Recurring problems:
Selective excerpting.
Remarks contrary to the witness's own words in a contemporaneous letter or in deposition.
Speculation about contexts the witness did not observe.
Confusion about key facts the witness criticized.
The HBS committee that evaluated me offered 13 negative quotes. Turns out just two witnesses contributed almost half these quotes (6/13). Two other quotes were falsified and are not found in interview notes. My new video critiques this sloppy work: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxRi...
