Slashdot Mirror


US Academy President Caught Embellishing Resume, Will Resign

An anonymous reader writes "The 233-year old American Academy of Arts and Sciences has announced that its longtime President and Chief Executive, Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, has agreed to resign effective at the end of this month following an investigation of charges of resume embellishment and other misconduct. Berlowitz falsely claimed to have received a doctorate from New York University, and has also been criticized for her behavior towards scholars and subordinates, and for her compensation package ($598,000 for 2012) relative to the size of the non-profit organization she led. The Academy, based in Cambridge MA, was founded during the American Revolutionary War and is one of the most prestigious honorary societies for the American intellectual elite, extending across math and science, arts and letters, business, law and public affairs. The active membership rolls contain people you've heard of; the incoming class list provides a more manageable glimpse of the society's breadth."

24 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Patriarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    She is clearly a victim of the patriarchy's obsession with facts and evidence.

    She FEELS she deserves the post.. so therefore she does.

  2. Dear God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She is so fucked. It doesn't matter so much that she lied for the Academy. But she lied on grant proposals. This could lead to a MASSIVE criminal penalty.

    Ref:
    18 USC Section 1001
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
    18 USC Section 1031
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1031

    She is so fucked it isn't even funny. She might want to head to Russia and ask for asylum.

    1. Re:Dear God by djmurdoch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't you read the summary? Her salary was $598,000 last year. Nobody with a salary that large gets any criminal penalty. (Actually, Jeffrey Skilling is a counterexample, but there are very few others.)

    2. Re:Dear God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not so bad. Lie on a home loan or a credit application and you can get 30 years (which I'm betting that she probably also did if she was willing to lie on grants). This is the charge that federal prosecutors go after if they can, since the 30 year penalty ensures a plea agreement (this was famously used to oust Baltimore police chief Ed Norris when he took a loan from his father and listed that money as an asset for a home loan). And since Carmen Ortiz will be in charge of this case, you can almost guarantee this will be employed. And if there is one thing we've learned about Carmen Ortiz (other than the Aaron Swartz case) it is that she does not tolerate anyone defrauding banks--except other banks or bankers.

    3. Re:Dear God by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      Innocent until proven broke.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    4. Re:Dear God by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Your post is a fascinating example of cognitive bias. You have your pre-conceived idea, and when presented with evidence that contradicts it, you come up with an excuse that somehow 'it doesn't count'. You don't like rich people, and there's nothing things like 'evidence' can do to change that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Dear God by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2

      I don't know whether to laugh or to weep. We really do need a 'Funny but Insightful and tragic' Mod.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  3. Irony: by Hartree · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of her publications is titled: Restoring Trust in American Business

    We're not off to a good start on that.

  4. What's the hubbub? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    As long as companies lie in the job description and promises of packages and benefits, I'll lie in my CV and my skills.

    Turnabout is only fair!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What's the hubbub? by sribe · · Score: 2

      The difference is if they lie, there's not much you as an employee can do about it. However, if you lie, they can fire you.

      Uhm, you can "fire" them any day you decide to do so.

  5. Internal politicing by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many of the people who rise to the tops of large organizations are backstabbing, loudmouthed, blowhards. They scheme and calculate their way to the top. This applies to almost all large organizations. A simple way around this is to add randomization. The idea is that for any promotion you have many many qualified candidates and then pick one at random. I very much doubt that there was only one qualified candidate for her job. Obviously the system they used picked one of the worst.

    This random system then prevents people from spending all their time scheming to set up the ideal circumstances where all the other candidates have been pushed under a bus. Also then they don't owe any favors for their job.

    1. Re:Internal politicing by kye4u · · Score: 2

      This random system then prevents people from spending all their time scheming to set up the ideal circumstances where all the other candidates have been pushed under a bus. Also then they don't owe any favors for their job.

      Even with that method....you would have the same problem. This is because of how a "qualified" candidate will most likely be defined. The "qualified" candidates will be the ones that are the most adept at politicking (i.e. backstabbing) and marketing (i.e. look at all the amazing things I do for company Z) themselves.

      So you'd have a random pool of people who were all scheming and calculating there way to the top.

    2. Re:Internal politicing by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I very much doubt that there was only one qualified candidate for her job. Obviously the system they used picked one of the worst.

      I don't know about that... her position was "President of the US Academy." A presidential position in a large nonprofit is all about image, motivation and being able to bring in the money. My guess is that mo matter what her academic credentials were, she wouldn't have been able to keep that position for 17 years without excelling at the mentioned criteria. Most eggheads in any specialty who were really interested in the pursuit of knowledge would be dismal failures as presidents of such an organization. They require someone who inspires confidence (who we usually call a con artist).

  6. Re:In crowd by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I should probably put in a footnote: Elitist colleges like this don't like having the truth rubbed in their faces. That's why she's getting dismissed -- she just proved their demands of needing a college degree are hollow and stupid. It's an embarassment of epic proportions. Not that I should have to say this if you can read between the lines, but increasingly, I have my doubts about the average slashdotter's ability to even read the lines, let alone between them... hence this post.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Re:Compare this to Germany by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    There a number of politicians have been given the shaft because their Phds were based on theses that were mostly copy&paste from unattributed sources.

    Of course, not having received a doctorate in the first place (rather than based on insufficiently independent work) is a bit more audacious.

    Doesn't anybody check that? And in this kind of position?

    In most areas of life, if you talk the talk and deliver on promises, nobody checks to see if you walked the walk, other than in a most superficial manner.

  8. Some punishment by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "She will receive a one-time payment of $475,000 for retirement and other benefits, according to an academy statement, but no severance payment"

    *That* should teach her a lesson and send a strong signal.

    1. Re:Some punishment by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's important that important people be shielded from consequences. Without exception, the Important People, and their talking heads, that I see on TV assure me that this is so.

  9. AAAS not AAAS by methano · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's easy to get these guys, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, mixed up with with these guys, The American Association for the Advancement of Science. They're not the same. The latter are the ones that publish Science, the prestigious scientific journal. The former, I'm not sure who those guys are. Seems like I've heard controversy about this woman before.

    1. Re:AAAS not AAAS by starless · · Score: 2

      It's easy to get these guys, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, mixed up with with these guys, The American Association for the Advancement of Science. They're not the same. The latter are the ones that publish Science, the prestigious scientific journal. The former, I'm not sure who those guys are.

      Aren't they the people who award the Oscars or something...?

    2. Re:AAAS not AAAS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Also not the same as the prestigious and perhaps more familiar National Academies, which consists of The National Academy of Science, The National Academy of Engineering, The Institute of Medicine, and The National Research Council.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. Re:In crowd by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don’t get your rant on student loans. She lied about having a doctoral degree. No one should be doing a doctoral degree on a student loan. Bachelors and Masters – sure. But, not for a doctoral degree. Not having money is not a reason for not having a doctorate.

    > as HR passes over you repeatedly

    This has nothing to do with glass ceiling at HR. In fact, HR does not handle doctorates well. They don't understand them for most part. They almost seem to count it as a liability. The only people who respect it are other people with doctorates since they know what it takes to get one and about how to put such candidates to use. This lady was NOT going through a HR filter. Few who make close to $600K do. She did not betray a faceless HR. She betrayed people who would most likely know her by name, for grants that cost millions of tax payer dollars.

    Most of these studies in humanities don't get verifications. You trust the people who have done them because they have been trained for a decade in a culture of academic honesty. Now, all the studies she would have done in the past would need to be called into question since she might have faked data. Your defense of her is quite bizarre. This isn't a put-food-on-table, livelihood position.

    > The conservatives have hated public education since it was first introduced

    How did you manage to turn this into a partisan issue?

    > she just proved their demands of needing a college degree are hollow and stupid.

    She has college degrees alright, from good institutions too - a bachelors from NYU and a masters from Columbia. She did not have a doctoral degree from NYU that she claimed she had.

    You clearly have not been in academia and you have no idea what you are talking about. Forgetting to cite things in a paper can get you into a world of trouble. Faking a doctorate, in grant applications no less, is pretty much an academic death sentence - in any country, at any level - not just US elite institutions.

    > I have my doubts about the average slashdotter's ability to even read the lines, let alone between them... hence this post.

    You clearly consider yourself far above this average that you seem to have computed. Why hang around here if we are not your intellectual equals? For the benefit of gracing us with your insights from above, oh elite mind?

    The average slashdotter is fine. It is you who is seeing imaginary lines and projecting.

  11. Time and money by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    People get away with this because verification of all these facts costs time and money. Even companies that are actually hired to do background checks are often slacking and don't actually verify the copies of diplomas you send them.

    Also, universities and such have a good reason to not make an API for 3rd parties to query their databases. First, they'd have to settle on an API with all educational facilities, at least nationwide, probably even globally. Second of all, they can charge for a nice sum of money for every request now. Making an API will make it cost more and return less per request, since then things will be standardized and fees will most likely be regulated to be cheap to use.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  12. Why then end of the month? by houghi · · Score: 2

    Why not immediately? And resign?

    I live in Socialist Europe where people are protected by all kinds of laws. If you would be caught that you lied about a doctorate, that would mean immediate termination of your job. No compensation and no right on unemployment benefits.

    I am very much interested as to why she lied about that doctorate. For many jobs on that level they would ask 'doctorate or similar through experience'. As it is very unlikely that they hire a person at the age that has no experience, there would be no reason to lie about it.

    If a job actually requires a doctorate, it will be checked before you begin. Not 100% foolproof, but if you then get caught, immediate termination and possible lawsuits (depending on the case) will follow. Or: Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. Re:Compare this to Germany by SJester · · Score: 2

    As a counterexample, my own Ph.D. thesis, the one of my boss and one of a fiend are easy to find.

    You search for demonic doctorates? I have enough trouble finding the research I need for my job. Are you using Google Scholar?