“My concerns result in large part from the longstanding practices of two of Blinkx’s key acquisitions, Zango and AdOn. But concerns extend even to Blinkx’s namesake video site. In the following sections, I address each in turn. Specifically, I show ex-Zango adware still sneaking onto users’ computers and still defrauding advertisers. I show the ex-AdOn traffic broker still sending invisible, popup, and other tainted traffic. I show Blinkx’ namesake site, Blinkx.com, leading users through a maze of low-content pages, while charging advertisers for video ads systematically not visible to users.”
Professors often take on political or business interests in their academic writings or outside advocacy. Edelman alleges that Blinkx hired a publicist to smear him as a result of his criticism.
Edelman then was involved in a controversy over his criticism of a Brookline restaurant called Sichuan Garden and the prices listed on its website. He says that he discovered that Sichuan Garden had overcharged him for an order and he sent some e-mails complaining about the allegedly fraudulent practice. He admits that he was too confrontational in his emails and he later apologized.
However, the situation blew up when the controversy was picked up by Boston.com. While he never mentioned his HBS connection, many in the public were outraged over a Harvard professor complaining about a mere $4 overcharge.
The Sichuan Garden controversy is reminiscent of an earlier controversy that we discussed involving Yale dean June Chu, who was canned after she criticized a Japanese restaurant on Yelp.
The heat was so intense from the coverage that HBS suggested a two-year delay in Edelman’s tenure review in 2015. He agreed. However, he alleges that, in 2017, HBS came back with a vengeance despite his support from colleagues.
The “faculty review board” is accused of raising vague allegations and giving Edelman little time or ability to respond. Equally concerning is his allegation that, in addition to looking at whether he learned his lesson from the earlier controversies, HBS looked into his involvement in a class-action suit against American Airlines. The lead plaintiff in the case was a HBS professor and Edelman asked the school if there would be a conflict before joining the case.
Edelman also alleges that the school changed its tenure vote to require him to receive support from two-thirds of the faculty. Edelman received only 58% of the votes.
Tenure denial cases have a very low rate of success. These decisions turn on the judgment of the faculty on the intellectual and pedagogical strength of a candidate, matters difficult for any court to review. However, Edelman is alleging a breach of contract, “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing” and promissory estoppel.
Edelman’s list of requested relief is interesting. In addition to unspecified damages, Edelman is asking for a declaration that HBS violated its own rules and his due process. It also includes this demand:
“Order Harvard to review Plaintiff’s application for tenure in accord with its policies, without reliance upon the 2017 FRB report, including corrective actions sufficient to dispel the harm from the 2017 FRB report and sufficient to assure that any subsequent proceedings are not tainted by recollection of that report or retaliation for this action.”
I was first sent coverage of this case that chided a professor who was denied tenure after attacking a Chinese restaurant over four bucks. I think that it is more than that.
I am deeply concerned over a professor being penalized over his work on an outside case. We saw that type of backlash at Harvard against House Dean and law professor Ronald Sullivan for his work on the Weinstein case.
Moreover, Edelman was obviously not aggrieved by the $4 as a personal financial matter. He was objecting to what he viewed as a deceptive practice. One can agree or disagree with his language or his objections, but that is a matter unconnected to HBS. Finally, the essay on Blinkx is precisely what tenure is meant to protect as academics take on powerful establishment or corporate interests. Again, Edelman insists that he was concerned with alleged consumer fraud.
It is equally troubling to read allegations how HBS allowed this tenure deliberation to become a free-for-all on such allegations. While we have not seen HBS’ response, the details in the complaint raise serious due process concerns.
None of this means that Edelman will be able to take this to trial. As noted above, courts are reluctant to be pulled into such discretionary decisions by faculties. Yet, the complaint raises serious questions over the use of outside advocacy and commentary against faculty members.
Here is the complaint against the President and Fellows of Harvard College: Edelman Complaint