[BostonCard]

I mean, if you scroll up, you will see all the reasons I put forth that Muir should be be gone.  I mean, he failed the first commandment of a major department administrator at Stanford: thou shalt not allow scandals on thy watch, and he allowed two.

But I don’t understand the desire to minimize the things he has done well, and he has done a few of those, including hiring Esper.  In any personnel decision, the decision will rarely be unambiguous (except maybe Wlat; I have yet to hear anyone tell me a reason he should have been retained).  But that decision should be made lining up the positives and the negatives.  In Muir’s case, the negatives outweigh the positives, IMHO, even if one gives him full credit for Esper.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, if you scroll up, you will see all the reasons I put forth that Muir should be be gone.  I mean, he failed the first commandment of a major department administrator at Stanford: thou shalt not allow scandals on thy watch, and he allowed two.

But I don’t understand the desire to minimize the things he has done well, and he has done a few of those, including hiring Esper.  In any personnel decision, the decision will rarely be unambiguous (except maybe Wlat; I have yet to hear anyone tell me a reason he should have been retained).  But that decision should be made lining up the positives and the negatives.  In Muir’s case, the negatives outweigh the positives, IMHO, even if one gives him full credit for Esper.

BC