SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
Linda Katehi, the chancellor of the University of California, Davis, has been suspended pending an investigation into the decision to spent hundreds of thousand of dollars improving Google search results for her name, amid a range of other questionable activities.
The decision to put Katehi on paid administrative leave was made by UC President Janet Napolitano, who wrote a two-page letter(PDF) to Katehi noting she would be suspended for 90 days pending the outcome of a "rigorous and transparent investigation."
The revelation that Katehi's office had spent $175,000 in an effort to "achieve a reasonable balance of positive natural search results on common terms concerning UC Davis and Chancellor Katehi" was dug out by the Sacramento Bee looking into why UC Davis' "strategic communications budget" had jumped from $2.93M in 2009 to $5.47M in 2015.
The events Katehi was seeking to whitewash--when security officers pepper-sprayed sitting students back in 2011--received nationwide press attention for the seemingly callous way in which the undergraduates were treated. The news that the university had secretly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to remove that reputational stain was similarly covered.
[...] Napolitano's letter also puts a spotlight on other concerns over Katehi's behavior, including the employment of her son, her husband, and her daughter-in-law by the university.
[...] The letter [also] refers to complaints that student fees have been used for "unapproved instructional purposes" which would be "a serious violation of University policy".
[...] UC Davis students have been holding rallies calling for Katehi's resignation for over a week.
Previous: University of California in Davis Spent $175k on SEO and "Reputation Management"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:39PM
spent hundreds of thousand of dollars
The revelation that Katehi's office had spent $175,000
Technically not "hundreds." A hundred and change. Not yet two hundreds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:51PM
Uh oh. You took wonkey_monkey's schtick.
He's going to have an OCD breakdown now.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 29 2016, @02:41PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MspmQbgsvS4 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 29 2016, @02:26PM
Say the following two sentences and tell me which sounds right.
"One and a half cars remained after the accident"
"One and a half car remained after the accident"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:49PM
Personally I would've said "over $100,000", using it in its narrowly-defined definition of "higher than this significant digit but not as high as the next."
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 29 2016, @03:05PM
There are better phrasings, but the pedantic accusation was one of being technically wrong. I side with the article writer in that respect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:16PM
Your argument for which is technically correct is "this one sounds better"? WTF
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @05:59PM
Yes. Language is literally about what sounds better. Just like the rule for choosing whether to use the "a" or "an" indefinite article depends entirely on how it sounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @04:57PM
why not "one car and a half remained"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 29 2016, @06:39PM
Is 1.75 past the plural threshold? Can we round up since it's more than 1.5?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday April 30 2016, @04:49PM
That's one and a half time [sic] enough for me.
Washington DC delenda est.