Talk:Michael M. Crow/Archive 1

Who wrote this page, ASU's public relations?
Jessesamuel 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture, Not Criticisms
The statements below lack verifiable references.

Dr. Crow is well known in the Phoenix area to be a controversial leader. He has had several confrontations with local media and less well publicized confrontations with government officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.234.10 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 April 2007

It's not unverifiable at all. Do a search on "Michael Crow" and you can find numerous written articles specifically criticizing his leadership. The Phoenix New Times has published many of them. I don't think it's a stretch to call him controversial, neither is that an unfavorable accusation anyhow. If you want verification, speak with university students, speak with his subordinates (with the promise of anonymity of course). He IS controversial, loved and hated by people passionately. The public criticism is beyond what other public figures attract. The two statements above are very general, and only scratch the surface of accusations made against him. Read ASU Inc if you would like to explore more about Crow's controversial leadership. I think it would be fair and balanced for the page entry to explore such strong opinions about him, and I think it is positively skewed to exclude them. Crow has hecklers, like any leader, and perhaps gets personally attacked for his actions, but again, we need to be fair and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.63.126 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 May 2007

The discussion page is for opinions
Criticism (Opinion)

"Michael Crow has 'corporatized' Arizona State University, creating an environment of market-like competition. This model may be appropriate for corporations, however the purpose of a university is not to maximize profit. Some aspects of his leadership are distancing the university administration from both students and faculty. He also encourages tuition increases at a rate which many believe to be beyond reason." -Anonymous

"Arizona State University is a traditional university, and Michael Crow is attempting to transform it into what he regards as 'The New American University.' Like any organization, many people aren't comfortable with change, and they need to be convinced that the new way is truly the better way.  Where Dr. Crow fails as a leader, is in failing to actively convince people of the need for his change initiatives.  He leads in a very top down 'theory X' manner, rather than a collaborative and inspirational way.  People are afraid to openly criticize Dr. Crow for fear of punishment or adverse retribution.  Perhaps to some extent he does use enthusiasm to motivate and inspire people, but he also leads by fear.  To those around him in his inner circle of friends and educators he may be a passionate and impressive man, but to many in the university he is just a name - pushing changes for which no rationale or reason is provided. Dr. Crow needs to work on being more like Martin Luther King, and less like Darth Vader." -Anonymous

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanadoe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 May 2007

Criticism (Opinion)
This article sounds too much like an advertisement and needs to be edited for impartiality and objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.202.39 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Investigative journalist "Jana Bommersbach," detailed a systematic history of attacks on women and persons of color by Dr Crow in the article "ASU's True Colors," Mr. Crow's body of work goes back to his controversial tenure at Columbia University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.204.65 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In April 7, 2009 ASU announced the university would not award President Obama an honorary degree when he speaks at the commencement ceremony on May 13. "We're looking for people who have made great accomplishments," Crow said. "Because President Obama's body of work is yet to come, it's inappropriate to recognize him at this time," university spokesperson Sharon Keeler explained. Past recipients of ASU honorary degrees included an aloe-vera salesman, the director of "Victor Victoria", a Chinese politician, Senator Barry Goldwater, Jerry Colangelo, and various ASU donors and fundraisers. On April 11, 2009 Crow confirmed ASU's decision and said ASU will honor the President by renaming a scholarship for poor students after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.234.10 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism of original content
CORRECTION: Original source of the text cited in the false accusation below - www.asu.edu/president/meetthepresident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.234.10 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 May 2007

This page was largely plagiarized by user Mdesquer on 23:36, 16 February 2007. I have found the original source of Mdesquer's information, which is verbatim off a press release page on NAU's website here. Although the information started out as blatant plagiarism, the page has since changed somewhat, and obviously in the process of changing further. So copyright violation should not be an issue with more work and a few more iterations. To answer the question of why it doesn't seem objective, the original was not written objectively, but it was in fact a positively skewed press release. I have added facts, as well as added a criticism section, which should be maintained and even expanded to promote balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.63.126 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Note The above statement was originally added by 149.169.114.72 on 20:19, 3 April 2007 ; deleted by 129.219.234.10 on 21:42, 13 April 2007 ; and then restored by 72.208.63.126 on 09:31, 15 April 2007. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So, apparently the material wasn't plagiarized from NAU's website, but from ASU's website. Makes no difference, just the same, someone copied over material without citing the source. The fact that it is an official page on the servers of Micheal Crow's university only emphasizes that the source material is positively skewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.16.79 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 June 2007

New page started
I've started a new page at Michael Crow/Temp, without copyvio and hopefully without quite so much PR puffery. -- Kazrak 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In reality, Micheal Crow's clashes with the The State Press are minor and insignificant, and the "Clashes" section is flagrant self aggrandization by someone who obviously is or was employed by The State Press.

There should be more emphasis on ASU's drastic climb in rankings since he took office, rather than petty accusations on who he upset at the school's newspaper. 162.135.0.6 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clashes with the State Press
It should be noted that President Michael Crow's actual request of the State Press was that the newspaper establish a formal editorial policy in order to address inquiries regarding the publication's content. Mdesquer 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"In 2003, a memorable State Press spoof cover featured a simulated photo of ASU president Michael Crow passed out in a bathtub, with vomit on his shirt and a bottle of cheap vodka cradled on his arm. Crow later complained about the photo to the State Press editorial board. In spring 2004, an article about alleged mistreatment of employees at ASU's Department of Residential Life was criticized as one-sided by the department. State Press Magazine created a stir in fall 2004 by publishing a full-page cover photo of a woman's naked, pierced breast on its cover; the publication drew criticism from prominent conservatives and ASU boosters such as Ira Fulton, who felt the university's administration needed to have more oversight regarding editorial decisions. The incident may have led to the actions alleged in a November 2004 Phoenix New Times article, "Quid Pro Crow: ASU's president puts the squeeze on freedom of speech to please his biggest donor" Quid Pro Crow. The article drew national attention and was featured on several media news Web sites. The paper also won an award for the way it handled pressure from the administration concerning content." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdesquer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2007


 * Note The material quoted above by Mdesquer originally appeared in Michael M. Crow. It was removed from the article earlier that day by Mdesquer with this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Update on Author of "Quid Pro Crow"
Ex-journalist suspect in heists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.234.10 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 April 2007
 * Note Correct link is http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/0403nebandit0403-CP.html - Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable Source: Phoenix New Times
Removing biased information sourced only to the New Times because The Phoenix New Times just isn't a reliable source for an encyclopedia entry. I already learned this lesson the hard way, see Talk:Anthem%2C_Arizona, a discussion resulting from when I attempted to use it for a source for information regarding possible problems with homes in Anthem before knowing better. The author of the 2004 article has also apparently admitted to felonies related to covering gambling debt by ripping off several salons.

Based only on the content here and in the New Times headlines, I might expect to see some serious censorship related to squeezing out some corporate bucks, maybe a hush up job or something. Instead, I discovered that the objection was to featuring a picture of a large metal object embedded in a nipple and breast on the cover of the student newspaper, and that the "censorship" in question was merely that the University wouldn't pay to produce such a work, not that anyones ability to attend classes, teach, or receive degrees at the university was threatened if such a work were ever distributed.

There bound to be plenty of valid criticism out there, but focusing on the fluff presented in the New Times discredits this entire article, criticism and praise alike. Zaphraud 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem you found a bad egg. The New Times ventures where others won't (see Apt37) and doing so is guaranteed to accumulate nuts. Hopefully you're not saying that anything in New Times is unreliable; your entry isn't clear. PleasantDemise (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
It looks like at some point, a PR person for Crow came in and dressed up the article with fabulous comments and made it look like Crow's resume. I removed most of the PR material so it is back to a encyclopedic biography. --Bloodzombie 21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility is bad?
In an attempt to eliminate the NPOV objection I changed uncomfortably hot to warmer than usual, but as it turns out, the objection was apparently over "is the man responsible". Since when is being responsible for something necessarily bad? Besides the fact that he's in charge and has published his role in the setting, he's also responsible for a lot of the more successful policies that have helped grow ASU, and somehow I doubt anyone would find "is the man responsible for these successes" to be NPOV either (No, I dont feel it slights the achievements of others, etc ...). A strange double standard with respect to the use of the English language, but I guess "recently ordered" is OK too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.116.214 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 September 2009 ‎

Potential Conflict of interest by user DrP2P
User DrP2P has blanked the section regarding Barack Obama's honorary degree and the pertinent material relating to Dr Crow's response. DrP2P has also added references and statements which appear to have a bias against Dr Crow personally and added a reference to a website with the domain DrP2P - a clear conflict of interest. Per wikipedia guidelines, any pertinent, relevant and verifiable content is desirable. The fact that DrP2P would choose to delete a section makes me question this person's motives. If there are verifiable sources which articulate a given position (such as Jana Boomersbach delineating racist/sexist attitudes), those are noteworthy, but the other side of the issue is just as noteworthy. For everyone's sake, please do not censor the other side of the argument. CouchRambo (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)