Beard
By
Leonard Zwelling
noun
a growth of hair on the chin and lower cheeks of a man’s face.
“he had a black beard”
informal•US English
a person who carries out a transaction, typically a bet, for someone else in order to conceal the other’s identity.
“the beard permitted the manipulator to protect the odds”
verb
boldly confront or challenge (someone formidable).
“he was afraid to beard the sultan himself”
From Google dictionary
During our trip to Singapore and Australia, you know, the one I was not exactly looking forward to, I grew a beard.
Now I have to ask myself the question, why did I do this?
It is certainly not my first beard. My graduation picture from Duke has me with long hair, a corduroy sport jacket with a peace symbol in the left lapel (it was 1969), and a beard. That beard was brown, red, and blonde like my son Richard’s beard is today. My new beard is grey.
The definitions from Google help answer the question why I grew this beard on the trip.
Obviously, it’s facial hair.
Just as obviously, it is meant to create and hide behind a new identity. I wanted to change who I was so I started with my appearance. I get that. I wasn’t happy with the grouchy me that dreaded this trip. Thus, I emerged from my emotional cocoon with a new mien. This covers definitions one and two.
But, there is also an element of the third definition in my facial hair. Who or what do I want to challenge?
To be frank, I have heard one horror story after another emanating from MD Anderson where young faculty have been chewed up by older, more powerful faculty. Then these young faulty members expect the appeals processes or the protective wing of their department chairs and division heads to save them from the onslaught of raw power they face, they are smothered instead. The faculty-friendly grievance and appeals processes installed mainly by the Faculty Senate are functionally dead under Pisters and the new state legislation that gives university leaders free hand to fire anyone they deem unprofessional. I wanted to beard that system of faculty oppression.
This scenario of faculty diminution has become so common that when I meet the next young, tortured faculty member who wants to show me the months of emails and stacks of appeals so I might help him or her, I ask them to put the papers away.
“But don’t you want to see the documentation?” a new victim might ask.
“I don’t need to,” I say. “All the stories are the same and no one who has the power to help you cares.” The four-letter F-word is FAIR according to George Will. The president, vice presidents, and academic leadership of MD Anderson do not care about fair.
A young, productive, bright faculty member is belittled, or worse, used by an older faculty member and all the forces get in line against the young person starting with the young person’s department chair and going all the way to President Pisters. It’s always the same.
Then I ask, “well, what do you want?”
The embattled faculty member struggles for an answer, but what most of them want is to do their work and be left alone to advance their career. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible for the young faculty member at MD Anderson.
“Well, then, what should I do?” they reply.
That answer is always the same as well. The moment they started clashing with someone more powerful than themselves, usually because the more powerful person wants to put his name on a paper, or use the young person’s grant money, or outright steal the young person’s ideas, the young person only has two choices. Either knuckle under and allow the misconduct to go on or find a new job.
This is the reality of MD Anderson in 2026 under this president. It’s the Mafia with Pisters as the Godfather. I can assure anyone that 25 years ago this was not the case. My then-boss Margaret Kripke, the Chief Academic Officer, would never stand for this nonsense. Neither would I when I had to deal with it and I did. When a dispute arose, we got to the bottom of it fast and resolved it. Very little had to go to Dr. Mendelsohn’s desk.
Now, no one below the president seems capable of mediating these disputes and this president never sides with the oppressed. Some disputes even have to go to court. That’s outrageous and a clear indicator that the leadership of the institution has failed the faculty and, in that failure, proved the leadership cannot do the most basic aspect of its job. Disputes such as these should not have to go to court.
It’s a damned shame that Anderson has to lose the talents of these young people because older faculty have become (or maybe always were) unproductive and so have to lean on younger talent to maintain positions they either should never have had or had earned their supervisory role in the past, but have over-stayed their welcome.
The only solution may come with a new MD Anderson president. Until then, this will go on as the institution regresses to the mean of mediocrity and it eats its young and destroys its future.
So sad.
15 thoughts on “Beard”
Tell us something new- all junior faculty are under the clout of big senior faculty! Pisters and Flowers are obnoxious kids who are there for power and money like a candy.
Then do something about it.
Letters to Regents. Lobby your representatives in Austin. Educate them. Letters to the Chronicle.
At some point, the faculty can no longer just complain. The faculty must act. At least demand something like the Senate.
What happened to Pisters claim of leading MDACC with strong moral compass and integrity? Mere hot air and grandstanding? Utterly deplorable for him to turn a blind eye to gross misconduct, perpetration of injustice and blatant harassment of junior faculties by the division head. How many careers of talented young faculties need to be destroyed by the division head before the MDACC President or the Board of Regents will take a rightful action? The Board of Regents must do something to rein in blatant misuse of power inside MDACC as there is serious threat to MDACC reputation.
I am not sure who you are. Are you faculty? If so, YOU do something.
Glad I am not the only person that recalls the comments about the moral compass. Sometimes I wonder if it was a hallucination.
This is an individual with the following publication record:
53% similarity, PMID 12916459 with 9718178
44% similarity, PMID 17564328 with 17350950
42% similarity, https://doi.org/10.1002/0471463736.tnmp27 with PMID 10516378
33% similarity, PMID 8260072 with 2200459
32% similarity, PMID 16788949 with 12130924
30% similarity, PMID 12011133 with 9850029
29% similarity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68113-9_99 with https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-22744-X_55
28% similarity, https://doi.org/10.1002/0471463736.tnmp27 with https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68113-9_99
21% similarity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68113-9_99 with PMID 9718178
20% similarity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68113-9_99 with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK12798/
A trend which appears to start just prior to promotion to the rank of Professor.
I care not whether this rises to the level of misconduct or is simply academic dishonesty. But it does make one quietly curious about the level of original contribution required to ascend to the highest levels of leadership in academic medicine.
I wonder if this falls within the definition of ‘Professionalism’ at MD Anderson?
Could this level of scientific competence be why leaders at MDACC were unable to mediate an authorship dispute between a junior faculty and the wife of a Nobel Laureate? To the point of retaining outside counsel to independently review the matter? A matter that has made its way to the Texas Supreme Court.
Leaders at MDACC defended the senior faculty, in wrongfully accusing the junior faculty of plagiarism and defaming her publicly. Do they know what plagiarism is?
This leadership has displayed signage around the facilities, and present slides at town halls, reminding researchers of ‘Their Rights,’ including their right to not be abused by people in positions of authority, their right to not be threatened or humiliated, and their rights around credit for scholarly work. These rights evaporate when any leader is implicated.
He’s a fraud as you document. But among the last three presidents of MD Anderson we have some really horrible behavior. Because of this, it is very hard to characterize the presidency of MD Anderson as the “highest levels of leadership in academic medicine.” It is indeed a powerful position, but not really really one led by honest academics. However, given what we have for leadership in DC and in corporate America among Jeffrey Epstein’s friends, leadership ain’t what it used to be.
Where did these data come from? Explain it please
Use of widely accepted text comparison tools (i.e., TurnItIn/iThenticate). Document-to-document comparison was performed, excluding references and figure/table captions. Percentage indicates overlap.
Report to PeerPub and to Research Integrity Officer. If you do not, you are part of the problem.
There is no research integrity officer at MD Anderson. There is only chief compliance officer, the academic research issues do not fall under her, and they fall into chief academic officer. Chief scientific officer, also does not deals with this. They all pass buck from one person to another, specifically, more so it is brushed under the carpet if it is involving a powerful,senior faculty.
That is against federal law
There is supposed to be an independent Research Integrity Officer to inquire and investigate allegations of research misconduct. I used to be that person. This is federal law and MD Anderson must comply to receive grant funds.
There is significant concern that institutional policies and appeal procedures are being distorted by chief academic officer Carin Hagberg in a manner that shields senior leadership from accountability, rather than ensuring fair, fact-based review. These processes are perceived as protecting mismanagement and reinforcing existing power dynamics , rather than delivering objective justice.
Factual information is often reframed or selectively presented, while subjective assessments are used in ways that appear punitive toward faculty who raise legitimate concerns. This environment discourages transparency and places employees at risk of career harm.
Overall, Responsibility for addressing these issues rests with Dr. Pisters, who should undertake a thorough, independent examination of the facts rather than delegating review to internal leadership with potential conflicts of interest.
Dr. Pisters’ careless conduct has fostered a psychologically unsafe environment in which dysfunctional and incompetent leadership—exemplified by Chris Flowers —operates unchecked, ultimately jeopardizing the reputation of MDACC.
Failure to do so risks long-term harm to the academic integrity, credibility, and mission of MD Anderson Cancer Center, contradicting university of Texas Board of Regent policies and must be reported to university of Texas Chancellor.
You are absolutely correct. While senior leadership, including the Chief Academic Officer and institutional administration, publicly emphasize academic integrity and mentorship, these commitments are largely superficial. In practice, there is minimal support for junior faculty. Concerns related to junior faculty clinical research—particularly when senior faculty are involved—are routinely dismissed or concealed, and meaningful mentorship is rarely provided. Faculty are reluctant to raise concerns because doing so often results in pressure from division leadership, including arbitrary actions that force them to leave their positions while relinquishing funding to senior faculty. Vague and subjective allegations—such as lack of professionalism or poor performance—are frequently used to justify these actions against faculty who raise concerns. Clinical research opportunities are disproportionately allocated to politically connected senior faculty. As a result, many faculty avoid reporting misconduct or abuse related to research or career development, especially when powerful senior faculty are involved, as they are overtly protected by divisional and academic leadership. Most affected faculty either remain silent or leave the institution, recognizing that complaints are unlikely to be addressed and may instead lead to retaliation.
The Annual Institutional Survey assessing bullying, burn out, etc. is scheduled to start this month. All faculty must use this anonymous opportunity to make their feelings known. Your comments precisely reflect all that I have heard in these many months.
Until the faculty say “this is enough, no more!” this will go on. I suggest starting with the demand for the resignation of the CAO immediately for ineffective leadership.