Tenure Report - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 15, 2005

Tenure Report

Date: Feb 15, 2005

Are they saying that women faculty members should be treated differently than men faculty members when tenure decisions are made? The first paragraph is puzzling:

"A panel of 10 university presidents and chancellors released a report last Thursday describing the tenure system for professors as antiquated because it is based on the assumption that most professors are white males whose spouses manage the needs of their personal lives."

Date: Feb 15, 2005

They say nothing about couples where the female is the breadwinner or otherwise assumes the traditional male role. And nothing about single faculty members, or divorced faculty members, etc.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Texas Tornado
"Are they saying that women faculty members should be treated differently than men faculty members when tenure decisions are made? The first paragraph is puzzling: "A panel of 10 university presidents and chancellors released a report last Thursday describing the tenure system for professors as antiquated because it is based on the assumption that most professors are white males whose spouses manage the needs of their personal lives.""

The attitude of these "10 university presidents and chancellors" is a canard: they are literally saying that now that are more than just white males in the professoriate we should deny all professors the rights that white males enjoyed for decades. Besides, that is NOT why the tenure system developed in the US - tenure was developed not as guranteed life employment as the right-wingers like to believe (or at least publicly espouse) but rather to protect academic freedom: the right to voice opinions, teach courses, produce lectures, and conduct research without the content police interfering or applying a political litmus test. It is that freedom that the right-wingers hate.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"The attitude of these "10 university presidents and chancellors" is a canard: they are literally saying that now that are more than just white males in the professoriate we should deny all professors the rights that white males enjoyed for decades. Besides, that is NOT why the tenure system developed in the US - tenure was developed not as guranteed life employment as the right-wingers like to believe (or at least publicly espouse) but rather to protect academic freedom: the right to voice opinions, teach courses, produce lectures, and conduct research without the content police interfering or applying a political litmus test. It is that freedom that the right-wingers hate."

Did you even read that article?

What the board acrually said is that minorities and women (especially) are underrepresented because of the tenure system; a discussion of possible alterations to the tenure system follows that would allow better access to tenure-track positions. Among these alterations is stopping tenure clocks for family reasons.

In a stable household, roles are defined and divvied up or shared. What I find offensive about the article is that it discusses the possibility of allowing females to stop tenure clocks and take leave for familty reasons, but there is no discussion of allowing similar opportunities for men whose wives have children. I personally know two or three academics whose careers were derailed by the birth of children and the responsibilities that entailed. Less time for research when more time is spent sharing childcare duties. This is why I have chosen not to start a family -- obviously, starting a family affects women drastically, but it can affect men as well, especially if those men want to be a big part in their children's lives.

As for your "right wing" attack, when any professor presents one side of an unproven argument or debate as total fact, then he or she opens themselves up to that kind of attack. In presenting a discussion of X vs. Y, I may believe that X is a better way to think than Y, but if I present X as better than Y based on my opinion alone, then I am indoctrinating and not educating. Some things need no proof: pi=22/7, simple gravity is a constant, etc., but anything remotely political or religious that has not been proven without a doubt should be presented along with alternatives. If you cannot do this, then you should quit. I have known many people whose essays and term papers were either crafted to meet professors' opinions (for grade purposes) or were marked down because of a difference of opinion or viewpoint with respect to the professor's attitude. This is wrong, and it is the most egregious violation of academic freedom -- the freedom of students to learn by expressing differing opinions; if a professor cannot explain all sides and differentiate between sound theory and unsound theory, then they should be removed.

It's funny how the pendulum swings. If it's wrong for the theory of evolution to be excluded from classrooms, then it's just as wrong for the theory of creationism to be excluded from classrooms. Why not present both on their merits and let the student decide which theory is more correct or if these two theories can be reconciled? Do you not trust students to reach conclusions on their own?

In summary, if you allow "time out" from tenure for women, then you must allow the same for men, and if you present all sides of an argument, then you can look at those so-called "right wing content police" and tell them to f*** off.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Perspective, Please
" " It's funny how the pendulum swings. If it's wrong for the theory of evolution to be excluded from classrooms, then it's just as wrong for the theory of creationism to be excluded from classrooms. Why not present both on their merits and let the student decide which theory is more correct or if these two theories can be reconciled? ..."

Your reasoning here is confused. We teach science in schools. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory used in many sciences. In what discipline is the "Theory of creationism"? There is no "theory of creationism ". It explains nothing, predicts nothing and so it can’t be disproved. You changed the meaning of the word “theory” when you say "theory of creationism”. You meant “opinion” and in that sense there are an infinite number of “theories of creation”. Do you expect children to follow these errors in logic when even adults can’t reason about it correctly?

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Scientist

The theories of evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. I never understood why some scientists don't understand that. Many top scientists subscribe to both - and at the same time!

Date: Feb 16, 2005

Hey, we're really off the track here. Remember Shelboo? Remember the IHL meeting?
Go write your letter to the IHL board. THEN you can come back and talk about evolution, creationism, and what changing dirty dipers does to your career.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

I have known many people whose essays and term papers were either crafted to meet professors' opinions (for grade purposes) or were marked down because of a difference of opinion or viewpoint with respect to the professor's attitude. This is wrong, and it is the most egregious violation of academic freedom -- the freedom of students to learn by expressing differing opinions; if a professor cannot explain all sides and differentiate between sound theory and unsound theory, then they should be removed.

It's funny how the pendulum swings. If it's wrong for the theory of evolution to be excluded from classrooms, then it's just as wrong for the theory of creationism to be excluded from classrooms. Why not present both on their merits and let the student decide which theory is more correct or if these two theories can be reconciled? Do you not trust students to reach conclusions on their own?

If I had a student in my (hypothetical) biology class write a paper insisting on the merits of "creationism" then your are darn right I would give it a poor grade - not because I am foisting my opionions on them but because I am teaching a science course and leaving religion out of it.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

The pure theory of creationism can be disproven, but cannot be proven. The scientific method still applies, even if you don't like the outcome. I remember something about "identifying a problem, collecting information about the problem, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and drawing conclusions." If you cannot present creationism, show how it holds up (or not) under that method, and compare it to evolution (and how it holds up), then you are opening yourself up to these kinds of attacks. All I'm saying is that these types of attacks are easily squelched if one presents all sides fairly and examines them objectively using the same tools, allowing students to see the inherent frailties in weak "theory" and the strength in "good" theory.

Why are we so afraid of opposing viewpoints? Or are we just too afraid to that we don't have all the answers to questions that students may ask?

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Scientist II
"The theories of evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. I never understood why some scientists don't understand that. Many top scientists subscribe to both - and at the same time!"

This is true Scientist II. The reason why they are not mutually exclusive is because evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not. A scientist can use and test evolution theory while at the same time hold religious beliefs that are referred to as creationism. You do know there are many thousands of creation stories believed by many cultures. These are mutually exclusive beliefs however.

Please use your language more precisely and there won't be such a logic problem. Calling something a theory doesn't make it a theory.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"I have known many people whose essays and term papers were either crafted to meet professors' opinions (for grade purposes) or were marked down because of a difference of opinion or viewpoint with respect to the professor's attitude. This is wrong, and it is the most egregious violation of academic freedom -- the freedom of students to learn by expressing differing opinions; if a professor cannot explain all sides and differentiate between sound theory and unsound theory, then they should be removed. It's funny how the pendulum swings. If it's wrong for the theory of evolution to be excluded from classrooms, then it's just as wrong for the theory of creationism to be excluded from classrooms. Why not present both on their merits and let the student decide which theory is more correct or if these two theories can be reconciled? Do you not trust students to reach conclusions on their own?
If I had a student in my (hypothetical) biology class write a paper insisting on the merits of "creationism" then your are darn right I would give it a poor grade - not because I am foisting my opionions on them but because I am teaching a science course and leaving religion out of it."

So nothing religious can be scientific? Nothing scientific can be religious? Your statement is exactly the sort of rhetoric that will eventually cost us our tenure system. The hypothetical student should have already seen a comparison of the two "theories" and their relative merits (or lack thereof) under the same "microscope."

Perhaps popular books like Angels and Demons by Dan Brown are so popular because they explore the conflict/relationship between the two, even if in fiction. maybe most people don't really want exclusion of one or the other. Maybe they want inclusion of all thought and the freedom to decide for themselves rather than be told what to think.

Date: Feb 16, 2005

I apologize for getting this thread off track. Maybe we should move our discussion to a separate thread?