Calling B.S here - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 14, 2005

RE: Calling B.S here

Date: Jun 14, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Why would Robert want to take a pay cut to come work at a 4th tier institution?

Albert Schwietzer. Mother Teresa. Seeker has a very high regard for Professor Campbell.

Date: Jun 14, 2005

I need to change my name.

Moma Troll, Seeker and others,

Don't you realize that this debate over tenure, academic freedom and shared governance is occurring at a 4th tier university on SACS probation with the worse president in history in the poorest state in the union in a community who has no idea what the words mean because the president is a local boy who told the public the faculty were lazy.

And you really believe yourselves when you decide that tenure should be phased out?

I'm no longer "Joker". You guys are just too funny for me.

Date: Jun 14, 2005

MT,

I still have had not time to ponder your remarks (I undertook a new assignment today, and the orientation has taken up much of my time), but I hope to do so by this evening or perhaps tomorrow morning. In the meantime, here are some further general ideas of tenure that came to me earlier today. MT, please do not consider these ideas a specific response to your post.

The discussion of tenure has focused on an early narrow definition of academic freedom that stresses freedom to teach and do research without interference or reprisals. As I understand it, that was the initial AAUP position. Since then it has evolved to include protection of shared governance. Faculty members have a right, perhaps duty, to be critical of an administration when its actions threaten teaching, research or the integrity of the institution. If faculty members were at-will employees, they would be reluctant to speak up in defense of the institution when a tyrant becomes the president. As I see it, that was the issue with Stringer and Glamser. An unqualified person had been hired to a high position in the administration. This person had falsely presented herself as having been a senior faculty member at a major university. It is only because of the assumed protection of tenure that G&S were able to expose this malfeasance. Had they been at-will employees, nothing would have been done. The role of tenure in shared governance needs to be pointed out.Sorry about the spacing and font. I typed these ideas at a computer different than my normal one and then pasted them in here. I have no idea what the problem is with the spacing, or how to correct it!Talk to you later!

Date: Jun 14, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Thanks for an excellent post, Moma. You must have been up late doing all of that reading. I didn't quote all of your post because I wanted to keep each issue clear. Without tenure there really is no academic freedom. The reason is that before a faculty member receives tenure no reason has to be given for firing the prof. Only after tenure is it required to have a hearing to prove the prof is being fired for cause. I know of several cases were a prof was given a terminal contract after being approved by the department faculty, chair and college committee for tenure. The dean decided to terminate the prof, no reason supplied. So the reason the dean had could have been anything, including issues protected by academic freedom, but no one knows.

At this point I am not as opposed to tenure as I was before this started, but I don't see how it can solve problems such as management incompetence and politics. One of the papers I read talked about the problem with chairs favoring some tenured faculty over others for political reasons. Would the dean have terminated the employee you describe if tenure had not been eminent?

Date: Jun 14, 2005

Mama Troll wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: Thanks for an excellent post, Moma. You must have been up late doing all of that reading. I didn't quote all of your post because I wanted to keep each issue clear. Without tenure there really is no academic freedom. The reason is that before a faculty member receives tenure no reason has to be given for firing the prof. Only after tenure is it required to have a hearing to prove the prof is being fired for cause. I know of several cases were a prof was given a terminal contract after being approved by the department faculty, chair and college committee for tenure. The dean decided to terminate the prof, no reason supplied. So the reason the dean had could have been anything, including issues protected by academic freedom, but no one knows.

At this point I am not as opposed to tenure as I was before this started, but I don't see how it can solve problems such as management incompetence and politics. One of the papers I read talked about the problem with chairs favoring some tenured faculty over others for political reasons. Would the dean have terminated the employee you describe if tenure had not been eminent?

Moma I want to thank you for your patience and the effort you put in to this discussion. That was a lot of reading to do and even for academics it can get boring.

The way tenure affects problems of "management incompetence and politics." is it allows these issues to be address through shared governance. Some tenured faculty feel secure enough to speak out against management errors. It doesn't necessarily solve the problem, but at least it provides a means to accomplish that without the turmoil now present at USM.

You asked, "Would the dean have terminated the employee you describe if tenure had not been eminent?" I think yes for the following reason. Normally faculty go up for tenure in their sixth year and begin tenured employment in their seventh year. There is a "third year review" to provide feedback to the prof as to whether they are making satisfactory progress toward tenure and if not what they must accomplish in the remaining three years.

Recently professors in at least one college up for third year review were given terminal contracts by the dean. This was done after the profs had favorable reviews by both the departmental faculty and the chair. In other words the "third year review" became a "tenure hearing" without the knowledge of the prof, chair or department faculty. The dean must have wanted the prof gone for other reasons.

Date: Jun 14, 2005

Joker wrote:

Don't you realize that this debate over tenure, academic freedom and shared governance is occurring at a 4th tier university on SACS probation with the worse president in history in the poorest state in the union in a community who has no idea what the words mean because the president is a local boy who told the public the faculty were lazy. And you really believe yourselves when you decide that tenure should be phased out?

Mr. Wonderful! Don't miss this one!

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Joker wrote:

I need to change my name. Moma Troll, Seeker and others, Don't you realize that this debate over tenure, academic freedom and shared governance is occurring at a 4th tier university on SACS probation with the worse president in history in the poorest state in the union in a community who has no idea what the words mean because the president is a local boy who told the public the faculty were lazy. And you really believe yourselves when you decide that tenure should be phased out? I'm no longer "Joker". You guys are just too funny for me.

Joker, don't you realize that Harvard, Cal tech, etc. are waiting to see if Seeker, Moma Troll and others will decide to do away with tenure. Hattiesburg is now the center of the academic world as all wait the outcome of this great debate.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

In the past two nights I have read a considerable amount about the subject of tenure and some other subjects. My research has opened my eyes to some of the unique aspects of your world. I'm not ready to sign on to the concepts of either tenure or shared governance as it exists at the present time, but I would like the opportunity to do some more research and come back at a later date and reopen the dialouge. I feel that at the moment my ideas would be a little half baked, and I am sure a rehash of the subject for most of you.

I am more convinced than ever that the answers to the problems that plague education today can be solved only by building bridges. It is in that prospect that I have hope. Thank those of you that extended courtesy and demonstrated open mindedness.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Mama Troll wrote:

In the past two nights I have read a considerable amount about the subject of tenure and some other subjects. My research has opened my eyes to some of the unique aspects of your world. I'm not ready to sign on to the concepts of either tenure or shared governance as it exists at the present time, but I would like the opportunity to do some more research and come back at a later date and reopen the dialouge. I feel that at the moment my ideas would be a little half baked, and I am sure a rehash of the subject for most of you. I am more convinced than ever that the answers to the problems that plague education today can be solved only by building bridges. It is in that prospect that I have hope. Thank those of you that extended courtesy and demonstrated open mindedness.

Thank you Mama Troll for a great discussion. I believed many lurkers benefited from this demonstration of civil and respectful exchange. I will look forward to more discussions with you in the future.

All of us should give special thanks to USM Sympathizer for supplying those links to all of the good information.

Mama, I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you drop the "Troll" from your name?

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Mama Troll wrote:

I'm not ready to sign on to the concepts of . . . . shared governance . . . . I am more convinced than ever that the answers to the problems that plague education today can be solved only by building bridges.

Mama Troll,

What you refer to as "building bridges" is shared governance. It is the only way that a university can move forward. During the previous (1988) reorganization (when Lucas was president) there was campus-wide consultation and participation. While there may not have been 100% agreement about the details of the outcome (no reorganization will please everybody), the process was appropriate, smooth, and orderly. The departments and other units and individuals that were to be affected were solicited for input on the matter and they were not taken by surprise. The appropriate persons were included in the process up front and they did not feel after the fact that they had been kicked in the head by a mule. It is impossible for a university president to know everything about every discipline. The experts are in the trenches. Appropriate consultation and input is essential when major changes are being contemplated. The manner with which the most recent reorganization was conducted created serious and unnecessary problems which could have been avoided up front.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Havard Law wrote:

Joker wrote: I need to change my name. Moma Troll, Seeker and others, Don't you realize that this debate over tenure, academic freedom and shared governance is occurring at a 4th tier university on SACS probation with the worse president in history in the poorest state in the union in a community who has no idea what the words mean because the president is a local boy who told the public the faculty were lazy. And you really believe yourselves when you decide that tenure should be phased out? I'm no longer "Joker". You guys are just too funny for me. Joker, don't you realize that Harvard, Cal tech, etc. are waiting to see if Seeker, Moma Troll and others will decide to do away with tenure. Hattiesburg is now the center of the academic world as all wait the outcome of this great debate.

HL,

If you think MT is the only person who wants to do away with tenure, do a google search. There are some very influential people out there who feel the same way, and it will not be difficult for them to convince many, many voters (who do not have a real understanding of what academics do or why tenure is necessary, and who are often unsympthetic to academia for lots of other reasons) that tenure at state-related colleges should be abolished. It is to MT's credit that she has been willing to read more widely and now seems fundamentally in favor of tenure in some form. Snidely dismissing her earlier views is short-sighted, since she is not the only person who entertains (or may come to entertain) such views. As I said, do a google search.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Joker wrote:

I need to change my name. Moma Troll, Seeker and others, Don't you realize that this debate over tenure, academic freedom and shared governance is occurring at a 4th tier university on SACS probation with the worse president in history in the poorest state in the union in a community who has no idea what the words mean because the president is a local boy who told the public the faculty were lazy. And you really believe yourselves when you decide that tenure should be phased out? I'm no longer "Joker". You guys are just too funny for me.

Joker,

As I noted in a post above, the debate about tenure is hardly confined to USM. The debate will NOT be decided in Hattiesburg, but what happens in Hattiesburg is not irrelevant to the larger debate. If you want to see far more influential voices than those of anyone on this board calling for the abolition of tenure, do a google search. If you are an academic at a state-related university, you are making jokes that may come back to bite you.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

If you think MT is the only person who wants to do away with tenure, do a google search. There are some very influential people out there who feel the same way, and it will not be difficult for them to convince many, many voters (who do not have a real understanding of what academics do or why tenure is necessary, and who are often unsympthetic to academia for lots of other reasons) that tenure at state-related colleges should be abolished.

When public universities such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Texas drop tenure then maybe schools like USM, Hodunk State, and Kalamazoo Teacher's College can think about dropping it. If the governing boards of the latter three are foolish enough to try it first it would be academic suicide for those schools. They'd be able to recruit only the dregs.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:

When public universities such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Texas drop tenure then maybe schools like USM, Hodunk State, and Kalamazoo Teacher's College can think about dropping it. If the governing boards of the latter three are foolish enough to try it first it would be academic suicide for those schools. They'd be able to recruit only the dregs.

FIS,

Here's a more likely scenario: state legislatures will be convinced to drop tenure at all but the "flagship" schools. North Carolina, Michigan, and Texas will keep it so they can compete with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, but most other state colleges will drop it because they will have been persuaded that it is unnecessary either to retention or recruitment. The storm clouds are gathering, as a simple google search will show, and tenure as it was once practiced (even as recently as a decade ago) is no longer what it once was, even at some of the bigger schools. I can't remember whether it is at Duke or UNC that a whole new category of untenured faculty has been created, and this is apparently a trend. I was talking the other day with a friend who teaches at the flagship school in his state, and he told me that in his department they have just hired four new people who fall into this new category. You also neglect to mention, FIS, that at many, many schools, including some of the biggest and "best," administrators are now circumventing the need to employ tenured faculty merely by using adjuncts.

So, laugh if you like, but I think you are not very well informed.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:

Just an opinion wrote: If you think MT is the only person who wants to do away with tenure, do a google search. There are some very influential people out there who feel the same way, and it will not be difficult for them to convince many, many voters (who do not have a real understanding of what academics do or why tenure is necessary, and who are often unsympthetic to academia for lots of other reasons) that tenure at state-related colleges should be abolished. When public universities such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Texas drop tenure then maybe schools like USM, Hodunk State, and Kalamazoo Teacher's College can think about dropping it. If the governing boards of the latter three are foolish enough to try it first it would be academic suicide for those schools. They'd be able to recruit only the dregs.

I just heard that some departments trying to hire chairs very late in the semester were having some troubles. It seems that the candidates won't accept offers unless they can get tenure coming in.

The normal process calls for a review of the candidate’s dossier by the departmental committee, chair and College Advisory Committee (CAC) before the dean. However since the dean is negotiating the offer, the deans was requesting the CAC to do the recommendations during the break when few faculty were around and many are not here for the summer. I heard that at least one CAC refused to participate in such a rushed review of someone off campus. So we have the administration pushing for tenure of someone not at USM because they are desperate to fill positions.

I thought it was against IHL policy to grant tenure to someone being hired.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Some reading for Joker, HL, and FIL:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/24/aaup2_24

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/MikeArnzen/007809.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3860/is_200501/ai_n9485433

(By the way, FIL, I apologize for mangling your nom in my earlier post.)

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:
The storm clouds are gathering..... So, laugh if you like, but I think you are not very well informed.

Just an opinion, the storm clouds to which you refer have been gathering before you were a gleam in your father's eye. I participated in many tenure abolishment discussions elsewhere over forty years ago. The move to abolish tenure then was even stronger than it is today. But tenure is still with us. Moreover, universities have been placing persons in non- tenure track teaching positions that do not carry academic rank for even longer than that. These are issues as old as time itself. I believe I may be better informed that you suggest I am.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

I can't remember whether it is at Duke or UNC that a whole new category of untenured faculty has been created, and this is apparently a trend. I was talking the other day with a friend who teaches at the flagship school in his state, and he told me that in his department they have just hired four new people who fall into this new category. You also neglect to mention, FIS, that at many, many schools, including some of the biggest and "best," administrators are now circumventing the need to employ tenured faculty merely by using adjuncts. So, laugh if you like, but I think you are not very well informed.

Just this past year USM adopted positions called "research professors" I believed. They are untenured positions and on "soft money". So for these faculty it will be like working in industry and they must essentially fund themselves with grants. However, I don't think they do any teaching, except maybe supervise grad student’s research and thesis.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:

Just an opinion wrote:The storm clouds are gathering..... So, laugh if you like, but I think you are not very well informed. Just an opinion, the storm clouds to which you refer have been gathering before you were a gleam in your father's eye. I participated in many tenure abolishment discussions elsewhere over forty years ago. The move to abolish tenure then was even stronger than it is today. But tenure is still with us. Moreover, universities have been placing persons in non- tenure track teaching positions that do not carry academic rank for even longer than that. These are issues as old as time itself. I believe I may be better informed that you suggest I am.

FIL,

The storm clouds may have been gathering back when you were a young whipper-snapper (I am teasing), but the rain has recently begun to fall. Had they invented "professors of practice" forty years ago? What was the percentage of adjunct usage forty years ago? I think you are ignoring some very worrisome and very recent trends. Have you done the google search I recommended. Does the name Victor Davis Hanson mean anything to you? Have you ever heard of David Horowitz? Please, let's bring the discussion up-to-date and not talk about things that were happening forty years ago that never came to fruition; let's talk, instead, about things that are happening right now.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Some reading for FIL:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi05/kirkpatrick.htm

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan99/tenure.html

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/February2005/SpringfieldLawmakers020805.html

http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-41.dir/issue-29.dir/29a02402.htm

http://www.invisibleadjunct.com/archives/000056.html

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

Have you ever heard of David Horowitz?

Are you referring to the David Horowitz who said "Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired. The conservative faculty members I encounter who have achieved this feat, invariably tell me that they were forced to keep their political orientation to themselves until they achieved tenure"?

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:

Just an opinion wrote: Have you ever heard of David Horowitz? Are you referring to the David Horowitz who said "Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired. The conservative faculty members I encounter who have achieved this feat, invariably tell me that they were forced to keep their political orientation to themselves until they achieved tenure"?

Yep, that's the guy. He's been making the round of state legislatures recently, promoting his "academic bill of rights." I am in sympathy with his view that faculty should not be politically biased, but I think he and others like him would ultimately like to abolish tenure altogether -- partly for reasons of principle, partly because they think it is a way to break the perceived stranglehold that liberals enjoy in academe. For an effective conservative reply to the arguments of people such as Horowitz (particularly for a reply to Victor Davis Hanson), please visit the following link:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/12076.html

You will probably tell me that there were people like Horowitz and Hanson back when I was a gleam in my father's eye, and that those people were not effective. I will reply that if you simply look at the trends documented in the links I provided above, you will see that we are no longer living in the world of forty years ago and that tenure today is threatened in ways it simply was not at that time.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

The trouble with Horowitz--who has been much discussed at Cliopatria (the HNN blog that Reeves writes for) and at Liberty and Power--is that he doesn't really seem to be against ideological control of the humanities and the social sciences at universities. He just wants to make sure that he and his buddies are the ones doing the controlling.

Horowitz is a demagogue. He is no longer a Communist--indeed, he now hates Communists, as well as anyone else who is definitely or vaguely on the Left-- but his authoritarian mindset hasn't changed at all

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

What was the percentage of adjunct usage forty years ago? I think you are ignoring some very worrisome and very recent trends.

Just an opinion, hiring a sufficiently large number of qualified adjuncts is not a viable option in a place like Hattiesburg or in other non- metropolitan areas. Qualified adjuncts are easily found in NYC where there are Ph.D.'s driving taxicabs and eager to hook onto a college teaching position (even at the cost of accepting an academic position that pays less than driving a cab). If USM has to scramble for a sufficient number of qualified adjuncts in Hattiesburg, it will wind up hiring adjuncts whose training is only marginaly related to the discipline to be taught.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

The trouble with Horowitz--who has been much discussed at Cliopatria (the HNN blog that Reeves writes for) and at Liberty and Power--is that he doesn't really seem to be against ideological control of the humanities and the social sciences at universities. He just wants to make sure that he and his buddies are the ones doing the controlling. Horowitz is a demagogue. He is no longer a Communist--indeed, he now hates Communists, as well as anyone else who is definitely or vaguely on the Left-- but his authoritarian mindset hasn't changed at all Robert Campbell

Robert,

I fear you may be right about Horowitz. I certainly do not trust him. This is all the more reason, then, to fear that his campaign -- which seems to be gathering steam -- may be effective. The political climate today is not what it was forty years ago, and we would be foolish to assume otherwise.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

You will probably tell me that there were people like Horowitz and Hanson back when I was a gleam in my father's eye.

Just an opinion, I would be surprised if people adhering to their views did exist. After all, there is nothing new about what they say. But I do know that personnel decisions during that era were made on the basis of performance.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:

Just an opinion wrote: What was the percentage of adjunct usage forty years ago? I think you are ignoring some very worrisome and very recent trends. Just an opinion, hiring a sufficiently large number of qualified adjuncts is not a viable option in a place like Hattiesburg or in other non- metropolitan areas. Qualified adjuncts are easily found in NYC where there are Ph.D.'s driving taxicabs and eager to hook onto a college teaching position (even at the cost of accepting an academic position that pays less than driving a cab). If USM has to scramble for a sufficient number of qualified adjuncts in Hattiesburg, it will wind up hiring adjuncts whose training is only marginaly related to the discipline to be taught.

Robert,

You may be correct, but I doubt that SFT or many of his supporters would care very much if the university was mainly populated by marginally qualified faculty, as long as the faculty were under their thumb. You are assuming that they want the best people; I am not sure I can share that assumption.

Besides, you may also be overlooking the trend toward online instruction. Once a few more technical hurdles are overcome, I think it will be VERY easy for highly qualified adjuncts from (let's say) New York to be offering fairly sophisticated courses to students in (let's say) Hattiesburg. We have alrady seen how "out-sourcing" has affected the high-tech industries (I will never forget talking to a computer techie with a very strong Indian accent who tried to convince me that his first name was "Shawn"!). It will soon be quite possible to have a national (indeed, international) academic labor market, and in fact I can think of all sorts of reasons why, in some ways, this might not be an entirely bad thing. However, it will probably result in the erosion of tenure, which I definitely think will be a bad thing for academic freedom in this country.

Date: Jun 15, 2005

First is Last wrote:
I would be surprised if people adhering to their views did exist. After all, there is nothing new about what they say. But I do know that personnel decisions during that era were made on the basis of performance.

Change that to "I would not be surprised....."

Date: Jun 15, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

First is Last wrote:
Just an opinion wrote: What was the percentage of adjunct usage forty years ago? I think you are ignoring some very worrisome and very recent trends. Just an opinion, hiring a sufficiently large number of qualified adjuncts is not a viable option in a place like Hattiesburg or in other non- metropolitan areas.

I have to quibble a bit, having been an adjunct here and elsewhere. What do you call "qualified" and what do you expect for the money? I was able to teach this fall due to personal circumstances, but certainly can't afford to do it as a career. Most adjuncts I have known had other jobs, were retired, or were temporarily available for various reasons. It's true that you can't count on that population always being available.
As to "qualified"-- while that depends on the discipline, there is no good reason a person with an MA can't teach many freshman and sophomore classes. After all, you let grad students teach them.