Get a Life!

I’ve got an idea for Bad English...instead of spreading rumor and innuendo, how about actually researching who served on the review panel? Oh, and by the way, is there a reason why you don’t use your real name?

Travis Reindl, at 9:05 am EDT on April 25, 2006

Re: Bad English

From the methodology section:

Independent Study Structure

Two separate working groups: one composed of CU representatives and one of individuals external to university (consultants).

The working groups independently engaged in number of study activities:

–Surveys of internal stakeholders: 158 interviews –10 responses to benchmarking data requests–16 interviews with individuals from academic institutions and schools of medicine –Review of 95 individual tenure files–Collection and analysis of data from each campus at the university–Collection of both CU policies and policies at best-practice institutions–Study of relevant literature, such as policy documents developedby American Association of University Professors (AAUP)Independent Study Report

Drafting group assembled to write the study report—composed of members of both working groups

Susan_P, at 9:05 am EDT on April 25, 2006

Dean Webb

Thanks for the pointer. I was actually commenting on the article itself, which should properly discuss the actual make-up of the review committee. Instead, it requires the reader to research the matter independently to find out who exactly arrived at this conclusion. Information about newsmakers (the “who” part of journalistic inquiry) is properly contained in any journalistic presentation of the study. That’s all I was remarking on here.

Bad English, at 10:25 am EDT on April 25, 2006

The Committee at Colorado

First, of course the Colorado committee included a large share of faculty members and administrators. They are, whether you like it or not, the experts. When they launch an investigation into questions involving the banking industry, they don’t set up a committee consisting of tellers, ATM repairmen, and people with checking accounts. But I suppose when one does not like the conclusions of a study, the easiest thing to do is impugn the integrity or objectivity of those who did all the work.

By the way, we don’t have “customers", either direct or indirect. We do not make and sell widgets. Instead we participate in the most successful and productive system of higher education in human history, one that is the envy of the planet.

I have no idea whether I would have voted to tenure Ward Churchill in the first place, but I do know that his story provides ample evidence as to why the protections of tenure are still needed. Without tenure, Churchill would already have been fired, not because of the quality of his scholarship, or because of his classroom performance, or because of questions of plagiarism, or anything else. He would have been fired because people were offended by an article he wrote outside of his normal duties as a CU professor.

One only has to look at the output of people like Horowitz, and listen to his right-wing supporters in state legislatures, to realize that the threat to academic freedom is greater today than at any time since the 1950s.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 25, 2006

Bilr Spill on Aisle 11

Not sure which it is, sillyone, envy or bitterness. Maybe both. But you sure don’t like us for some reason, which makes this website (for whom tenured faculty are the primary—dare I say?—customers) a strange one for you to frequent.

In any event, the idea that tenured faculty would be unable to make it in the corporate ("real") world is a tired canard. In fact, anyone who can complete a Ph.D., write and publish books and articles, help to govern departments and universities, and educate generations of young Americans has all the skills necessary to succeed in the “real” world. No, that doesn’t make us better or smarter than people in the private sector, but it makes us every bit as good and capable.

When I look around my department and campus, I see hardworking people, most of whom spend well in excess of 40 hours per week teaching, grading, writing, preparing, and thinking. They deserve better than the contempt you show them.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 7:05 pm EDT on April 25, 2006

So much the worse for corporate America

So much the worse for corporate America, sillyone, where CEOs make on the average last time I looked 432 times times the wages of hourly workers and the retiring CEO of Exxon I think has just gotten a $400 million going away present. As a stockholder I wonder whether this is efficient since CEOs in other real efficient economies aren’t getting anything close. I think the figures for CEOs in highly efficient Asian countries vis-a-vis hourly workers were in the teens.

Then there is the emerging corporate model of making a career of job-hunting—so that instead of developing loyalty to the firm and working at the job, employees with no job security spend time and effort vita-building, job-hunting and selling themselves. Japan built the world’s second largest economy after being flattened in WWII by giving salarymen tenure.

As for making it in the real world I suppose I could—and could make lot’s more money. Possibly twice my current salary. But I chose to pay for the opportunity to do my work rather than dressing up, engaging in constant self-promotion and people pleasing—and for tenure.

LogicGuru, at 8:55 pm EDT on April 25, 2006

Accountability

Probably nobody will see this, but Art D’s comments above demand a response. Well, actually his comments aren’t the point, they’re just more of the usual anti-faculty drivel: “If you guys are so dang smart, why do you even need tenure? You should quit your jobs and build giant rocket ships and start your own planet of smarty-pants people who get rich, cure cancer, blah, blah, blah...” Oh, and of course he includes the obligatory gratuitous reference to the University of Phoenix, the existence of which, apparently, is supposed to portend the Wal-Martization of the professoriate. Or something like that. Frankly, it wasn’t a very coherent post.

No, I simply want to respond to the title ("Unapologetically for Accountability"), which is an obvious riff on my signature. First, tenure is, for most of us, evidence of accountability. It isn’t just handed out like—oh, I don’t know—CEO golden parachutes. It is earned by people who publish original research (often, lots of it), something that may sound simple to people who’ve never done it successfully, but is actually quite difficult and very time-consuming. It also requires successful performance in the classroom, and if that sounds like an easy task to you, it’s because your college professors worked long hours to MAKE it look easy.

Second, believe it or not, we’re almost all in favor of accountability. That (very rare) individual who “retires” after tenure and works 10-15 hour weeks for the rest of his/her career angers us a lot more than s/he angers you because we’re the ones who have to pick up the slack. You may be shocked to know that I favor post-tenure review with real teeth as long as there are clear safeguards and true faculty involvement.

But the problem is that if/when we open that door, we know that anti-faculty types (like some of the people posting above) are going to want to charge through it with orders to fire people like Churchill (who, whatever one thinks of his politics—and I think they’re often silly—obviously works long hours on publishing, teaching, and off-campus lecturing). Bean counters and anti-intellectual legislators are going to want to charge in right behind the right-wing PC crowd to embrace the failing U.S. corporate model, dismissing expensive senior faculty in favor of cheaper labor, maybe even outsourcing.

So I can see why many faculty members want prevent post-tenure review at any cost, even as they may detest the very few of their colleagues who abuse the system.

And to be honest, after reading many of the bitter anti-faculty screeds posted above, and after watching the right-wing gear up for a war against the one last institution that they can’t dominate, I’m no longer so sanguine about post-tenure review myself.

I think I know what ACTA and Horowitz and a handful of know-nothings in state capitols from Juneau to Tallahassee would do if they had even a tiny window of opportunity. And it scares me, not because I would be at any personal risk (my politics are fairly moderate and rarely shared with my students), but because it would destroy the freedom of inquiry that is at the heart of the success of American higher education. And nobody would likely notice the degradation until it was too late.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:55 am EDT on April 27, 2006

Inside Grade School Education

Do I get this right, Art D.? People with tenure should quit their jobs and go out and get other jobs to please you, because you don’t like people with tenure and want to see them keep moving along, rather than settling in any one place for any length of time?

Gee, you’ve dared ‘em! But did you DOUBLE-DOG dare ‘em?

Thane Doss, at 1:50 pm EDT on April 28, 2006

Why Do They Hate Us?

I’ve spent a little time on this website now, as well as a few others that are related to academia, and one thing seems clear. There are some people out there who just hate college professors. Many of them show up regularly in the comments section of this site, including some of the contributors above. I don’t think we’re talking about a lot of people, but they are loud, they are motivated, and boy are they angry.

As far as I can tell, there are four sources for this anti-faculty ire:

1. The blog mentality has either created or unleashed an army of people, left and right, who not only hold their own opinions dear, but also believe that their ideological opponents are morally deficient or even evil. The right wing version of this group is simply offended that college professors a) are often liberal and b) would dare to point this out in class. Truth be told, there is relatively little indoctrination going on in college classrooms, and that which does occur has very little impact (students, oddly enough, have minds of their own). But just the existence of proud, articulate liberals and leftists just drives these folks nuts.

2. Cyberspace seems to be oversupplied with naive libertarians who believe that markets are the be-all and end-all of human progress and that nothing is justified unless it can be quantified in terms of profits and losses. To them, students are “customers", education is “product", and the only intellectual pursuits of any value are those that contribute to the bottom line. These people hate professors because they see them as inefficient impediments to the libertarian dream in which no good is truly public and nothing has value that cannot be entered into an economist’s equation.

3. Some people who hate professors are bitter and/or envious. They failed in graduate school or they failed on the academic job market and they have a deep resentment of those who did not. I am not unsympathetic to these folks because most of them are very bright and capable, and every professor knows that “there but for the grace of God go I". Still, the anger and insults are generally misdirected, and should be reserved for state legislators and university administrators who have decided to pursue higher education on the cheap.

4. And, of course, part of the blame adheres to those of us in tenured positions. We really do whine way too much about jobs that, on the whole, are wonderful. We get to think and write for a living, we spend every day with intelligent young people and interesting colleagues, and we have flexible work schedules. We DO work hard, most of us (really!), but it is a great life. Outsiders see that and they wonder why we spend so much time in silly arguments with each other. And they read these awful navel-gazing articles here and elsewhere about whether or not we feel fulfilled, and they naturally find it all quite annoying.

Anyway, there are a few ideas. If you want to snark away at me, have at it.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 10:30 pm EDT on April 29, 2006