Quick Takes

July 27, 2009

Cal State Faculty Accepts Furloughs

Faced with no good options, a union representing California State University faculty members decided to accept a furlough plan that will reduce compensation by about 10 percent, union leaders announced Friday. The California Faculty Association also questioned Chancellor Charles B. Reed’s leadership, voting “no confidence” in him by a margin of 80 percent. The union represents tenure-track faculty as well as lecturers, who would be most likely to lose jobs if furloughs hadn’t been approved. While the vote indicates some tenured and tenure track faculty essentially voted to preserve other people’s jobs, the measure passed by a significant but not overwhelming margin of 54 percent. The union had criticized Reed for not guaranteeing the furloughs would save jobs, although Reed told Inside Higher Ed he estimated 6,000 positions would be saved if the 23,000 union-represented faculty and other employees took furloughs. The association is affiliated with the National Education Association and the American Association of University Professors, as well as Service Employees International Union.

Court Won't Order Enforcement of 'Solomon Amendment'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday refused to force the Defense Department to enforce the "Solomon Amendment" and try to cut off the flow of federal funds to the University of California at Santa Cruz. The amendment blocks funds from going to institutions that do not provide campus access to military recruiters, and the court ruled in a suit brought by Young America's Foundation. That group complained that students opposed to military recruiters had organized protests several times that prevented people from seeing military recruiters at Santa Cruz. The court, however, found that the Pentagon reasonably determined that the university wasn't responsible for the protests and was in fact trying to comply with the law. As a result, the court found the Young America's Foundation lacked standing to bring the suit.

Sallie Mae's Lobbying Expenses

Sallie Mae spent $3.4 million on lobbying during 2008, according to a new analysis released by the Center for Responsive Politics. The study also examined Sallie Mae's contributions to federal campaigns, and found that while the loan giant is bipartisan in giving, it seems to pay attention to which way the political winds are blowing. Donations leaned Republican during the Bush years, but during the 2008 campaigns, 47 percent of Sallie Mae donations went to Democrats. So far in the 2010 election cycle, 66 percent of donations have gone to Democrats.

Students, Gender, Games and the Rest of College

A new study of undergraduates at Michigan State University offers some insights into the gender gap on how students use their time. The study, published in the journal Sex Roles, found that males played computer games significantly more than females: 225 more hours per year, on average, in college. Female students spent more time on everything else. The study found that found that female undergraduates spent about 16 hours per week on average on jobs, homework and other activities than did male undergraduates.

Texas Tech Profs Oppose Hiring of Alberto Gonzales

When Texas Tech University first announced that Alberto Gonzales, attorney general under President George W. Bush, has been hired to teach political science, faculty reaction was quiet, while some students and alumni objected, citing the role Gonzales played in authorizing what many see as torture and unconstitutional actions by U.S. authorities. Now the faculty is getting involved, or at least some of it is. More than 40 faculty members have signed a statement opposing the hire, The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reported. But it looks like the faculty protest will not have an impact. Chancellor Kent Hance told the newspaper he had no intention of withdrawing the offer, saying of the faculty petition: "That’s their freedom of speech and I applaud that, but you don’t go around making decisions based on faculty positions."

Colorado State Board Releases Recording of Closed Meeting

Colorado State University's board has settled lawsuits by media entities challenging a closed door meeting at which a new chancellor was selected by releasing a recording of much of the meeting. As The Fort Collins Coloradoan noted, not all of the recordings are of statements board members wanted to be heard. One accused state lawmakers of "un-Christian attitudes" for wanting more of a role for the public in selecting a chancellor. Another board member said that Larry Penley, the former chancellor, ran an "ego-driven administration."

NCAA Punishes U. of New Hampshire Hockey Team

The University of New Hampshire’s men’s ice hockey team has been placed on a two-year probation by the National Collegiate Athletic Association for major recruiting violations. The Division I Committee on Infractions announced last week that one of the team’s two associate head coaches -- it would not clarify which one -- sent 923 impermissible e-mail messages to 30 prospects who were in their freshman and sophomore years in high school. The Concord Monitor reports that the associate head coach had been using Scoutware, an automated recruiting software program that allows coaches to send messages to many prospects at once. The associate head coach told the committee that he “misunderstood the relevant recruiting rule” and entered data into Scoutware “according to the prospective student-athletes’ expected enrollment at the university, rather than their high school graduation.” In addition to the probation, the team will reduce its number of off-campus recruiters by one and will not allow any of the 30 prospects in question to sign a National Letter of Intent with the university. Dick Umile, head men’s hockey coach, said the team had accepted the penalties, telling the Monitor, "We realized we made a mistake.”

Another Dean of Academic Engagement

Last week we reported on the creation of a new position -- "dean of engaged learning" -- at Robert Morris University, and noted that many experts had never heard of such a position previously. At least one other university has made a similar move, however. Fairfield University this month announced that Elizabeth Boquet, professor of English and associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Fairfield, has been tapped to serve as the first dean of academic engagement.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Around the Web

Philosophers shoveling snow, in The Duck of Minerva.... Dual authors in anthropology, in Savage Minds....

FREE Daily News Alerts

Comments on Quick Takes

  • Colorado Theocracy: Rushdoony's Lil Fief
  • Posted by Diogenes on July 27, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • So let me get this straight. In Colorado, suddenly any public input by citizens and tax payers is now "Un-Christian?" What is "Christian" in the eyes of this right wing rogue? Totalitarianism? The Inquisition? A Leviathan? A Chancellor sitting on God's Throne? God forbid that the people who pay this jack asses salary have any input into how their STATE not Dobson's X-ian Empire is run. Time for a book: "Whats the Matter with Colorado?"

  • Same work, less pay
  • Posted by Furloughed with Tenure on July 27, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • The CSU furlough vote demonstrates the problem of having decisions made for all tenure-track faculty by part-time lecturers who dominate the faculty union. The lecturers voted to take salary away from all faculty in order to increase the chances that they themselves might be reappointed. Even those temporary lecturers whose appointments had already not been renewed for next year were able to vote, because they are still members of the union. This was probably enough to make a difference in the vote, where "furloughs approved" won by just 4%. Other state systems should beware of this problem in your faculty unions and associations. CSU administration strategized well to take advantage of the conflict of interest between tenure-track and temporary faculty in the same organization.

    Now with at least two days per month of forced furlough, the remaining faculty suffer a 10% pay cut. This worsens our already low salary rate, falling way behind our comparison institutions. There's no sign that we will be teaching fewer courses. If anything, our classes will have additional students forced into them. We'll still be expected to do the same amount of committee and service work; we've heard nothing about a reduction in workload anywhere.

    The only unspoiled part of our faculty lives is the retirement package, threatened but not harmed yet by the state's budget problems. That's a good thing, too, because more of us will retire earlier than planned; some can earn more by retiring than by staying on with this big pay cut. Anyone who's thinking of pursuing a faculty position in the CSU or UC systems should watch what's happening here in what was once a stellar university and college state.

  • Posted by furloughed - a different view on July 27, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • As an also tenured employee at CSU, I have a very different view. Traditionally, CSU employees have been well treated by good pay and fantastic benefits. To their credit, the CSU faculty chose to take care of their colleagues in a tough time that in truth ought to be termed a depression. To their credit, CSU administrators did not try to exempt themselves. Instead, they pitched in alongside their colleagues to take the same cuts as everyone else. Just where else is this happening? What I see elsewhere is college administrators taking ridiculous pay raises while laying off their untenured faculty to do so. I've worked in such places, and there's no way in hell I would leave CSU to go back to work at a place run by people like that again at any price. I'm proud to be here, pay-cuts, warts and all.

    The caste system of tenured versus lecturer/adjunct/honoraria faculty is a national problem, not a California origination. It is also an embarrassment. The latter hold about the same credentials as the former and at least some outperform the former in both teaching and scholarship. There's no reason for such discrimination other than exploitation caused by the politico champions of "do more with less" at any cost--including throwing ethics off a cliff and refusing to look honestly at what has been done.

  • To Furloughed with Tenure: What else were we going to do?
  • Posted by CSU system graduate , Graduate Student at Penn on July 27, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • What else were we going to do with the budget? All the non-faculty positions (including university presidents) were forced to take furloughs. The students' CSU fees were increased 30% within the past 6 months (not to mention these fees have grown 10% almost every year for the past couple of years). If the staff and students were willing to make a sacrifice then I think the faculty furloughs were reasonable.

    I do think it's unfortunate that we're even in this situation and I would agree with you that the CSU's and the UC's have their share of problems.

  • Furloughed with Tenure
  • Posted by Adjunct George on July 27, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Poor Furloughed With Tenure. He got to vote on whether to accept a furlough. I have opted out of the union but they take money from my pay. I could not vote for or against the furlough. Most of us adjuncts in the CSU system recognize that the union is run by and for the tenured faculty and so do not bother to join the union. The state is being run by the Democrats that were supported by the union. The tenured faculty and union members do not recognize that their unwavering support of the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Democrats have put the state into this state of financial disarray. The money is gone. The high income people and companies are leaving the state. The Laffer curve has hit the state with a vengence. Tax increases are leading to decreased revenue. Furloughed with Tenure has the typical arrogance of the tenured faculty with whom I have to interact in the CSU system. You helped cause the problem. Stop whining.

  • Some facts in response to above
  • Posted by Tenured on July 27, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • CSU administrators voted themselves a pay increase shortly before taking a furlough. They didn't choose furloughs, but simply didn't have a union contract that required their consent (same as for UC faculty, who had furloughs imposed on them).

    Some temporary faculty are indeed highly qualified but none were chosen by their colleagues through the normal recruitment and review tenure-track process that is at the heart of professional autonomy. Professionals select their future professional colleagues. Most temporary faculty are asked to do nothing more than teach, and are evaluated mainly through student opinion surveys, which reflect high grades given and likable personality. It is a caste system, but for good reason. Temporary faculty do usually get some security of employment, but it's another question as to whether they have the scholarship that would make them a top candidate for a tenure-track position with open applications nationwide.

    The person who complained that the union takes dues without letting him vote should know that for a few dollars more he can be a voting member, even up to the day of the vote. And although not contributing to his union fully, he benefits from the improvements in working conditions and salaries (for a while) that the union obtained.

    As to whose policies ruined the California budget, thats a big question. A freeze on property taxes is one factor, but so are the costs associated with a huge illegal alien population, and with a growing prison system (that costs more than all our universities combined). The CSU faculty union has been the only defense through labor relations law for faculty being abused by administration. The UC faculty, lacking such protections, are having their benefits, salaries, and working conditions stripped away as administration crushes those "professionally dignified" but powerless non-union Academic Senates and faculty associations.

  • Posted on July 27, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • My reaction to "Some temporary faculty are indeed highly qualified but none were chosen by their colleagues through the normal recruitment and review tenure-track process that is at the heart of professional autonomy. Professionals select their future professional colleagues. Most temporary faculty are asked to do nothing more than teach, and are evaluated mainly through student opinion surveys, which reflect high grades given and likable personality. It is a caste system, but for good reason" is "what a bunch of pompous frat brat nonsense!"

    Getting a shot at a tenure track job today is a matter of luck among very qualified candidates. The campus I am at hires one in about a hundred eighty applicants. To say that there are not better people out there at institutions which don't have those impressive figures of competition would be arrogant and ridiculous. A very large number of applicants who were not successful had nothing to apologize for in their accomplishments. To say that we picked the very best and our infallible judgment justifies a caste system is about as narcissistic and devoid of human wisdom as any statement humans could contrive . Apparently "Tenured" hasn't ever seen search committees hire based upon a candidate's personal politics according with their own, or a tenure committee's sizing up that a woman who has a child during the probationary period isn't a serious scholar. "Tenured's" statement convinced me that universities tenure their mistakes along with their successes.

  • arrogance indeed
  • Posted by newProf on July 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • I agree with the comment post above. The job market is flooded with competitive applicants. Temporary faculty are just as qualified as anyone else. But my real beef here is the comment on being evaluated by "student opinion surveys which reflect high grades given and likable personality." This is flat out wrong. Student ratings, although not perfect, are indeed reliable and valid assessments of teaching. They are strongly correlated with other indicators such a peer observation and self assessments. What correlation there is between grades and ratings is small and inconsistent. And a dynamic personality does not mask bad teaching. The research on that is clear. So although these assumptions may help someone rationalize away their own low ratings, or others' high ratings, they are simply not true.

  • Student Surveys
  • Posted by ScienceProf on July 28, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • The post above lauds student opinion surveys as valid and reliable. The large literature on them shows differently. The best predictor of student ratings is GPA given by the teacher. A second major predictor is perceived professor warmth and humor. Look at the online student ratings like RateMyProf: easy grades, fun class, and the "chili-pepper" for sexual hotness are major criteria for student popularity. There's also a racist/sexist factor finding that cross-sex and cross race ratings are more negative. Reliability is also questionable because student ratings are easily manipulated by immediate events such as having given back grades (good or bad on average) just before the ratings. Some faculty even serve food and have a class party of the final day of class, which is also rating day.

    Student surveys are not a good basis for evaluating faculty, and it's a problem if they are the main "achievement" that keeps temporary faculty in a job.