Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

The Un-Retiring

March 7, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

And here he comes, this morning as every morning since I started teaching at this university, and many, many other mornings before. He is the most senior professor at the department. In his neat suit and tie, his carefully combed hair, shaved face, old leather suitcase, he arrives in the morning as if he was going to take part in a United Nations meeting.

But he isn’t. He is just going as far as his office, down the corridor. He opens the door, but not before looking around to see if any student is roaming the corridor. If there is no student, he just gets in and leaves the door open. If a student is in sight, my colleague, Dr. X, will drop his suitcase to the floor in front of his office, and walk straight to the student and establish what I have come to call “the ‘nice-to-see-you’ dance.”

The dance has variations, of course. If the student is unknown, and male,  a strong handshake starts and ends it, and in the middle thereare questions of whether this student needs something, and what can he do to help him, followed by long and complicated directions to classrooms or buildings. If the student is known, and male, the opening handshake is the preface to a chat that can vary from 2 to 10 minutes, about anything, including the student’s and his family’s welfare, his classes, his plans for graduation, the state of his oldest sister’s youngest child, and so on and so forth. All is crowned by another handshake, and a pat in the back. Dr. X then returns to his office and proceeds to open the door and enter. Unless, of course, another student comes by, in which case the dance starts all over again. He is indefatigable.

When the student is female, things are a bit different, with slight variations depending on the presence of other people. From thevantage point of my office, I have been “privileged” to see the development of the subtle ballet almost as if I was the proverbial “fly on the wall.” With the unknown female student, of any age, Dr. X starts with a slight bow, a handshake, and an immediate hand on her shoulder, and a slight leaning towards her. He asks the same things he asks the unknown male student, but things are slower now. The hand continues on her shoulder. When the student has asked her question and received the eager answer, Dr. X gives her a slight hug, shows her his office, and says that any question she may have in the future, she “can come right in,” and ask him. He will be glad to help. He is a helpful prof.

If the female student is known to him, or, worse, if she is a former student, Dr. X throws his suitcase on the floor and literally flies on toher, covering her both cheeks with kisses, while he exclaims how very happy he is to see her. I have seen him take the student by the hand to his office, to talk to her more leisurely. Isn’t he a slick one?

Anyone reading these descriptions might think that we’re ripe for a sexual harassment suit. I wondered about that myself when I firststarted working at this institution. However, looking at these exchanges from another angle, I think that our students will never think about sexual harassment.

Dr. X is an older man. He is as old as the students’ grandfathers. Dr. X has been in this university since, as we newer members of the department like to say, “the time of the dinosaurs.” As a matter of fact, some of us have even ventured to say that he was present at the groundbreaking ceremony, more than 100 years ago. His age, which we know is above 65, is a matter kept under five keys. But we know. Another faculty member is friends with somebody in Human Resources, and the exact date of birth was found out.

Our dear Dr. X, whose age is officially a secret, shows it in other ways, however. One of them is the fear of technology. He does not like computers, and only uses his to do e-mail and write a test or two. No one knows how he learned to use the e-mail, but the fact is that he does. However, he won’t budge at other intromissions from the 20th and 21st centuries: he will not use a VCR, or a DVD player, or any kind of projector for his classes. His horror of cell phones is legendary.

Are his classes any good? Is he an effective teacher? We, the junior faculty, have no way of knowing, because we, of course, don’t have access to any of his students’ evaluations. What we know is that some of those who studied with him and then took our classes, will have just the most basic idea of the subject that was supposedly studied in Dr. X’s class. This situation does not surprise the younger faculty, because Dr. X does not produce any scholarship, has published only some very minor pieces in magazines run by some of his buddies, only attends minor conferences in places where he has friends or old colleagues.

Even though he is the most senior member of the department, because he was hired in a time when expectations for tenure and promotion were quite different, he cannot serve as a mentor to any of the younger faculty. All he can do is brag about the many acquaintances and friends he has in several places. Interestingly enough, none of these acquaintances has ever come to the university, so we are never sure he really knows these people.

The trouble with Dr. X is that, besides everything else, he has been the Old Chair of the department for more than 20 years. By now, with the retirement of some other folks -- younger than him -- all the others who are in the department have never experienced it with any other Chair.  He reigns supreme and undisputed, surrounded by a coterie of work-studies and fragile-looking students. The not-so-fragile take courses with others in the department. Recently, at a party given to the graduating seniors, some students drank a little bit too much and a few of them said that they should be graduating on “Dr. X’s Studies,” because they only took classes with him. Dr. X, in the meantime, carried on a long-winded conversation with the mother of one of the graduating students and never heard the grumblings at the table next to his.

Meanwhile, the administration of the university keeps Dr. X.  in his position, and will keep him there, it seems, until the dawn of the next century. The reasons for his longevity in the face of incompetence seem mysterious, but maybe the simple fact that there is no senior review explains part of the mystery. The fact that he was the president’s drinking buddy when they were young may explain the rest. At general faculty meetings at our small university, our Chair walks around, freshly pressed suit and indefatigable smile always on, looking like he is a benefactor, a statesman of sorts. He is untouchable.

Meanwhile, the young faculty does not know what to do. We go through the motions of writing our yearly activity reports, which are sent both to the Chair and to the Dean. We sometimes wonder where they are filed. We are sure they are not read. The Chair only calls a faculty member in to talk to him in private when a student complains. This Chair never gave any of the younger ones any kind of encouragement, and does not ever mention anyone’s publications or other accomplishments. An older colleague, who had taken upon herself to provide some kind of guidance to the younger faculty, after a few years just gave up, when she found out that  the Chair was calling her “feminazi” whenever he had a chance, and was plotting with other older men in the university to oppose. her tenure vote. She had to personally go to speak to colleagues on campus to explain what her work consisted of, to guarantee she would have a chance to obtain tenure. It is still a “good old boy network” here, so the year before she was supposed to apply for tenure the older female faculty member applied elsewhere and left.

The chair gloated and still bashes her any chance he gets. But, as long as she remained here, to her face he was as pleasant as ever. We wonder if he will ever retire. We wonder why he won’t retire. We wonder whether he is even human. After more than 30 years teaching, it seems that he just doesn’t know how to do anything else.

But sometimes we have hope: some days, this last semester, he arrived on campus looking tired, sickly even. A colleague commented and asked if I thought that meant he might retire. It was around that time that we had a university party to which everyone took his or her spouse. I met the Chair’s wife for the first time, and then I understood something else about him. The woman, a lot younger than him, is extremely bossy, and ready to find fault. She spent the whole time as if floating in vinagre. One time when Dr. X was saying something, she blurted out some sharp comments about him, and even though deep inside some of us thought they were well-deserved, a little bit of pity was impossible to avoid. Isn’t he quite something?

Why would the man retire? In contrast to an obviously unhappy domestic situation, he has a comfortable niche at the university. He has a big office in an old, dignified building, and he has a secretary who takes care of all the unpleasant stuff he doesn’t want to deal with. And it is not for the money, because after so many years working, he could get full pension and benefits if he retired tomorrow. The truth is that, as long as he is a member of the university, he can get up in the morning and feel that he still has a place in the working world. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? He can dress up and leave the house. Besides, there is the added perk of surrounding himself with young student flesh, even if, as we younger faculty have discussed thoroughly
among ourselves, he does not really touch them maliciously, ever. Or is that just something we want to believe?

Finally, one last thing seems to be creeping into our consciousness. The longer the old Chair stays “at the helm” of our department, the more he refuses to consider retirement, the more used we get to just enjoying ourselves criticizing and making fun of him, the less we notice that we, ourselves, are getting to be “of a certain age.” Pretty soon, we’ll all be versions of Dr. X:  throw in a pound of an unhappy marriage, a dash of vanity, a spoonful of student flattery, and we, too, like him, will be un-retiring.

In the meantime, should we consider ourselves guilty of ageism? Should we forget that this professional is not working at the level demanded of younger colleagues? Or should we bow our heads in gratitude to the work he did in the past and just continue agreeing to carry on, to not see that, now, anything he doesn’t do falls on our shoulders, and that, in effect, we, the department members, are losing our nerve while the department loses more and more credibility in the eyes of other departments? Even though the average age of the faculty
in this university is fairly high, other departments have been more successful in convincing their old Chairs to step down and let younger colleagues take the position.

But our fears are based on the fact that it will not suffice to unseat Dr. X as chair. Once he is out of a position of power, he still has enough strings to pull to cause trouble for whoever takes the chairmanship. He has been in power, unchecked, unsupervised, un-reprimanded for too long; he is bound to try to continue chairing, moving strings from the shadows. But supposing he leaves the chairmanship and just concentrates on his teaching, how much longer can a new Chair continue accepting his attitudes towards students, his refusal to teach with the newer materials and techniques, his hot air scholarship? Should he get special treatment because he was once the Chair, or should he be judged by what he is doing in the present? Should we suggest that his place be made available for a better trained, younger professional?

Of course, we can wonder as much as we want. Dr. X will stay “on board” as long as he pleases, will do as little as he can get away with, and those of us who are getting tired of seeing his antics either have to get out or join in.

M. Douglas is the pseudonym of an associate professor at a university situated below the Mason-Dixon line.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Un-Retiring

  • Posted by Terri Fisher on March 7, 2006 at 7:25am EST
  • I find this situation appalling. Not that this dignified older gentleman is still serving as department chair, but that the faculty in general and this writer in particular spend so much time obsessing over him. I agree that he has probably held his position for too long, but nothing described here sounds like justification for the hatred the writer clearly feels for his chair. I think that it is time for the unhappy faculty in this department to use their underappreciated publishing records to move on to other positions. There are lots of schools where the nurturing of students is not valued. You, apparently, are not at one of those.

  • Posted by Observer on March 7, 2006 at 8:40am EST
  • Not only is this snide exposition appalling (not to mention loaded with obvious rhetorical hyperbole and cliche), it's unbecoming. One wonders at the motivation and maturity of a young faculty member who chooses to vent anonymously this way in public.

  • the one who never retires
  • Posted by Marcus Levins on March 7, 2006 at 8:40am EST
  • Finally somebody talks about this subject! It is really appalling that some professionals fall so much out of tune that they don't realize they are filling out space that can be much better filled by younger ones. This "Dr. X" is a kind of ghost of institutions past, when what mattered was to "make nice" with students and suck up to the administration. It is not a matter of being ageist on the part of the writer. Rather, it is a matter that some people should move on and leave the much-needed position to people who a) need it (lots of recent Ph. D.'s leave the profession because so many jobs are taken by people way past retirement age), and b) know what to do with it (simply schmoozing or being unctuous with students does not classify as teaching). Universities should have a policy to deal with these out-of-tune old professors, by phasing them out, or something of the sort. If anyone wants to work forever in a department, then continue doing research and REALLY contributing to their department's intellectual life, and not just taking advantage of their position to press flesh.

  • Isn't it interesteing...
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A tired "retired" Business Professor on March 7, 2006 at 8:40am EST
  • Isn't it interesting that Joe Paterno, who doesn't use computers,cell phones, etc., etc. brought the national championship to Penn State.

    It will be interesting to see how this author has young people nipping at his heels to retire when he can't function in a virtual global world society. Will he also like the music that the new generation brings or yearn for the good ol' days of the Rolling Stones and condemn that modern music.

    Hmmmm?

  • his drooping chair
  • Posted by Hnaef on March 7, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • Far better,say I, a chair from _Dobie Gillis_ than one from Hell. Count your blessings, friend.

    Hnaef

  • Dr. Y
  • Posted by Dr. Z on March 7, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • We'll call him Dr. Y. When you see him walking the halls, he is usually frowning and almost always avoids eye contact. But it's far more likely that you'll find him in his office, behind closed doors, surfing the web, struggling to write that book, or, more likely, sharing grievances and exchanging nasty rumors with like-minded colleagues.

    He's in his 30s, and he is slowly coming to grips with the realization that he'll never be anything more than an adequate teacher or scholar. He resents his friends from graduate school who are embarked on successful careers at major research institutions. He resents his students for their youthful optimism and the lifetime of possibilities that still await them. But most of all, he resents his Chair, Dr. X, who has a rapport with students and a serene self-confidence that Dr. Y will never match. Dr. Y tries to convince himself that the Dr. X's of the world, marking time and taking up space, have somehow blocked his path to better things.

    As his resentment grows, he forces himself to believe that Dr. X owes his position to his old-boy connections rather than any observable talent. He wills himself to interpret Dr. X's old school mannerisms as predatory, perhaps even crossing the line into sexual harassment. He comforts himself in the belief that Dr. X, lacking a taste for the latest technology, cannot possibly be as effective a teacher as someone whose approach to pedagogy consists of projecting power point slides onto a screen and reading them verbatim to a half-empty classroom. He keeps telling himself that it is not the love of a job well done that keeps Dr. X in the classroom, but rather an unhappy home life dominated by a shrewish wife.

    But mostly Dr. Y fears the future. Will he ever be as well regarded on campus as his senior colleague? Will a new generation of junior faculty someday judge his career as harshly as he has judged Dr. X's? Will he eventually become the out-of-touch hanger-on with the leather suitcase, ridiculed by his peers for his failure to master the very latest scholarship and the newest technological bells and whistles?

    Will he become Dr. X?

  • let's be tough
  • Posted by Patrick Goold on March 7, 2006 at 10:05am EST
  • If you are so hot, M. Douglas, and your department is so cold, why don't you move on? I don't want to live in a world where bureaucrats have "policies" for "phasing out" older colleagues, or where we call living people "ghosts". But I am for being tough and asking the most--of ourselves.

    If you want to stay where you are but you want to make it better and the current chair is an obstacle to that, confront him. Do him the courtesy of being honest with him. A little candor and courage will do more good for a department than all the heartless policies an administration can concoct.

    And quit using "the university" as if it were a vague arrangement of sinister powers into which you have no input. Use the appropriate tools of faculty governance to effect change.

  • widespread...
  • Posted by A. G. Rud at Purdue University on March 7, 2006 at 10:30am EST
  • Seeking solace in work or other "busy-ness" away from an unhappy or even merely unsatisfying personal life is widespread in academia.

    Professor X should be doing useful service, such as serving on committees or assisting the head or such, rather than schmoozing with students. If he can't do research, or, more common, doesn't like it, there are lots of worthwhile activities much needed by departments that can be, and are, done by faculty in his situation.

  • You Can’t Mean JoePa …
  • Posted by RWH on March 7, 2006 at 10:45am EST
  • First, allow me to line up behind Terri Fisher’s insinuation that colleges and universities should be a great deal more “student friendly” than many of them are today. And if anyone starts a line there, I’ll be right behind those who are put off by the petty gossip and cowering “oh we can’t do anything but sit helplessly on the sidelines and whine” attitude of M. Douglas.

    On the other hand, after reading and re-reading the essay, I think Fisher is wrong in seeing “hatred” there. The resentment, however is thicker than the proverbial molasses in January. And I can’t tell you how much I understand and appreciate that resentment.

    I was recently on the business school faculty of a small private university in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley. The president was a long-time academic with no publications whatsoever … and, even more remarkable, no evidence of scholarship (essays, position pieces, general interest articles, speeches, etc.) that might be expected of a president in lieu of the sort of research and writing normally required of faculty. The school had two deans while I was there. The first, a retired “businessman,” and one of the president’s cronies, is obviously the Chair about whom M. Douglas wrote. He was appointed to his position by the president who made his choice in the absence of the “required” procedures for academic search and review. In his lifetime he had no publications. He loved to hob-nob with students, and often – and I do mean often – remarked that the two most satisfying parts of his job were the facts that the international students called him Grandpapa and the athletes always gave him “high-fives” when he passed them in the hall.

    Incidentally, in the five years of his tenure, he oversaw a decline in undergraduate and MBA enrollments of almost 50%. Frankly, I don’t think anyone hated him … but oh, that resentment.

    The dean was replaced by a new dean, who, more than thirty years ago had four “in-house” publications (employment studies on behalf of state agencies) and no more in the interim.

    The vice president for academic affairs at this university was also appointed by the president completely outside a parallel search process that was merely for show. She is a young woman whose research credentials are, in toto. a never-reviewed book (her dissertation) that is number 3,423,271 on the Amazon.com best seller list and one co-authored paper.

    All around me were both young and older faculty who were scrambling to crank out uninteresting and unimportant papers because this foursome of a president, a VPAA, and two deans -- individuals whose research credentials would not combine to get an assistant professor promoted to associate professor -- are pushing the school to get AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) accreditation.

    Resentment? … you bet

    Edward Winslow’s comparison of M. Douglas’ Chair with Joe Paterno is completely specious. In almost every sense, Paterno is the complete opposite of Chair. Once a leader in his field, generally thought to be past his prime, out of touch with what was happening in his profession, and under the gun of his constituents, JoePa had the good sense to pass responsibility on to his younger associates, take a lesser role himself, and keep his visibility as “the man in charge.” And to what end? Well last year he was just a second away from having an undefeated season. I’d bet the farm that M. Douglas would trade Chair for JoePa at the drop of a hat.

    So, while I really dislike the tone of M. Douglas’ essay, I can cretainly understand and appreciate his resentment.

  • Posted by Plain Jane on March 7, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • You are complaining about Dr. X sticking around too long. At the same time you are bemoaning the fact that another department member had to solicit support to try to gain tenure. How many people do you know who gain tenure produce as much as before? Same story, different level. Until she left he was "as pleasant as ever" to her face? Would she (and you) feel better if he verbally assualted her rather than be polite? When was the last time you asked to speak to him and then asked what was important for your department to achieve and how did he think you could help? Quit whining and see what positive skills you can learn from him for a few years.

  • The Un-Retiring
  • Posted by Matt Marsteller at Carnegie Mellon on March 7, 2006 at 11:25am EST
  • Wow! The author really seems to have issues! Their piece must not have been very effective - I found myself more and more appalled at the author and concerned for the elderly department chair.

    Maybe the author and the rest of the department could invest in some followership training - re-open that can of self-awareness. I get so sick of the lack of respect for wisdom and experience. This department chair has absolutely no support from the author - and nobody in a position of leadership can function well in that situation. If you're not willing to review the possibilities of your own shortcomings, maybe you should consider moving on.

    Unconvinced,

    Matt Marsteller
    Carnegie Mellon

  • Posted by CJO on March 7, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • Wow! I expected to read miles of responses that found in this piece the kind of support for their "get rid of tenure because 'all' it does is keep deadwood around" positions! But not a one (at least to this point).

    Rather, I was surprised to see a lot of sympathy for Chair X and ad hominem attacks on the author.

    The aspect that most caught my attention--and one that apparently hasn't bothered any of the responders to this point--is Chair X's blatant and offensive sexism. While, as the author said, his actions might not support a sexual harrassment suit, they are most definitely sexist. Yet, I'm not even sure that the author himself clearly perceives the behavior as sexist, for despite his characterization of the behavior--and how can anyone read such actions as placing a hand on the shoulders of only female students, attended by a slower pace (as if they're not bright enough to understand at his normal pace)NOT as sexist--he immediately follows his disclaimer of sexual harrassment possibility by noting only that Chair X is of the age of the students' grandfathers--suggesting a view of Chair X as "grandfatherly."

    However, Chair X is NOT their grandfather, particularly because he has an academic and career-shaping (or killing) power that their grandfathers don't. So, even if their own grandfathers act in a patronizing and protective manner toward their granddaughters and not toward their grandsons, this kind of behavior in Chair X is totally unprofessional and inappropriate.

    Dr. Z's characterization of Chair X having "a rapport with students" isn't necessarily supported by the piece. What kind of rapport does he have with students who the author characterized as "grumbling" about having taken courses only with Chair X (and I assume that these are the "fragile" students who don't take courses with other faculty members--very likely because they don't dare).

    Further, do we know for sure that the students who talk to him in the hall (or, as I take it, end up more listening to him) or in his office) aren't playing him? So, where's the proof of his great rapport with (and presumed respect for) students? And if they don't laugh at him behind their back, are they responding to him professionally as a teacher, or personally because they remind him of the grandfather they may dearly love? Playing substitute grandpa is NOT academic or even appropriate emotional "nurturing" of students.

    And no one is upset over a female faculty member being drummed out of the department because she "challenged" his supremacy by trying to do something that he has been failing to do: to mentor junior faculty, something that is critically important? His entirely inappropriate backstabbing and labelling of her as a "Feminazi" doesn't offend anyone, doesn't raise any red flags?

    I'm flabbergasted by the values and lack of understanding of what an educational professional's duties are that the responses I've read so far have exhibited. (If anything more intelligent has been posted while I've been writing this---that means anything posted after 11:25--I'm not talking about you.)

  • Wisdom? what wisdom?
  • Posted by Amos on March 7, 2006 at 12:45pm EST
  • I find it interesting that some readers of this piece seem to equate the old chair ("gentleman"--[??]) with a wise person. Really? Except for his ability to hang on for so long, what is wise about him that a younger faculty member should learn from? cornering students to seem kindand helpful? And, since we are in the subject of students, since when offering directions to campus buildings is proof of competence in a department chair? Or rattling on the students' family trivia? Does anybody need a Ph. D. for that? Is it only my impression, or we are losing sight of the need for real competence in the university? A Chair should be a leader, a mentor, an administrator who knows that there is a time and a place for everything. Or he/she should at least try.

    And what nonsense is this about comparing Joe Paterno with Dr. X? As far as I know, Joe Paterno has continued really on top of his game by always learning, never sitting on his past glories. There are plenty of older professors and professionals in other areas who never cease to grow, to learn, and to delegate. Unfortunately, there quite a few old guys who will claw onto their perchs no matter what; and the university, students, and department be damned.

  • The Un-Retiring
  • Posted by Larry Shillock , Head, Division of Humanities on March 7, 2006 at 6:55pm EST
  • It seems that there are at least two problems here. The first in importance has to do with writing unauthored attacks of our peers--whether they deserve them or not. I consider such attacks to be cowardly. Frankly, the chair who refuses to go away sounds like serious deadwood to me. Having said as much, I believe it's time for the department to get serious about discussing an election for a new chair. What the writer of "The Un-Retiring" is likely to find is that there is more support, college-wide, for that election than s/he supposes. After all, a poor chair is poor in other areas as well. The second problem has to do with quoting anyone, anonymously or no, as using the phrase "feminazi." If the chair did use such language, it's time to go public, file a grievance, and get serious.

    Larry T. Shillock, Head
    Department of Humanities
    Wilson College

  • CJO is right on target
  • Posted by Violet , Professor at Mid-Western U on March 8, 2006 at 5:45am EST
  • Dear CJO,

    As I scrolled down the comment list I grew increasingly frantic that noone seemed to focus on the most compelling issues in the piece, but then I got to your comment and breathed a sigh of relief.

    My concern with the sexist behavior of this chair trumps my concerns about ageism here. Everyone is so concerned with the "poor old patriarch" they are willing to turn a blind eye to the way his sexism affects both students and faculty members in his department.

    Thanks again for your comments,
    Violet

  • When Dr. X is the President...
  • Posted by Anonymous on March 8, 2006 at 5:45am EST
  • What should be done when the Dr. X figure is President of the University? This is our problem. We even have jokes about it.

    Q: Have you heard about the President's retirement fund?
    A: No
    Q: Well, when we get $2000 we can hire a hit man!

  • Sexism?
  • Posted by Dr. Y on March 8, 2006 at 8:40am EST
  • In just this one short article, the writer uses the word "old" to refer to Dr. X on nine separate occasions. Indeed, "Douglas" is so obsessed with his colleague's advancing age that he writes approvingly of an effort to violate Dr. X's privacy rights by employing an "inside" contact at Human Resources to uncover the Chair's exact date of birth. It's hard to imagine why anyone would want so badly to know the Dr X's exact age except to feed a desire to further ridicule the old geezer during bitter closed-door griping sessions.

    Is it any surprise, then, that most of the early comments to this article concentrated on the author's apparent ageism?

    Sexism, of course, is every bit as bad as ageism. If one is to take the author's word for it, there is more than a hint of sexism in Dr. X's behavior. And I would agree that nobody should be allowed to argue that sexist behavior is less serious just because it is displayed by someone who came of age before the advent of Ms. Magazine.

    But here's the problem: the writer of this article is so transparently bitter, so devoted to luxuriating over every one of Dr. X's manifest flaws, that it calls his own objectivity into question. Does Dr. X truly condescend to coeds, or is that just what the author wants to believe? Does the Chair always hug and kiss female ex-students, or did the author just happen to witness an occasion or two out of context (maybe the student was the child of a close friend, for example)? More to the point, is the author so blinded by contempt for this man that he is simply unwilling to ascribe innocence to any of Dr. X's actions?

    Maybe Dr. X actually does behave inappropriately. I don't know, although if he does so with the regularity suggested in this article, it is hard to imagine that not a single woman has ever filed a complaint. Still, it is true that bullies and lechers and bigots sometimes get by with their actions for years without consequence, so it may be the case that Dr. X is a bad actor. But I remain unwilling to take this author's word for it.

    Which leaves us with the "feminazi" reference. No colleague should ever use such a terms to describe another. I have no idea whether the act of calling a female coworker a "feminazi" is actionable under the law, but I would lose respect for anyone who did it. Once again, though, we have only the word of our angry reporter that such a violation has occurred. Even worse, it appears from the article that the author's supposed knowledge of this practice is second-hand: "An older colleague...found out that the Chair was calling her 'feminazi' whenever he had a chance..."

    So let's be clear: nobody on this comment thread (at least so far as I know) is defending sexism or sexist behavior. We are simply pointing out the anger and contempt for a (very) senior colleague that both borders on ageism and calls the author's objectivity on every other point into question.

    [By the way, I just noticed that the author's pen name is not "Douglas", but "M. Douglas". I may, therefore, have been presumptuous in assuming that the author is male. My apologies if I am wrong.]

  • Posted by Dr. Z on March 8, 2006 at 10:05am EST
  • Oops, just to stay consistent, the comment by "Dr. Y" posted above should have been signed "Dr. Z".

  • Posted by PhilosophyProf on March 8, 2006 at 3:50pm EST
  • The tone certainly might have been different, but I have to say that I am really surprised at the extent of the negative reaction to this piece. As a tenure-track professor, my first thought is just that (if his credentials are being properly described) Chair does not belong in an academic/tenure-stream position. This could free up a tenure-track line and maybe better match his strengths. There are tons of us who can't even get jobs with the same credentials that used to be able to get a person tenure, and so the frustration here (as some have already pointed out) is very intense. And it's also intense when the senior figure so-described (unpublished, etc.) and with tenure is in the position of lording over the well-published tenure-tracker, and partially determines in this new academic market if they'll have to be uprooted, take another turn at the market, esp. when the market for failed tenure-candidates is much much much worse than the already unbelievably awful market for new and recent Phds. Chair may be a nice guy, perhaps, (as this presumably depends [as folks have noted] on what is driving the particularities of his interactions with students, and on how he wields his power), but that would seem to be a separate point.

  • Also appalled!
  • Posted by Professor Zero on March 8, 2006 at 3:50pm EST
  • The author of this piece appears to be a far greater problem than the person s/he describes. Why the obsession? Whence the lack of charity?

    I find this piece, as well as the Feb. 8 article on becoming 'courtesans' to the administration, really problematic. All of these authors would be better off identifying someone they'd like to emulate in a positive way.

    Criticism, innovation, and rebellion can be great things. Gratuitous sniping and sycophancy are not.

  • Posted by Dave S. , Associate Professor at Land Grant U on March 8, 2006 at 9:45pm EST
  • I'd echo the comments above on the general smarminess of anonymous character assassination. What struck me most, though, are two things that are missing.

    First, where is the specific evidence of a badly-run department?

    Second, the author complains he/she does not know what happens to the annual reviews that go to the chair and the dean. That suggests to me that the author has not ASKED the dean about that, nor discussed the chair's performance.

    I discount the complaints accordingly.

  • Generational Professor Wars
  • Posted by Leslie Bary on March 8, 2006 at 10:25pm EST
  • Well, I agree with both PhilosophyProf and Professor Zero, the last two comments (at the time I read this), and I realize that this is inconsistent. I get sick of old fashioned old faculty, for all the obvious reasons, but I also get sick of new faculty who think they know everything--and don't realize that while they sleep, mid-faculty like me are busting our asses to do things like get their teaching loads reduced, so that they don't end up as dead wood, like Professor X, or still smart but tired and beleaguered, like me. I also agree with A.G. Rud, above: there are useful things Professor X could do. I have worked with senior faculty who use terms
    like 'feminazi', and I hardly condone such speech, or the behavior that tends to go with it. However, I have also seen those same faculty come out in support of what I would consider the 'right' side of things, and I've seen them support female faculty and students. Life, and people, are complex.

    Finally, there comes the question of what to do about such situations. Has the author of this piece actually discussed things with Professor X? If s/he has tried and failed, the next step is the dean. Both conversations can be had diplomatically. If all else fails, (and if anyone does, I know this is hard to do, but must be done), it's time to focus closely on your own research and teaching, and if you want to/your family situation permits you to, send your vita out.

    This has been a missive from the very battle scarred, but still strong and daily stronger: Leslie.

  • Let’s Pretend Everything M. Douglas Said Is True ...
  • Posted by RWH on March 9, 2006 at 4:50am EST
  • I am truly sorry to be on the wrong side of this issue, but IN MY OPINION, someone has to speak up for good sense. As I indicated in an earlier post, (1) I really dislike the wimpy tone of M. Douglas’ essay but (2) I, nevertheless, understand and appreciate the resentment s/he – and presumably other members of the faculty – feel in the course of their daily interaction with Chair, a man whose behavior is apparently inconsistent with the best interests of the department (including I assume, the students).

    Let’s see, the title of the article is “The Un-retiring,” and after a third reading of the essay – good lord, I’ve got to get a life – I am confident the article is about (1) an older fellow who (2) maintains the pretense of academic professionalism, (3) would rather stand out in the hall and hob-nob with students than get to work on “important matters” awaiting him in his office, (4) is the antithesis of a “high tech” wonk, (5) is probably no longer an adequate teacher (if he ever was), (6) has research and scholarly credentials that would be mediocre even for an assistant professor, (7) is generally full of hot air, and (8) is ensconced his present position – and has been so for more than 20 years – because he and the university president are cronies.

    Oh yes, on top of everything else there’s plenty of evidence to suggest, (9) he is a first-class sexist and (10) he is regularly bullied by a domineering wife when he’s not at school.

    Maybe I’ve missed M. Douglas’ point(s), but I will tell you – since I seem to be on a resentment kick today – that I really resent being lectured by CJO and Violet who claim that those who responded on either side of this essay without focusing attention on the sexist nature of Chair were somehow off track.

    If MD’s description of Chair is accurate, of course he’s sexist ... and his treatment of MD’s female colleague was both abominable and probably illegal. But the remarks, “I’m flabbergasted by the values and lack of understanding of what an educational professional’s duties are [regarding Chair’s sexism] that the responses I’ve read so far have exhibited” (CJO) and “As I scrolled down the comment list I grew increasingly frantic that no one seemed to focus on the most compelling issues in the piece [Chair’s sexism]” (Violet) are pure nonsense. Am I supposed to believe, given the ten points delineated by MB in an article titled “The Un-retiring,” that there is something amiss if a respondent chooses not to focus attention on the ninth point (Chair is a sexist pig)? Cut me some slack.

    And thanks, Dr. Y – or is it Dr. Z? -- for your thoughtful remarks about ageism and sexism.

  • The Un-Retiring
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor on March 9, 2006 at 9:10am EST
  • My my. It seems like only a few days ago that the commenters at IH were waxing indignant about the lack of post-tenure review & at the prevelence of "deadwood" older faculty who couldn't pull their academic weight. And now everyone's offended when somebody tells some specific truths about one such faculty member. My my.

  • Posted by anon4this at Georgetown on March 9, 2006 at 9:51am EST
  • FWIW, nothing described in this article rises to the level of illegal activity. Second, publishing doesn't mean you're smart or effective, it means you've published.

    There are many ways to gauge the effectiveness of administrators, and for some reason the President of this university think the Chair is doing okay. If the author and those who agree with him wish to do something constructive, perhaps they should have a discussion with the Chair about how they can work together to improve the department.

    Please, learn what sexual harassment is before you toss the term about. And, learn the difference between harassment and discrimination. Last point -- it's not illegal to be an asshole. If it were, there would be far fewer people employed.

  • Is RWH the Secret Author?
  • Posted by Student on March 9, 2006 at 2:10pm EST
  • Sounds like someone is taking this article a little too personally.

    Maybe your "close reading" of the piece, and your willingness to accept the author's negative portrayal of his Chair at face value, is indicative of your personal investment in convincing the rest of us to accept that interpretation?

    I work with students, both male and female. Some students like to give me hugs, and some like to shake hands. Some like to keep their distance. I generally respond to students according to the body language they present; I hug back those who hug me, and shake with those who shake, high five with the fivers, etc... Students do appreciate a bit of "live" and embodied contact now and again, and as long as no one is crying out in discomfort or agitation, or making formal complaints, then why not shut up and stay out of it?

  • Yet more
  • Posted by Professor Zero on March 9, 2006 at 4:45pm EST
  • Thanks to "student" and "anon4this" for your comments, each with lucid content (last 2 posts
    as I write this). But no, RWH isn't the 'secret
    author' of the piece ... and says pretty reasonable things, in my view.

  • Posted by Some professor on March 9, 2006 at 6:30pm EST
  • Dr. X's failures and shortcomings -- whatever they may be --
    aside, what is one to make of a department member who watches
    these chair-student conversations with disgust, refers to an old
    person as being around "since the time of the dinosaurs,"
    delights in finding out exactly how old X is (70? 71? 72? who
    the hell would really care?), and feels hope when X looks sick
    and tired? The author of this piece exhibits the contemptuous
    attitudes that characterize the worst sort of younger faculty.
    Dr. X wears a suit and carries a leather briefcase -- what an
    antique! Put him on an ice floe (steered by an iPod doubling
    as a remote control device).

    Someday, M. Douglas, "you'll be older too," as some
    prehistoric pop group once sang.

  • The Un-Retiring
  • Posted by Lloyd Rain , Purchasing Director, Retired at Lane Community College on March 10, 2006 at 12:40pm EST
  • Most remarkable.

    Almost all the responses are from teachers of one kind or another. Hardly an administrator to be found. All of you are either appalled or saddened by Dr. X's incompetence, his sexism, the author's sneakiness, or his own incompetence and so on and so on.

    None of you really got it. And that is the great problem with higher ed throughout the nation and probably throughout the world with institutions modeled after the British configurations beginning about a thousand years ago.

    The probbelmn here is administration. Where the hell is the administration in all of this? Why are "managers" completlely invisible in all of your arguments? Nary an administrator in sight. You all want to take care of this incident on your own either as professors or students or through sexism or ageism, or some other irrelevant philosophical dunning that posts you in the forefront but does not resolve the problem.

    Yes, the problem is that in the scenario, the administration is compeltley invisible for the discomfitted professor and for Dr. Douglas.

    In most organizations, one good manager would have resolved this issue for both parties in about five minutes. But no, all of you would just as soom whine about all parties involved and, good lord, let us never actually mention that good management might be the solution to this and most other similar situations.

    Most of you are talking like typical members of a faculy union which posits the administration as the enemy. No matter how bad a situation may be, good lord, let us never actually call upon the administration for a healthy management resolution (like maybe counseling, demotion, termination, intervention, restructuring, and perhaps ten other options which are available to resolve these kinds of entrenchments).

    After too many years in higher ed as an administrator, I am convinced that the slate needs to be wiped clean of all of you and re-initiated with institutions like the University of Phoenix --- which would never tolerate either Dr. X or his whining detractors.

    Fie on you all.

    Lloyd Rain

  • Fie on All of You! All of you, I say!
  • Posted by Dr. Z on March 10, 2006 at 1:25pm EST
  • Well, someone's coffee must have been a little bitter this morning...

  • Response
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on March 10, 2006 at 5:00pm EST
  • Sorry to disappoint CJO; I agree with Dr. Rain.

    Tenure has allowed people like this individual (Dr. X) to stay on while not competently performing their jobs or fullfilling the expectations of their continued employment. This individual's incompetence should have resulted in dismissal long ago - instead the administration does nothing - likely believing, probably correctly, that it is easier to simply wait until he retires of his own accord or dies off. In the mean time, his colleages and students suffer for his poor performance.

  • Posted by PhilosophyProf on March 10, 2006 at 9:55pm EST
  • The administration would be right that it is easier to wait, but as some have noted (and I am sure Kevin agrees) there needs to be a meeting between the Dean, Chair, and M. Douglas (and maybe others, as presumably there would be if Douglas is right). The administration does not have to renew Chair's position as chair -- maybe M. Douglas could volunteer -- and there are other sanctions that can be put in place also (if the charges by Douglas turn out to be accurate). Sometimes people do what is easier, but here there is so much at stake that it is important to do what is difficult/painful/awkward.

  • Posted by Milha Mann on March 11, 2006 at 5:25am EST
  • The Un-Retiring...

    I am 72 years old. I have two patent pending. I am working on another book. I most likely can out run , out swim and out weight-lift many if not any of the published whippersnappers, pretenders or closet plotters.

    Leave it to the jaundiced gimlet eyes of the author to misinterpret and attribute simple human affection, to some senile untoward motives... Such expressions of tactile warmth, are alas, alien to the author and seem to transcend his take of academic ethos or worse, his academic logic... therein lies the rub. .

    Hello everyone, we live in a new era, age is not what it used to be. No one asked Nelson Mandela to retire when he left prison at age of 78, imagine a world without his fount of inspiration. Thus, manifestoes that are Intolerant of "old" age are no different or any less offensive than previous good old-time racism, gender discrimination or any other elitists pronouncements that are based on ignorance and avarice.

    Also, as Lewis Carroll so aptly noted: "'If everybody minded their own business,' the Duchess said, in a hoarse growl, 'the world would go around a great deal faster than it does.'"

    Can we all just get along?

  • Posted by TBD on March 11, 2006 at 4:40pm EST
  • Many may not know that many universities south of the Mason-Dixon Line have "heads," not elected chairs. The old prof here sounds like one of them. They are far harder to get rid of, and in my experience, not ever as good as elected chairs.

    We had a guy sort of like this at the R-1 from which I got my PhD-- he wasn't the chair and he didn't sexually harrass though. A champion of human rights, he was actually an interpersonal bully. No one seemed to care very much because the area he dominated wasn't important to the department.