faculty

Releasing oneself from the pressure of having a perfect sabbatical (opinion)

Deborah J. Cohan had the preconceived idea that certain conditions needed to be met for her sabbatical to be fulfilling and meaningful, but she's learned how to tame her expectations.

Job Tags: 
Ad keywords: 
Editorial Tags: 
Show on Jobs site: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 

Advice for taking the next best steps after a job interview (opinion)

Category: 

Derek Attig outlines steps you should take to set yourself up for success in the next stages of the hiring process and beyond.

Job Tags: 
Ad keywords: 
Topic: 
Editorial Tags: 
Show on Jobs site: 
Image Source: 
Istockphoto.com/ivan-balvan
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Newsletter Order: 
2
Advice Newsletter publication date: 
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Email Teaser: 
What to Do Immediately After an Interview

New Purdue Health Plan Boots Employed Spouses

Faculty members at Purdue University are pushing the university to reconsider recent changes to health care plans, notably the decision to drop primary coverage for working spouses of Purdue employees whose own employers cover 50 percent or more of medical premiums, the Journal and Courier reported.

The Board of Trustees signed off on the change on Oct. 12 in hopes that it would help cut down university health-care costs, which have risen by more than $30 million since 2014. In addition to the changes to spousal coverage, the new health plan will require biometric testing to take full advantage of health-care savings plans, increase premiums by 6 percent, increase deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and emphasize generic prescriptions.

At a town hall this upcoming Wednesday, the faculty will ask for a stopgap measure that would allow spouses to stay on university health-care plans for a surcharge.

Ad keywords: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

What a professor wishes he learned in grad school about advising students (opinion)

Sriram Khé describes what he wishes he learned in graduate school, especially when it comes to advising students.

Job Tags: 
Ad keywords: 
Editorial Tags: 
Show on Jobs site: 
Image Source: 
Istockphoto.com/gruizza
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 

Tips for improving your résumé for an alt-ac position (opinion)

The strongest ones are written from scratch and are carefully crafted to appeal to a particular audience: the hiring manager, advise Jennifer Polk and L. Maren Wood.

Job Tags: 
Ad keywords: 
Editorial Tags: 
Show on Jobs site: 
Image Source: 
Istockphoto.com/Vladwel
Multiple Authors: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 

Google Brings Computing Courses to 10 Colleges

Google announced its latest higher education foray Wednesday: technology courses developed in-house and delivered to students at 10 four-year institutions.

Students at eight institutions can enroll this semester in two introductory courses on computer science and data science. The company developed the curriculum and provides the content and materials; institutions supply faculty members to lead in-class projects.

Those eight institutions are:

  • Adrian College
  • Agnes Scott College
  • Bay Path University
  • Heidelberg University
  • Holy Names University
  • Lasell College
  • SUNY Buffalo State
  • Sweet Briar College

Next year, the five institutions below (including three in the above list) will also begin offering a no-cost, intensive Google-developed machine learning course. Students nationwide will be eligible to enroll, provided they've taken two semesters of introductory computer science or data science courses, and an applied statistics course.

  • Agnes Scott College (spring 2019)
  • Bay Path University (spring 2019)
  • Heidelberg University (spring 2019)
  • Mills College (spring 2019)
  • Scripps College (summer 2019)

Google is also accepting applications for additional institutions that want to offer the introductory computer science and data science courses. Priority consideration will go to institutions with no existing computer science program or one that's at capacity.

Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Ad keyword: 
SRcredentials2018

Maine System Bans Professor Behind Anti-Kavanaugh Course

Susan Feiner, a retired professor of women's and gender studies at the University of Southern Maine who offered students a “pop-up” course for credit to protest the nomination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has been barred from teaching. The university previously canceled the course. The Portland Press-Herald reported that President Glenn Cummings in a statement said Feiner had been blocked from teaching for “her inappropriate actions,” and that the university is “embarrassed by and apologize[s] for the rogue behavior of a former colleague.”

Feiner promoted “an unauthorized class that advanced her personal political agenda,” and the teaching ban will be enforced across the University of Maine system, Cummings said. Feiner told the Press-Herald that she didn’t plan to appeal the decision because she is retired but that it is the university’s “loss.”

Ad keywords: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

A way to handle trigger warnings is to develop a one-time-only one (opinion)

The trigger-warning debate presents faculty members and administrators with a difficult decision: Should they prioritize defending free speech or helping students feel emotionally safe?

The impetus for trigger warnings is a series of communications from the U.S. Department of Education advocating for protective learning environments. But to many people, pushback against trigger warnings and safe spaces is important because institutions should not shield students from uncomfortable messages, especially those challenging students’ own ideas. Parties concerned with trigger warnings include faculty groups such as the American Association of University Professors, which see warnings as interfering with core goals of education and infringing on free speech and academic freedom.

Buried amid the federal communiqués is the occasional acknowledgment -- which some might dismiss as lip service -- of traditional liberal ideals of open and free expression: “To be very clear, working to maintain safe learning communities does not, and must not, mean chilling free expression about the issues of the day … Protecting free speech means protecting the ability of your students, faculty, staff and members of the public to hold and express views that may be at odds with your institution's strongly held values.”

Advocates of trigger warnings, however, claim challenges to them belittle the sincerity of the people who call for warnings and ignore the distress suffered by students faced with upsetting content. “It is easy to make a stink about political correctness,” writes Michael Bugeja, who teaches media ethics and technology and social change at Iowa State University. “It is also easy to expound on it without including the perspectives of underrepresented groups.”

Advocates also reject the implication that those calling for warnings are intellectually lazy or oversensitive, or are manufacturing a problem for personal or political reasons. Grace Arnpriester, executive director of health and wellness for the undergraduate student government at American University, writes that “survivors of trauma deal with ‘hypervigilance’ that can lead to panic, anxiety, flashbacks or more -- all of which can be triggered by sensitive content.” Similarly, Bugeja, when writing about the cumulative impact of microaggressions, notes that “ … a cup of water weighs about eight ounces, until you hold it for an hour or longer. Then it weighs a ton. Weight doesn’t count; time does.”

Such analogies are contestable. For example, in her TED talk, psychologist Kelly McGonigal describes research following 30,000 adults for eight years. It shows that stress is not associated with premature death in the absence of the belief that stress is injurious to health: among adults who experienced the highest stress, but who did not believe it was inherently dangerous, mortality was actually lower than among those with the lowest stress. By convincing people that stress is their enemy, we may, paradoxically, be hurting them. Might there be a lesson here for advocates who argue for students’ need to seek safety whenever a painful topic is covered? Would it not be healthier to confront the stressor, process it and learn coping skills? Would not an eight-ounce cup feel lighter after practice lifting it?

Proponents of trigger warnings point out that most policies recommend rather than mandate warnings before sensitive material is introduced and provide a psychologically safe way for students to process it. Thus, they argue, the push for safe spaces and warnings is not inimical to freedom of speech or academic freedom. In fact, supporters claim such interventions are consistent with such freedoms because they allow students to participate in the discussion of sensitive material when they otherwise might not be able to do so.

Some potentially upsetting topics seem de rigueur for any informed student: a history class that involves reading about the Dred Scott decision in which the word “property” is used; a class on the Japanese invasion of China that includes information about the Rape of Nanking; a description of historical violence against innocents and animals in Steven Pinker’s Our Better Angels in a course on the role of central government; a reading about assisted suicide in a course on elder law; a course on rape law. Warned or not, students must be expected to understand that material, notwithstanding -- and in some cases because of -- its potentially disturbing nature. Such examples complicate the task of instructors, who must forecast which events warrant warnings.

Given the substantial differences among students in their personality, attitudes and experiences, such predictions are inevitably fraught with guesswork. For example, one professor’s discussions of climate change and the age of the Earth were deeply upsetting to some students. Another described a course on sex differences that included arguments of nature over nurture, which dismayed some students and led to an administrative suggestion to modify the content. Another described her lecture on animal rights that disturbed some students.

Given the ubiquity in the media of rapes, suicide bombings and violence, how can students navigate their occupational and social lives outside the protective bubble? Putting aside whether one supports trigger warnings, how do fragile individuals -- whom some online commenters have derisively referred to as “snowflakes”-- cope outside the classroom, in their places of work, in social settings, in following world events? Warnings do not prepare students for this reality outside the classroom where warnings are not given to brace oneself; instead, warnings may inadvertently make it more challenging for students to cope with this reality by shielding them from anxiety-provoking information. Compared with media representations, the classroom lecture would seem to offer an opportunity to learn coping skills that will prove useful in confronting the inevitable stressors of life.

A colleague recently received a complaint because the course textbook presented a list of factors statistically associated with sexual abuse of women. One factor was wearing sexually provocative clothing. The list was derived from controlled research. Even supposing that one of our colleague’s students was the victim of sexual violence, reading that list ought not induce a flare-up of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Good teachers can often anticipate and ward off such objections by helping students understand the distinction between association and blame. The only warning broad enough to cover such unanticipated alleged trauma-inducing readings would be along the lines of: "Something in this course may upset someone; some content may be disturbing to some listeners/viewers/readers." In fact, perhaps letters of admission to entering students ought to be accompanied by a general caution that “if you have PTSD you might wish to obtain treatment from a trauma specialist in how to cope, and make your professor aware of this so she or he can let you know when content may be uncomfortable.”

But Are Warnings Effective?

We know of no systematic evidence that students’ mental health and academic success are impeded by the lack of safe spaces and trigger warnings. In fact, recent clinical science provides grounds for thinking that warnings may be counterproductive because they may inadvertently encourage avoidance behavior, which can fuel pre-existing anxiety (here). Many of us do not object to optional trigger warnings.

Our worry, however, is that once warnings become mandatory, they can become political tools. We have seen unfortunate examples of professors investigated because their syllabus neglected to warn students about some wording that one student found offensive, and who then pursued it for political reasons unrelated to PTSD. It is not obvious that any a priori rubric can distinguish legitimate content to be warned about from content that some students oppose for sociopolitical or personal reasons (e.g., anger at perceived “victim shaming”).

Some academics fear that because PTSD and the allied acute stress disorder (a DSM-5 diagnosis) are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act, failure to take into consideration potential triggers is a violation of the law. If true, that could lead to mandatory safe spaces and trigger warnings and possibly pressure to amend course content that some find disturbing. As one commentator on Inside Higher Ed argued, “Once trigger warnings are established, it is easy to put more and more topics in the restricted category, and then an easy step to say that these topics cannot be addressed at all.” Instructors teaching evolution have been assailed by students when the real issue is not PTSD but providing equal time for teaching variants of creationism. Another person commented, “When a small group of Christian fundamentalists in my anthropology class objected to my teaching ‘evolution’ on the ground that some students ‘don't believe in it,’ I treated them as gently as possible; but, I also steadfastly refused to alter the curriculum on the basis of their peculiar mythology.”

As illustrated by this example, an ideological rift frequently exists between proponents and opponents of trigger warnings. One does not hear much about the need for greater empathy or safe spaces for students holding conservative viewpoints. For example, few openly advocate that professors give Southern students trigger warnings or safe spaces before assigning readings that depict their ancestors as pro-slavery or pro-Jim Crow, or that depict social conservatives as racist or homophobic. Numerous topics are regarded as upsetting hate speech when viewed from one side of the political aisle (e.g., Black Lives Matter) but not from the other side (e.g., Blue Lives Matter).

Potential Solutions

We can envision several ways of approaching these contentious issues, some of which can be undertaken by students and others by professors. Online Rate My Professor evaluations could include comments about sensitive content to inform future students. That might partially obviate the need for trigger warnings, as prospective students could read previous students’ comments, although the risk of false positives cannot be ignored. Professors cannot anticipate every student’s sensitivities. At least in the case of nonrequired courses, students could be told it is their responsibility to read the course comments and the syllabus and skim the reading list before enrolling.

Are campuses moving toward a scheme in which administrators must keep a continually updated list of topics that might require warnings, and maintain a hearing board for professors who violate them? Will nonconforming faculty be required to enroll in formal sensitivity training or worse, risk administrative censure or even termination? And what about fairness to all positions: Will colleges and universities require sensitivity training for professors who exhibit insensitivity toward conservative or fundamentalist religious beliefs, for example?

Some in higher education argue that providing students with trigger warnings means taking students seriously. Others, however, contend that trigger warnings are a means of pandering to those harboring a broader agenda that encroaches on academic freedom and leads to administrative initiatives that add to the already burdensome academic bureaucracy. Students can use warnings not to prepare for a discussion of sensitive material but rather to pre-empt a reading or a presenter whom they argue is somehow trauma inducing.

In November 2015, for example, Yale University students took great offense at a statement by Erika Christakis that administrators should not tell students what types of Halloween costume are racist or culturally insensitive. Many Yale students were not interested in open discussion of her view, demanding she be fired because she rendered their residence hall an unsafe space.

Large-scale national studies show that stress, coupled with the belief that stress negatively affects health, contributes to poor health outcomes. Educational institutions should make students aware of the linkages among stress, the perception that stress is inherently negative, and their health; coping strategies should include confronting stressors, not ducking them. This insight should begin early, starting with campus tours and college acceptance letters.

The One-Time-Only Trigger Warning

With these considerations in mind, we propose that the following trigger warning be given to students on their first day of college. We provisionally suggest that it be termed the One-Time-Only Trigger Warning:

"Over the course of the next four years you will be encountering a number of topics that you may find emotionally challenging, even difficult. If some of this stuff makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s perfectly normal, and we encourage you to talk to us and your friends about it. But bear in mind that a liberal arts education is designed to confront you with things that challenge and at times even threaten your worldviews. So if you feel intellectually or emotionally disturbed by what you learn in class, don’t assume that you should be concerned. It may only mean that you are engaging with novel perspectives, which is what college is all about."

Stephen J. Ceci is the H. L. Carr Chaired Professor of Developmental Psychology at Cornell University. Scott O. Lilienfeld is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Psychology at Emory University. Wendy M. Williams is professor of human development at Cornell University and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Istockphoto.com/cnythzl
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Economists Address Allegations Against Elected Officer

The American Economic Association’s Executive Committee addressed allegations of harassment against a recently elected candidate for internal office. “It has come to our attention that one of the recently elected candidates [is] the subject of allegations, being accused of creating a hostile work environment,” the committee said in a statement, denying that either it or the association's nominating committee knew of the allegations ahead of the nomination. 

“We take such allegations seriously, but they are, at this point, just allegations,” the Executive Committee wrote. “While the home institution will neither deny nor confirm the existence of an investigation, we understand that one is underway, and may come to some conclusions in the not too distant future.” Thus, the committee said, “We have decided that, before proceeding further, we should wait for those conclusions, if they are made public and they come within a reasonable amount of time.  If not, we shall reexamine our position.” In the future, the committee added, “we shall ask potential nominees if they are the subject of an investigation,” to help avoid “such situations.”

The committee did not name the academic in question, but it was apparently referring to Roland G. Fryer, Jr., Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University and faculty director of Education Innovation Laboratory there. Fryer, who was recently elected to the committee, reportedly is the subject of harassment complaints related to the . He did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. A spokesperson for Harvard referred questions to an earlier comment on the matter saying that "Harvard is deeply committed to providing a civil and inclusive work environment for all members of our community. We are aware of and take seriously concerns raised about the treatment of staff in the Education Innovation Laboratory," including "whether staff members have been treated with the dignity and respect they deserve." 

Ad keywords: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

UT Knoxville Faculty Senate Opposes Posttenure Review Policy

The Faculty Senate at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville unanimously approved a resolution asking the university system’s Board of Trustees to rethink a controversial posttenure review policy, Knox News reported. The board in March passed a template for posttenure review requiring that all tenured faculty members be reviewed at least every six years. Faculty members continue to oppose the policy, saying it's intended to chip away at tenure. Each campus must submit its own review plan to the board by next month.

Knoxville’s Senate disapproves of the board's policy and found that adopting it could result in up to $1.2 million in lost time annually, according to the resolution. At the same meeting, the Senate also reluctantly approved campus procedures for periodic posttenure review, as required by the board.

Ad keywords: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - faculty
Back to Top