[Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Apr 22 10:58:09 PDT 2009
The publish or parish rule is stupid. When I was an undergraduate I had an excellent instructor for Physics. He did not get tenure because he had not published enough. I had Genetics from Warren Pope. He was an excellent researcher but a poor teacher. People should be allowed to do what they are good at. It is also a disservice to the students to to be taught by sone one who does not what to teach.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Jennifer Ingalls" jennifer at inlandradio.com
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:35:05 -0700
To: "'Joe Campbell'" philosopher.joe at gmail.com, nickgier at roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis
> And yet in each department you'll find handfuls of professors who have
> taught at UI for decades, sometimes, who never become full professors. I
> truly understand why this is the case. I believe I had four or so associate
> or assistant English professors whose ability to engage students in
> literature (however boring those particular tomes seemed at the time) far
> exceeded the abilities of many full professors under whom I studied (I must
> add here that even those un-engaging professors knew their stuff regardless
> of if they'd published in the field in a number of years). To that end, I am
> glad they never fell subject to "publish or parish" constraints. However,
> would UI raise its bar, so to speak, if we did this--if we demanded
> professors produce quality research (or art) AND teach adequately (or even
> well!).
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jennifer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:24 AM
> To: <nickgier at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: Jennifer Ingalls; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis
>
> I'm not sure about UI but at WSU tenure is somewhat of a myth. If they
> axe the Philosophy Department, for instance, they can axe me and my
> colleagues.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:40 PM, <nickgier at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jennifer,
> >
> > You are quite correct: many of those who earn more than $100,000 are
> > tenured. All of the deans, for example, have tenured positions in
> > the departments of their discipline.
> >
> > All faculty undergo an annual review of their performance. With
> > regard to tenure review, there are provisions for this, and the
> > union has called for the review of one tenured faculty member. The
> > administration refused our request (didn't even give us the courtesy
> > of a reply) and they have also removed the possibility of individual
> > faculty members and department triggering review of tenure. The
> > administration is also in charge of granting tenure after a 5-7
> > strenuous probationary period. That is usually sufficient time to
> > notice whether a professor has what it takes to move through the
> > equally demanding process of being promoted to associate and then
> > full professor.
> >
> > Thanks for your good questions.
> >
> > Nick
> > v
> > ---- Jennifer Ingalls <jennifer at inlandradio.com> wrote:
> >> Dr. Gier,
> >>
> >> Thank you for posting this. I am curious about section I. Where it
> >> states:
> >> ". . . savings be taken from those making more than $100,000," it
> >> seems to
> >> be in contradiction to the rest of the section given that most
> >> $100K plus
> >> positions are tenured positions (at least this is true across the
> >> liberal
> >> arts). I do realize that this is a "related decision" and not
> >> primary to the
> >> rest of that section, but it does create and interesting problem,
> >> it would
> >> seem.
> >>
> >> I hate to see cuts to education in Idaho no matter what (as it is
> >> UI faculty
> >> are underpaid relative to other universities its size, etc.).
> >> However, I
> >> wonder about the value of retaining even some tenured faculty who
> >> neither
> >> produce nor teach effectively . . . I generally resent pay-for-
> >> performance
> >> programs on principle, but where economic downfalls dictate a need
> >> for
> >> review, I'm inclined to think we do need to look that direction.
> >> What do you
> >> think about this? Is it time to review faculty performance?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>
> >> ]
> >> On Behalf Of nickgier at roadrunner.com
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:55 PM
> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Subject: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial
> >> Crisis
> >>
> >> IFT HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL RESPONDS TO FINANCIAL CRISIS
> >>
> >> On April 15, 2009 the Higher Education Council of the Idaho
> >> Federation of
> >> Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO met in a phone conference to discuss the
> >> financial
> >> crisis.
> >>
> >> Those present were Valia Tatarova, Idaho State University
> >> (physics); Lynn
> >> Lubamersky, Boise State University (history); Chris Riggs, Lewis-
> >> Clark State
> >> College (history); Lynne Haagensen, University of Idaho (art);
> >> Joyce Lider,
> >> North Idaho College (English); Susan Andrews, IFT Vice-President
> >> for Higher
> >> Education; and Nick Gier, IFT President.
> >>
> >> I. Salary Reduction Proposal. According to a legal opinion from the
> >> AFT
> >> national office, academic tenure protects base salary. Tenure is a
> >> property
> >> right and at least two court cases have recognized that base salary
> >> is part
> >> of that property. The IFT Higher Education Council voted to oppose
> >> any
> >> salary reductions for tenured faculty. We join the BSU Faculty
> >> Senate
> >> President in vowing to file a case action suit if tenured faculty
> >> are forced
> >> to take a pay cut. In a related decision the IFT Higher Education
> >> Council
> >> voted that classified staff, lecturers, and non-tenured faculty be
> >> exempt
> >> from salary reductions and proposed that salary savings be taken
> >> from those
> >> making more than $100,000.
> >>
> >> II. Teaching positions should have priority over administrative
> >> positions.
> >> Nation-wide administrative positions have generally grown at a
> >> greater rate
> >> than teaching positions. The example of BSU is especially
> >> egregious: from
> >> 2005-2007 BSU had over 100 more administrators than its peers but
> >> 191 fewer
> >> faculty members instructing students than peer institutions.
> >> Administrative
> >> salaries have also outpaced faculty pay. Since 1982 the salaries
> >> of 11 top
> >> UI administrative positions have increased 260 percent while full
> >> professor
> >> salaries increased 198 percent. (CPI for the period was 215.) (For
> >> more see
> >> <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/salaries.htm>.) The IFT Higher
> >> Education
> >> Council voted to recommend that administrative positions be cut
> >> before
> >> teaching positions.
> >>
> >> III. Appropriated funds are for academics not athletics. Since
> >> 1987 state
> >> subsidies for athletics at the UI has grown 338 percent while
> >> appropriations
> >> for Idaho higher education has grown 159 percent. Currently the
> >> state
> >> subsidies for UI and ISU athletics are over $3 million. Since 1999
> >> private
> >> contributions to UI athletics rose 246 percent, indicating the
> >> potential for
> >> it to wean itself, as any non-academic program should, from its state
> >> subsidy. (For more see <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/athletics.htm
> >> >.)
> >> The IFT Higher Education Council voted to request that state monies
> >> for
> >> athletics on all Idaho campuses be phased out over 4-6 years.
> >>
> >> IV. Program reduction procedures must be revised. In 2002 the
> >> Idaho State
> >> Board of Education (SBOE) instituted new procedures for program
> >> reduction.
> >> At that time the IFT objected to a lack of protection for tenured
> >> faculty
> >> and requested that the procedures be revised. As no revisions have
> >> been
> >> made, IFT president asked in December 2008 for a legal opinion
> >> from the
> >> national office. The response was that these procedures undermine
> >> tenure
> >> and do not comply with Idaho law. (For more see
> >> <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ProgramReduction.htm>.) The IFT
> >> Higher
> >> Education Council voted to urge the SBOE to revise these procedures
> >> such
> >> that tenured faculty have the same protection as under the
> >> procedures for
> >> financial exigency.
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >>
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list