Response to charges

Dr. Tinkle has been accused of being racist because in my latest effort I suggested that admissions had been recruiting alums from Lucasville. This charge has come from None who blogs at utfacultyfirst.blog. None claims the reference was to our minority student population. First, the reference was not meant racially. If it was taken that way I apologize. Second, in his comments, None must be assuming that the only alums of Lucasville are minorities. How racist is that? What this really represents is an attempt to sidetrack the issue by bringing up one small part of my previous entry and attaching the charged word racisim to it. The real issue addressed by my last blog had to do with the interview process. That process has remained rather secretive. LAH has suggested you go find a participant. For some, and some departments or programs, that is more easily said than done. In my never ending effort to supply information to the masses I, the one and only Dr. Tinkle, have done that for you. I went looking and came upon Dr. David E. Tucker an associate professor in the Communication Department. Rather than give you information second hand, I am turning over the remainder of this entry to him. He will review how he obtained a spot on the panel and exactly what went on in the interview process. Dr. Tucker:

First things first. I obtained a spot on the roundtable by asking for a spot on the roundtable. I also asked two colleagues to write e-mails in support of my candidacy. While I won't bore you with all the details, I have a background and publications in the areas of curriculum and assessment. I was also the Head of the Courses, Curricula and Administrative Division of the Broadcast Education Association. This is the national organization most closely allied with what I teach.

Now on to the information you are probably most interested in--the interview. I spent an hour with Ann Duffield. In an interesting sidelight she was on campus for the Pew Roundtables back in the mid nineties. We had a wide-ranging discussion that I will attempt to condense. But, before I start that let me give you my e-mail, campus phone and office address so that if you have questions you can contact me easily. dtucker@utnet.utoledo.edu 2172 I reside at 4740-C University Hall. In our discussion I raised what I thought were several essential issues. First, I believe we are charging university prices for a community college education. That is not true in all departments but with the ever increasing number of lecturers and visiting professors I see it as a distinct possibility. Second, I told her I believe there is difference between obtaining a degree and getting an education. We are being pushed in the direction of becoming a diploma mill in some areas. She asked two questions. First she wanted five words that I would use to describe the college. These are the five: underappreciated, underfunded, community college-ish, argumentative, and self-absorbed. Why I specifically chose these five and not others will make for a hearty debate. It is a debate I am willing to openly engage in. Second, she asked where I wanted to see the college in 2018. I told her I wanted to see a communication department in 2018. We both laughed. I told her I wanted to see a more intellectually rigorous college, known for its academics. She then asked what three things I thought were necessary to achieve this vision. I said we should quit worrying about retention. We should pay for the best and brightest students we can find and not just in the natural sciences. Finally I said we need to recruit scholar/teachers and pay them to stay. As a sidelight to this we discussed branding. It is my personal opinion that universities do not create brands--they have them assigned. To this end if the University of Toledo and the College of Arts and Sciences want to be known as something other than a place to get the diploma and get on with life, then we must begin to act like a major college and demand resources that will take us there. Ms Duffield offered the opinion that departments and colleges needed to do more for themselves. While I agreed to a point noting that my own department now had made some efforts in that area, I did say the problem was faculty. While a social science department may raise some funds, there is hardly enough grant money out there to start our own faculty lines. That has to come from the central administration. We parted friends, I think. My impression is that the Learning Alliance really believes itself to be a facilitator and not an evaluator. I will now make a request. In the interest of open dialogue, I believe all the other 34 participants should likewise inform the faculty of their interviews. Rather than having the Learning Alliance do a synopsis of what they claim was present in the interviews, we can judge for ourselves and perhaps begin to draw some of own conclusions or at the very least begin to examine some possible directions. To that end I suggest you all send your summaries to Brian Patrick the blog facilitator. He will be more than happy to help in this effort at an open dialogue. I thank you for this opportunity to inform my colleagues.

The interview

Dr. Tinkle knows that Larry has sent an e-mail out to all explaining what went on in the interview, but bless his heart he has it all wrong. I have it on good authority that interviewees were thrown into a darkened room, had one bright light flashing in their eyes and were forced to listen to Donnie and Marie records for an hour. At this point they confessed to the following items:

1. Forcing the move from quarters to semesters.
2. Being behind the hiring of Vic K.
3. Telling Dan Johnson that the merger was a great idea and how he could sell us all down the river.
4. Encouraging the Board to NOT do a national search because an ex-marine surgeon was a perfect fit.
5. Telling admissions they should really recruit more Lucasville alums.
6. Being in charge of the Browns offense.

Actually even under duress they did not admit to that last item.

While LAH gives a fairly decent rundown of the interview process, (so I've been told) it does strike the good Dr. Tinkle that perhaps a meeting dedicated strickly to a discussion of the interviews would have been a good idea. It is probably important to ask these folks real questions about what they believe the college should be doing and how the college is going to get there. After all, they do represent us.

Finally, my sources tell me that Ann Duffield was very plain about this not being a college evaluation. That word has been tossed around a lot. For those of us who grew up in the sixties, think brainstorming session. LAH is correct in that this is or should be, just the beginning. Dr. Tinkle, however, still has this little voice saying, "The administration will read into this whatever it wants."

Deconstruct this!

This is the dustjacket image from the Zemsky et al book. I'll go first. "It is woman of color graduating from the University of Pennsylvania with her eye on the prize. She is trained to make big bucks as a trader on Wall Street. She has an enormous college loan debt because her university said she was its customer, which offered her control over her career path if she would agree to pay tuition for four years. So she did. It seems like a solid contract: an expensive college education in exchange for a high-paying job. "Indeed" she is thinking: "if my degree doesn't me the job I am trained for, I can just hire a lawyer and sue the university for fraud -- and still pay back my college loans."

The list is out

In my never ending effort to keep everyone thoroughly confused, I have analyzed the list of roundtable participants. The excitement of who was on it had me on the edge of my chair. After seeing the list, there is some belief that throwing my chair is perhaps a good idea. Actually, there are five chairs on the list, so I have a choice. Sociology has been shut out. English almost got shut out but the head of the writing center more or less qualifies. The folks in Art got two spots, and the Provost got two while departments with huge numbers of majors got one: communication and psych. Heck, the community got four spots. Now, to be fair some may have been asked and refused or were unable to participate thereby skewing the results, but it certainly is a fascinating list.

First Round Table Meeting

As clear as water--polluted water

Well her grace appeared at the A & S meeting last week. Those who attended expecting any real information were real disappointed. The Provost said nothing. Actually she talked quite a while, but really said little. There was (and still is I believe) no comprehensive list of the knights and ladies who are members of the roundtable. There is also a benchmarking study that goes along with all of this, but exactly what is being benchmarked was not revealed. The Provost was asked but claimed not to know exactly what variables were going to be compared. Given that one member said that the benchmarking data used for the salary equity study had to be "cleaned up" after it was received from Institutional Research makes one question the quality of this section of the study. After all, if our data has to be revised, what makes us believe that any of the other institutions data are any better. (Just as an aside, Dr. Tinkle applauds the work of the salary equity folks.) So there you have it--a group of unknown membership and a benchmarking study with unknown variables. Yep, that appearance was quite the song and dance routine. Maybe she's taking lessons from our new interim dean.

A & S Meeting

The Provost will make an appearance today at A & S. She will supposedly discuss the Learning Alliance and the roundtables. I suggest those who have been choosen for this august body refer to themselves as Sir.... or Lady.... It might be nice to find out from her Ladyship of Provost how the body was choosen. It might also be nice to get some sort of operational definition of the problem that's actually being solved. So far this looks like a group in search of a problem, rather than a problem solving group. Having read some of Zemsky's stuff words like market smart and public purpose seem to abound. These words can be stuffed into almost any carton of any size. I also remember reading at some point his statement that universities must regain control of the curriculum from the faculty. This concerns me. Whoever belongs to the "choosen" will have to pay fairly close attention so as not to be overwhelmed by abject nonsense. As with many consultants, if there is no problem then he will create one and "solve" it. I am fearful that we have agreed to participate in our own demise.