Installment Two of Letter to ASC Faculty on Roundtable

January 26, 2010

 

To my Fellow Council Members:

 

I have already received further comments in response to my e-mail this morning on concerns about the Round Table Report. Here is a long one.

 

                                                                                                            David H. Davis

                                                                                                            Political Science

 

___________________________________________________________________

The deans letter, p 1, is insulting to faculty by being arrogantly, condescendingly patronizing. The RT Report is “Evidence that faculty has (sic) the skills and commitment to provide leadership needed to achieve the New Directions document.”  This suggests that the faculty, who are the ONLY substantive experts on campus, don't know how to run a university, teach and do their jobs, and for that  we need people like the Dean. Also her claim that the RT report preparation was “entirely faculty driven” is untrue.

 

Four large concerns, though, are (1) the arbitrary, administratively convenient, self serving definition assigned to shared governance--which consists of groups/formats controlled by and set up by Administrators, instead of faculty controlled/elected groups and formats such as departments and Council. It needs a statement saying what real governance is and is not.

 

2.  The subordination of the RT initiatives to the Academic Journey, a stupid metaphor and flow chart without much substance, is worrisome and limiting. The term used is “must align.”

 

3. Academic Freedom needs be guaranteed so that people like Administration Puppet No. 1 are not creating rubrics by which faculty teaching is evaluated.  No clicker = bad use of technology!

 

4. Also we need a guarantee of Dept faculty autonomy in electing chairs and controlling dept initiated programs. Not strong chair leadership, top down, but an empowering of chairs to do what dept. needs/wants.

 

The vague repetitious terms seem troublesome. Breakup of departments potential need be addressed by inserting dept autonomy clause. Just because something is vaguely “integrative” seems otherwise an excuse to cut it up.

 

This Report is badly written, utterly vague, open ended , and jargon ridden.  It is an example of magical thinking.