A reader asks:
What can UO Matters do at this critical juncture in the search process to create a constructive environment? How can UO Matters help market the UO to potential presidents?
What can be done now and in the next months and years to foster engagement between the faculty and the administration?
This Calico Cat thinks that all sides have now vented fully and repeatedly; there are no new issues. The question is: how do we escape Wonderland?
Comments welcome. 5/21/2012.
Note: these comments seem to have gotten a bit off track. Try here.
I think the key is how to we market UO to the *right* presidential candidate? From the faculty viewpoint we want someone who puts academics above sports and administrators.
While I’m no fan of the union, I think that it may end up being a plus in the search, by screening out some of the more authoritarian types for us. Or am I being too optimistic?
Hmmm. I dread to answer the question seriously, because too many of the readers/commentators here prefer casual sarcasm and mockery. But here goes:
I can’t imagine UOMatters being used as a marketing tool to woo potential presidents or anyone else; that seems antithetical to its very purpose.
Yet it does, perhaps, have the potential to “foster engagement between the faculty and the admin.” Doing so would require, I think, scaling back the ad hominem attacks on administrators–especially when they are mere toss-off remarks not directly relevant to the subject–which this blog revels in. This needn’t mean muzzling individual exposes, or holding information that should be published. But speaking casually of administrators in derogatory terms, and heckling endlessly about the same old stuff (Bean’s beemer, for instance; using “incompetence” as Randy Geller’s by-name), effectively throws up a wall and blocks dialogue. (I know of no public blog maintained by the admin that treats faculty that way–and my sense is that posters to the blog are circumspect in making such remarks about fellow faculty or students, anyone not an administrator.) Basic courtesy, however much disdain it (barely) conceals, is crucial to any productive conversation.
I agree with Calico Cat that we need to move beyond venting. But exactly how to do that is hard to conceive given the attitudes I observe among many posters here. And it remains unclear to me whether the union will exacerbate or alleviate the situation. Even among the faculty and indeed very recently, those supporting and opposing unionization failed spectacularly to “foster engagement” through this blog. So I am not optimistic.
The real question might be: if UOMatters were actually to become a site of constructive dialogue, where would everybody go to vent??
The personal attacks and disrespectful comments (“Yes, we are blessed that an administrator like Bob has chosen to walk among us.”) make it very unlikely that the level of discourse will rise to anything resembling “productive”. UOMatters sets the tone, both by post content and comment moderation, so it’s hard to imagine constructive dialogue given the current state of affairs. Less snide editorializing might help – why not let the documents stand for themselves, or with brief summaries focused on the facts?
I haven’t been moderating comments, unless they are truly nasty or obscene, which is rare.
People in power should expect to receive a reasonable amount of ridicule from those who are not. It can even be helpful to them, when it has a bit of truth to it.
I think that more frequent and honest evaluations of administrators, public forums where they explained polices and answered questions, and open searches for new hires would certainly reduce the supply and demand for the nastier forms of venting.
How’s that for a proposal to foster faculty/administrative engagement?
I have to call BS on this one, I have posted a handful of comments that
were deleted or never posted. They were not nasty, but rather highly
critical of some of the members of the UOMatters clubhouse. I found your
1st Amendment award humorous in light of the censorship you apply to your
blog. I guess we differ on the amount of “reasonable ridicule”.
And also in our sense of humor.
I completely agree about evaluations, open searches, and public forums; these are crucial and sorely lacking.
However, I would distinguish “ridicule” from personal insult. Calling anyone “incompetent” in all their actions, frequently without substantiation, is not “ridicule”, it’s harassment. And it’s certainly unreasonable to expect constructive dialogue after a systematic program of harassment. I would also distinguish “people in power” from UO administrators. Yes, they have power, but so do faculty. And they are not so far from faculty. We’re not talking about world leaders here, a king in some palace. And before you disagree with this statement, consider: when do our colleagues become “people in power” of the sort that UOMatters suggests they should expect harassment: president, provost, ovbiously, maybe asst provost? How about deans? assoc deans? department heads? DGS? Should my dept head expect such “ridicule”? What about the chairs, or even members, of faculty committees? The UOCC has the power to reject my new course proposal. The DAC and FPC have the power to deny me tenure or promotion. When they assume these positions, do they cease to be colleagues and lay themselves open to “ridicule”?
I think that power, at whatever level, comes with responsibilty–which includes a responsibility to answer questions and be publicly accountable, as well as to make decisions consultatively. And it inflames me as much as anyone on UOMatters when they don’t. (I hate having my course proposals rejected!) But name-calling is just venting, and not constructive. It makes me feel better, but doesn’t solve the problem. Which leaves a lot of unsolved problems lying around…
And where would the people who use UO Matters to vent about UO Matters go?
For starts, UO Matters will do well to tone down it’s generic anti-admin rhetoric. UO administration is here to stay, hopefully with some old faces gone and new faces added, but it will not be disbanded… And I’m not talking here about legitimate and directed criticism UO Matters is famous for.
To foster engagement between the faculty and the existing administration it would help, I suppose, to keep emotions in check and focus on concrete issues that lend themselves to solution. Not on “the perfect process” to solve all issues, but on addressing the most urgent problems here and now. The faculty/UO Matters should somehow “cultivate” friendly and responsive administrators as opposed to bashing the whole profession…
It’s the whole other question if UO Matters is the right forum for this. It might be too much to ask.
The Constitution was designed to provide Governance through open engagement between Prexy and the rest of the Faculty under conditions that promote negotiated settlements in areas of disagreement. It assigns the supporting Administration (VPs and their Assistants) to the important roles of proposing and administering policy, but removes it from the role of determining policy for all issues related significantly to the academic mission of the university. Mutual respect for, and wide participation in the exercise of this Constitution will, I expect, promote civility as well as progress in matters important to us all.
Adding a faculty member or two to the President’s Executive Leadership Team is an essential step.
Not sure if you chose the “constructive engagement” phrase on purpose. If not, google it. On that vein, it will take “truth and reconciliation” for the new president to move forward. And here’s a reason truth comes first.
Note that some browsers do bot work with blotting sites, which may explain why the anon post above believes that he is being censored.
I had to think about this for a while. I then realized that it may also be the case that: some browsers do not work with blogging sites.
All of my comments, by the way, failed until I learned that I had to set Firefox to ‘accept 3rd party cookies.’
testing one two three
It’s true that not all browsers work and not all work all the time. Last week I posted with Safari and now it won’t post. Firefox works fine.
To the point: you asked ‘what can uomatters do to create a constructive environment..’. For one, you can insist that posters use ONE name consistently. Scrap the ‘anon’ handle and make people own up. This should discourage unnecessary venting. However, venting is important.
Also, for the reality-minded, realize this blog is read by many outside of ‘your’ community, per se. UO matters to a helluva a lot of us, no Ph.D required.
As plain ol’ Cat rightly remarks, this Cheshire Cat had an identity crisis and confused himself with the Calico Cat, a distant but disreputable member of the family.
But it is not enough to ask others for advice, if one does not have an opinion to share. I have not way of knowing if indeed the adminstrative needs of the university exceed those of the instructional side [as Jamie Moffitt happily informs us], but I do think it would advance the dialogue considerably if the higher admiinstration / new president turned first to resolving the increasingly difficult issues brought on by yet another wave of more students. Namely, I propose that in the short to medium term all or most resources be devoted to hiring faculty [esp TTF], to finding more classrooms and labs, and to more offices for the new faculty. Only when those needs have been met with commitment should one re-open the dialogue on administriative needs. Without the former, the latter too will fail.
“the adminstrative needs of the university exceed those of the instructional side”
you got a cite for that?
Moffitt explained to me in a conversation that the ‘administrative side is underfunded in comparison to the instructional side’
‘needs’ may then be extending the words too far, which I regret, but the essence of the message is the same.
Dog who pretends to be an economist
I am not sure that the Moffitt explanation makes any sense. How do you even compare administrative
to instructional anyway? And why are they on different sides :)
I suppose she means that the number of Administrators is proportionately less than
the number of instructors – but that is not at all a useful metric. Certainly there
is no (quota-limited word here) way that the instructional side is OVERFUNDED with
respect to a damn thing.
Instruction is more about putting a single body in front of an overcrowded classroom,
but I don’t think Moffitt understands this at all