United States, and especially like every administrator with authority over hiring, tenure, and promotion, I have been reflecting over the past few days on the tragedy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. I feel the shock and sorrow of the university, and mourn forProm Dresses all the victims, including the family of Amy Bishop. I have been reading commentary and news stories, and have been closely following several threads on the Chronicle Forums, particularly an extensive discussion of the role of university personnel policies in possibly fostering workplace violence.

I've also discussed the issue with several colleagues, including staff members at The Chronicle, and am trying to figure out how to find areas where understanding of events such as the Huntsville shootings might be possible. In my role as an administrator, I am also intensely interested in what steps, if any, make sense as ways to forestall similar incidents in the future.

There has been a lot of talk about the tenure process, including how to make it more transparent and humane, so it doesn't foster festering distrust and resentment. There has also been much discussion about how to identify and possibly counsel potentially unstable faculty members in the light of academic customs, and this is the area I want to consider for a moment.

"Collegiality" is a very difficult concept. Poll a room full of faculty members, and about half of them will say it should have absolutely no role in formal evaluations for continuation, promotion, and tenure. The other half or so will say that collegiality is absolutely crucial to such decisions, since if people are impossible to work with, no matter how good they are at their jobs, they will poison the operations of the institution, make it difficult or impossible for colleagues to work effectively, and generally damage the educational enterprise.

I confess to being of two minds about collegiality. Early in my career, I was a vocal and pointed critic of my institution, and during my pretenure review was quite sharply warned about this behavior. Of course I believe that my concerns were correct, and that they neededLouis Vuitton Gucci to be articulated, but now I can also see how such criticisms can sometimes make life needlessly difficult for a faculty member. There is a fine line between sharp, collegial criticisms of an institution and what my then-boss called "carping" about issues of concern.

Many faculty members want to think they are the Patrick Henry or Jonathan Swift ("Fair liberty was all his cry") of their institutions. Many are, by discipline and temperament, inclined to be critical of institutions and their functions. Many want, perhaps naïvely, to believe in the rationality of large groups of smart and highly educated people. Moreover, many academics work alone, have limited people skills, and do not particularly value qualities that help them get along well with others.

All of these are perfectly acceptable qualities in an academic who's otherwise doing a good job with teaching, scholarship, and service. They are sometimes not helpful, but they shouldn't be terribly destructive either. The challenge that arises, though, is figuring out how to separate people who are merely "difficult" from those whose psychological and emotional makeup shades over into something worse than "difficult." The clearest cases of uncollegial behavior. I've seen involved faculty members who appeared to have serious psychological problems, and I would posit that there is a clear link between these two things.

We need to have a different kind of discussion of Louis Vuitton Gucci collegiality, I think. Those who say such considerations should have no role whatever in hiring, retention, and promotion and tenure discussions ought to consider how careful analysis of faculty members' interactions with their colleagues and the institution may indicate the possibility for serious trouble. Meanwhile, those who place a supreme value on collegiality need to remember the very sharp downsides of such a position, including its potential to be a tool of discrimination ("not like us") and to prioritize "niceness" over brains, teaching ability, and scholarly or creative success. They also need to remember that criticism of the institution, if it’s thoughtful and constructive, is a positive element of faculty life, rather than a detriment to it. I once had a colleague say, "I just want everything to be pleasant," which is absolutely the wrong position to take in such a discussion.

Collegiality is kind of the third rail of faculty personnel matters. A careful and honest analysis of the role it plays in hiring, tenure, and promotion might enable colleges and universities to identify potential problems before they become quite so large. However, any formal use of collegiality for evaluation must be confined by thoroughly articulated rules and processes to prevent it from destroying the educational enterprise. If I could figure out how to devise such a process, I'd happily share it with you.

ITPub博客

Collegiality, Tenure, and Tragedy

最新文章