|
Goosed it. posted:The Dean had been at the university for at least 30 years and is now about to retire. He is an assistant professor now, and has never been a full professor. Your school is weird and has a non-standard hierarchy, or is very small. The equivalent position at a big state school would be a distinguished professor, or even as high as a vice-provost depending on how administrative the position was. But I'm pretty sure that your dean would still feel somewhat senior to a guy who was two years out of doctoral school, even if they were both "Assistant Professors" and both have "tenure". hth. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Sep 1, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Your school is weird and has a non-standard hierarchy, or is very small. The equivalent position at a big state school would be a distinguished professor, or even as high as a vice-provost depending on how administrative the position was. But I'm pretty sure that your dean would still feel somewhat senior to a guy who was two years out of doctoral school, even if they were both "Assistant Professors" and both have "tenure". hth. My mother was dean of the undergraduate program of the English department for 10 years at the University of Pennsylvania and never made full professor. The University of Pennsylvania is one of the top universities in the country, in case you weren't aware of it. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are only digging the hole even deeper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Seriously, folks, don't play into Kaal's hands. The substantive issue is that Salaita had tenure at Virginia Tech and left that for what he expected to be an assured tenure position at UIUC. "Seniority" means jack poo poo in this context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:If you're referring to me, where do you think we disagree about academia? Your thread matches my position pretty precisely. Offers are not contracts, but they are promises to provide contracts and made with the intention that people will rely on them as if they were contracts. I see how my phrasing might have been awkward, but I was referring only to Kaal's post. Kaal posted:I suppose the terminology varies by school, but assistant professors are tenure-tracked, not tenured, and I've never heard of a dean who was less than a full professor - and usually significantly more experienced than that. An assistant professor might be only a few years out of their doctoral program, particularly in a field that is as purely academic as English. There's usually adjuncts that have significantly bigger careers under their belts. Tenure is good, but it's hardly a mark of seniority. My assumption is that your school has it as Associate > Assistant > Professor rather than the other way around, and that the undergraduate studies dean was actually an Assistant Dean. You are clearly dishonest. Salaita was an associate professor with tenure. He was hired as an associate professor with tenure at Illinois. People in academia generally refer to hires of people with tenure (as opposed to untenured, tenure track positions) as senior hires. Your insistence in continuing this derail continues to prove that you are both clueless and dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Yeah, that analogy did not work. So let me try again. It is not anti-semetic to criticize Israel, or to call for the end of the occupation, or to criticize Jewish groups. However, it is more than possible to do all of these things while being anti-semetic. Most of Salaita's criticism of Israel (and of the occupation) that I've seen haven't been anti-semetic, but that one was. I really don't see why, sorry. If you said it was hateful, okay I can see that. if you said it was tasteless, sure why not. Heck I'd even accept that given the timing of the tweet it could be viewed as cheer-leading the murder of minors. But anti-Semitic? And just to clarify, I think Salaita, a Palestinian, should be allowed to utter the occasional hateful remark towards settlers and Israelis, Heck, it doesn't even take that much rose-tint to view this tweet as "I wish there would be no more settlers in the West Bank" rather than "I wish they would all get shot".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:And just to clarify, I think Salaita, a Palestinian, should be allowed to utter the occasional hateful remark towards settlers and Israelis, Heck, it doesn't even take that much rose-tint to view this tweet as "I wish there would be no more settlers in the West Bank" rather than "I wish they would all get shot". Small correction: I believe Salaita is a Jordanian national. Or, in his own words, https://mobile.twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/494490560020111360 E: I stumbled across this article with more details on a previous controversy Salaita sparked. http://m.timesdispatch.com/news/sta...a.html?mode=jqm E2: I did manage to come across a legal blog with a detailed takedown on this case: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/08/does-salaita-have-a-contract-claim.html My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Small correction: I believe Salaita is a Jordanian national. I am unsure whether he also has American citizenship. Holy crap, people are really going to try to derail this thread to the ground. People can have more than one nationality or ancestry. His father is Jordanian, but his mother was born in Nicaragua to Palestinian parents. So his entire family on his mother's side is Palestinian. I am going to borrow Absurd Alhazred's magical powers of precognition and predict that we will have an extensive derail on jus soli versus jus sanguinis to determine whether he is really "Palestinian."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Holy crap, people are really going to try to derail this thread to the ground. People can have more than one nationality or ancestry. His father is Jordanian, but his mother was born in Nicaragua to Palestinian parents. So his entire family on his mother's side is Palestinian. I am going to borrow Absurd Alhazred's magical powers of precognition and predict that we will have an extensive derail on jus soli versus jus sanguinis to determine whether he is really "Palestinian." No, I was wondering whether Salaita was on a visa that UofI would have applied to renew, making him a de facto employee and changing my opinion of the University of Illinois' actions. E: Skeesix posted:As an academic I'm wondering why he didn't spend a year at uiuc while on leave but still employed by Virginia tech. Every tenured prof I've known who moves to another tenured spot has done this. I asked a friend about Salaita's rep in VT. There's varying narratives, one of which is that this wasn't an option from VT's standpoint on Salaita. Whether its related to similar reasons as the UofI Board's, I cannot say. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
The argument in the link you posted is that the reasonable thing to do would have been to wait until board approval (which could only have happened a month into the semester) before resigning from the previous position. That is not true. The author of the blog you linked to claims to have heard it is common, but it isn't. My postdoc was about academic careers. I have access to thousands of cvs and work histories. The only cases of overlapping positions are the ones I mentioned before (taking a year off to teach abroad, taking a few years off to work at a big research center or policy position). There isn't a single case of overlapping academic appointments. In fact, holding dual teaching appointments like this has been long found to be just cause to terminate contract: http://www.aaup.org/issues/resources-conflicts-interest/outside-university-conflicts In other words, had Salaita NOT resigned from VT before taking up the position at Illiniois, both Illinois and VT would have had the right to fire him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:http://www.aaup.org/issues/resources-conflicts-interest/outside-university-conflicts That still does not address the substance of this issue: Salaita was offered a one-year assistant faculty position, with further employment conditional to board approval. He was not offered immediate tenure status; he was not offered a tenured faculty position. That he chose to resign from a tenured faculty position to pursue an assistant professorship for one year was Salaita's choice. To quote a quotation from an additional post on that blog, His Honor posted:
Salaita knew that board approval was required (the contract offered by the interim head of CoLA stated it was conditional upon board approval). If you are making the argument based upon custom, perhaps you should be called upon as an expert witness. In that case, I'd recommend your representative contacts an agent of Dorf to discuss such further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:27
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That still does not address the substance of this issue: Salaita was offered a one-year assistant faculty position, with further employment conditional to board approval. He was not offered immediate tenure status; he was not offered a tenured faculty position. That he chose to resign from a tenured faculty position to pursue an assistant professorship for one year was Salaita's choice. Do you have some sort of psychiatric disorder, and if so, does your behavioral care specialist know and approve of your posting in this thread?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you have some sort of psychiatric disorder, and if so, does your behavioral care specialist know and approve of your posting in this thread? Nah, he's just another fishmech parachute account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That still does not address the substance of this issue: Salaita was offered a one-year assistant faculty position, with further employment conditional to board approval. He was not offered immediate tenure status; he was not offered a tenured faculty position. That he chose to resign from a tenured faculty position to pursue an assistant professorship for one year was Salaita's choice. In any event, if this was a legal action, it should be loving terrifying, knowing that 'uncivil' speech can be used in this way against academics. What counts as uncivil? God, I don't know, but since I've seen people in academic positions tweet and say worse things than Salaita, I'm pretty sure there's lots of people researching sensitive issues like race, gender, the Israel/Palestine conflict, etc, are going to be a lot less vocal and more tentative and quiet about their research and their views. And what about teaching? The chilling effects are going to be pretty widespread. Like, if the standards they cite in the letter are the ones they'll use, can I mock creationism? Can I mock truthers? Can I take down in entertaining fashion racists? Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:E2: I did manage to come across a legal blog with a detailed takedown on this case: concurringopinions posted:Why isn’t there an agency problem with suing the Board of Trustees in contract, when there was neither express nor apparent authority? Incidentally, the illustration on this post was taken from a good blog explanation of the interaction of apparent authority and contract law. Kaal posted:If the university was paying you without having a contract, then they should be sued for graft. More likely you had some form of legal contract, even if it was a mix of verbal and unofficial written contracts, ... Deans regularly pay people before the board approves contracts. So, if they can't approve tenure contracts, deans must have the authority to create some other kind of interim employment contract -- otherwise the university is committing graft. When he signed the offer letter, Salaita believed he was accepting at least an interim contract. This was clearly the dean's intention too. Then: offer + acceptance + consideration = employment contract. UIUC policy is that academic contracts need to be terminated through non-reappointment or dismissal. Non-reappointment is incoherent and requires notice. Dismissal has a formal process. That gives Salaita a solid wrongful termination argument. It might only apply to the year appointment, but it's definitely there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:In any event, if this was a legal action, it should be loving terrifying, knowing that 'uncivil' speech can be used in this way against academics. What counts as uncivil? God, I don't know, but since I've seen people in academic positions tweet and say worse things than Salaita, I'm pretty sure there's lots of people researching sensitive issues like race, gender, the Israel/Palestine conflict, etc, are going to be a lot less vocal and more tentative and quiet about their research and their views. And what about teaching? The chilling effects are going to be pretty widespread. Like, if the standards they cite in the letter are the ones they'll use, can I mock creationism? Can I mock truthers? Can I take down in entertaining fashion racists? Why would they be less vocal? Even if UIUC won every one of its arguments, things would only change for tenured profs who are waiting for their new tenured position to start. That's a pretty small population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Why would they be less vocal? Even if UIUC won every one of its arguments, things would only change for tenured profs who are waiting for their new tenured position to start. That's a pretty small population. I also worry that if they start establishing civility standards that it'd lead to a slow erosion of academic freedom, since there'd be administrative pressure to conform to it, and if donors start pressuring universities to censure people else they'll stop donating, I don't know, it just strikes be as a loving terrible thing. It'd remove decision-making power from the academic units of the school to the administrative section, which is much less concerned about scholarship than the academic units.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That still does not address the substance of this issue: Salaita was offered a one-year assistant faculty position, with further employment conditional to board approval. He was not offered immediate tenure status; he was not offered a tenured faculty position. That he chose to resign from a tenured faculty position to pursue an assistant professorship for one year was Salaita's choice. You keep saying this and you're just plain wrong about it. He was offered a tenured position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Or tenure-track people. Or graduate students. Or adjuncts. Perhaps people waiting for promotions. I'm missing a step. Tenured people have job protection. Anyone else can already be fired/not-hired for pissing off donors. What are you saying would change?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I'm missing a step. Tenured people have job protection. Anyone else can already be fired/not-hired for pissing off donors. I'm more worried, honestly, about the chilling effects, than any actual policy change at this venture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:You keep saying this and you're just plain wrong about it. He was offered a tenured position. Let's have a link directly to his offer and terms of general employment to clear some things up: Link goes to direct download http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/files/pdf/2014/08/13/14-529.Documents.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Just so everyone sees the relevant part:quote:... offer you a faculty position in that department at the rank of Associate Professor at an academic year (nine-month) salary of $85,000 paid over twelve months, effective August 16, 2014. This appointment will carry indefinite tenure. The recommendation for appointment is subject to approval by the board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He was not offered immediate tenure status; he was not offered a tenured faculty position. The Document You Posted posted:I am pleased to offer you a faculty position....this appointment will carry indefinite tenure The Employee Handbook then goes on to state that the Board of Trustees only gives out formal notification after all of the appropriate documents have been processed. Documents which the letter at the beginning state that he shall bring with him to campus when he begins his appointment. Would you like to dig your hole deeper?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Getao posted:Just so everyone sees the relevant part: You may look further in there and see how they treat the Board of Trustees approval, as well. quote:The University of Illinois Statutes (Article IX, Section 3.a.) provide that only the Board of Trustees has the authority to make formal appointments to the academic staff. New academic staff members will receive a formal Notification of Appointment from the Board once the hiring unit has received back from the candidate all required documents, so the appointment can be processed. Required forms normally include the electronic Employee Information form, the I-9, W-4, and the Authorization for Deposit of Recurring Payments form. Other documents (i.e., resume/vitae, 3 references, etc.) may be required and will be requested as appropriate by the unit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:46
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Let's have a link directly to his offer and terms of general employment to clear some things up: Excuse me, but I asked you a direct and highly relevant question, and I would like it if you answered it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Good job reading, My Imaginary GF. He was offered to be recommended for appointment, subject to board approval. The board did not approve. He was not hired for a tenured position; the constitution of Illinois requires that duly-appointed agents of the governor approve all contracts for which the state is ultimately responsible. He was recommended by a department head; to the best of my knowledge, he did not follow through with the designated agent of the board (Wise) to ensure that he could consider himself as tenured before the board's approval for this status. This status was never given.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He was offered to be recommended for appointment, subject to board approval. The board did not approve. He was not hired for a tenured position; the constitution of Illinois requires that duly-appointed agents of the governor approve all contracts for which the state is ultimately responsible. He was recommended by a department head; to the best of my knowledge, he did not follow through with the designated agent of the board (Wise) to ensure that he could consider himself as tenured before the board's approval for this status. This status was never given. Don't get cute. You said this: My Imaginary GF posted:Salaita was offered a one-year assistant faculty position, with further employment conditional to board approval. which is a total fabrication and I'm flabbergasted that you thought nobody would notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Don't get cute. You said this: My understanding is that these two are the same thing. I don't see how it isn't, as the interim Dean had no authority to hire faculty beyond temporary basis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:00
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My understanding is that these two are the same thing. I don't see how it isn't, as the interim Dean had no authority to hire faculty beyond temporary basis? Effectronica posted:Excuse me, but I asked you a direct and highly relevant question, and I would like it if you answered it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He was offered to be recommended for appointment, subject to board approval. The board did not approve. He was not hired for a tenured position; the constitution of Illinois requires that duly-appointed agents of the governor approve all contracts for which the state is ultimately responsible. He was recommended by a department head; to the best of my knowledge, he did not follow through with the designated agent of the board (Wise) to ensure that he could consider himself as tenured before the board's approval for this status. This status was never given. Also, why are you blaming Salaita for expecting things to go exactly as they have gone for virtually every tenured professor in the US? He didn't check with Wise, so it's really his fault. When the documents list board of trustee approval alongside "turning in the I-9" as a requirement for employment and given that the professional expectation and experience among academics regarding such kinds of approval, you can forgive me and Salaita for thinking it's a done deal. He should--and did--expect approval to be just a rubber-stamp procedure based on this, and so acted accordingly. He also didn't expect them to withdraw the offer for reasons of 'civility' (I do not know why they think this is grounds to withdraw an offer at all, especially not when the hiring unit likely knew more about his twitter, about his views, his teaching, and his scholarship, than Wise or anyone on the Board of Trustees). Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My understanding is that these two are the same thing. I don't see how it isn't, as the interim Dean had no authority to hire faculty beyond temporary basis? Your presumed mechanism for the hiring process - that it is a one-year, non-tenured appointment that is succeeded by (or converted to?) a tenured appointment upon approval by the Board of Trustees - is mentioned exactly zero places in any formal documents that you (or anyone else) has produced and has no precedent, anywhere, that anyone (including you) has found. You are flat-out making poo poo up. It is clear that he felt he had an appointment that the Board merely needed to rubber-stamp. It is clear that this interpretation is generally agreed as reasonable by a substantial population of academics who have experience with these matters. Dispute that all you want, but don't say "He was not offered a tenured position," because it's just wrong and makes you look disingenuous as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Good job reading, My Imaginary GF. It is worthwhile to also look into the 1940 Statement of Principles On Academic Freedom and Tenure With 1970 Interpretation (starts page 9 of the PDF, also available here on the AAUP's website). Academic Freedom item 3 states: "3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution." Pretty damning, right? Except that there is the 1970 interpretation that relates to violations under this clause: "4. ... Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom in the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances , which states inter alia: “The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.” Paragraph 5 of the Statement on Professional Ethics also deals with the nature of the “special obligations” of the teacher. The paragraph reads as follows: As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom. Both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of academic responsibility apply not only to the full-time probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilities." (my bold) Now is the time to argue why Salaita didn't fall under at least some of these protections, even if you were to argue that he was under any kind of probationary period until BoT approval, and furthermore, that his twitter utterances somehow show that he is unfit for his duties.  GrumpyDoctor posted:Your presumed mechanism for the hiring process - that it is a one-year, non-tenured appointment that is succeeded by (or converted to?) a tenured appointment upon approval by the Board of Trustees - is mentioned exactly zero places in any formal documents that you (or anyone else) has produced and has no precedent, anywhere, that anyone (including you) has found. You are flat-out making poo poo up. Also, My Imaginary GF, while I'm sure your parents always told you you would be a great writer some day, I would appreciate it if you stopped posting legalistic fanfic around reality when making arguments. Nobody is buying it. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
By the way, here are some numbers about the boycott effort against UIUC. Updates at the very end of that post, since the title is not accurate. The boycott has at least 3,849 members, and three departments at UIUC (American Indian Studies, Asian American Studies, and philosophy) have successfully voted 'no confidence' in Chancellor Wise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It is worthwhile to also look into the 1940 Statement of Principles On Academic Freedom and Tenure With 1970 Interpretation (starts page 9 of the PDF, also available here on the AAUP's website). Academic Freedom item 3 states: Assuming that Salaita was under these rules, it was determined that his conduct wss uncivil. His extramural utterances bore upon his fitness for the position. The University has a process to determine this, initiated by any complain to an appropriately designated agent. There are plenty of things to critique the UofI for, be it documented and photographed instances of plagiarism not followed up on, failure of mandatory reporting mechanisms, or a myrid of other instances I documented while auditing. Failure to follow an overly precise and detailed process is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Assuming that Salaita was under these rules, it was determined that his conduct wss uncivil. His extramural utterances bore upon his fitness for the position. The University has a process to determine this, initiated by any complain to an appropriately designated agent. Notably, the hiring unit itself had no qualms about his fitness for the position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Assuming that Salaita was under these rules, it was determined that his conduct wss uncivil. His extramural utterances bore upon his fitness for the position. The University has a process to determine this, initiated by any complain to an appropriately designated agent. / / /  Nobody cares about your legalistic fanfic. Yeah, sure, all of that would be possible, it's just not consistent with the evidence we have, which is that BoT members found that his utterances was inconsistent with the feelings of donors. There is clear evidence of this. He fit the position, they just didn't like what he was saying, none of that is valid reasons for dismissal, even if we were living in the bizarro world where he got a one-year probationary appointment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Nobody cares about your legalistic fanfic. It's pretty funny how anyone disagreeing with you is suddenly off-topic. If they respond to you talking about academia, you complain. If they respond to you talking about contractual legality, you complain. It's almost like you're completely unwilling to discuss the issue because you have nothing worthwhile to say ... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's pretty funny how anyone disagreeing with you is suddenly off-topic. If they respond to you talking about academia, you complain. If they respond to you talking about contractual legality, you complain. It's almost like you're completely unwilling to discuss the issue because you have nothing worthwhile to say ... No, when people are completely off-topic then they are completely off-topic, like when you're trying to derail the conversation into a deep Socratic dialogue/weed-fueled dorm discussion of "what does seniority really mean, man?", or when MIGF keeps making poo poo up that is contradicted by information either brought up by others, or hilariously, by himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Assuming that Salaita was under these rules, it was determined that his conduct wss uncivil. His extramural utterances bore upon his fitness for the position. The University has a process to determine this, initiated by any complain to an appropriately designated agent. Serious question: do you really think it's appropriate -- in a case like this where communications with donors who threatened to withdraw funding for political reasons were uncovered -- to take UIUC's justification for taking no action on Salaita's hiring at face value? If so, why? Edit: I guess I also have a second question: how is the idea that a subjective determination of "uncivility" can lead to a determination of unfitness for hire not an odious de facto mechanism for political censorship when applied to academia? Should it even be tolerated? Heavy neutrino fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Masakado posted:My mother was dean of the undergraduate program of the English department for 10 years at the University of Pennsylvania and never made full professor. The University of Pennsylvania is one of the top universities in the country, in case you weren't aware of it. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are only digging the hole even deeper. The current Undergraduate Chair at the UP English department is an Associate Professor, which is at least a tenured position. As opposed to an Assistant Professor which is not. And the Department Chair is of course a full, distinguished professor. University of Pennsylvania is a fine school, but of course the English department is not particularly large with only about 400 undergraduate majors. Compare that to UPenn's business school that has 4,000 undergraduate majors, and the staff to match.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Serious question: do you really think it's appropriate -- in a case like this where communications with donors who threatened to withdraw funding for political reasons were uncovered -- to take UIUC's justification for taking no action on Salaita's hiring at face value? If so, why? Unless it can be proven otherwise, yes. Too many boss' have a hand in the blame if you don't take UofI's statements on Salaita at face value, and I am not prone to accusing the bosses of unethical behavior without adequate evidence. Even if the Board issued its statements solely due to objections raised by the University's fundraising department, that is consistent with this board's fiduciary obligations as executuve agents appointed by the governor. Yes, it really is a no-win situation for Salaita. There are several constitutional mechanisms for redress, if individuals wish to afford university faculty in Illinois additional protections as state contractors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 03:54
|
|