Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[dr_codex]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

Some colleges do a good job of maintaining high faculty standards even after tenure. Some do not. That college needs to have an ethical administration with a backbone, combined with good faculty willing to hold their peers to high standards.

Yes to the bolded.  A thousand times yes.

[marshwiggle]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

Some colleges do a good job of maintaining high faculty standards even after tenure. Some do not. That college needs to have an ethical administration with a backbone, combined with good faculty willing to hold their peers to high standards.

Yes to the bolded.  A thousand times yes.

So is this fixable? Or should institutions that have this problem and are struggling financially be allowed to crash and burn so the resources can be beter used supporting the places that don't?

[tuxthepenguin]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

Some colleges do a good job of maintaining high faculty standards even after tenure. Some do not. That college needs to have an ethical administration with a backbone, combined with good faculty willing to hold their peers to high standards.

This is correct. The confusion is caused by a combination of the correlation of tenure and institutional politics (tenure for many years means you've got power), lack of explicit performance requirements, short-lived administrators, administrators not having enough incentive to take on the necessary work, and the fact that it's a small share of all faculty. It really doesn't have anything to do with academic freedom.

Another confusion is that it's a binary thing, where you fire someone or don't do anything about it. That's not true at all. You can (and many places do) punish faculty for poor performance. Even if you keep your job, it's not enjoyable to see others getting raises and promotions year after year while you get nothing. It's no fun being disrespected by your colleagues and students. If you're a low performer and you still get promoted, still get raises, and are respected by you colleagues and students, it's a culture problem.

[tuxthepenguin]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

Some colleges do a good job of maintaining high faculty standards even after tenure. Some do not. That college needs to have an ethical administration with a backbone, combined with good faculty willing to hold their peers to high standards.

Yes to the bolded.  A thousand times yes.

So is this fixable? Or should institutions that have this problem and are struggling financially be allowed to crash and burn so the resources can be beter used supporting the places that don't?

Honestly, that's a separate issue. Once a university is in crisis mode, anything is possible, including firing of tenured professors. To the extent that it doesn't happen at an institution that's ready to close it's a management issue.

[mahagonny]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

In theory, yes. In reality? Today, you can easily be an expert in your discipline, widely employed in higher education, with no access to academic freedom protection, and not even a real welcome.

More on point: academic freedom does indeed protect unpopular teaching when the professor either (1) doesn't care to find out how popular his teaching is, or (2) doesn't consider changing what he is doing though he knows it's not popular.
Whether unpopular teaching is always bad teaching may be a different question. But things like  a chorus of voices on RMP saying 'this professor is extremely hard to make contact with' are pretty indicative. And regular occurrences in my experience. So yes, the awarding of 'academic freedom' protection has pitfalls.

Honestly, that's a separate issue. Once a university is in crisis mode, anything is possible, including firing of tenured professors. To the extent that it doesn't happen at an institution that's ready to close it's a management issue.

Right , we almost never hear phrases like 'cash-strapped. [end snark]

So is this fixable? Or should institutions that have this problem and are struggling financially be allowed to crash and burn so the resources can be beter used supporting the places that don't?

Neither. It should prompt another look at whether the hiring practices including tenure are working out

[mahagonny]

Yup, we do this!  There really is no alternative. You can try other things, and maybe they'll work, but if you didn't fire a tenured faculty member when you had the chance 6 or 7 years in, its extremely difficult to do so later. You can talk and talk about depriving the person of full, or failing post-tenure reviews that have no teeth, but ultimately the person stays or is convinced to retire a couple of years earlier than they would have normally.

In any case, left with no alternatives for poor teachers or otherwise unpopular ones, you put them where they can do the least damage.

And this can't be pinned on the lack of government funding, or the excessive hiring of adjuncts, or anything like that. It's most directly a negative consequence of "academic freedom".

Academic freedom does not protect poor teaching or bad behavior. It protects controversial research and recognition of faculty as being experts in their disciplines.

Some colleges do a good job of maintaining high faculty standards even after tenure. Some do not. That college needs to have an ethical administration with a backbone, combined with good faculty willing to hold their peers to high standards.

This is correct. The confusion is caused by a combination of the correlation of tenure and institutional politics (tenure for many years means you've got power), lack of explicit performance requirements, short-lived administrators, administrators not having enough incentive to take on the necessary work, and the fact that it's a small share of all faculty. It really doesn't have anything to do with academic freedom.

Perhaps their low incentive to take on the necessary work derives from a thought process that taking it easy in the twilight years of one's career is the professor's entitlement. Someone mentioned 'culture' as opposed to the presence of one or two lazy administrators.
What I read sometimes is 'it's too bad that this is going on but it's too late to do anything about it.' Suggesting that the likely result of a lawsuit or a big dustup with the teacher's union would only have been worth the trouble when the  cost/benefit analysis of acting would be more favorable. Which, I guess, could easily suggest that someone wants to be lazy.
But how does this play out? Any suggestion that the ship is going to be run more tightly in the future will provoke the union. And the members are paying the union, (at those salaries, darn good money too) so they want to see it work hard.

[apl68]

Thus far my alma mater has not mentioned furloughs or pay cuts.  It has said that it is in the process of refunding over a million dollars in room and board fees.  Reportedly a number of students/families of students are declining to accept refunds as a way of helping the college out in a tough time.  I would guess the number of students doing that isn't all that great.  It's still a nice gesture of support.

[Wahoo Redux]

That's pretty heartwarming, apl68, even if it is only a few students.  We are one of the *lucky* colleges in that we are a commuter campus with only a few, mostly international students living on campus. 

In regards to the awful-old-professor-who-should-be-fired-but-the-admin-lacks-an-ethical-compass / teeth: a while ago I started a tread in which I asked people where they had worked other than academia because of just these sorts of declarations about lifestyle / personnel / working conditions etc. 

Every place I have ever worked, or everyplace I have ever known anybody to work, has had an employee, often high up the food chain, who frustrates everyone because of incompetence, laziness, attitude, etc.   

Every place I have ever worked, or everyplace I have ever known anybody to work, has an entrenched culture and entrenched procedures and protocols that the younger set disapproves of for some reason.

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human. 

[mahagonny]

That's pretty heartwarming, apl68, even if it is only a few students.  We are one of the *lucky* colleges in that we are a commuter campus with only a few, mostly international students living on campus. 

In regards to the awful-old-professor-who-should-be-fired-but-the-admin-lacks-an-ethical-compass / teeth: a while ago I started a tread in which I asked people where they had worked other than academia because of just these sorts of declarations about lifestyle / personnel / working conditions etc. 

Every place I have ever worked, or everyplace I have ever known anybody to work, has had an employee, often high up the food chain, who frustrates everyone because of incompetence, laziness, attitude, etc.   

Every place I have ever worked, or everyplace I have ever known anybody to work, has an entrenched culture and entrenched procedures and protocols that the younger set disapproves of for some reason.

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human.

But higher ed leads the pack in having the segmented workforce in which both teaching and service are valued when you're tenure track while neither is when you're adjunct. And higher ed leads the pack in keeping a cadre of regular employees while declaring them to be outsiders. And leads the pack in the culture where increased successful experience can count against you, heavily for promotion/hiring. And specializes in analysis of how the system works being discounted as bitterness.

I hope no students feel pressured to donate tuition and fees money to their college.

That's pretty heartwarming, apl68, even if it is only a few students.  We are one of the *lucky* colleges in that we are a commuter campus with only a few, mostly international students living on campus. 

[marshwiggle]

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human.

But these stories are highly detrimental to drumming up public support for higher education. When you're trying to argue about how important higher education is, it's not going to be good if you seem to shrug off bad teaching as "no big deal; it happens everywhere". To the general public, people who are bad at their jobs deserve to be fired. If tenure seems like a "get out of jail free" card for bad teaching, don't be surprised if voters aren't anxious to increase funding.

[mahagonny]

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human.

But these stories are highly detrimental to drumming up public support for higher education. When you're trying to argue about how important higher education is, it's not going to be good if you seem to shrug off bad teaching as "no big deal; it happens everywhere". To the general public, people who are bad at their jobs deserve to be fired. If tenure seems like a "get out of jail free" card for bad teaching, don't be surprised if voters aren't anxious to increase funding.

Not to mention the promotion of the creative theory of college faculty who arrive for work every Monday morning with all of the usual employee needs e.g. a living wage, benefits, health insurance having been taken care of externally. Prompting the reader to conclude 'then why shouldn't the savings be passed on to us?'

[Wahoo Redux]

But higher ed leads the pack in having the segmented workforce in which both teaching and service are valued when you're tenure track while neither is when you're adjunct. And higher ed leads the pack in keeping a cadre of regular employees while declaring them to be outsiders. And leads the pack in the culture where increased successful experience can count against you, heavily for promotion/hiring. And specializes in analysis of how the system works being discounted as bitterness.

Agreed.  At least to the extend that we know about it----I've never seen numbers on temp workers in large corporations.  My ex-brother-in-law moved his family to Seattle for a temporary job at Microsoft in the hopes of being actually hired, only to be let go after 6 months.  I've never looked into the lives of temp workers in industry and what they expect from their jobs; I suspect that most get "valuable experience" which translates into something better eventually----generally not so with the academic temp worker.

But I totally with you that we need to end the adjunct death march.  Said so many times, in fact.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human.

But these stories are highly detrimental to drumming up public support for higher education. When you're trying to argue about how important higher education is, it's not going to be good if you seem to shrug off bad teaching as "no big deal; it happens everywhere". To the general public, people who are bad at their jobs deserve to be fired. If tenure seems like a "get out of jail free" card for bad teaching, don't be surprised if voters aren't anxious to increase funding.

Gosh you're smart, Marshy.  Never thought of that.

I think we can bring the argument that these folks are the minority of faculty and that overall academia represents a communal good.

And yeah, it does happen everywhere.  Reasonable people know that.

[LibbyG]

https://vtdigger.org/2020/04/19/top-lawmakers-scott-urge-state-colleges-to-press-pause-on-closures/

[mahagonny]

This is not to say that awful-old-professor should not be fired (we still have ex-colleagues at University of Toxicity where we worked before who we make fun of now, and our current commuter school currently has a ghost professor who haunts the building from time to time) but that such scenarios are eminently human.

But these stories are highly detrimental to drumming up public support for higher education. When you're trying to argue about how important higher education is, it's not going to be good if you seem to shrug off bad teaching as "no big deal; it happens everywhere". To the general public, people who are bad at their jobs deserve to be fired. If tenure seems like a "get out of jail free" card for bad teaching, don't be surprised if voters aren't anxious to increase funding.

Gosh you're smart, Marshy.  Never thought of that.

I think we can bring the argument that these folks are the minority of faculty and that overall academia represents a communal good.

And yeah, it does happen everywhere.  Reasonable people know that.

The conclusion should be 'why put more of your money into a den of thieves?' just because they demonstrate a claim to having been underfunded by some self-validated measurement.