Ethical Dilemma

[Hegemony]

Here's an ethical dilemma for you all.

Normally I am 100% on the side of the workers, but some aspects of this particular situation give me pause.

We have a job category at my uni which is basically "long-term non-tenure-track" — these positions seem to have different names at different places. It's not as well paid as tenure-track, but a lot better paid than the adjunct level. There are three ranks, much like tenure-track. The difference is that there is no research or service requirement for the role; it is 100% teaching. They teach a three-course/semester load and are not supposed to teach elsewhere.

So we have five or so people on this track, and one of them is (say) Esmerelda Smyth. Esmerelda is coming up for promotion to the highest rank of the three.

But here's the thing: Esmerelda is also teaching multiple courses per semester at our local community college. I know this because my daughter is enrolled at the community college and by chance picked one of Esmerelda's classes. The class was online, so I was able to observe the layout, assignments, etc. It was a mess. Esmerelda would change the due dates for the assignments at the last minute without warning (you'd look on the LMS and suddenly the assignment would be due a day earlier), the readings did not match up with the page numbers in the textbook (they would say things like "Pages 6-20" where these started and stopped at random points in two different chapters, probably left over from a prior edition), some assignments were listed as on the LMS but were not there, she did not answer email about the changes in dates or the page numbers or the missing assignments. And daughter got no written feedback or even grades — none — the whole semester. After the semester ended, suddenly a whole lot of grades appeared for assignments, and a course grade. But there were no interim grades, no chance to know how she had done before it was too late. Never one word of feedback.

I hesitantly brought this up to some members of my own department, in advance of our promotion vote. The responses were along the lines of "Well, when you overwork people, you can't expect them to do a superb job" and "When you don't pay people enough, you can't expect them to take only one job." I get all that. But at the same time, it was a miserable course, and not the kind of course I'm happy to offer to our students.

Our course evaluations are so cursory that they are unlikely to reveal this. And the people I brought this up to in my department are pointedly dismissive.

What would you do in these circumstances?

I should add that Esmerelda is prickly and I don't think would be at all receptive to my trying to talk to her directly.

[Kron3007]

I dont think it is fair to evaluate them based on work at a different college.  They may be slacking in that role if it is an adjunct situation and be doing a much better job where you are.  All you shoudl really work from is the information from your college.

As for them not teaching at another institution, is this in their contract?  If so, it seems like a reasonable thing to bring up but if it is just an unspoken rule it is not a rule at all.   

[Puget]

Quite aside from the teaching quality, does the mere fact that she is teaching elsewhere violate the terms of her contract? Here, that would not be allowed without permission of the dean. You can argue about whether those rules are just, but they are intended to make sure exactly this doesn't happen, with someone spreading themselves too thin.

[downer]

What's the dilemma? What option do you have?

[Parasaurolophus]

I dont think it is fair to evaluate them based on work at a different college.

Totally this: you absolutely cannot base the decision on anyone's experiences elsewhere, especially not your daughter's. In fact, that your daughter is taking a class with her raises a huge conflict of interest for you.

As for them not teaching at another institution, is this in their contract?  If so, it seems like a reasonable thing to bring up but if it is just an unspoken rule it is not a rule at all.

Totally this, too.

[dismalist]

There is no dilemma.

[mahagonny]

deleted

[downer]

You could call up the community college dept chair and complain about the shitty job they are doing at providing a college education to students.

[mahagonny]

I hesitantly brought this up to some members of my own department, in advance of our promotion vote. The responses were along the lines of "Well, when you overwork people, you can't expect them to do a superb job" and "When you don't pay people enough, you can't expect them to take only one job." I get all that. But at the same time, it was a miserable course, and not the kind of course I'm happy to offer to our students.

Some of the tenured people want the adjunct appointment to go badly for the school. It's just the lay of the land. They resent hiring off the tenure track. That's why they make excuses. Esmerelda, if she's been around the block a few times, knows this.
ETA: Does that mean the CC could afford to hire only tenure track faculty? Who cares. Not our problem.
I see nauseating aspects right and left. You don't want to hear more. Cheers.

[clean]

IF this is a typical promotion decision, the candidate will create a package. Your job is to evaluate the package.  IF the candidate omits pertinent information from your institution, that is a problem. IF the candidate includes information from the CC, then evaluate it.  You can not evaluate what is not in (or supposed to be in) the package.

As for their outside employment, that is another matter. IF you can document that there is indeed such a prohibition, question the appropriate dean. IF they dont get back to you, there may be another way to prompt action.  (We have a Fraud Hotline, so if candidate was prohibited from teaching other places, &/or  the dean was informed and ignored this information, either or both of these would be items that could be reported to the hotline.)

So the only 'ethical dilemma' I see is whether you report the contractual violation to the dean or provost &/or the fraud hotline.

As to the quality of the CC course, that is independent of your current employment and as an other helicopter parent, you can and probably should report your concerns about the poor quality to the CC dean, but dont include your affiliation with any other university... in this case you are only a parent.

[Hegemony]

Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.

If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that  make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.

[dismalist]

Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.

If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that  make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.

There is no dilemma. If the person is a bad teacher one doesn't want her to teach. No matter where she has been a bad teacher.

If a person is a bad electrician, one would not want him to fix the central heating in winter, and especially if he has blown up the neighbor's heating.  And you learned about the blow-up from your daughter. Even if he is working two jobs.

A university president once said to a group I happened to be in: This is a university, not a charity.

[Hegemony]

One of the problems is that the promotion files do not reveal any of this — they're just a teaching statement and some syllabi. You can't tell if the assignment dates get shifted, if the page numbers are wrong, or if she gives no feedback and doesn't grade any of the assignments till the end of term. Who knows, maybe at our university she's more diligent. Impossible to tell.

Really the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere. I hate blowing the whistle on this, as (as I say) I know conditions are such that many people feel the need to do this. And my colleagues have said that they don't care. So I guess it would take me raising an almighty fuss at some level of higher administration. That feels so egregious that I'm inclined just to let the promotion happen. But I do have misgivings: it's bad for our students. So we circle back to having a dilemma.

[Kron3007]

Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.

If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that  make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.

There is no dilemma. If the person is a bad teacher one doesn't want her to teach. No matter where she has been a bad teacher.

If a person is a bad electrician, one would not want him to fix the central heating in winter, and especially if he has blown up the neighbor's heating.  And you learned about the blow-up from your daughter. Even if he is working two jobs.

A university president once said to a group I happened to be in: This is a university, not a charity.

But you only have a second hand account about their performance elsewhere.  You should not base your promotion decision based on hearsay.  Your college has the means and a process to evaluate their performance. Perhaps it is flawed, but that is a separate issue.  Basing your evaluation  on a parent's second hand report of their performance at a different place of work would set a horrible precedent, even if you are that parent.

It seems that the real issue here is the evaluation methods being used for assessment and that it seems you are limiting people from external work without providing them enough work/income.  These are the issues you should raise. This individual case is just the logical outcome of your process and likely runs deeper than this single case

[marshwiggle]

Really the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere. I hate blowing the whistle on this, as (as I say) I know conditions are such that many people feel the need to do this.

Unless in similar situations, when you have known someone was working elsewhere and yet you said nothing, then you are perfectly justified in pointing this out.

What you think of the working conditions is a separate matter that should be addressed separately if you feel strongly about it. Having rules that are routinely broken because they are unreasonable is not good for any organization.

This person's performance as your daughter's instructor is also an issue that should be dealt with separately if you feel strongly about it. Contact the employer there to raise those concerns.

You don't really have an ethical dilemma; you have three different issues that you feel need to be somehow treated as one integrated problem.