In case there's anyone who reads this before the DE, be sure you catch the guest column by Robbie Lieberman, contrasting the vision offered inside the Chancellor's ceremony last week with the spirit and vision found outside, and Randy Auxier's letter on an apparent administrative effort to hijack the search for a new dean of of the College of Engineering.
The faculty on this campus appear to be getting uppity.
Friday, April 22, 2011
13 comments:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would again like to comment Professor Auxier on his letter but would also wish to inform him that the rejected candidate is being supported by certain people because she is a woman and a minority. So is Cheng and look at the damage she has caused to this campus so far.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know what Professor Auxier and the search committee find so objectionable about this candidate for Dean? I do not know her, but I looked up her Vita online and she seems to have every qualification one would expect: A good record of publication and funding, timely promotions from assistant through associate to full professor, experience as a faculty member, department chair, and now associate dean?
ReplyDeleteI am confused as to why this candidate would not be "qualified"? Seems to me she is uniquely qualified. Perhaps the esteemed professor can enlighten us?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCompared to others in the college who might have applied, she's relatively green when it comes to administrative experience.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the lack of administrative experience in some of the provost candidates, I think that denying her an interview would be a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen.
"Compared to others in the college who might have applied, she's relatively green when it comes to
ReplyDeleteadministrative experience."
Like the "first woman" law school dean we hired? Just as inexperienced. Is inexperience the new qualification? BTW, if she were provost would she be the "first female provost" at SIU? How many high-ranking job posts have been announced to the public with "diversity is high on our list?" She would break a glass ceiling and all that.
It is strange that there is all this talk of affirmative action in this situation. There have been many cases within the university recently and in the past when lip-service appears to have been given to the principles of affirmative action. One recent example from a couple of years ago was the appointment of a white male Associate Professor as Associate Dean of a college--over other candidates who had more experience in all areas (including administrative experience), and importantly were also full professors (the ones in the pool of candidates and the ones shortlisted included women and minority candidates). In relation to the search for a Dean of the College of Engineering, I would like to know who the other candidates were who were also equally or more qualified than the person now getting special treatment in the search process. Were any of these other candidates who have not been specially invited for a campus visit also female and/or minority candidates? The point is that it does look like the person who the Chancellor wants as Dean is the person who they are insisting be called for a campus visit. This is what is troublesome. It really does not have anything to do with affirmative action policies. This is simply "special" preference for a particular individual.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that one of the 4 finalists withdrew and the chancellor placed Chevalier into the open finalist spot. The chancellor should have discussed this with (and made a decision with) the search committee, but I think this hardly warrants a letter to the editor. We have so many talented faculty at SIU and our inability to work together is making us appear unqualified to sell peanuts at the circus.
ReplyDeleteTo the diversity for diversity's sake is bad Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMy comment about lack of administrative experience is relative to others in the college, not in absolute terms.
If you look at her CV, as the first Anonymous did, you will see that she is a full professor, has experience as a chair, and has experience as an acting associate dean during the time when the college was without a dean. In absolute terms, she has roughly the qualifications and experience that one would expect in a new dean. It just might be less than others who applied.
If the Chancellor included a candidate for A.A. reasons, she could say this. The A.A. office is open and frank when it feels a candidate is being wrongly excluded. If Randy is correct that no explanation was given that reflects a very poor leadership style.
ReplyDeleteI know Lizetta and am do not agree that she is unqualified. She has been a dept chair and is associate dean. And COE is not that big. I am curious how the committee concluded this and if Randy is really able to speak for the search committee.
She may or may not have been among the more qualified candidates and certainly the committee's judgement should carry some weight. But which University policy or protocol did the Chancellor violate? I have to admit that I am not well informed on search committee policy.
If Liz Chevalier, as Randy Auxier says, was not initially included among the candidates selected to be interviewed, it simply means that the ones who were selected were all better qualified than her for the position. For Chancellor Cheng to now insist that Chevalier be included among the list of candidates to be interviewed is not very appropriate, in my opinion. Did the Chancellor review all the applications that were received? I doubt if the reasons for Chevalier's being included in the final list (arbitrarily--it seems to me) has anything to do with affirmative action. There may have been other minority/women applicants for the job who are equally or better qualified (than Chevalier); yet no one is insisting that they be invited for a campus interview. The search process for a Dean of College of Engineering is quite bizarre--is this what we are to expect with every search in the future? Perhaps all along this is what has been happening but this is the first time that someone on a search committee has reported (to the public) about problematic search procedures. Weren't there similar problems the last time there was a search for a Dean of COE and the search had to be abandoned?
ReplyDeleteChanging the subject a bit, I would like to commend Prof. Robbie Lieberman on his excellent contribution to the DE. I feel like it explains clearly what is really at stake (a lot more than pay cuts).
ReplyDeleteReiterating the comment above, the big news on Friday was not Randy's letter re: the search for the Dean of COE (though I know that it has hit a nerve for some). The big news was what Robbie Lieberman enumerated in her guest op-ed: the BOT's "last, best offer" levels a devastating blow to tenure rights and academic freedom on this campus. We need to hear more faculty weighing in on these issues. In particular, the Reduction in Force provisions of the last, best offer are truly frightening.
ReplyDeleteTenure and academic freedom are what are being targeted by the administration, who are adamant in their refusal to negotiate with the union representatives of the workers (all workers--including faculty). I would like to know when was the last time an administrator (from the Dean level upward all the way through to the President) developed and taught a class and/or published an academic paper? In the distant past, this was not the situation. There was no rigid "caste system" in place, like there is now. Associate Deans, Deans, the Provost and other administrators taught classes and came in regular contact with other faculty and students. Another thing that is really troublesome is that although we all have to do an annual ethics test--every October, very few people at the Dean level and beyond actually abide by those principles. They should be spending their time (for which they are being paid a lot of money) facilitating the work of the faculty and student learning. Recent trends indicate that they don't really seem to be interested in doing that. They are more interested in sustaining and entrenching their power over others. I think one way of solving these problems is to narrow the divide between "administrators" and "workers" in terms of salaries and benefits. Everyone on campus (including the so called administrators)should consider themselves as simply "workers".
ReplyDelete