One of the little perks of NEA membership is receiving their bimonthly newsletter. Yes, this sounds rather dull and, yes, for my first few years as a member I sent it straight to the recycling bin myself. But then I started reading the cover stories (which usually introduce some pedagogical issue) and began to appreciate it. SIUC is the only campus I've been on that doesn't have a high-profile "center for teaching and learning" or the like that puts out new teaching ideas on a regular basis, so this NEA publication fills that void for me. I've picked up some good ideas there.
The June issue of the newsletter has a number of short articles on teaching portfolios; like all such pedagogy items, it also contains a helpful bibliography, including many items readily available online.
The Advocate also contains a updates on union news on the higher education front. Which brings us to my excuse for blogging this, a quotation found on page four of the June issue.
You can't solve a problem if one side chooses to impose its position without compromise. That leaves the other party with the sole option of taking its own unilateral action.
Those words were uttered by our own Natasha Zaretsky (of the History Department), as part of the statement announcing the filing of intent to strike notices. Like many a benefit of NEA/IEA membership, this one can be had for nothing--by
surfing to the NEA higher ed website. Or you can join the union and pay your fair share and get it in the mail.
Don’t we tell our students and kids; in order to solve a problem you must have desire or need to do so? I believe Cheng’s administration did not have desire but now will have need.
ReplyDeleteSIUC is the last place that needs a Center for Learning and Teaching. Isn't the new Sports Stadium and money lavished on athletics enough?
ReplyDeleteThe quote provided could also describe the FA since their team was no more willing to negotiate than the administration.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Tony Williams is right. I just learned that Nicklow is setting up a "Center for Teaching Excellence" to house the current ISS and some people from continuing education. I tend to think that a bit more emphasis on supporting and promoting teaching here could be a good thing. But if it's a top-heavy, inefficient outfit that mainly adds to our already high "academic support" costs, Tony nailed it.
ReplyDeleteThe memo from Nicklow I saw, which baldly begins by announcing "Effective July 1, 2011, I am creating a new unit", didn't look terribly promising: there was little in the way of a rationale and no sign whatsoever of prior consultation with people likely to know whether this was a good idea, and how to do it well if it is. Consultation will apparently begin after the decision has been made on high, including a "national search" for a director. It looks like we are starting by reorganizing and adding a higher level administrative position, and only then developing the mission. I hope this isn't just a case of someone in the central administration wanting to add a bullet point to their CV: "Established Center for Teaching Excellence".
Readers from ISS who have the inside track on this are very welcome to comment. I would be happy to be disabused of my tardy cynicism about this center.
We teach our kids that there is no “I” in “TEAM.” Cheng and Nicklow duo believe that they are SIUC and they do everything. Only an inexperienced administrator will used words like “…I am creating a unit..” or “….I am offering the position to…” or “…the candidate accepted my offer…” Egoistic approach will take us nowhere. The same old story; cut academics, expand administration, boost athletics….
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous June 21, 10.08. pm. The FA were willing to negotiate as Natasha's quote makes clear. But accepting an imposed, non-negotiable solution involving salary cuts when there was actually a budget surplus goes beyond the bounds of acceptability.
ReplyDeleteTo do otherwise is to accept a slave mentality, something that the "silent majority" of 30 faculty seem willing to do in their Fantasy Island world which never really existed nor does now as any article in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION and THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION shows. Like it or not, they are no longer professionals but workers subject to the contempt of higher administration and the Board of Trustees as everyone outside this privileged circle is in SIUC.
To Anonymous "Cheng and Nicklow duo believe that they are SIUC and they do everything."
ReplyDeleteI'd rather see them be honest about their belief and desire to control everything by using "I" statements than see faux cooperation in "we" statements really mean they tell employees what to do and employees keep our heads down, follow orders, and don't complain.
I'd rather see them be honest about their belief and desire to control everything by using "I" statements than weaselly passive voice that imply administrative decisions just happen and couldn't be any other way.
At least with "I" statements, the intent is unambiguous.
Tony Williams, I don't follow your comment regarding the "silent majority" of 30 faculty. Please explain.
ReplyDeleteA letter appeared in the Daily Egyptian that was reprinted in THE SOUTHERN (Confederate) signed by 30 Faculty members who felt they represented a "silent majority." After a month's silence following many counter letters sent to the DE but never published, one did appear written by a local resident commenting on the fact that 30 did not represent a majority of Faculty on this campus as well as the fact that it was used by Nixon to defend his appalling policies..
ReplyDeleteObviously, "silent majority" is not the correct term since they obviously are not silent and no one knows to what extent other faculty share their views. In my opinion, the letter was a simple statement that although the FA negotiates for all tenured and tenure-track faculty at SIUC, not all faculty share the views of the FA.
ReplyDeleteMany of those who signed the “silent majority” letter are on administrative appointments; very similar to the letter deans were asked (forced?) to write in support of Cheng after statement by Faculty Senate. I think one dean refused to sign. My salute to him for standing up!
ReplyDeleteMost of the 'silent majority' letter signers are not administrators.
ReplyDeleteWell, if they are not administrators they belong to the "usual suspects" of neoconservatives, reactionaries, and higher administration asslickers who exist on this campus. The names are well-known.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you heard that Rita dismantled Photo Communications on campus that provided good services at cheap rates to being in an outside contractor who is going to cost much, much more. In view of the other expensive administration appointment mentioned in Tuesday's DE, this again shows that her priorities are not geared towards cutting costs or education. The days of an online university staffed by adjuncts and run by a highly paid administrative elite are not too far away.
Only the finest of academics could use a term like 'asslickers' to make their point.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I didn't particularly enjoy this last exchange, but rather than deleting the last two comments will consider the last anonymous to have sufficiently identified the less than ideal word choice in the penultimate anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI'll add that the substantive (and potentially very significant) claims in penultimate's second paragraph would be likely to get more of a hearing if they were (a) backed by some evidence and (b) not lost in the ruckus caused by the graphic term in the first paragraph.
1. It is an accurate description of those who support Rita in everything she does.
ReplyDelete2. Time now to do homework and ask the people who have been affected. They are easy to find.