So much is going on today, you'd think there was something BIG about to happen on campus. Regrettably, you are probably right. It was a busy day for me doing actual work for the university, so I'm going to lump together the happenings of the day. After the break I'll offer a few comments. Well, maybe a tad more than a few.
Showing posts with label distance learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distance learning. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Distance Learning
The Chancellor's email on distance learning is misleading. The Chancellor says (and keeps on saying) that she has no intention of forcing faculty to teach distance learning classes. But frankly, reader, I don't give a damn what her intention is: what matters is what's put in the contract, and she and her team have been unwilling to put that intention into contractual language, even if we assume that is her intention. Here's the dialogue:
FA: Cheng demands that the contract give her the power to make faculty teach DL.You decide which side is being misleading. Not to worry--I'll provide lots of help after the break.
Cheng: No, I have no intention of making faculty teach DL.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Cheng's Counteroffensive
After a long silence, the Chancellor is again speaking on union issues, in a comment in today's DE and in an email. I'll here try to respond to major points in order. The full text of Cheng's email is pasted at the end of this post.
1. The Chancellor has decided to start an unseemly fight about meeting times. I don't think it is in anyone's interest to spend our energies bickering about who turned down more dates. And if you do choose to go this route, at least get your facts straight: the Chancellor has failed to do so. But the whole issue is basically a red herring, and it is based on the false premise that meeting with the other side is all one needs to do to negotiate in good faith. While the pace of meetings can and will presumably pick up, the problem has never been that one side or the other is unwilling to meet, rather that the meetings thus far have not made sufficient progress. But below the break, before moving on to substance, I will squabble back. Skip to 2 if you'd rather avoid this silliness.
1. The Chancellor has decided to start an unseemly fight about meeting times. I don't think it is in anyone's interest to spend our energies bickering about who turned down more dates. And if you do choose to go this route, at least get your facts straight: the Chancellor has failed to do so. But the whole issue is basically a red herring, and it is based on the false premise that meeting with the other side is all one needs to do to negotiate in good faith. While the pace of meetings can and will presumably pick up, the problem has never been that one side or the other is unwilling to meet, rather that the meetings thus far have not made sufficient progress. But below the break, before moving on to substance, I will squabble back. Skip to 2 if you'd rather avoid this silliness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)