From jws@mac.com Thu Apr 13 14:12:30 2006
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:07:12 -0400
From: John Sweet <jws@mac.com>
To: Andrew J Perrin <andrew_perrin@unc.edu>
Subject: Progression Faculty questions

1.) To what extent to you believe faculty interests differ from those
of administrators?

As I see it, faculty and administrators all share a basic mission:  
teaching students and advancing knowledge through research.  But  
their distinct roles can sometimes lead to divergent perspectives and  
priorities.  Administrators obviously have more responsibility for  
setting policies and managing budgets, which requires them to think  
about how most effectively to deploy scarce resources and how to  
secure support from legislators, granting agencies, corporations, and  
private donors.

2.) How should we maintain academic integrity in the face of
increasing financial pressures?

It seems to me that conflicts are most problematic in cases where the  
line between academic integrity and institutional policy are to some  
extent blurred or subject to dispute.  If we think of academic  
integrity in terms of individual faculty members~W-that is, in terms  
of their intellectual freedom or their ability to set their own  
teaching priorities--then there is relatively little room for open  
conflicts with financial pressures. If we think of a broader vision  
of academic integrity--as including, for instance, the ability of the  
faculty to shape academic and instructional policies--then obviously  
there are going to be a wider range of possible conflicts.  My  
suggestions?  On an individual level, I would encourage individual  
faculty members and coalitions of them to play a larger role in  
setting development policy and working with donors to shape the terms  
of gifts.  On the more collective front, I think strengthening the  
role of faculty governance would be helpful.  Personally, I'm  
inclined to favor a strong role for the faculty in establishing  
academic and curricular priorities.

3.) What are your views on increasing inequalities within the faculty
based on, for example, tenure-track vs. fixed term appointments and
differing salary levels?

I have three basic reactions here, which reflect my sense of the  
costs of the current policies rather than my sense of what practical  
alternatives would look like.  First, my department does not rely  
heavily on adjuncts or non-tenure-track faculty, so I would have to  
learn more about those issues to have any response.  Second, I think  
that at least in my department (History) too much of our graduate  
student~Rs time is spent in quite low-wage teaching duties. To really  
attract and properly support top graduate students the institution  
needs to make major investments in raising graduate stipends and in  
providing more time for graduate students to pursue their own  
research.  Third, I think that while the current compensation system  
for tenure-track and tenured faculty is the result of understandable  
pressures (retaining and attracting key individuals while minimizing  
overall costs), it seems to me to have significant costs.  Obviously,  
a system in which individual members of the faculty are compensated  
at very different levels is not great for morale.  Moreover, a system  
that offers people opportunities for salary increases largely in the  
context of outside offers does not always effectively reflect actual  
contributions, research productivity, or even, necessarily,  
institutional priorities. I know that the ~Sstep~T system in the UC  
system has its own problems, but I would prefer to see a system in  
place for a) automatic cost of living increases and b) substantive  
merit increases for productivity so that actual contributions and  
accomplishments would be rewarded rather than the vagaries of the  
national job market.

4.) How would you respond on behalf of the faculty if you found out
that administrators had circumvented serious faculty consultation to
pursue major outside funding for a controversial new curriculum?

Obviously, the hypothetical you pose would call for a vigorous reaction!

5.) Would you prefer to see a faculty governance system that is
focused on prominent University issues (e.g., academic freedom and
educational policy) or one that is more focused on faculty's specific
needs (e.g., benefits and salary)? Or, alternatively, how would you
seek to balance the two?

It seems to me that both are important and that these roles are not  
necessarily in conflict.

Well, those are my impressions at this stage.

John Sweet
Assistant Professor of History
Nominated for Faculty Council representative, Social Sciences division