In response to the March 5 Vanguard article, “Fixed-term jobs for tenure spots,” I feel I must add some clarity to the events as reported and a refocus to the heart of the issue here which affects all faculty in this university. I should note that I have taught on this program almost from its inception and I have loved the kind of interaction with my students that the pedagogy promotes.
University Studies “extinguishes” faculty through flawed process
In response to the March 5 Vanguard article, “Fixed-term jobs for tenure spots,” I feel I must add some clarity to the events as reported and a refocus to the heart of the issue here which affects all faculty in this university. I should note that I have taught on this program almost from its inception and I have loved the kind of interaction with my students that the pedagogy promotes.
I have been proud to work on this nationally recognized and innovative program with a dedicated community of faculty colleagues and student mentors. This dedication, however, does not make us unique in the university, but the program structure and governance does. This issue is, at heart, a matter of faculty governance.
To give some context, the current initiative seeks to create 25 new tenure-track lines by converting eight University Studies fixed-term positions to tenure track (by application to departments and not by seniority as implied) and by hiring 17 new tenure-track faculty through national searches. To help fund these new positions, 12 or 13 fixed-term University Studies faculty (some senior) will be “extinguished” (This is the term favored by Vice-Provost Shawn Smallman. Did we light a fire?).
Such a process of re-staffing is, unsurprisingly, painful. But it is the implications for the program curriculum, especially in the area of freshman inquiry, that have raised deep and widespread concern within the University Studies faculty, the community of student mentors and now the University Studies Council. Many folks in the wider community may not have heard of these concerns and I have to say that with four or five “extinguishings” still to come and a conversion process which relies on the director of University Studies negotiating with individual departments to create position openings for those applications, fixed-term faculty may well feel too threatened to speak out. One observer likened the process to a brutal version of “academic survivor.” And this brings me to the heart of the issue, which is faculty governance.
In university governance, curriculum and academic oversight are the preserve of the faculty. There are different visions for Portland State’s general education program and how it should evolve within the university and it is the role of program faculty, the University Studies Council and faculty senate, to negotiate the best vision for this program. The initiative being pushed through University Studies is the curricular vision of the administration (Director Sukhwant Jhaj and Vice Provost Smallman), with no input sought from the faculty who teach within the program. Nor was the Memorandum of Understanding (which set out the plan for implementation of the new hires and “extinguishings” and held huge implications for the curriculum and pedagogy) presented for discussion and feedback to the University Studies Council prior to implementation. This council was appointed by the Faculty Senate to provide ongoing oversight of the program. Specifically, the charge to the council included the following:
1) Develop and recommend university policies and establish procedures and regulations for University Studies.
2) Recommend to the Faculty Senate or its appropriate committees and to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies suitable policies and standards for University Studies courses and programs.
3) Coordinate with the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to bring forward recommendations to the Senate for new courses in the University Studies program.
4) Review, at its own initiative or at the request of appropriate individuals or faculty committees, all aspects of the University Studies program and its assessment, and suggest needed changes to the appropriate administrators or faculty committees.
5) Advise the Faculty Senate and its committees on all aspects of University Studies.
6) Act in liaison with appropriate committees.
7) Report at least once a year to the Faculty Senate, including a list of courses and program changes reviewed and approved
This initiative has abrogated the role of those stakeholders and an unaccountable administration has pursued the implementation (and spending) with a calculated haste in the face of voiced concern from the majority of University Studies “core” faculty and the student mentors.
This issue goes deep and should be of concern to all faculty. The addition of new tenure-track lines at PSU is something that the University Studies faculty strongly supports but the process adopted here has been seriously flawed. For a program that espouses the goals of critical thinking (including consideration of alternative views), diversity (an appreciation of other stakeholders), communication, ethics and social responsibility, this process has been embarrassing, disappointing and ironic in the extreme.
Teresa Taylor has over 25 years of service to Portland State University, the last 13 as fixed-term faculty in University Studies. She teaches courses in freshman and sophomore inquiry, transfer-transition and history.
