Read this. It's the guide on classroom behavior from the University of Fullerton. Pay attention to the paragraph near the bottom of page 2 where is says that adjuncts and otherwise non-tenured faculty are screwed. And this is a memo to the faculty!I can hear the snowflakes now. "Oh! I want an easy A so I'm taking the class from Prof So-And-So. He/she doesn't have tenure so I can bully my way through the course!"
 |
| hmm... |
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand the problem.
ReplyDeleteFirst this is not a "memo to the faculty." It is a document that appears, along with others, in the "Academic Integrity Resources" section of this page.
More importantly, this is not a policy document that says "The university supports administrators who devalue instructor input on matter of student discipline." It is simply a document that recognizes the fact that some instructors might be reluctant to respond to disruptive acts by students because they fear that administrators will not back them up.
Anyone who has read College Misery for more than five minutes knows that this is, in fact, a problem in many institutions. Recognizing the existence of the problem is not the same as approving or endorsing the problem.
Nowhere in the document does it say that CSU Fullerton's official policy is to screw over adjuncts and non-tenured faculty. The document (which, by the way, is adapted from this book), as far as i can tell, is designed to let faculty know that they should not be reluctant to respond to disruptive behavior. And, in fact, the full Reference for Faculty: Academic Integrity and Disruptive Behavior outlines a set of perfectly reasonable procedures for faculty to take in order to deal with disruptive behavior.
In short, I think you're seeing a problem where none exists.
At least in the version that EMH posted (which I assume is the one he encountered in some official context), this strikes me as one of those documents that's so busy being evenhanded, and considering all perspectives, and trying to avoid all possible sources of potential liability, that it ends up saying very little that's clear or useful. Is it encouraging faculty to take control of their classrooms, even if it makes the students unhappy? Maybe, but it won't quite come out and say that, probably for fear that *that* might make students (or their parents) unhappy, or serve as the basis for a lawsuit by a faculty member who believes (s)he was unfairly dismissed, or ended up being attacked in some way by a student (s)he tried to discipline, or whatever. In short, it strikes me as a pretty good example of mealy-mouthed bureacratese.
ReplyDeleteThe long version is, indeed, much stronger, precisely because it spells out what instructors can and can't, should and shouldn't, do in various situations (including those in which they feel physically threatened -- a possibility which is mentioned in the short form, but without naming the obvious remedy -- call the police!). The longer document also makes no mention of the distinction between various kinds of faculty, which, in this case, strikes me as a strength.
Somebody did a bad job of condensing.
P.S. and one of the realities of adjunct life is that one often only receives -- and/or has time to read -- such less-than-satisfactory condensed versions of policies.
ReplyDelete"Beepers and pagers?" In what decade was this document created?
ReplyDelete"It can happen that the administrator may devalue the instructor’s assessment of the seriousness of the disruption."
ReplyDeleteDear sweet holy jehovah, I hope I never work at a college that codifies something like that.
Dear sweet holy jehovah, this college didn't codify it.
ReplyDeleteIt was printed in a document, the content of which was explicitly taken from a book about dealing with student misconduct, designed simply to provide some general observations about some of the problems and challenges that faculty might face in some situations and some schools.
It's not saying that this happens at Fullerton; it's not saying that administrators devaluing instructors' assessment is a good thing; it's not saying that Fullerton's policy is to treat adjuncts and non-tenured faculty poorly.
I think Defunct Adjunct is really a Dean. Shall we out him?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Defunct
ReplyDeletePlagiarized or not, did you even bother to read the url associated with this link? You know, the part that says Dean of Students.
Try this thought experiment:
Suppose EMH writes a syllabus for his class by stealing a copy from a colleague. Suppose the syllabus contains a section explaining challenges that students may face at some schools, in particular with the grievance policy. Suppose it mentions that it may happen that a student's complaint is devalued by the instructor and that it is particularly dangerous for them as students.
Of course, I didn't really write that so it can't be interpreted as policy right? Wrong!
What would happen is that the shit would hit the fan and you would probably be first in line to discipline me for threatening to retaliate against students, and for implementing policies that are not becoming of the institution, ad nauseum.
So try something. Next time you think something is okay, just pretend an adjunct did it. Is it still okay?
Yes, I read it.
ReplyDeleteAnd your thought experiment is woeful. Stick to mathematics.
The document you linked in your post is not a policy document, and nor does it pretend to be one. Furthermore, it is only a single document, and is the last in a list of six documents on the "Academic Integrity Resources" section of the page. The first document in that same list is a much more comprehensive document that outlines in quite some detail the university's policy for dealing with student misconduct.
Look, the document you are up in arms about was saying, in effect: "This is some of the shit that sometimes happens in academia. Some instructors are worried that they will receive adverse reactions from administrators, and that does, in some cases actually happen." The document is not saying, "It is the policy of administrators at this university to devalue the assessments of instructors."
I'm usually happy to jump on the bandwagon when college administrators do stupid shit that undermines the faculty, especially because, as an adjunct, I'm most likely to feel the sharp end of the stick, but I think you're reading far too much into this, and I simply can't share your outrage.
Well, it looks like EMH has lost the pissing contest. But that's okay as I will be forwarding the document to their union.
ReplyDeleteEMH, I believe the paragraph you're referring to is the following:
ReplyDelete"It can happen that the administrator may devalue the instructor’s assessment of
the seriousness of the disruption. This is most difficult for instructors who are
part-time or untenured."
I did not read this to mean, "Hey, adjuncts and part-timers, you're screwed and we know that we're screwing you! Hooray!"
I read this a sign that this institution actually understands that adjuncts and part-timers sometimes fear disciplining students because they do not know how such discipline will be received by the administration (and, therefore, how it will affect instructors' employment stability).
I've worked at places where unprotected (untenured) instructors were absolutely not supported by administrations regarding classroom discipline and student conflict issues. Because I've worked at such places, I was wary--as a full-time, tenure-track proffie--when I was hired at my current institution because I didn't know how the administration would react when I encountered unruly students and attempted to restore order to my classrooms. It took me a while to realize that my current administration is very objective and supportive of faculty when it comes to student issues. I find myself having to reassure part-timers all the time that they will be supported by the administration when student behavioral issues arise.
I understand why you read the paragraph the way you did, but I don't think the message here is that this institution is abandoning part-timers and the otherwise untenured.
EMH, I got the same impression Greta did.
ReplyDelete