Academics at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology rebel over niceness policy
BY: ANDREW TROUNSON
From: The Australian
ACADEMICS at RMIT University have rebelled against new behavioural requirements on staff to be "positive" and "optimistic" and team-focused, claiming it undermines free academic inquiry.
The new "behavioural capability framework" is included in new staff work plans and performance appraisals. It includes such exhortations that a staffer "promotes the positive rather than the negative and remains committed and effective in the face of setbacks and adversity".
It asks staff to be "resolute" and "passionate".
FULL ARTICLE.
Holy tea party! "Niceness" will be part of performance appraisals! Why doesn't RMIT come right out and admit that it no longer values actual education?
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as psychological torture for those faculty and staff unfortunate enough to work at RMIT.
I already get into trouble often for my attitude. Even though my job performance is considered to be good. I'm just 'not positive enough'. No doubt this will be formally included in appraisals as soon as our HR people see this.
ReplyDeleteBugger!
Oops, bad attitude showing through again.
Right there with ya, GA.
Delete"Providing an accurate assessment of current situation and expected outcomes and consequences of planned actions" is not a quality that anybody wants from faculty.
ReplyDeleteGawd no! Because when we hold a mirror up, we hold up the one that shows warts. And wrinkles. And age spots. And those weird hairs that grow for no apparent reason out of the ears.
DeleteThat is so vague! What does it even mean anyway?
ReplyDeleteTalk about even more Emotional Labor!
ReplyDeleteOh, grrrooooosssss.
ReplyDeleteA wise man once observed "Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all of the unhappy people."
ReplyDeleteBeatings will continue until morale improves.
ReplyDeleteSomeone shank me now.
ReplyDeleteYou realize this precludes whole fields of academic inquiry, such as existential philosophy?
ReplyDeleteYet another example of how university administration has grown to where it's doing all manner of things it should not be doing.
I once taught at a school where, after contentious negotiations, the Board offered the faculty a two year contract with 5% pay increases each year. In exchange, they inserted a clause that stated no faculty member could make negative comments about any board member, administrator, or educational "mandate." We asked for clarification: did they mean in the classroom? Did they think we were spending our class time making disparaging comments about administrators and programs?
ReplyDeleteOf course not, they replied. They just wanted to ensure that we were not making negative comments about the aforementioned anywhere.
Define "anywhere," we said.
School grounds, school events, board meetings, grocery stores, laundromats, gas stations, restaurants, etc. They meant anywhere was everywhere.
Um, have you heard of that First Amendment thingy, we asked?
Sure, they said. Did you hear that 5% pay increase we offered?
It went to a vote. Only two of us voted against it.
Fortunately, I got a job offer at another school. One of my final acts as a faculty member at school number one was to ship off a copy of the contract to our state ACLU office.
Was that negative of me?
In the dorm for visiting astronomers at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona, there is a sign with this (quite possibly fake) medieval inscription:
ReplyDeleteIf any pilgrim monk come from distant parts, if with wish as a guest to dwell in the monastery, and will be content with the customs which he finds in the place, and do not perchance by his lavishness disturb the monastery, but is simply content with what he finds: he shall be received, for as long a time as he desires.
If, indeed, he find fault with anything, or expose it, reasonably, and with the humility of charity, the Abbot shall discuss it prudently, lest perchance God had sent him for this very thing.
But if he have been found gossipy and contumaceous in the time of his sojourn as guest, not only ought he not to be joined to the body of the monastery, but also it shall be said to him, honestly, that he must depart. If he does not go, let two stout monks, in the name of God, explain the matter to him.
Except for the last sentence, it's excerpted from the Rule of St Benedict. At least according to Wikipedia.
Delete