When a dean lasts five years at my law school, he or she is evaluated by the faculty in order to determine whether there should be another five years. I note that this evidently has no impact on the actual decision to retain the dean and it's not even clear that such a review complies with University policy.
In this year's evaluation, there were statements with which you could agree or disagree or anything in between. These questions showed signs of having been drafted by people unaccustomed to writing surveys but I hasten add that his year's committee was pretty much stuck with what prior committees had used. There was also space for comments. The results were mixed. The dean scored high on fund raising and elevating the reputation of the school. She did OK on issues like fairness in salaries and assignments. The comments were also mixed. Many faculty were quite happy with the dean, understood what she faced when coming here, and admired her energy and vision. Other comments were negative and not something many faculty, except for one or two of my more candid colleagues, would have the balls to say directly to anyone unless it was a secretary or grocery bagger. It was all public and some faculty quickly distributed the results to Above the Law and to the students. No doubt this was done to further disparage the dean. My estimate was there were 18 to 23 "haters" -- the title some of us attach to people who found fault with virtually everything. The dean scored weakest on style, transparency, and consulting faculty before making decisions.
I chose "Killing the Messenger" as the title of this blog because over 5 years the dean delivered a message many faculty did not want to hear. That message was basically that the law school, teetering on the edge of the top 50, was, after being run by the faculty for decades, not such hot shit. The title could have been "You Cannot Handle the Truth." And I could have gone with "Uncapturing the Law School." This was a particular apt title since until the not so new dean arrived, the School was clearly captured and run for the convenience and benefit of the faculty. Some examples are found in a article I wrote several years ago: "Faculty Ethics in Law School: Shirking, Capture, and 'The Matrix'", 83 U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 397. You know what I mean: foreign programs that made no sense other than someone wanted to do it; course offerings that were truly vanity courses; voting on tenure and promotion based on friendships or politics; reluctance to review clinical offerings, traveling to conferences on the school's dime when the real purpose was a vacation, starting centers that allowed students to concentrate in a area and receive an unofficial certificate without any proof that these opportunities accrued to the benefit of the students, publicly advertising jobs that did not exist.
Any of these titles would have worked. There was one comment that captured the sense of most negative comments:"Leave, please, please, please leave our College. Go on your way and leave us." Note the use of "our" and "us." The idea is that the law school is owned and operated for the benefit of faculty In reality the law school's stakeholders are students, taxpayers, and donors. Faculty are just hired hands and what makes them happy may have little to do with what makes the stakeholders better off. Generally trusting faculty to do right by stakeholders at a state school is foolhardy.
So, let's go back to style, transparency, and consulting. I personally do not understand the style issue but it seems to have something to do with saying fuck, maybe "pounding the table" (whatever that means), or being abrupt. I cannot address the style issue since I have not personally witnessed any of these activities. More interesting is the transparency matter. As far as I know, the dean has taken no major steps without informing the faculty. There were mutterings in the comments about not getting enough information about budgets. As best I can tell, no prior dean explained much about budget matters unless it was bad news with respect to raises or resources. I think the budget questions could be reduced to "you did not spend the money the way I would have" with the "would have" meaning on my pet project.
Congratulations if you made it this far because if you have followed the gist of this blog, which I assure you is boring me more than you. you may have noted that it comes down to "consulting the faculty." Here it gets tricky. Say the dean makes 4 decisions: a 10% raise for you, no more 7 AM classes, begin having a full range of classes on Friday afternoon, and exams must be anonymously graded. You like the first 2 and hate the second two. The ones you agreed with will get no complaints about consultation. The one you disagree with will irk you because you were not consulted. So really "I was not consulted" often comes down to "I disagree."
And in this case nearly all the "I was not consulted" versions of saying "I disagree" amount to being unhappy about changing from a sleepy, faculty-run, pet project tolerating, law school effectively "owned' by the faculty to something that is better for actual stakeholders.
1 comment:
But did they do this (from the Chronicle of Higher Ed.)
Before René left Texas Southern, the university found $13,456.25 stashed under his desk calendar in his office, in the form of cashier’s checks and money orders, according to the investigation.
More than $95,000, including law-school application fees and seat deposits, seemed to have been improperly deposited into the university’s foundation — outside of Texas Southern’s direct control — and not into a university account.
And, at least in October, investigators believed that an unknown balance, ranging from $14,660 to $31,600, was “unaccounted for.” Investigators said René did not provide a detailed financial report when asked.
A spokesman and the university’s law-school dean did not respond to questions about whether the money held by the foundation had moved to the university’s direct oversight, exactly how much money was unaccounted for, and whether the university had tracked down those funds.
2. The investigation began when someone at the law school found unenrolled students taking classes and attending orientation programs. Investigators believed an alleged bribe and an under-the-table admissions change were partly to blame.
Joan R.M. Bullock, the law school’s dean, found five student “anomalies” upon a closer review of the unenrolled students.
One first-year law student paid $14,000 in cash to René after the then assistant dean promised a $14,000 scholarship and admission, according to the investigation. The student, who did not meet the academic admissions requirements, was removed from the program, according to the report. (Upon his withdrawal, the person asked for the $14,000 back, the investigation found.)
One admitted transfer student had “character and fitness issues” that were not disclosed on his application, according to the findings. Investigators accused René of allowing the student to remove evidence of those issues from his file. The student’s admission was revoked.
Post a Comment