A statement variously attributed to Henry Kissinger, when he was at Harvard, or to William Sayre, who was a political scientist at Columbia, goes something like this: "Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low." If that's true at Harvard or Columbia, how much more is that the case at a community college, where the stakes, if anything, are even lower?
That's not to disparage community colleges, where I've spent my entire 25-year career as a faculty member and administrator. In terms of what we do for students, many of whom wouldn't have the opportunity to attend college and better their lives if it weren't for our institutions, the stakes are quite high indeed.
But when it comes to departmental and campus politics at two-year colleges—well, we're not exactly dealing with multimillion-dollar research grants or endowed chairs boasting six-figure salaries. Instead, we're usually arguing over textbooks, course objectives, committee assignments, curriculum changes, class schedules, workloads—pretty mundane stuff. And in keeping with the old axiom, the disputes can turn correspondingly nasty.
Perhaps that's why I found David Perlmutter's essay on "Spotting Your Enemies" so fascinating, not to mention inspiring. I've dealt, over the years, with all of the types of faculty foes he mentions.
The last type he describes, "The Smiler," is especially familiar. On more than one occasion, I've had a colleague say incredibly insulting things to me—or about me—during a meeting, only to approach me afterward and insist with a smile that it was nothing personal. Others have pretended to be my friends and then proceeded to advance their own agenda by revealing things I had said in confidence.
There are some faculty types that Perlmutter left out, however, perhaps because they're more common at (if not unique to) community colleges. He has graciously agreed to let me piggyback on his essay, adding to the pantheon of archetypal faculty villains a few that I've encountered on two-year campuses.
The Puritan. This person sees himself or herself as the final arbiter of all things moral and ethical at the college. He is constantly telling other people what they ought to be doing, complaining about fairness and equity, and browbeating colleagues over their supposed failings—which usually just means they don't share the Puritan's agenda.
People of this type love to send e-mails to the president pointing out colleagues' shortcomings, to the chancellor pointing out the president's shortcomings, or to the trustees pointing out the chancellor's shortcomings. Everyone, it seems, has serious moral deficiencies except for the Puritan and perhaps a small cadre of loyal supporters.
Just like the Puritans of old, the academic version is inordinately fond of witch hunts. When those missives to the president or the chancellor go ignored—as they almost always do—the Puritan has been known to resort to such morally questionable behavior as attacking "errant" colleagues via anonymous Internet blogs.
The Climber. We all recognize the importance of having good people in administrative positions, and none of us begrudges anyone the opportunity to move up. (Well, a few might begrudge it.) But occasionally we encounter a colleague who covets that promotion so badly—perhaps a faculty member who longs to become chair, or a chair who desires a deanship—that he or she will do or say almost anything, throw almost anyone under the bus, in order to achieve that goal.
Those who crave power so desperately are often the very people the rest of us least want to acquire it. (Sadly, they often succeed in getting it.)
The Jilted Lover. I’m not talking about actual love affairs, although we certainly have our share of those at community colleges, just as anyplace else. Rather, I’m referring to the professional liaisons that are quite common at two-year colleges, as harried faculty members attempt to share the workload. When one of those arrangements ends badly, it can escalate into ugliness.
Some years ago, I invited a friend and colleague to collaborate on a scholarly project. She was well versed in the subject matter, so I didn’t think twice about asking her to join me. Things turned strange, however, when she attempted to commandeer the project and then became enraged when I refused to acquiesce. I’ll spare you the gory details, but the entire episode was a sobering experience.
The Conspiracy Nut. This is the person who sees dark designs in everything that happens at the college, the one who is constantly pulling you aside after meetings to discuss in hushed tones the supposed hidden agenda and shushing you when someone walks by. Conspiracy nuts are masters of the pointed look, and given to cryptic statements like "I think you know what I mean" (when of course you have no idea) or "Just wait, you'll see," followed by a refusal to discuss the matter further.
It would be harmless enough if this person were merely a crackpot, attempting to draw you into some twisted fantasy. The problem with the Conspiracy Nut, though, is that if you don't immediately acknowledge the "truth" and align yourself with the forces of good, you become, in that person's mind, a part of the conspiracy, someone to be feared, loathed, and attacked when possible. You may have no desire to make this person your enemy—you probably don't even want to be in the same zip code—but once you're identified as a co-conspirator in a plot that doesn't exist, you may have no choice.
The Terrorist. One of the anonymous commenters on Perlmutter's essay (a community-college faculty member?) mentioned this archetype, who, as the commenter so eloquently put it, "hates your guts for reasons that aren't entirely clear and attempts to make your life miserable in ways both large and small. There's no appeasing this person, no chance of reconciliation, because the Terrorist doesn't want anything from you. He or she just wants you dead."
Years ago, while serving as a department chair on another campus, I was evaluated each spring by the faculty members in my department. And every year it was the same: mostly good evaluations, a few lukewarm ones, and an eight-page screed identifying me as the devil incarnate. That baffled me, because I had never done anything to this person. (Yes, of course I knew who it was.) She got good teaching evaluations because, oddly enough, she was a good teacher. She had a fair amount of seniority, so she usually got her pick of courses and committee assignments.
In short, I could find no explanation for her virulent hatred. Still, my dean insisted that I obviously wasn't doing enough to placate her. So, acting on the dean's advice, I went out of my way for a year to be especially pleasant to this faculty member, recognizing her for even the smallest accomplishments and making sure she always got what she wanted. I also documented everything and copied the dean.
That spring I received another eight-page screed, at which point the dean said, "OK, now I get it."
Believe me, when I went into this profession, I never expected to encounter people like that. Naively, I assumed that becoming a college professor meant that I would spend my life surrounded by smart, interesting colleagues who would all become my friends. And there have been a great many of those.
But, inevitably, I've also made some enemies along the way. I have to admit, I take a certain perverse satisfaction in that. Another old proverb—also sometimes attributed to Kissinger—says that a person can be judged by his or her enemies. If that's true in any eschatological sense, given the enemies I've had, I think my eternal soul is in pretty good shape.
Comments
1. usaret - December 08, 2010 at 08:42 am
I also teach in a community college, and while I do find some of the types you mention, I do not think they are as common as we might think. One or two of each kind per campus seems to be the average, but their actions and words tend to fill the vacuums created by the relative silence of the less-psychotic (?) majority.
I will say that many faculty are much ruder to each other than in any other environment I have worked in (Army, private industry). Faculty talk to each other, sometimes, in ways that would get them fired in other places. I wonder if that comes from disciplinary pride, the protections of tensure or its equivalent, or from the fact that the kinds of skills that lead to faculty employment (long solitary hours in lab or library) are exactly the wrong kind to develop comity in a department or classroom, which necessarily requires dealing with all kinds of people. Like Greta Garbo, perhaps more faculty than we think just "want to be alone." And because they are uncomfortable around other people, they develop these odd kinds of coping mechanisms. Of course, some may just be jerks.
2. mindfulwhim - December 08, 2010 at 09:30 am
Indeed, the stakes are lower [for faculty] at the Community College, and in direct opposition to the hypothesis of esteemed professors Sayre and Kissinger, so too are the political consequences. In contrast to the seriously toxic personalities and the unjustified (oftentimes completely unjustified) egos of professors I have worked with and for at large so-called R1 and R2 institutions, I find Community College Professors to be refreshingly helpful and supportive, as well as patient and wise. Those are the attributes of professors who work in education for all the right reasons.
Perhaps it comes from the fact that Community College Professors are teachers rather than researchers. I had to work at a Community College to learn the art and science of teaching; something that universities boast, but so seldom deliver.
Perhaps some of the architypes the author mentions do exist at Community Colleges, but that is by no means a measure of how important the institution is. In fact just the oppositie is true: "The reason academic politics at universities are so fierce is precisely because the faculty and administrators have more to prove to themselves and other in order to justify their overinflated egos".
I love my job at the Community College and I will never go back to working at a university for precisely that [those] reason(s). I'll take working with wise teachers who are in education for the right reasons over presitige and career climbing any day!
3. robjenkins - December 08, 2010 at 11:29 am
Hey, I love teaching at a community college, too, as I think I've made abundantly clear in this space over the years. I like and respect most of the people I work with. Neither of those assertions changes the fact that there are some truly unpleasant people in the world and that some of them happen to be community college faculty members. I've written extensively about the positive aspects of working at a two-year school, but at the same time I've always tried to tell the truth, as I see it. That means I can't ignore the negatives, such as they are.
The worst thing about teaching at a CC, in my opinion, is something I don't even mention in this column. I call it "Claggart Syndrome," and you can read about it (if you're interested) in my blog post at www.nccforum.org.
Rob
4. 11161452 - December 08, 2010 at 04:50 pm
"Believe me, when I went into this profession, I never expected to encounter people like that."
*****
I can certainly relate to that. Having been the person in school who got along with everyone and anyone, my bubble burst quickly when, not even a semester into my job at a SLAC, one of my two departmental colleagues began sharing his negative opinion of me with the college dean. This individual was so insecure and paranoid that his life was a big zero-sum game (if her program succeeds, then mine must fail in direct proportion). All I had to do to earn his ire was do my job well.
But the worst of it was that the dean wasn't interested in locating a spine and calling this guy on the carpet for his bullying tactics. All she could muster was "Oh, I wish he'd just find another job somewhere else". Of course, no one else would have him, and he remains there still, spreading the love and good cheer to the next victim.
The one thing I did that worked was that I finally confronted the bully myself in a private meeting. As you indicated, there is no placating such an individual, and the only thing they respond to is a show of strength.
I hope you are now free of your Terrorist!
5. mmcknight - December 09, 2010 at 10:09 am
There's also the Toxic Dumper (perhaps related to the person with Claggart Syndrome), who complains constantly and meanly about her students. She has a PhD, no doubt, and is probably bitter that she couldn't get a job at a 4-year institution where the "quality" of students would be, in her opinion, higher. She's exactly the type of person who should NOT be working at an open enrollment institution, but that, unfortunately, is where she got hired. (Worse, perhaps she has a partner who is a 4-year prof, so she sees first-hand what a relatively light teaching load 4-year profs get--and therefore, fewer stupid students to deal with.)
6. mnogojazyk - December 09, 2010 at 12:10 pm
"Believe me, when I went into this profession, I never expected to encounter people like that."
******
I'm glad to see that human behavior runs the full gamut in higher education.
While this may be the same as the terrorist, I don't see in the list the bully. This is the person who abuses tis power by, among other things, devaluating subordinates' contribution and worth; making arbitrary and capricious demands; replying with answers like "you're a professional -- do it yourself" when te's asked for help; relieving subordinates of duties based on arbitrary, inexact, and unstated evaluation standards*; stifling and suppressing professional disagreement; and micromanaging subordinates' every action, including professional *and* personal behavior unrelated to the job and the profession. Much of these actions, according to the bully, are acceptable under law.
A bully frequently has the backing and support of upper management; or alternatively upper management is oblivious to the bully's behavior. Furthermore, legal action against the bully is expensive and time-consuming. Given all that, the bully is virtually untouchable.
I worked under such a person until last year. By the time I left, there were several outstanding legal complaints against tim. I heard that te was involved in another this spring, and a former colleague of mine is considering yet another.
What will happen to my bully? I don't know. I guess that only when te becomes a political or financial liability to the institution will the institution take action to strip tim of tis position and power. However, I do know from firsthand experience that te poisoned the working environment, and ran out of the department about a dozen good and great staff in eight years because of tis behavior.
I often think that a bully's successor will spend years detoxifying the workplace and rebuilding morale unless, of course, the successor also is a bully.
Footnote
* Inexact and unstated evaluation standards are illegal in federal workplaces and in many state agencies. In my experience and knowledge, community and state colleges are state agencies by any other name even if they dress themselves in another light. But such things do not bother the bully because, well, te's a bully.
7. ccenglishprof - December 09, 2010 at 05:14 pm
Dear Rob:
Thanks to you and Professor Perlmutter I think you have a relatively accurate taxonomy.
I'm a tenured faculty member at one of the largest urban community colleges in the country. I have also been a tenure-track faculty member at a rural cc in another state, so I think I have a broader perspective and experience than some folks. I would disagree with usaret--I think these types are pretty common. In fact, I left the tenure-track job at the rural cc because of the abundance of the whacked out and cruel faculty profiles the two articles so ably described.
To put a wrinkle into this thread that isn't so much about the comparison between 4 year colleges and universities and community colleges: What has surprised me in my career and in conversations with colleagues at other institutions is that the size of the community college both does and doesn't matter in ways that one wouldn't expect.
In my current job we have 67 tenured or tenure track faculty in our department and another 33 part-timers. (Like I said, we are *big.*) When I was at the rural cc we had 14 full-timers and 4 part-timers. Proportionally my current "mondo" department/institution has the same (or possibly even greater) percentage of crazies and rampant enemy-generators as the smaller school.
But because the rural cc was so much smaller, the presence of any kind of cruelty, unprofessionalism, laziness, snarkiness, etc. was felt much more fully within the department and the institution as a whole. In fact, it really seemed to be systemic to that school, and I was never able to tease out what the causality was that generated it; all I knew was that it seemed to be highly adept and regenerating itself among the mid-career faculty who were engaging in peer evaluation and who would be with the college for another twenty years.
The large institution gives one more cover to dodge the bullies, terrorists, conspiracy theorists, etc. But the large institution also means that those folks become a lot more practiced and proficient at the their "negative arts" given the complexity and greater number of venues they are offered.
So some tough trade-offs within cc...
8. robjenkins - December 11, 2010 at 03:43 am
Thanks, ccenglishprof. I too have worked at CC's of various sizes--in my case, small, medium, and large--and I would concur with your analysis. I also think the number of enemies you have corresponds to your length of time at the institution (obviously) and to your position within the institution. I made many more enemies as a chair than I did as a faculty member, for instance, and more still when I was asked to lead a controversial program.
Rob
9. anakmoako - December 11, 2010 at 01:51 pm
I am a student at a large private university, and although I cannot say I know much about what goes on behind the scenes of academia between faculty and administration, I can say that it seems these types of people exist in any setting. Some of them, at least, always seem to pop us, such as "The Puritan," who heart is pure and is always in the right because, of course, he or she is the most unselfish person ever and only seeks the greater good. Consequently, he or she is, of course, justified in the use of questionable action, such as going behind someone's back, going over someone's head by appealing to a higher authority, or just going all out at someone through the internet. The funny thing is, these people always remain innominate, so you have no way to know whether or not they are credible, but obviously they are credible enough to attack the credibility of someone else.
I recently read a book, written by a Harvard Law professor, about censorship. In this book, the author talks about the dangers of fragmentation, or "balkanization." I don't agree with everything he says, but he does talk about polarization. When people create their cliques, they surround themselves with people and ideas that corroborate what they already believe, they tend to polarize. In essence, they here the echoes of their beliefs. As a result, they become more bold. The divisions then become more defined, and communication becomes severely inhibited. I'm a Communications Major, so I find this interesting. It's also good to be aware of these types of things so I won't be so naive when I enter the workplace, even if I don't end up at a college or university.
10. anakmoako - December 11, 2010 at 01:54 pm
By the way, my name is Robbie. I don't want anyone accusing me of remaining anonymous when I wrote negatively about it. Fortunately, I'm not talking negatively about anyone by name, so I think I'm ok!
11. elbyjay - December 11, 2010 at 02:22 pm
I'd like to add another type of enemy, whom I'll call simply "The Fixer." I'm not referring to the friendly guy who fixes your computer, but rather to the manipulative faculty member or administrator who volunteers to serve on many important committees and then, before a textbook selection or job screening process really begins, tries to "fix" the result. This person may not at first seem like an enemy, but he or she assuredly is an enemy to objectivity and a spirit of fairness. What's worst about "The Fixer" is that you'll find yourself tempted at times to go along, especially when you don't have a lot invested in the result. But when the time comes -- and rest assured it will -- that what you want or need conflicts with what "The Fixer" intends, you will suddenly find yourself dripping blood from a very large wound. And unlike Siward's brave son in "Macbeth," you won't even have the consolation of your wounds in the front.
12. morningeorgia - December 12, 2010 at 01:44 am
These profiles are as true as anything, but I still can't understand their motivations - the Puritan, the Terrorist, the Bully (@mnogojazyk)...Is it just insecurity, the need to be in control, a lack of meaning in their personal lives? It seems sad to me more than anything, because in the end, no matter what they do I know I can still be happy with the life and career I have, the choices I've made and the person that I am. They may be the "enemies," but I feel more pity for them than enmity.
13. periwinkleblue - December 12, 2010 at 04:36 am
1 - The "higher ed" faculty diversity initiatives don't help, either. A new "minority" faculty member will be greeted with hostility and suspicion (since the administration wanted someone [insert race/ethnicity here] to add onto the faculty) even if the person is more qualified than the senior folks.
2 - It is not necessary to have a PhD at a community college, but more PhDs are getting hired there. The senior folks who are still ABD 20+ years later are likely to be resentful, especially when they've been recycling manterial that is long outdated (eg: MLA and APA just updated their style. I bet the new folks know it, and the elder others don't, but claim mastery of it.) and they are possibly very lazy with their teaching. It's easier to do "See Jane Run" when you're full with a BA or MA at a community college and demand less of your students, while collecting a larger salary.
3 - The administration wants to head in one direction, but the majority, tenured faculty want to head in another. Junior faculty tend to get caught in the crossfire, likely by no fault of their own.
14. davejenkins - December 13, 2010 at 10:06 am
I suspect that the majority of faculty members and administrators at most colleges, both two and four year, would not subscribe to the idea of original sin nor accept that mankind is fallen and deeply flawed. They are thus left with the ability to observe destructive traits in their fellow workers, but with no explanation (that they would accept) as to why they are the way they are.
15. redweather - December 13, 2010 at 07:56 pm
"Hey, I love teaching at a community college, too, as I think I've made abundantly clear in this space over the years."
And from what I hear you'll be doing a lot more teaching at a community college starting next semester.
16. robjenkins - December 13, 2010 at 09:47 pm
That's true, redweather: I'll be doing a lot more teaching starting in January. I'm really looking forward to it. It will be a nice break from the hassles of administration, and I'll have a lot more time and freedom to write. Thanks for taking time to comment.
Rob
17. jimmylegs - December 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm
<Comment removed by moderator>
18. robjenkins - December 14, 2010 at 01:54 pm
Thanks, jimmylegs. I'm sure some readers thought I was exaggerating.
Rob
19. jimmylegs - December 14, 2010 at 02:54 pm
And how would they know if you are exaggerating or not? Most of these people don't know you at all or the people your are attempting to skewer. They have never seen you in "in action." No, you don't exaggerate anything other than everything pertaining to your own self-interest. You sit on your royal duff and pigeonhole people like you are Noah naming the animals by divine mandate. [Edited for personal attack. -moderator]
20. robjenkins - December 14, 2010 at 05:07 pm
Actually, jimmylegs, a lot of my readers do know me, in a manner of speaking. I've been writing this column for eight years, always under my own name. Also, I wasn't "attempting to skewer" or "attacking" anyone. As I made very clear in the essay, I was talking about types I've observed over a career that spans 25 years and six institutions. But thanks for commenting.
Rob
21. redweather - December 15, 2010 at 01:34 pm
Things have gotten a little hot around here.
22. moore_t - December 15, 2010 at 06:45 pm
Yes, they have.
23. moore_t - December 15, 2010 at 07:53 pm
Of course, Rob is talking about Georgia Perimeter College, the institution where I have been proud to teach for more than fifteen years. I have developed friendships here that will last a lifetime, and as far as I know, I don't have any "enemies," so I was saddened when Rob Jenkins wrote what he did. [Edited for personal attack. -moderator] Most of us have been involved in the academic arena for one, two, even three decades, yet few have the number of foes Mr. Jenkins appears to have. How has one person accumulated so many enemies and lost so much respect among his colleagues colle-wide?
24. gatertiumquid - December 15, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Mr. Jenkins, let me suggest for your encore column to "FE,CCE" (And trust me, most of your regular readers hope there will be an encore) that you consider adding a new category, the "Hyena," which represents a new species of CCFE that begins to circle an apparently wounded colleague whom the Hyena dislikes, mostly out of envy and a keen awareness that he or she is destined to be little more than an intellectual and professional scavenger. It appears that your institution is inhabited by numerous members of this cowardly band whose courage rises only to a level that permits them the passing thrill of posting cheap and bigoted personal shots that evidently flow from the deep toxic well of their envy and enmity. So much for the much praised but rarely seen tolerance and diversity of higher education, which remains ever elusive, quite unlike the nasty, envious attacks of the "Hyena."
Keep writing, and I'm looking forward to reading your next entry, "FE-CCE II: The Rise of the Hyenas."
25. pterodactyl123 - December 15, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I love gossip and scandal as much as anyone else, but it's sort of weird to read about the secrets of Georgia Perimeter College in this forum. I guess academic enemies are always more fun when they're vaguely fictional...
In any case, there only seems to be one person posting here about RJ (albeit under a lot of different names). Why does gateriumquid think that RJ's institution is "inhabited by numerous members of this cowardly band"? I don't sense evidence of multiple hyenas.
26. jimmylegs - December 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
A better title for the next column might be "The Fall of the Hyenas" Mr. Quid, since your description better fits the two people who have just fallen from their plush sinecures in the Writer's Institute back into the classroom. If you want "cheap and bigoted" shots, you certainly had plenty to choose from in Mr.Jenkins's article. But he didn't make them "personal." Why? Because he preferred to hide behind the generalities and negative labels. In hunting, they call that shooting from behind a blind. Just how much courage does that take? Not much, but apparently it works. Call your colleagues a bunch of ugly names, throw in a couple of power quotes from Henry Kissinger, keep it all general and hypothetical, and you've got a column that would make Rush Limbaugh proud and the bobble-headed readers nod and exclaim, "Amen brother!" Makes me think of lines from a Steve Miller song: "Living in the U.S.A. Somebody give me a cheeseburger!"
27. robjenkins - December 16, 2010 at 09:58 am
A couple of notes for my regular readers, and then I'm going to bow out of this discussion.
First, let me say again that the types I describe are, by definition, composites, loosely based on many people I have known and observed over the years at several different institutions. Judging from some of the earlier comments above, I'm not the only one who has made such observations, nor am I completely off base. If people see themselves in those descrptions--well, you know what they say about the shoe fitting.
Second, nothing the anonymous negative posters are saying about me or my situation is true--except that I have given up my administrative duties and will be returning to the classroom full-time in January. The decision to do so was mine, something I've been contemplating for a couple of years. I actually received excellent evaluations as director of The Writers Institute--that's a matter of record--as I have in every other position I've held. But after almost 20 years as an administrator of one sort or another, I'm really looking forward to being a full-time teacher again. I'm sure many of you can relate to that.
Sometimes people think they know what went on behind the scenes, what was said in private conversations, but they don't. And sometimes they just have their own axes to grind.
Happy Holidays to all.
Rob
28. eyesup - December 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm
There is one more important type of faculty member. We could call this The Anointed. This is the faculty member who gets picked by the administration for a privileged position and rises above other faculty members with decreased teaching duties and extra pay. Often this person has "jumped" the traditional paths upward because of some kind of undeserved favoritism. Often the faculty member slips into a much "easier" job and begin to think of himself/herself as special. One of the results is the The Anointed loses touch with the rank and file stresses and becomes divorced from faculty members and students in all aspects of the institution. This is very common in institutions where faculty have lost power, have no direct role in shared governance, and satisfying the whims of the administration is the only way up. Welcome back to teaching, Rob. Get ready to work - hard.
eyesup
29. redweather - December 16, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Wow! The "thought police" have been busy. Some of the posts have shrunk considerably. Personal attacks? What was this entire column if not a thinly veiled personal attack?
30. jimmylegs - December 16, 2010 at 02:53 pm
It does appear that Santa's elves have been busy at the Barnacle. Their censorship was certainly a "gift" for one of their columnists. Some people are good at holding up what they believe to be mirrors in which others see themselves, but when these people respond by holding up mirrors of their own, they arrange to have them smashed to pieces. As Eliot once mused, people can take only tiny bits of reality at a time. If nothing else, it just goes to show that The Director is still directing--this blog, The Barnacle staff, and reality in his vicinity. His farewell post certainly shows that he has lost none of his myth-making powers. That's good--he will need them in the future. People can linger in the realm of self-delusion only so long, and then Time and Fate step in and show them they they are not the exclusive creators or custodians of truth. It is finally much larger and more potent than any of their myths. If The Director won't look into the tiny mirrors we offered, so be it. Socrates said "know thyself," and indeed self-knowledge is the foundation of all truth. Read Sophocles. It's all there in the mirror. The shoes you make today, convinced that they are the perfect fit for all your enemies, will fit your own tomorrow.
31. jonwarrenbeam - December 16, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Mr.Jenkins has left out one of the most dangerous types: the Enraged One. The following is a composite, loosely based on many people I have known and observed over the years at several different institutions. The "Enraged One" will skewer his colleagues, particularly those who address his flaws, such as arrogance and laziness. The Enraged One's flaws may be so great th college may decide to dissolve his position and his department,forcing him to relinquish a lifestyle he has embraced. When he can no longer arrive at work mid morning, work out in the gym for a couple of hours, lunch, read with his feet propped up on the desk, and leave mid afternoon, or on his rigorous days, teach two classes at a high school to avoid coming to his institution's campuses,skip advisement and registration, and arrive home at mid afternoon, he becomes "enraged" and lashes out at his colleagues. When faculty anger the Enraged One, they have an enemy for life. Disagree with him and watch him turn red. The Enraged One is a seether, not the "aw-shucks" persona you might encounter in the hall or library or article. His audience might not know him but his colleagues do.
32. jonwarrenbeam - December 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Seems to be a lot of censorship being imposed by the "MODERATOR"
33. jeffery2468 - December 17, 2010 at 10:31 am
FACT: In August 2010, the administration at Georgia Perimeter College formed two separate committees to "review" the Writers Institute.
FACT: Rob Jenkins is the Director of the Writers Institute.
FACT: The notes and reports from both committees recommended that the Writers Institute be dissolved.
FACT: Why did both groups comprised of faculty, staff, and administration make this recommendation? I can't say because Rob's moderator will swoop down and censor my posting.
FACT: Rob Jenkins is no longer the Director of the Writers Institute as of January 1, 2011.
FACT: Rob Jenkins will return to the classroom in the middle of the academic year to teach five courses.
FACT: The CHRONICLE does not respect freedom of speech.
34. moore_t - December 17, 2010 at 11:46 am
I would like to broaden Rob's examples of faculty enemies he developed in his December 7 article by adding "The Con-Man" type. The following, of course, is a composite of several faculty types just as Rob's examples are in his article. The Con-Man can create a fascade that can fool even the brightest, particularly if they know him only through print. Those who work at the same institution as The Con-Man start to notice his erratic presence at work, his lengthy workouts in the middle of the day, his early departures, his absence from readings he is supposed to attend, and his refusal to involve interested faculty in his department. Once the jig is up, The Con-Man is often removed from his administrative position, even before the end of the academic year. His behavior may have been so outragious that the administration dissolves the entire department he has represented. The Con-Man may find himself abruptly back in the classroom teaching five classes. He finds that the sinecure he has created no longer exists and that no faculty (not a single one) at the college objected to its dissolution. He learns that both his pay and his office space will decrease dramatically. He becomes irate and in articles and books attacks everyone he thinks contributed to his downfall. And, alas, we hope (but doubt) he has learned where arrogance, hubris, and laziness got him.
35. nowhat - December 17, 2010 at 04:31 pm
I've enjoyed Mr Jenkins' columns over the years. He helped renew my interest in pursuing a CC career. His advice on what to look for when applying to CCs was generally spot on.
36. jimmylegs - December 17, 2010 at 11:50 pm
It's really refreshing to see more knowledgeable people join this blog. It got pretty lonely there for a while, with only those composites the Enraged Control Freak, the Devoted Followers, and the Moderator for company. But the Moderator seems to have backed off a notch or two, maybe upon recognition that he or she is taking directions from an Enraged Control Freak. Or maybe he or she is just taking a nap. Those of us who first dared to respond to the column used no foul language and said nothing that we do not firmly believe to be true based on many years of experience and observation. Some of you out there read those posts and know that this is true. How very in character for an Enraged Control Freak to call in a Moderator, have posts he doesn't like deleted or hacked to pieces, and then rise above the fray by bowing out and leaving the Devoted Followers a few gems of wisdom and holiday wishes. Enemies, of course, were treated to a few parting shots. This reminds me of events pertaining to the hypothetical committee meetings jeffrey mentions above. As a general rule, Enraged Control Freaks like to play games--as long as they are winning. When they start losing, they often seek to change the rules (think Moderator). If that doesn't work, they quit, go home, hide behind their computer screens, and unleash a tirade demonstrating in their minds that the game was not fair. I heard that members of one of the hypothetical committees were treated to such a tirade. The Control Freak, seeing that the first meeting did not go well, declined to attend the second and instead slammed out a lengthy and impassioned screed that seared the eyes of all who read it, but did not change a single mind. It appears that those composite committee members were focused on written policies, ethical actions, and the larger good of faculty and students. Of course, Enraged Control Freaks do not like any of these things unless they are convenient and serve their own selfish ends. But the composite committee members had their way, and so change came to the hypothetical college. The great majority of faculty were happy with this change. But for those few who weren't, not to worry. The Barnacle also has jobs listings.
37. oscarcleveland - December 20, 2010 at 05:28 pm
I have found two things disappointing in this exchange:the lack of professionalism demonstrated within Mr.Jenkins' writing and the inherent bias with the moderator's censorship. Conpare the Jenkins' article with it's predecessor, the original article by Professor Perimtter. Dr.Perimutter has written two articles,the first demonstrating how "to avoid battles" with colleagues and the second,"how to deal with them (enemies)." He explains how people can work together after conflict. His articles are constructive. Mr. Jenkins' article however, is destructive; he is venting. The tone is angry.
The posters were attemptig to explain the thinly veiled attacks within Mr.Jenkins' article when the moderator removed comments or eviscerated many of those that remained. The comments that were removed appeared to explain why Mr.Jenkins may be angry at the colleagues he attacks since his position and the institute he directed will be dismantled by the first of the year.
Furthermore, The Chronicle should never have published an article that does indeed allow people to identify the individuals described. In one example, Mr.Jenkins mentions "while serving as a department chair on another campus," he dealt with a "terroist"; by identifying "at another campus" he acknowledges that the faculty member is at his current institution. He comments that "she","oddly enough" was a good teacher.(Someone critical of Mr.Jenkins could not possibly be a good teacher? Such problems with logic litter the artcle, something The Chronicle should have caught.) He compares her to a "terroist" and describes her as consumed with "virulent hatred." (I find myself wanting to hear the "other side" thoughout, but I'm sure it would be "censored.") Should a department chair comment on his former faculty in a public forum with such charged language? Should the editor (probably the same as the moderator who screens others) allow these comments? Probably not.
We could go through the entire article noting such infractions, illogical conclusions and emotional, charged language, but it would serve no purpose at this point, other than to emphasize that The Chronicle needs to screen it's publications in the future. The moderator needs to stop censoring and start editing.
Mr Jenkins did his institution, his colleagues, and himself a disservice in writing such an angry article. Next time he needs to vent, I hope he works out instead.