We are reacting, individually and collectively, to yet another tragic act of campus violence. On February 12, Amy Bishop, a Harvard-educated assistant professor of biological sciences, allegedly opened fire during a biology department meeting at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, killing three of her faculty colleagues and wounding two other professors and a staff member. While Bishop had been denied tenure the previous academic year, university officials have refrained from speculating on a motive for the killings.
This tragedy is unusual in two respects: the role and gender of the alleged perpetrator. Past violent actors on campuses have typically been male students, often older than their peers. Only two months ago, a 46-year-old graduate student at Binghamton University allegedly stabbed his dissertation adviser to death on that campus. In 2002, a 41-year-old male student killed three nursing professors at the University of Arizona. For an earlier violent act at a campus meeting, we can look back to 1996, when a graduate student at San Diego State University killed the three members of his thesis advisory committee. Each of those students had experienced a significant academic failure. They killed for purposes of revenge, a motive that may eventually be ascribed to the Huntsville shootings.
Does this latest tragedy suggest any lessons for those of us who work in higher education? We should draw no inference that the University of Alabama at Huntsville was deficient in any respect. The facts are sketchy and, as with any rare event, we want to avoid overreacting. This is, however, an opportune moment to examine certain campus practices. Colleges should take a fresh look at their threat-assessment procedures, mental-health resources for faculty and staff members, and assistance to candidates denied tenure. Those are key areas in which good practices might help avert other violent acts.
Threat-assessment procedures. Since the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, many institutions have formed campus threat-assessment teams. Such crossfunctional groups include representatives from areas including public safety, counseling, and student affairs. Many people who commit violence give warning signs in advance, which the threat-assessment team can evaluate. Yet some committees deal only with potentially disturbed students; they do not examine behaviors of faculty members, staff members, and visitors. The Huntsville tragedy provides a grim reminder that people who are not students may pose threats. If your campus threat-assessment team does not review situations involving nonstudents, consider expanding the scope of its responsibilities.
Mental-health resources. Today most faculty members are prepared to walk a student who is experiencing apparent psychological distress over to the counseling center. Most centers reserve appointment times for immediate consultations. But what of a faculty member exhibiting unusual behavior or apparent distress? Intervening and finding help are more difficult than with a student. Fewer resources are available for assistance with faculty and staff mental-health issues, and we have a high tolerance for erratic behavior.
The shootings last year at Fort Hood, a U.S. Army base in Texas, illustrate the problem of excessive tolerance. Nidal Hasan, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others in a mass shooting inside an Army building on November 5. His supervisors and fellow psychiatrists had found his past behavior unusual and unprofessional. It came to light in the aftermath of the shootings that they had never referred him for a psychiatric evaluation. In that respect, the psychiatrists may not have been providing good role models for the rest of us.
You should inquire whether your campus counseling center will consult informally about erratic behavior of faculty and staff members. Public-safety staff often have experience with assessing potential threats of violence. An institution may have an employee-assistance program that can suggest other resources. As a general matter, you should keep the focus on the person's behavior and its impact on his or her professional performance and avoid speculating about the causes of erratic behavior or medical diagnoses. When you become seriously troubled about a colleague's behavior, trust your instincts and consult with appropriate professionals.
While rarely used in higher education, one option can be a "fitness for duty" medical examination for the person. The college may select the medical professional to conduct the examination, and it defrays the costs. Check with legal counsel on the requirements of disability-rights laws, which do allow for that type of examination.
Assistance to candidates denied tenure. What happens to faculty members whose tenure applications are denied? The minimalist approach is to send a letter thanking them for past service, offering them a terminal one-year appointment, and wishing them well in their future endeavors. That does little, however, to ease the profound disappointment. Institutions can take many positive steps to help the person transition to a position elsewhere. Consider, for example, these options:
- A meeting with the provost as soon as possible after the tenure decision. The provost can outline for a departing faculty member the resources available to assist with career planning and placement.
- Networking by the department chair and other senior faculty members to learn about positions available elsewhere and to recommend the person for those other jobs.
- Support for conference attendance, travel, subscriptions, photocopying, and other expenses helpful in finding positions. That is a good investment, even in an era of declining resources.
- Release time, if the candidate desires it. Document that the arrangement is by mutual consent, lest the person later contend that the reduction in duties was unfair.
- Portable research support. Occasionally institutions make grants to faculty members who are denied tenure that they can take to their next positions. Such financial support shows the value the institution placed on the person and enhances her attractiveness for a new position.
Discuss with departing faculty members what types of assistance would best fit their circumstances. There is no "one size fits all" in facilitating the transition. Work to show them that you care about their well-being.
Finally, continue to make honest and prompt professional judgments about colleagues. Provide candid evaluations, including suggestions for needed improvement. Do not sugarcoat reviews—for example, calling someone's work "good" when it is not. Once you conclude that a tenure-track professor will not satisfy your institution's standards, do not delay the inevitable. Rather than wait until the tenure decision, do not renew the appointment. Early action is fairer to both the faculty member and the institution.
While life comes with no guarantees, fortunately, campus violence remains rare. Still, it is best to be as prepared as possible and have in place the appropriate policies and procedures for dealing with tenure denial and faculty members or others who might present threats to your institution.
Comments
1. doriemunson - February 15, 2010 at 04:40 pm
Thanks Ms. Franke...your ideas about support for faculty denied tenure support the need for compassion in all human interactions.
2. bstevens - February 15, 2010 at 04:42 pm
Well, first of all, tenure has been built up way too much. It is approached as though one cannot have a career at all if one doesn't get tenure. So step one is to reduce the pressure by creating other professional paths that are just as valid and reaffirming, but without the very artificial aura that has been created around this magical, mystical, once-in-a-lifetime chance at permanent redemption called tenure. When so much "help" is needed just because someone doesn't get tenure, isn't that a clue that something is broken with the system?
3. tjhavens - February 15, 2010 at 05:02 pm
I appreciate all of these suggestions very much. Facvulty denied tenure get far too little support, far too late. I would also suggest bringing back faculty who were denied tenure at the institituion in prior years for a symposium where they can reflect on the ways in which being denied tenure was and wasn't the big deal it is made out to be. This might assist the second commentor's point about reducing aura of tenure.
4. sophox - February 15, 2010 at 05:05 pm
Who rushed this incredibly obvious, do-nothing article to press? The advice is an incredibly trite rehash of things we all know.
But by printing this thing, you have perpetuated the erroneous belief that an extremely isolated incident warrants attention.
Where are the articles saying, "Hey, let it go. One nutjob hasn't changed our lives one little bit" ?
5. tamburri - February 15, 2010 at 05:13 pm
i surely agree that more needs to be done to reassess the entire notion of tenure, its value and the fact that a faculty member cannot stay on because s/he was not granted tenure. tenure is, by nature, a subjective process, first of all. then, of course, the fact that a tenured faculty member can stick around as long as s/he wishes is the flip-side problem to this coin, as is also the fact that one cannot lose tenure. at one place i taught, a colleague received a sabbatical because he waited it out. he then went on to do house repairs... what we first need to do is (1) have better assessments at 3rd-year reviews, and (2) instill a post-tenure review that has some teeth to it. in the meantime, we should reconsider keeping those who, for whatever reason, are not granted tenure.
6. princeton67 - February 15, 2010 at 05:17 pm
The flaw lies in these people, not in the precipitating incident. Even if Dr. Bishop had been granted tenure, she might have murdered when not promoted to full professor, or to department chair. For all we know, had she not received the Alabama appointment, she might've killed someone. Now, questions are being raised about the her shooting her brother years ago. Similarly - in that the incident cannot be solely blamed - the SDSU student, had he received his master's degree, might have killed if his doctoral dissertation were rejected.
Thousands of scholars are denied tenure, or rejected for a degree, but only a handful immediately kill. Academia is filled with personal disappointments and perceived failures: no one can be insulated from them. The mature move on; the immature, blame others, even to the point of harm.
7. maddie2515 - February 15, 2010 at 05:18 pm
Shouldn't tenure be somewhat predictable when the newly hired assistant is hired? If background checks, previous work performance has any merit, shouldn't tenure be somewhat assured in the candidate? Or are universities hiring those that are in an inner circle, or from an elite university, e.g., Harvard, and believe that there is no way this candidate can miss and are caught off-guard when Harvard University has produced a non-producer? I keep reading Harvard, and keep thinking, why is Harvard important in this story?
8. billcrayon - February 15, 2010 at 05:24 pm
What to do when a person was tenured more than two decades ago under a different administration and clearly is mentally unstable years down the road? Moreover, what to do when the person's work had declined greatly and is unbefitting a tenured person? How long can that person "hide" behind tenure and what can other faculty do with the mentally unstable and professionally unproductive person?
9. maddie2515 - February 15, 2010 at 05:30 pm
The Tenure Fiefdom of many academics is paraded around to untenured faculty, with the post script, "I got mine; you need to do whatever we ask to get yours". I had one tenured faculty member tell me the first day I arrived, "I am glad I'm not in your shoes, because you have to go through me to get where I am". This professor had not written anything in over 25 years, but he controlled my future? Something is wrong with this picture.
10. 11283908 - February 15, 2010 at 05:48 pm
I would like to set the record straight once again (I wrote a letter to the Chronicle 13 years ago on the same subject)that the killer (Fred Davidson) of three faculty members at San Diego State University in 1996 had not suffered a "significant academic failure". The murders took place during a MS thesis defense in which a positive outcome was expected. Mr. Davidson was an older student, probably mentally unstable, who never spoke about his motives. At the time of the murders several articles appeared about the stress of graduate study-I see similar parallels here with respect to the tenure sysrem.
11. ms_annie - February 15, 2010 at 06:01 pm
With all due respect, this article is missing the big points.
1. No need for political correctness when it mires the waters. This statement: "Only two months ago, a 46-year-old graduate student at Binghamton University allegedly stabbed his dissertation adviser to death on that campus." says NOTHING about the murderer being a muslim and the victim, volunteer prof being jewish. These facts aren't minor details. They should not be left out.
2. A search for the word "sexism" on this page turns up nothing, not even in the comments. A female professor going on a killing spree had to happen sooner or later. Sexism, boys' clubs, harrassment, criteria based on gender in favor of men is RAMPANT on campus as is the oppression female students have to face, which women professors witness, often helplessly. Let us not factor out the battles Ms. Bishop may have gone through to get any recognition whatsoever. We know women need to do 10x more than men to be perceived as 50% of what men are worth.
3. Was there some "mobbing" taking place? Could Amy Bishop have been the victim of mobbing? See Ken Westhues excellent site and books for info on the savagery we call academia:
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/mobbing.htm
4. Amy Bishop deserves a fair trial. I've already seen far too much in print tainting her image negatively: ratemyprofessor.com remarks (0 credibility), mentions of crimes FOR WHICH SHE HAS BEEN FOUND INNOCENT, immature remarks by students about Bishop's personality rather than any substantial info, etc. - all to add more logs to what is beginning to feel like a witch burning.
Bishop was horribly wrong and in no way do I condone her actions. I do think, however, that she deserves a fair trial. I also think if academia doesn't want to see more violence by women, there had better be far greater attempts to treat women fairly.
12. 12074406 - February 15, 2010 at 07:55 pm
There are a great many good suggestions that are continuing to surface in the wake of this horrible, unspeakable trajedy.
Dr. Frank, Maddie, BillCrayon all make extremely valid suggestions; Comments 3, 4, and 5 raise the concept that why is employment in higher ed an all or nothing game? Why CAN'T there be employment in higher ed without tenure (and not be paid the pittance that affiliate faculty are - but that's a different debate all together)? Why CAN'T there be faculty who focus more on research or education - rather than trying to be all things to all people? The employment system within higher education needs reform.
I hope that while we all grieve for the victims and the children of the alledged assailant, we can take this opportunity to at least listen to the ideas and personal stories that are starting to pour forth.
Yes, rational people would accept the blow of tenure denial and move on. No - no one said life is fair... these are certainly valid points that many have made on CHE boards in response to the situation.
HOWEVER, there are interesting stories coming forward - all too many of them with similar themes: the broken hiring, tenure and promotion system within the fraternity of Higher Ed; the discriminatory practices that take place (and yet go unreported out of fear); the star chamber-like mentality of the various processes; the lack of performance of SOME tenured faculty; the hazing-like mentality of some hiring/promotion committees.
Why can we not find common ground here: The crime was horrid. But can we not also look beyond the foreground to start asking significant questions of the out-of-control, high stakes culture in academia? There are just too many personal being told (and perhaps being retold) to ignore anymore.
13. 22122488 - February 15, 2010 at 07:56 pm
Departments should do a better job in the early identification of colleagues who are unlikely to succeed in the tenure review process. One way of avoiding the grief that comes with a denial of tenure is to make the 3rd year tenure track evaluation a much more effective means for early - and relatively painless - separation. The College and the department must also make sure that the Tenure Criteria/expectations are clear and explicit. But we in higher education should also be more clear on how we interpret the situation when a colleague fails to obtain tenure. It means that the matching between what the university/department needs is not met by what the candidate offers. This mismatch should not be a seen as a reflection of the quality of the candidate. It means that what he/she offers is not what the college looks for. Furthermore qualities that are ignored by one university (say in teaching) may be of paramount importance in other colleges. A candidate who may have been denied tenure in one college may turn out to be a shining star in academic/pedagogical success in another college. We have to remove the stigma that often comes with the denial of tenure and remind our colleagues that if they truly feel that they belong in academia they will endure a denial of tenure and finally find a home that appreciates what they offer.
14. 12074406 - February 15, 2010 at 09:10 pm
AMEN! to that. Good thoughts 22122488.
15. raymond_j_ritchie - February 15, 2010 at 10:30 pm
The tenure track trial by ordeal drives people mad. It is a good thing that most academic employment is now contract-based. What is so wrong with 5-year renewable contracts? Tenure should be quietly allowed to become extinct.
Anne Franke makes some good points. She does not mention of course that universities today are not good employers for most of their staff. Of course, academics denied tenure should be given some assistance, grant transfer should be possible and they should at least be given severance pay. If their teaching is satisfactory, why not give them a 2-year teaching contract to give them some time to find a new job? Petty viciousness like being sent photocopying bills when you have gone to work in another country do not help the poor image of universities as employers.
16. 11132507 - February 16, 2010 at 07:23 am
What's called denial of tenure in academe is called "I lost my job and now I have to look for a new one" in the rest of the labor force. Anyone read a newspaper or watch the news lately? You wonder why the average American considers the academic world to be out of touch with reality?
This does not call for a new approach to anything on anyone's campus, this was a nutjob who had, as all Americans do, way too easy a time getting her hands on a gun.
17. rab1960 - February 16, 2010 at 07:32 am
princeton 67 said it best: "The mature move on..." What is it about academics that makes us think we can fix all the wrongs in the world. Rejection happens in all aspects of life - not just tenure proceedings.
18. cbrownsyed - February 16, 2010 at 08:25 am
A few thoughts:
This discussion presumes that all the "erratic behavior" would be exhibited by those junior faculty going through the six-year probation period. This is a naive assumption. Upon rare occasions, senior faculty have been known to act irrationally, vindictively, or politically, rather than dispassionately, logically, scientifically, and for the greater good of the university. Humans are humans.
What would it take to make the campus safe? Perhaps all faculty, junior and senior, could be subject to mandatory annual psych exams and lie-detector tests. Perhaps metal detectors could be placed at all the doors. How long could 'faculty governance', 'academic freedom', the spirit of inquiry, and all the other cherished concepts of academia survive under such siege conditions?
For all its failings, the tenure process is important precisely because of what rab1960 said. In other occupations, tenure denial just means 'I lost my job'. In academia, one's job must be protected, for the advancement of science, and because unlike other professions, one's job as an academic often involves raising unpleasant questions about one's employer - that is, about society.
19. hmprescott63 - February 16, 2010 at 08:35 am
I'm someone who developed a mental illness after tenure and promotion to full professor and because I have excellent health insurance was treated in a timely fashion and fully recovered. This involved taking an extended medical leave during the middle of the semester. My colleagues saw me at my worst and were compassionate and professional enough to support me and cover my classes while I was on leave.
One thing that stands out for me in this article is the observation that there are fewer resources for faculty and staff than for students. To that I would add the stigma associated with mental illness. I was protected by tenure so I did not feel uncomfortable about seeking help. I wonder if an untenured faculty member or adjunct would feel the same way.
20. bardprof - February 16, 2010 at 09:54 am
Thanks hmprescott63 for bringing this up; that part of the essay struck me as well. I think we should be concerned for the mental health of our colleagues even if we don't think they will commit violence. They are in pain and can inadvertently traumatize the students. There are very few resources available for faculty and I think this is in part for fear of lawsuits as well as a high tolerence for "eccentricity." The problem is even more acute when it comes to jr faculty who would, quite rightly, fear for their future.
It is very difficult to get help for faculty, particularly if they don't recognize that their condition is deteriorating. I know of a case where a large number of faculty contacted the chair, faculty support, etc and nothing really could be done because the person didn't accept that there was a problem (as I suspect Prof. Bishop wouldn't).
21. bnmoore - February 16, 2010 at 10:04 am
Get rid of tenure--it's time, for a great many reasons. I work at a mid-size university that has no tenure and our profs are as good or better than anyone has, anywhere. To a person they have degrees from very notable universities here and overseas, the students we graduate are high achievers, and the university remains basically debt free. It's a myth that a university cannot get great teaching applications or retain top academics and researchers without tenure being offered. Tenure is utter nonsense in the 21st century. All in all, tenure is just no longer needed.
22. sdryer - February 16, 2010 at 10:06 am
Ms Annie writes, "Let us not factor out the battles Ms. Bishop may have gone through to get any recognition whatsoever."
PK find. Let's not factor it our. How would you propose to factor it in? Because it better not be something that basically says that women are justified in blowing people away when they face dissapointment because men are mean.
23. pschuler - February 16, 2010 at 10:50 am
I agree with many of the comments and statements made here - about needing to have better assessments and support for those denied tenure and a call for change to eradicate racism/sexism and all other mob-like behavior that creates hostile environments (which by the way is not lost on students who will immitate and carry on the behavior with their limited maturity).
But one other thing that has not been mentioned enough is how our culture still stigmatizes mental illness in such a way as to create barriers for all people getting support they need. Getting counseling is so readily available to most people and it is an extremely overlooked resource. We think there must be something "wrong" for anyone who gets help instead of acknowledging that in very stressful environments - getting support and assistance ought to be the FIRST thing anyone does. It is healthy, rational and leads to an overall better environment. The barrier is that those who need help will avoid it because of the perception that they are "vulnerable" or needy - which will increase the negative perception of their reputation even further.
All fear based environments eventually lead to violence and destruction - shouldn't academic professionals have "gotten this" by now!
It can be said in all rare cases of extreme violence that those committing these acts are in need of much more help than perhaps those who are able to move on - but that isn't a reason to ignore the responsibility we all have to keep our environments safe.
How do you know how "at risk" someone is for violence? Well - with assessment and counseling. Why not make this a regularly used resource and postive part of our culture?
It is time we stop rewarding "top dog" and predatory type behavior in all workplaces. It leads to destruction. We all know that people who feel desperate are more likely to do desperate things - so we have a responsibility to avoid creating desperate situations if we want a safe environment.
24. coachhillary - February 16, 2010 at 10:54 am
Denial of tenure may have been the "trigger" that set a mentally unstable Amy Bishop off, but there is no denying the stress produced by the tenure process for junior faculty. Some universities are now providing coaching services for junior faculty to help them get through the process, and a few are using coaches to help them see that there are other professional options for faculty denied tenure. While an academic coach may not have helped in this situation, it is one additonal positive offering a department or school can make.
25. wisernow - February 16, 2010 at 11:09 am
Amazing how the anti-tenure trolls use any problem in academe to tell us they know better. Makes you wonder who they are.
26. the_book123 - February 16, 2010 at 01:47 pm
To Miss_Annie, # 11 ratemyprofessor.com is the most horrible web site someone cruel created for uruly, irresponsible and poor-performing students. These students use RATEMYPROFESSOR.COM to intimidate professors. Unfortunately, some trash institutions believe in dubious student ratings. In those good old days, who are you to "rate or evaluate" your professors? This one reason why the quality of teaching and learning will continue to depreciate as professors become more democratic in class.
The current tenure incidence is clearly a wake up call for academic institutions to reexamine the degenerating dubious tenure systems.
27. eyeswideopen - February 16, 2010 at 04:48 pm
The tenure process is simply socialization, to ensure that the candidate can affirm academia's system of domination and submission. It is no different than the socialization of our children at K-12 institutions, of capitalist clones in the corporate workplace, or of young potential killers in bootcamp. The reason I suspect so many of us have such a difficult time with it is that we really can't get behind the system of values it represents. Of course, we non-believers aren't the ones who are upset when we don't get into "heaven". The tragedy of the system in my mind is that those most susceptible to the dubious value system are those most devastated when they are rejected.
28. lucianicus - February 16, 2010 at 07:32 pm
Agree with you eyeswideopen, I add: you reap the world you create. Those of us working in Universities every day must do the changing. And: dogs are submissive to the point they no longer need you.
29. boncoeur - February 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm
"The mature ones move on..." So, now, who is being mature here? What do you mean by mature? If I am responsible, clear-thinking, productive in publishing and teaching--yet, I show the deep pain that occurs when, after pouring so much into an institution, they simply send the thin envelope...am I immature then? There is something wrong with a nation that cannot accept that pain, sorrow, and grief are as "mature" as any other human trait, and often more so. There are different personality types. Duh. Leave your judging discriminating voice and mind at the door, please. Yes, some grieve a loss more openly than others do. Good or bad? Neither. I takes my losses pretty damn deeply. I'm hardly immature for doing so. Sometimes feeling losses deeply goes hand in hand with something called sensitivity. Ever heard of it?
30. johntoradze - February 17, 2010 at 11:34 am
Amazing! An article purporting to be about how to deal with problems, and no mention anywhere of adjucating misconduct and other complaints fairly!
Most univerisities have huge backlogs of complaints, which they conveniently lose, whitewash and use to stigmatize those who bring them. Having read quite a few, I can say with certainty that the vast majority are not frivolous or brought for revenge.
These matters fester. The wonder is not that someone gets shot from time to time. The wonder is that far more shootings don't happen.
I think most people in academia understand this, and that is why there is a tendency to take Amy's side.
31. dead_professor - February 17, 2010 at 02:06 pm
Of the suggestions to help denied candidates, the first two (meeting with the provost, networking by department chair) are laughable, though the others are good, if they were implemented.
What Ms. Franke fails to realize is that a denial ONLY comes about when some confluence of the committees or departments very clearly and conivincingly persuade themselve that the candidate is profoundly unqualified in some way. They realize the importance of being denied, and they will always get to a point where they can rationalize (to themselves) that they did the right and noble thing.
Anyone who has gone through a denial can tell you that it causes you to lose trust in the ENTIRE institution and to begin to suspect everyone, even those who claimed to be supporting you. The denied candidate is in an extremely damaged and inferior position, basically at the whim of the institution. Any "help" that might be offered to the one denied has to clearly overcome that barrier. For instance, I was devatated in my second denial and frankly had (fleeting) suicidal thoughts. Our college had a standard counseling offering but I felt I could not trust that it would really be confidential.
An example of what might work is if the university had made arrangements for a clearly *independent*, free, and untracebale counseling service, some candidates might avail themselves of it. But you've really got to convince that person who's just had their career trashed in front of them that it really is independent and confidential. I discuss this more at
http://deadprofessor.blogspot.com/2010/02/positive-suggestion-about-tenure-denial.html
What good is talking to the provost, if there are no concrete positive actions the provost can offer the one denied? You have to understand, no amount of consoling from those who took this action is going to help. That is just more of the "Cooling off of the mark."
The only way a department chair is going to be of help is if they championed you the whole way and went down with you in the fire, fighting all the way. Otherwise they are in a ridiculous position of recommending to another institution someone they themselves found profoundly incomptent in some area.
32. dead_professor - February 17, 2010 at 02:13 pm
"What's called denial of tenure in academe is called "I lost my job and now I have to look for a new one" in the rest of the labor force. Anyone read a newspaper or watch the news lately? You wonder why the average American considers the academic world to be out of touch with reality?"
No, it's not like that. The length of time involved in the process--usually at least six years--and the fact that it is presented to the candidate as a deep, careful, reasoned judgement from one's peers, this makes it not like other common stress events in one's life, like death of a loved one, or losing a job or having a business fail. All those other events have elements of outside randomness to them. You or someone else can at least possibly rationalize that there was (at least partially) nothing that could have been done about the situation. But I have been through two denials and I know that the committees always make their absolute best effort to present it to you as a careful, dispassionate, expert judgement of your entire career. And you are found wanting. The ENTIRE thing is all you, all your fault. I don't mean that that IS true, but that is how the administrators and faculty members make it out to you.
And that is how others in academia understand it. This was not a question of a job going away or a business failing. You were looked at very carefully by many (supposedly) highly expert and senior people in your own field and found profoundly incompetent. That last part almost always is the way it shakes out because the committees and others involve, knowing the importance of the decision, always, always pile it on once they make the binary decision. They never come back to the candidate and say -- oh you JUST barely did not make it!
33. pclo99 - February 17, 2010 at 05:50 pm
..wonder if professors who are denied tenure shouldn't get to take their research grants to another university -or do they? What would have happened to the 250K grant Dr. Bishop is said to have obtained?
34. rom2323 - February 25, 2010 at 09:01 pm
The article states: "We should draw no inference that the University of Alabama at Huntsville was deficient in any respect."
No inference in one case, perhaps. But what of the entire list of violent incidents the author describes? Are we to draw no inference from all these cases other than the university should engage in "Threat Assessment?" How deliciously absurd. I give the author a grade of "F" for this nonsense. There is something terribly terribly wrong with a university training and advancement system that leads so many of these "best and brightest" individuals to conclude they have been wronged, and that they have no other choice than to express their outrage through violence. Transparency, accountability, and good judgment are missing in all too many cases. Those who make advancement decisions have become accustomed to its pathology, are too ready to excuse its weaknesses, and to willing justify their own mistakes, failures, and bullying behaviors as unavoidable. Why doesn't the Chronicle undertake a reassessment of these failures?