I love this guy; this is the paradigm leaders need to look to in the age of radical transparency and social media.

Rob, let me refer you to a couple of AAUP sites for clarification on academic freedom, grades, and “insubordination.” The AAUP national site is not easy to navigate (just google a search and it generally takes you there). One web site is a clear discussion of academic freedom, including grading.  On grading, it is the faculty’s purview, with certain professional responsibilties, and of course a provision for appeal.  But an administrator should not unilaterally change a grade–that is a violation: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/legal/topics/whogrades.htm  On insubordination, your instinct is right in that it is a term used to justify punishing those who disagree with administration.  The AAUP’s commitment to faculty’s academic freedom in this regard was recently strengthened during my time as general secretary, with the Speak up, Speak out campaign surrounding a series of court cases following Garcetti.http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/protectvoice/ On insubordination, see the following web site: faculty can be fired for cause (detailed here), and the use of insubordination is VERY narrow, and refers to failure to carry out professional obligations (e.g., to teach an assigned class), not at all like the usage being promoted in some institutions by some administrators. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/legal/topics/term-discp.htm  Hope this helps!

Hmmm. Examples, maybe–although mostly people wanted to quibble with the examples I gave of things that are NOT insubordination–but I didn’t see any definitions I would like to have to abide by. What definition of insubordination did you read in the comments that you thought was a good one?

Rob

Recognizing that I’m part of the problem, since I haven’t actually
proposed a definition of insubordination either, I humbly offer the following
as a starting point for discussion:

“Insubordination is a willful refusal to perform one’s core
duties as a faculty member or to follow duly constituted policy when not doing
so can negatively impact the core mission of the institution.”

Of course, the problem with any definition is that it always
contains words or phrases that are themselves open to definition. By way of
clarification, then, please note that:

1)     
“willful refusal” to do something is different
from simply failing to do it. Simply failing to perform one’s duties or to
follow a policy may at some point constitute incompetence, but it is not
insubordination by this definition.

2)     
“Duly constituted” means that a policy has been
approved by the appropriate faculty and administrative bodies, in accordance
with the guidelines of true shared governance.

3)     
This definition of insubordination as a fireable
offense does not cover policies that are minor or petty in nature and therefore have no real
impact on the institution’s mission.

In my experience as an administrator now and as a faculty member before, the issues (whether called insubordination or not) were never about research topics, teaching methods, writing, and other traditional academic duties.Here is a very specific example of something else:

Student evaluations. All full time faculty members would have one class per term selected, 2 terms a year (Fall and Spring), to have student evals performed. Instructors must initiate these in computer classrooms and traditional classrooms (they are out of the loop for online classes). This instructor only taught on ground. There are clear instructions about the timeline these must be handed to students, instructions for the students, and how/why these are used. I had an instructor who never even pulled these out of his mailbox for Fall term. The instructor was reminded after Fall term to perform these, asked which class he’d like/rather give them to, asked which prep he’d like/rather give them to, etc. It was made clear that I would only need one course for Spring, not Fall’s incomplete ones + Spring’s class. Basically, “just use the same packet and pick a Spring class” was what I told this instructor. Part of the annual eval includes at minimum the documentation and discussion of these. Schools like ours need and use this information as part of our documentation for regional accreditation, and this is part of the eval process of full time instructors since we do not have tenure. The process bleeds over into documenation our HR department and Office of Institutional Effectiveness require. In other words, there was no way to keep this within the department. This instructor was not new either, FYI. Instructor did not give these to students Spring term.

His failure to initiate his student evals for the academic year was called insubordination by the VP of Academic Affairs and by the HR Executive Director. I gave the instructor the equivalent of what most would call a “write up,” and this was documented in his end of year evaluation. Not under the portions covering instructional abilities or scholarly activity.

I have no personal examples of a faculty member being deemed insubordinate for his/her scholarly work or teaching methodologies, and I think that goes more to Rob’s point about insubordination relative to “faculty independence and authority.”

I appreciate the example, yellow1, as I always appreciate your insightful contributions to this blog. And yes, I would agree that the situation you describe constitutes insubordination. I believe it fits the definition I offered above.

To your last point, though, faculty members don’t actually have to be CHARGED with insubordination in order for their academic freedom to be infringed upon. When members of the administration have strongly suggested that you stop writing about certain topics, and suddenly the word “insubordination” is being bandied about on a regular basis, whereas you’ve hardly ever heard the word used in all your previous years in the profession—well, you just might get the message.

All of this is completely hypothetical, of course.

Rob

I agree. The word is tossed around in our arena, and it is troubling AND a bit puzzling. None of my friends and associates in the business arenas/private sectors have mentioned an increase in this area. It seems like many in higher ed want it run like a business, but only the portions they like! 

I am hoping someone has a good (which would be bad, I guess) example of when this has happened relative to faculty academic work and responsibilities. Unfortunately, I see at minimum more scrutiny being placed on the academic portions of faculty duty. I see at minimum more scrutiny being placed on measuring the value (another loaded word like insubordination) of that academic research and work.

These are interesting times.

I’d be surprised if you haven’t read “Fall of the Faculty” by Benjamin Ginsberg already – but if not, you should. Although he doesn’t deal directly with the insubordination/tenure issue – he does clearly show the trend towards administrative takeover of colleges and universities. Using insubordination to defeat tenure would just be another tool in the arsenal. My own observation derives in a big way from what Max Weber told us about bureaucracies. University Administrators constitute a bureaucratic unit – and, as Weber said, as such they seek to expand and consolidate their power. Unfortunately, since they control the purse strings they are better placed to exercise power than other units, such as faculty. Hence – where administrators used to be seen as ancillary personnel to carry out necessary tasks to support faculty and students – now they are seen (and see themselves) as commanders directing the operation. Obviously academic freedom and tenure are seen as obstacles to their freedom to command. So – they employ various strategies to undermine, redefine, and otherwise alter the academic structure to suit their vision of a top-down corporate model institution – where faculty are no more than paid technicians who can be hired and fired at will. The saddest thing is that more than a few faculty have bought into this model, or have simply rolled over and accepted it.

Interesting how institutions differ, which may mean either that insubordination must be defined and determined locally, or perhaps that the whole notion has very little meaning in higher education.   I know of a case within the past eight years at a large public R1 where a faculty member, tenured, refused to do student evaluations in his classes. His department head told him he had to, and the Dean of his college said that he had to and told department heads she and they had the authority to require faculty to do them.  The faculty member in question said that while they might require them be submitted along with things like RPT recommendations, they had no standing unilaterally w/o vote of the faculty to require tenured faculty or others who were not applying for RPT to do them in classes, any more than the dean or head had the authority to require a professor to call the role or otherwise take attendance in class.

The university then vice provost for faculty affairs, i.e. the “adjutant-general” as it were, and also a lawyer, told the college department heads that the dean (and therefore they) did NOT have the authority to order a faculty member to allow student evaluations in their classes. So clearly the professor’s refusal to obey an order the head and dean had no authority to give was not insubordination.

On the matter of grading and the AAUP, Gary Rhoades is right to refer you to AAUP docs. Your college can have a procedure whereby the student can appeal a grade, but that process should have been established with faculty participation, if not direction. The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (1966) establishes that areas such as curriculum, academic standards and such like are where faculty have “primary responsibility” for governance, to be overturned by administrators only rarely.

The AAUP’s 1994 statement On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom establishes their reciprocal relationship.

I guess I am also not wild about the word “insubordination”–seems applicable to a different context, unless you’re thinking about especially martial administrators.

[I hope I have quoted acceptably--see Lingua Franca above.]

OMG, you talk about self-serving administrators?  Everything that faculty do is about self-serving…keeping their full-time salaries for doing part-time work, not being held accountable for anything, always blaming administrators for everything in order to keep the focus off of themselves.  And all the bad guys are right-wing and/or Tea Party activists?  That statement right there identifies you as one of the uber liberal left wingnuts who have your own agenda.  Get a life.  Quit assuming you have a right to a job. 

I was recently invited to a Skype interview during my job search.  Much to my shock, I didn’t have the equipment.   I am a self-described gadget guru, and was more than embarrassed when I couldn’t immediately accept the interview.  I did a phone interview initially, was invited for a second interview.  I withdrew my application for personal reasons.  But now I am prepared!

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with a Skype interview, in this market, ANY opportunity that I can have to present my skills and experience it fine by me!  Honestly, I have been honing my Morse Code Telegraphy skills just in case!  .– …. .- - . …- . .-. /  .. - /  - .- -.- . …  yup I’m a nerd! paste it here to see what it says…http://morsecode.scphillips.com/jtranslator.html

Last October, we had a Virtual Job Summit, essentially an online job fair for graduate level scientists, using live video chat and video interviews.  Employers were really enthusiastic about it because they were able to meet candidates from many geographies.  Since finding a skills match can be difficult, the geographic extension was valuable.
Employers had five minute chats to answer questions and determine skills fit, then interviewed at length later to get an assessment of culture fit.  Clearly, employers aren’t going to hire without seeing candidates in person, but it worked well for outreach, greatly boosting their confidence in the people they then invested in for in-person interviews.
If you’re interested in learning more, you’ll find info on the biocareers.com site.

Absolutely the way to go. Going to AHA, MLA etc is wasteful, stressful and pointless. It is also immoral to expect broke applicants to pay @ $100 for a small possibility of a job…

It seems to me a key is layering and interpretation. Skype interviews are becoming the norm throughout the business world. A middle level manager for a professional baseball team recently told me that his very traditional management team has recently started Skype interviews for staff positions throughout their farm system. The layering is that Skype interviews are but one part of the process. As phone interviews, references, pre screening profiles and skill assessments, etc. give a “picture” of the candidate [pun intended] you create a richer communication medium with Skype interviews allowing you to see reactions. You can gain greater confidence in culling the field to who comes to campus with webcam interviews.
At issue, however, is the interpretation of the visuals. The camera reveals but it also lies. Video interview presentation capabilities are not something that many seasoned, upper management types have developed. The camera exaggerates movements and exemplifies facial expressions that can easily be misinterpreted. Something as simple as the misplacement of a camera that appears to “violate” personal space dictums or a lighting issue can be read negatively. I coached an interviewee before a Skype interview for a professional job she applied for. The practice session revealed her animated movements in the camera’s field made her appear as if she suffered from an untreated hyperactivity. The savvy communicators on the hiring committee need to use the technology for its positive input without over reacting or over interpreting what is gleaned from the new technology. You don’t want to hire someone who is good on camera but not in person.  

As science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon pointed out, defending science fiction from the charge that it was “crud” (gentler times, the fifties, at least in terms of printed words), “Ninety percent of everything is crud.”

Sandy Thatcher makes a very good point; that excuse rings hollow until you see what astronomical sums some copyright owners demand for permission to reprint.

Oh, well, to quote a poet condemned for his sentimentality, “Nor for philosophy does this rose give a damn.” (But I fail to discern the emotional wallowing in “There is some shit I will not eat.” Just a poor reader, I suppose.)

The best judges of 20th Century poetry are yet to come.