John W. Swails, one of three faculty members who sued Oral Roberts University for wrongful termination, was reinstated last Thursday, Tom Bartlett reports on The Chronicle’s News Blog. Barlett also notes that I.V. Hilliard, a co-founder of a church in Texas, and Benny Hinn, a televangelist, resigned from ORU’s Board of Regents last week. Read more.
The U.S. Department of Labor has ordered Florida A&M University to reimburse 352 employees who were underpaid by a total of $273,000 because the university failed to accurately tally their overtime work, Lawrence Biemiller writes elsewhere on the News Blog. Read more.
Biemiller also reports that Texas Southern University’s governing board has unanimously picked John Rudley, interim president of the University of Houston, as the only finalist for the job of TSU president.
Meanwhile, on Chronicle Careers, Dennis M. Barden, senior vice president and director of the higher-education practice at the executive-search firm Witt/Kieffer, explains that while there’s no way for hirers to ensure that they’re getting reliable information from references, there are ways to reduce the risk of getting burned. Read more.
-
George David Clark
is a Ph.D. candidate in English at Texas Tech University. He is also a fellow in creative writing at Colgate University. He will defend his dissertation this spring.
Read David's On Hiring entries -
David Evans
is vice president for academic affairs and dean of the faculty at Buena Vista University, in Iowa.
Read David's On Hiring entries -
Gene Fant
is vice president for academic administration at Union University, in Jackson, Tenn.
Read Gene's On Hiring entries -
Isaac Sweeney
is an assistant professor of English at Richard Bland College, a two-year institution in Virginia.
Read Isaac's On Hiring entries -
Rob Jenkins
is an associate professor of English at Georgia Perimeter College.
Read Rob's On Hiring entries -
Katharine Stewart
is a professor and associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences' College of Public Health.
Read Katharine's On Hiring entries -
Audrey Williams June
is a staff writer who covers the academic workplace.
Read Audrey's On Hiring entries -
Eliana Osborn
has been an adjunct instructor at Arizona Western College since 2001, teaching mostly developmental English.
Read Eliana's On Hiring entries -
Julie White
is assistant director of student services and an adjunct instructor of sociology at Monroe Community College in New York.
Read Julie's On Hiring entries -
Allison M. Vaillancourt
is vice president for human resources at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.
Read Allison's On Hiring entries
About This Blog
Posts on On Hiring present the views of their authors. They do not represent the position of the editors, nor does posting here imply any endorsement by The Chronicle.
On Hiring Bloggers
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
RSS
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader: SUBSCRIBE
Contact Us
Want to be a guest poster at On Hiring? Send your suggestion to onhiring@chronicle.com.
12 Responses to In Brief
missoularedhead - July 1, 2011 at 6:46 pm
The problem with casting this in political terms is that any such ‘defense’ will immediately be seen as part of the ‘liberal’ agenda. I am not sure when critical thinking became ‘liberal’ and bashing the humanities and social sciences became ‘conservative’, but this trend troubles me greatly.
Furthermore, how do we break the mold of ‘all academics/intellectuals are liberal’? I think that’s the first step. As much as I dislike the idea, we need to find the most conservative talking heads we can (and by conservative, I mean those recognized by Fox News et al., as conservative) and have them make the case for why critical thinking matters.
Anyone know anyone?
7738373863 - July 5, 2011 at 10:07 am
Professor Brown’s last paragraph takes us back to V. I. Lenin asking, in 1902, “what is to be done?” (chto delat?). I’m as left as they come, but Russia’s been there, done that. What was done was to create an interim bureaucracy of the proletariat that turned one way of thinking into one way of doing, crushing any and all dissent along the way.
I think missoularedhead misses one important point. Much of the far right does not know very much about higher education, having barely or never completed an undergraduate degree. In general, this part of the political spectrum is about privileging the very pieties, its own or otherwise, over thinking of any ilk, let alone critical thinking. So I think it’s time to play the intellectual’s version of smash-mouth: challenge critics of the humanities and social sciences to build a better curriculum, then explain why it is neither durable nor even practical in the fast-moving employment market of the twenty-first century, while a curriculum that helps develop critical thinking skills is..
sheryljoy - July 5, 2011 at 10:32 am
I would suggest that education be grounded as a philosophical enterprise, which certainly places the humanities and social sciences at the core. The existential question of “how one should live” is the centerpiece of the human condition, I think, so all human beings have an investment in considering their lives philosophically (regardless of one’s political stance). Whether one’s ultimate concerns for education of self or others has to do with job-training or academic development, having a conscious awareness of self as a philosophical being generates a greater capacity for reflective and critical thinking — in terms of responsibility to self and as an engaged member of community. How to bring “the notion of a ‘core education’” in the humanities and social sciences back to the masses? I think this has to start in early childhood education, with a curriculum rooted in philosophical teaching and learning centering on dialogue (relative to stories, art, music, life-skills, relationships, etc.). We must talk to, talk with and listen to one another (not necessarily agree) in order to strengthen a genuinely democratic (not capitalistic) way of life. How about a little less focus on technology in the classroom and more genuine face-to-face discussion and interaction? In my view, a philosophical construct, streaming through all levels and categories of education, would place the humanities and social sciences at the core without denying or minimizing other academic disciplines or even job training. A philosophical approach to living, learning and working could serve to wake us up to our common humanity.
johnbarnes - July 5, 2011 at 10:43 am
Lots, but they tend to be quiet by nature. Conservative scholars at universities are something like a vegan relative at a barbecue: enjoying the company more than you’d think but not anxious to get into conversations about what’s on their plate.
It should also be noted — and I say this as a lifelong socialist — that quite a lot of uncritical nonthinking on university campuses does come from people who are poltically liberal (perhaps because that’s who is available to uncritically nonthink and there’s a built in background level of it — built in very likely by the fact that students of any political stripe are not necessarily fond of thinking.)
sand6432 - July 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Perhaps the proper response is to challenge the right’s notion of what utilitarianism here dictates. It may well be that the right simply has too crabbed and restricted an idea of what economic value is, and that a more expansive understanding of it would incorporate a liberal arts education as a vital component of any education that will actually advance the overall economic welfare of the country as a whole. The right appears to think in terms of short-term goals, with education related to existing job categories and functions, without taking a longer view of economic change in which “creative destruction” plays a vital role, as Schumpeter pointed out. The jobs of tomorrow are likely to require more of the creativity and flexibility that a liberal arts education helps to foster. The trick, of course, is to devise some ways of testing and quantifying these hypotheses about the value of such an education. The right is all about numbers, and for short-term purposes they have the numbers while defenders of liberal arts do not.—Sandy Thatcher
cwm4c - July 5, 2011 at 12:29 pm
We do ourselves a major disservice by claiming as you do, “Much of the far right does not know very much about higher education, having barely or never completed an undergraduate degree.”
My students over the years have been roughly equal (anecdotal, yes) on the political sides of the spectrum, and there is no evidence to show this claim. In fact making the claim itself, prevents our ability to have an educated discussion with either side.
7738373863 - July 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I said “much of the _far_ right.” Granted, there are those such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, but then again there are Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove. Frankly, I”d challenge the lot of them. Ideology is not the same as political persuasion. I myself took classes with some wonderful conservative professors, such as Allan Bloom and Clinton Rossiter.
jrodenbeck - July 6, 2011 at 11:55 am
I thank Professor Brown, first of all, for having used clear, concise, and historically correct language. It is not “conservatives” we are dealing with, but fanatic neo-liberals who have consciously mixed politics with what they think of as religion.
A great part of the American public, as Henry James once observed, “fairly goes upon its knees to be humbuggingly humbugged.” The USA is surely the only country in the world where millions of people are actively convinced —with plenty of help from Hollywood—that if you believe anything strongly enough, it must be so; and that in any case scientific truth itself can easily be decided by a quick popular vote.
Personally, I doubt that the liberal arts in America can now be saved. What Tocqueville feared for our culture 150 years ago has come to pass. It should additionally be noted that millions of the neo-liberal believers—-of whom Ronald Reagan acknowledged himself as one—see their own destructiveness as part of the Last Days, when the rest of us are left behind on a dead planet while they are rapt bodily to Heaven.
trendisnotdestiny - July 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Good point missoula,
There are plenty on the left that have succumbed to the Neoliberal experiment. Casting it in binaries obscures the process of how the financialization of our lives was achieved. The American left (as Chris Hedges has written about) has utterly failed and mimicked a republican-lite strategy to attract money and power.
But I thank Michael Brown for his attention to this important matter.
debokey - July 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm
While politicians have been quick to seize the advantage, we cannot blame the mess this culture is in on politics. We have allowed the academy to become “job training” by allowing administrators to set the agenda. The culture as a whole as embraced technology without looking at the human cost, not only in jobs, but in the human soul. At the risk of committing post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, I can’t help but notice that the increasing sense of isolation and lack of care and consideration for each other has grown alongside technology. When two people are sitting at a table and each is talking to someone else on a cell phone or, worse yet, texting someone else, it is a sign that direct human interaction is not valued as much as the toys we use. We are a cold, uncaring society, and I think we should consider whether that is partially due to embracing cold technology instead of each other.
One somewhat off-the-topic political comment. Conservatives are fond of saying no one “gets a free lunch.” Yet they are the people who, despite having a considerable amount of money, expect a free lunch when it comes to education, infrastructure maintenance, police protection, fire protection, and virtually anything supplied by governmental bodies. Sure, I would rather not pay taxes. but I know that NOTHING is free. I want someone the press can keep an eye on to handle the important areas of life, and that definitely isn’t the American corporate system. I make a decent income, and I expect to pay my share for what I get from my federal, state, and local governments.
Also, if the private sector is so great and can do government’s job better, where is it? I may have become a conservative if the private sector had stepped up in these difficult economic times. Instead, they’ve just added to it.
Prof_truthteller - July 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I sympathize and agree with much of what you say. However, the people and the organizations and the forces and the arguments that we’d like to fight against, DON’T CARE about “the idea of a society of common needs and resources … [and] … a view of human life that is consistent with our best ideas about morality, decency, and the possibility of living together in a sustainable future.” That argument has no traction- you might as well be speaking Chinese.
People who manipulate public opinion do not use the same tools that academics use. Reason, logic, compelling evidence, data, balancing pros and cons? Feh!
All they care about is “winning” and are willing to use anything and do anything to “win.” And they’ve been working on this for over ten years. Seriously, what can be done with little or no time, no money, no unified organization, no awareness from the general public, no friends in high places, no one who owes us favors, no lawyers or lobbyists on our behalf, no super wealthy supporters, no media savvy, no, no, no.
It’s more than can be figured out in a blog.
_donbonomini - July 16, 2011 at 4:29 am
We can change?