They’re Partners, Not Prisoners

Congratulations to Professor Vaillancourt for stating what should have been the obvious for decades. Sadly, as she doubtless has reason to know, the use or removal of either term merely addresses a symptom, not the root problem. Whether male or female, the other member of a dual career couple routinely is treated as damaged goods, an awkwardness, the spouse in the attic, by departments, deans, and definitely by human resources divisions. Regrettably, administrators at all levels continue to operate on a destructively, not to mention fallaciously, pragmatic level: make the primary hire, and let the couple solve their own problems. It’s good to know, however, that there are people such as Professor Vaillancourt who realize the short-sightedness inherent in such an approach, and the likely effect on faculty retention and effectiveness. As to perceptions, I can’t recall the number of faculty at my own or other institutions who have expressed the sentiment that the partner would have a position elsewhere if he or she were serious about a career or competent in the relevant field. What’s more harmful is the number of search committees I’ve heard discuss whether to consider a candidate precisely because of the presence of an academic spouse and the “problems” that might pose. Clearly, there is a much more fundamental problem than nomenclature.

I have yet to hear of an institution that has policies to support “mono-career singles.” Since their colleagues with spouses and, increasingly, other domestic partners are already paid more in the form of benefits, some single faculty find it rankling that their partnered colleagues also have special influence on hiring decisions, even to the point of making an ally a voting member of a department. Finally, it is especially galling for _all_ faculty members when a department is left with a tenured mediocrity after a “leading spouse” has gone on to better jobs and other partners. 

Words have nothing to do with it perceptopns.  The perception that a “trailing spouse” us “unworthy” come from the situations of those who get positions that they otherwise would not have gotten without the help from their spouse, or the institution’s interest in hiring their spouse.  THAT is what makes us (rightly so) look down on them as unworthy. 

In these “we gotta help the cute couple!” discussions about promotion of nepotism/spousal hirnig, you people throw unmarried people completely under the bus.  It’s extremely insulting, and frankly discriminatory.  Life is harder as an unmarried person living alone, this couple-worship society adds to that difficulty unecessarily. 

Myself (and everyone else in those job searches) has lost at least two jobs that I have records of to trailing spouses.  Neopotistic spousal hiring is NOT a victimless crime (and it should be an actual crime).  It’s particularly egregious to do this with large career-making “holy grail” positions requiring $1 million or more total investment of PUBLIC people’s tax-money funds like tenure track positions.  To flippantly annoint someone with one of those either out of an emotional need to tithe couples or as a bargaining chip to hire someone else (out of face-saving or ANOTHER problem in academia: excessive celebrity worship) is unexcusable!Think I am wrong and just jaded?  Please study the following: Now let me float a hypothetical – actually, two hypotheticals to compare and contrast: Background (hypothetical) ::: A department (or individuals therein) wishes to recruit a specific individual for a tenure track position who they have identified either prior to or during a search (for simplicity, I will assume that whether it was prior to or during are equivalent scenarios).  During the course of things, this person requests/demands that their spouse also be given a tenure track position (again, for simplicity, let’s say in the same department).  Enter: other candidates.  Let’s say, again for simplicity, that there are several other candidates who to an independent impartial observer of their job packets and viewing their seminars would say are better than the trailing spouse.  I realize this is subjective, but certainly legitimate to say they are “better” of most impartial observers say it’s so. Ok, here are  the scenarios to compare and contrast: 1) The department decides not to hire the primary recruit and the spouse.  What of the spouse?  So now we have a home with one spouse bringing in a new faculty salary, both of them are likely covered under the one person’s healthcare plans and other benefits.  The unemployed spouse has access to their spouses lab, University resources (core facilities, library, etc.).  They have a home and bills paid.  With these resources, they can likely continue much or at least some of their research endeavors, continue to apply for positions at that or a nearby institution as they come up and likely even write grants submitted through the department as PI on a guest appointment of some sort and possibly even leverage a position of their own with said grants.  Hell, their spouse might even be able to hire them as a postech, adding an additional small salary to the home.   What of the top candidates who were not the trialing spouse?  Well, one of them will get the opportunity of a lifetime they have been dreaming of: a tenure track position and a lab of their own.  Happy day!  Rightly so, they’ve EARNED it! 2) The department decides to hire the primary recruit and the spouse.  Yay, happy day for the cute couple.  What of the spouse?  Well, they’ve now got the holy grail of all science positions, a tenure track faculty position with a lab of their own, healthy startup package (around a million or more invested in the average hire including startup package, salary, benefits, etc.), the home how has TWO faculty salaries – and all is “right with the world”.   HOWEVER: What of the candidates whose qualifications outweighed those of the spouse. who don’t have a leading spouse of their own to leverage a position for them?  Well, they’re unemployed.  No salary, no benefits, no way to pay their bills, etc.  Not ONLY that: BUT they NOW also have no way to continue even the smallest shred of their research.  They languish for a year or more longer, not being able to publish or apply for most federal grants or generate preliminary data.  Some of their projects fall to the back burner of their collaborators, some may even be scooped in the mean time.  All the while, this person looks “unproductive” and they fall under the trap of the self (or departmentally/societally) fulfilling prophecy that they are not qualified because they’re not being productive – thus making it even harder to land the next position. Read these carefully.  If you can read these carefully and honestly and still come to the conclusion that spousal hiring is ethical (especially considering what it does to the humanity of harder working more talented competition) – I can only think to say:  holy shit.

Wow – as a Penn Alumni and administrator in higher education for many years, this is unacceptable. I am sure there is a process in the provost office for this; how many departmental meetings did they have within this period?

F. John Case 

As an administrator, you presumably know that most faculty at R1s are on 9-month contracts, and they spend their summers doing research, not sitting in faculty meetings.

Also, even if the faculty met over the summer, it’s not their job to make sure the administrative staff — whether in the department or at the university registrar’s level — doesn’t screw up.

Two screw-ups: not cancelling the class, and, once the error was discovered, sending an e-mail rather than walking over to the class to speak to the students in person. Now that’s just tacky.

As an administrator in student services/affairs I have to point out this situation is a perfect example of the disconnect between academic and service divisions. We in student services/affairs seldom hear about significant events, like a death, in a timely way especially when it is a coworker in another division. I’m sure the first people to find out about this faculty member’s death were his fellow faculty/department chair in his own department.  I am sure the dept. chair notified his/her dean, who, I’m sure notified human resources, etc. At most universities/colleges, what courses are offered and/or cancelled is the department/division’s decision so it follows that if a course is cancelled (for whatever reason) it would be the dept/division/etc. responsibility to notify the registrar and follow-up to make sure it doesn’t show up in the online courseofferings listing (which for those institutions using online registration will be the most up to date course listing).  I have to agree with soc_sci_anon on one point, however, no matter how you cut it, sending an e-mail was ‘just tacky’ 

No reason not to stay on top of things.

Talk about your Ghost in the Machine!

It is the job of the department chair supervise the administrative staff in his/her department! and  to do the final check of the roster for fall courses.  The department administrator should not take the fall for this in the absence of adequate support and supervision.  “Department administrators” work under a wide variety of conditions – its not necessarily a standard description – different departments work things out in different ways – but the bottom line is that too many of them end up being the cleanup staff for things which faculty and department leadership were supposed to do, were responsible to do, and then when they don’t and things screw up, run around with their hair on fire.  Also, many administrative staff do not work on a 12 month calendar but on a 9 or 10 month contract.  So don’t blame the administrative staff until you have more evidence of how this particular department works and whether they make it possible for their staff to function effectively.

This would have never happened at a small private school……   ;)

One would think, right?  I had the misfortune to spend a number of years at a small private school where the provost once bragged to me that the president didn’t even know a faculty member who had been teaching at the school for close to 50 years….the provost thought he/she was being funny by making such a remark….I was aghast, and went home that night saying “time to go elsewhere”…not a school even the size of Penn, but a tiny little place. 

OMG. Are you joking here? Foremost, the Department Chair is accountable for this mishaps because she/he should be aware of faculty members’ status in the department, viz. who will be teaching for that particular semester, who has taken sabbatical, who has pass away. This is truly a major protocol issue here as to how news of a faculty member is communicated to the students, the entire University community. But to notify the students in an email is unprofessional, uncaring, insensitive,  and a cowardly act. To recapitulate, the Chair dropped the ball indeed!

Another, if lesser, embarrassment is the grammatical construction of the final sentence: ”This course should have been cancelled over the summer and was an oversight.” According to Ms. bottomley’s construction, the course itself was an oversight, rather than the error itself.

The name Dr Teune is an anagram for “tenured”.  Coincidence?