= Premium Content

  • Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

To Speak or Not To Speak (prior to a tenure decision)

April 7, 2011, 3:00 pm

By Billie Hara

Last week, ProfHacker published a post about “disruptive colleagues” in meeting situations.  You know, the “disruptive” ones are the ones who make meetings miserable experiences for everyone else by talking too much, by thwarting new initiatives, by making constant comparisons to other (better) universities, by bullying, by reminding everyone how much smarter (more accomplished, more attractive) she/he is than everyone else.  This subject of “disruption” is an important one at ProfHacker.  We have an entire series on how to handle the “disruptive students” in our classes.  We needed one on how to handle disruptive peers.  This is an important subject post for new faculty, as learning how to navigate these personalities is not part of graduate education.

Last week’s post generated many excellent comments and suggestions to faculty about how to handle these sensitive issues.  One comment, however, raised more questions (for me) than did the others.  The anonymous commenter, “newlytenuredprof,” offered some interesting advice to new faculty about how to “conduct themselves in public (until tenure).”  Here are NewlyTenuredProf’s suggestions copied directly from the post’s comments: (*)

  • Express no opinions in department or faculty meetings, but do comment in the affirmative on a topic or decision that everyone is clearly in favor of so you appear to be contributing.
  • Abstain from controversial voting matters or go with the majority. In large groups, don’t express your vote with a raised hand or voice.
  • Join a non-controversial committee(s), but follow rules #1 and 2. Do NOT offer to Chair a committee, but volunteer to be the secretary so it is clear that you are an effective member.
  • Offer to be of service in these public forums, i.e. task forces, sub-committees, etc. Follow Rules 1-3 while serving.
  • Listen to campus proceedings for the first few years to gauge the climate of the college and the intricacies of key personalities.
  • Learn from the poor behavior of others (as listed … in the [posted] article) and be self-reflexive in order to not replicate it after receiving tenure.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

NewlyTenuredProf echoed the sentiment many untenured faculty hold, “I will not speak until I have tenure.”

Is this really what we want in higher education?  If we (tenured faculty) do not want suggestions / feedback / comments / questions from all levels of our peers, why did we hire these new folks?   Aren’t we infantalizing our colleagues by encouraging them not to speak (until they’ve been spoken to)?  Our new peers have education, life experiences, and perspectives we do not share.  Aren’t we richer for learning from those perspectives?  If we (untenured faculty) don’t speak until we have tenure, how are we a part of the university?  How are we a part of change, of growth, of the community?  We have worked long and hard to have the positions we hold, and many of us want to participate.

The average tenure clock is six years (assistant to associate).  Six years is not a long period, but it’s still six years.  Do we want to be silent for so long?  Do we want to silence our peers for this length of time?  The original ProfHacker post did not allude much to gender, class, race, or age (or any other marker of difference).  I wonder now, though, do these markers factor into who can (or should) speak or who doesn’t (or shouldn’t) speak prior to a tenure decision.

How about you?  Where do you weigh in on this subject? What are your thoughts:  as a new professor, do you speak before or after tenure?  Do markers of difference factor into one’s decision to speak or not prior to tenure?

(*) NewlyTenuredProf is a pseudonym by an online commenter. I had no way to contact this person to clarify comments.  Please keep this in mind when you respond to his/her comments and to this post.

[Image by Flickr user Steve DePolo and used under the Creative Commons license]

This entry was posted in Profession and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • trendisnotdestiny

    Thanks for your article… I am 13 years into my boycott of hallmark holidays, do not want industry mandating how and when I celebrate, but there is a good point you make (sometimes, it is about so much more than one moment, but a couple decades of moments)…

    Peace

  • StuartRay

    Later is better than never, he sounds like a man of principles, lucky his son has another set to help him.

  • drnels

    I do understand the advice given. When I first read it in that post, I thought it was sad that it was good advice.

    I do think, though, that a lot of this is institution dependent. After a couple of years, I felt like people wanted junior faculty to speak up at meetings. I also felt like junior faculty were often the ones with ideas that were new to some people. But that is institution specific. When I was hired, I was told that I would not meet many faculty in their forties because there was a decade when things got really bad and no one was hired in any department. So, most faculty were in their late fifties and sixties or thirties. And the senior faculty were very, very happy to have us around. I was told more than once how much people liked our energy and interest, and many of us were asked to serve on meaningful committees. It actually made going up for tenure a little easier because many people across the university knew me and liked the work I was doing. When the chair of the tenure committee is the same person who has asked you to do teaching workshops for the entire university, the process feels better.

    And, sometimes, you have no choice but to speak. If you hold an administrative position, as many junior faculty at small schools do, you have to speak on behalf of the program you administer. Otherwise, the program could face problems caused by your silence that could hurt when you go up for tenure because people could interpret your silence as apathy or inability. I upset some people now and then, but I had to do it for the program I was directing.

    This is another area where you have to pay attention to the signals around you. Trust your gut instincts. Find people to trust and talk to them (After one meeting in particular, I asked a full professor if I crossed a line, and he said, “No way. Someone had to say it, and there were a lot of people smiling when you did.”).

  • robertswolff

    It’s sound, conservative advice but it speaks volumes about the faculty culture in some departments. If you’re a new faculty member in a tenure-track position, you can take your cues from the recently tenured folks (if any) but you should also read the expectations of your senior colleagues. Do they see you as a peer or as a subordinate? If they see you as a subordinate, then it makes sense to be restrained; self-preservation matters.

    While I was untenured, my department’s politics were toxic for several years. The best advice I received was to get out of the department’s offices and make connections with other faculty on campus. I joined an interdisciplinary program (Women’s Studies) and served on one or two committees that were low-profile but well-regarded. There I found a community of colleagues who did see me as a peer. After a while (and a few retirements), the politics in my own department improved.

  • hkacpa

    This is no longer a problem at our school. Our faculty meetings have become a model of efficiency and unity.

    First, if anyone voices an opinion that is contrary to the administration’s view, they receive an invitation for a personal visit to the President, Provost or College Dean for instruction in the errors of their ways.

    Second, at faculty meetings, the important business from administration is covered first before the Provost invites the Faculty Chair to participate in the meeting. This often severely reduces the time available for Faculty to complete their business matters so open discussion is called very quickly in order to complete all the necessary tasks.

    Third, as noted in the first point, the clutter of sharing opinions and open discussions have been removed so faculty can focus on grading papers, texting, answering e-mails and preparing for their classes during the Faculty meeting.

  • http://twitter.com/DelaneyKirk DelaneyKirk

    I say speak but in a respectful, thoughtful manner. I’ve been through the tenure process successfully twice now. My view is that if the College didn’t want to tenure me for speaking up, then this was a school I didn’t want to teach at anyway.

  • mmwgmu

    I have worked in public and private university settings – in every case junior faculty were encouraged to speak up and voice controversial opinions – and were welcome. So, not ‘all’ discourage untenured voices from being heard.
    I believe it does say volumes about the culture and climate of a university, school, or collage.
    I would encourage any candidate for an assistant professor position to ask a question about this during their interviews. Then let this information help determine the university they choose to work for.

  • landrumkelly

    He or she who is not a force before tenure will not be force after tenure.

    As for the other column about “disruptive” colleagues, perhaps those so categorized are often simply telling the truth that someone else does not want to hear. There is indeed disruption, but one man’s disruptive colleague is another man’s freedom fighter.

    Say it loud, say it clear, and take the flak. Nobody said that life was going to be easy–or safe. Freedom of expression belongs to the person who exercises it, with or without protection or backup.

    Landrum Kelly
    Livingstone College

  • visitingprofessor

    As a tenure track faculty (coming up for tenure next year) I understand the advice given and see why the author did so too.

    As many people have reflected – it does depend on the institution, but even then I personally feel that there is some truth to holding your tongue (or even biting it) so you do not create a situation for the “Tenure Committee” members to have “one point” against you in the tenure decision.

    Having said that and having understood the consequence – I take the stance that I am a member of the faculty and if I have to attend the meeting as part of my duties and responsibilities (not as an observer) then I do have a say and an opinion. (I have no right to be disruptive). So in all these meetings I take the approach of what is best for the situation (student’s best interest, in the best interest of the department, in the best interest of the faculty, good for the curriculum, good for the Institution etc.) and speak up. (Best interests may not be what I personally like). I do not follow the six rules stated above. Personally I feel that we should have the freedom of expression (not being disruptive) and speak up, and if the price is my tenure so be it. Only if more faculty stood up and did the right thing can we have the best education in the world and be leaders in the world. I am sure many of you already see the Student Rating driven teaching, customer driven education, publish or perish attitude to get tenure etc. that is driving our education system away from being the leader in the world.

    Now I am sure that once you get your tenure, you have a “bag of held back feelings” that you start to let out and be the disruptive person. (Hey no more tenure to fight for – right. So now you have academic freedom)

    So I say speak up folks, we are intelligent people and should take the right steps NOT be held back by such issues (I know it is your livelihood) but as educators we need to create thinkers and we should be the first to model it.

  • matt_l

    I dunno. I guess that is good advice but I am skeptical about its usefulness for all but the most dysfunctional departments. I am also worried that it is a bullet point list of prohibitions. Not to sound like a DFH, but its pretty hard to lead a rewarding life, or develop a successful career, around a set of negative guidelines.

    How about this:

    Before going up for tenure, be the kind of colleague you want to be after you have earned tenure.

    That way there are no surprises for you or your colleagues.

  • newlytenuredprof

    Wow, I just got to this today and realized it was based on my list. I would like to clarify that a non-tenured faculty member should not speak IN PUBLIC. This was stated in the post as my intro sentence, but appears separated from the list.

    The opinion of Junior Faculty is extremely crucial to a college, but voicing it at meetings is unwise for the first few years unless you are a skilled diplomat. Expressing your opinion in an office with a colleague/mentor or a small group is qualitatively very different. Getting feedback from Senior Faculty on your thoughts is good, but should be done selectively. Asking them to paraphrase and suggest your points in the next meeting is helpful to a larger process as well and protects you from being personally misunderstood in a crowd.

    And is it really necessary for me to state that the listed points are of essential value to female academics, who are by far the largest group to not be granted tenure for just such matters as “style”, “fit”, and “collegiality”?

    I stand by the list and am relieved that so many understood the advice, sad though it is indeed.

    PS: I teach at a State University in the North East, in a rural area (but not far from a major city), in a highly dysfunctional liberal arts department.

  • abhishekvishnu

    I would say that such cases of suicides should not be prima facie considered a result of caste discrimination. AII India Institute of Medical Sciences is a top notch institute with extremely stiff competition for entry as well as survival. Now, because of the “reservation” policy to help socially-backward people some people are able to get into AIIMS (and such other ivy league kind of institutions) but unable to survive the extreme pressure it is to be at AIIMS. To add to that, over the years I have read numerous reports of physician/student suicides at AIIMS, including people from socially well-off castes. So, this does not surprise me at all.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    Hey, I figure that as long as I’m living it, I might as well understand it – and the more I dig, the dirtier it gets.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    That’s quite interesting, by which I mean horrifying.  I guess I should read up on the cohort statistics – their meaning and measure never seems to be mentioned in any of these student loan/debt articles.  Nor are the impact of SLABS (Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities) or the lack of consumer protections such as the Truth in Lending Act or FDCPA ever mentioned.  Rather curious, these omissions…

  • allie_s

    This brief series prompted me to return to the “Welfare PhDs” article. While I was working on a conference paper, I wasn’t able to comment last week, so this comment is in response to both this article, that one, and the massive number of comments following. Please forgive the non sequitur in direct address:  

    There are many neoconservatives who love to blame
    the victim who is duped enough to be led into poverty. It’s not the
    “economic downturn” but the wider greed living on and pulling
    finance out of the system through ponzi schemes in the form of
    government-military-corporations. And universities, the bastions of
    civil society, have sold themselves to the same system. Yes, “we
    [believers in civil society] were warned” about University Capitalism as
    far back as the 90s when departments began the adjunct wheel – oh yes,
    it’s much cheaper labor; however, only the non-mainstream magazines like
    The Sun reported on it.

    ALL Departments “need” the constant pull of PhD enrollment to support
    their research practices AND provide adjunct fodder for undergraduate
    teaching (whether trained educators or not, our students suffer for it).

    And most recently the loan/grant program has lured the brilliant
    unemployed into obtaining more and more education because there are
    fewer and fewer jobs period – merely waylaying the inevitable – let
    alone fulfilling work for intelligent, creative, inspired folks
    interested in how things work and expressing their human gifts for other
    humans, um, like educating the masses about what’s going on around us.
    Do you realize the power of mainstream media to create a disjointed and
    nevertheless coherent narrative that pacifies the youth into living only
    for the now before they disappear in December? It is the adjuncts, um
    teachers, who are righting this wrong in all disciplines, and some would
    suggest that is why they are not being paid a liveable wage. Recall
    Socrates whose only crime was poisoning, um educating, the minds of the
    youth. When individuals gain knowledge and become empowered rather than
    programmed, those in power and vying for power will seek to
    disenfranchise them. 

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037