next »

[xeno_cratus]

I am fairly new chair of a department which has an endowed visiting professorship.  The policy states that the department recommends a candidate and the dean approves and makes the negotiations.  I have been told by the dean that the president and provost--neither of whom have expertise in our discipline--have not been impressed with our choices over the past few years.  This week, our department voted 16-0-0 to offer the appointment to a candidate with an international reputation whom we regard as a fine scholar.  This scholar, now retired, in the past two years has held similar visiting professorships at the two schools in the US with the preeminent grad programs in the field.  The dean is meeting with the provost about it, but says the provost is not likely to approve the appointment.

It seems that the provost is concerned about public relations here, while I and my colleagues are concerned about quality of scholarship and collegiality. It may also be that the dean, whose training is in our field, but who has strong options at odds with the department, is advising the provost and claiming the provost's disapproval as a cover for the dean's own.

What are my options here?  Is there a way to argue that determining a candidate's qualifications is the prerogative of the faculty in the department, not the provost's or the dean's?  What are the preogatives here?

[derosa]

Are there other departments that have endowed professorships?  Is the policy you refer to department policy, school policy or institutional policy?  If the department recommends, then it appears that the dean has some authority to over-ride the recommendation, no?   ...so there is a policy perspective here, which may not help you at the moment, but which you will want to clarify.

Then there are the personal/professional interactions between you, the dean and the provost.  I guess I would want to know, in a personal conversation with the dean and the provost, what exactly they were looking for in an endowed visiting professor.  I would use that as a starting point.  Then you might be able to create an argument for your candidate.

[xeno_cratus]

Thanks, Derosa. I'm looking into the procedures by which other endowed chairs are appointed, and have, of course, an appointment with the dean.  The policy for our professorship is contained in a one-page statement worked out between the department and the dean.

My colleagues are not used to the admin second-guessing their estimate of who is prominent in the field.  There will be a blow-up if their candidate is rejected.  They are assuming that it is their prerogative to determine the qualifications of job candidates, as in the usual search procedure.  The tradition here is that the dean has only vetted candidates for technical (dissertation not finished, etc.) or political (this person will upset donors or board of trustees or similar) considerations.

But I guess what you're saying is that the higher admin have a right to say no to an appointment for any reason they wish, and that this is not a question of either shared governance or academic freedom.

 

[derosa]

But I guess what you're saying is that the higher admin have a right to say no to an appointment for any reason they wish, and that this is not a question of either shared governance or academic freedom.

Strictly speaking, from a policy perspective, the administation may very well have a right to say no for any reason, based on the way you described the policy ("the department recommends a candidate").  That is why I suggest clarifying the policy.  If this is the way the policy is written, perhaps this case can be an example of why it needs to be edited.  Again, this won't help you now, but it could help your colleagues in other departments later.  If other departments appoint endowed chairs, I would want to see thier policies.  Perpahps this is even an issue that the faculty senate would take up in order to create an institution-wide, consistent policy.

Of course this takes it farther than you were originally thinking...I will be interested to hear your dean's version.

[larryc]

Who endowed the position? If it was not the department that raised the money, the administration might feel like it has every right to influence the selection.

[xeno_cratus]

Who endowed the position? If it was not the department that raised the money, the administration might feel like it has every right to influence the selection.

The donor is anonymous, the donation was arranged by a former--now retired--chair of the department, in cooperation with the then current department chair (who helped shape the parameters, and did a fair amount of schmoozing) and of course the university development people.

The view of my colleagues, however, would be that--no matter who raised the money--it is the faculty who have expertise in the field who determine who is and is not eminent in that field.  If the administration has some good reason to deny the appointment separate from what is the professional province of the faculty, then so be it (though preferably that reason and rationale should be communicated to the faculty).

This is the way the normal appointment process works, and my colleagues expect that it should apply here.  Are they unrealistic?

[drsyn]

Who endowed the position? If it was not the department that raised the money, the administration might feel like it has every right to influence the selection.

The donor is anonymous, the donation was arranged by a former--now retired--chair of the department, in cooperation with the then current department chair (who helped shape the parameters, and did a fair amount of schmoozing) and of course the university development people.

The view of my colleagues, however, would be that--no matter who raised the money--it is the faculty who have expertise in the field who determine who is and is not eminent in that field.  If the administration has some good reason to deny the appointment separate from what is the professional province of the faculty, then so be it (though preferably that reason and rationale should be communicated to the faculty).

This is the way the normal appointment process works, and my colleagues expect that it should apply here.  Are they unrealistic?

On the other hand, if the person who endowed the chair supported your selection, that would grant you some leverage with the admin.

[larryc]

Who endowed the position? If it was not the department that raised the money, the administration might feel like it has every right to influence the selection.

The donor is anonymous, the donation was arranged by a former--now retired--chair of the department, in cooperation with the then current department chair (who helped shape the parameters, and did a fair amount of schmoozing) and of course the university development people.

The view of my colleagues, however, would be that--no matter who raised the money--it is the faculty who have expertise in the field who determine who is and is not eminent in that field.  If the administration has some good reason to deny the appointment separate from what is the professional province of the faculty, then so be it (though preferably that reason and rationale should be communicated to the faculty).

This is the way the normal appointment process works, and my colleagues expect that it should apply here.  Are they unrealistic?

Of course it should be completely up to the department, and if your department initially raised the money that only strengthens your hand. Does your admin have some specific flashy person in mind? Or do they just want you to land a Nelson Mandela?

[xeno_cratus]

Followup:

For everyone's info, the "higher admin" has acquiesced in the department's choice.  Thanks to all for their advice.

[gayle]

But I guess what you're saying is that the higher admin have a right to say no to an appointment for any reason they wish, and that this is not a question of either shared governance or academic freedom.

 

But if the Dean and Provost can only choose from candidates recommended by the Department, isn't that pretty much the definition of shared governance?  The faculty get to pick the finalist(s) and the admin gives the final approval (makes the final selection). 

I know this system has it's problems.   The administration can threaten to withhold funding if the dept won't recommend admin's pet candidate, but with the protection of tenure, the faculty can usually threaten to go public and shame admin into backing down.  Everywhere I've been it's seemed to work fairly well.


I mean this seriously - not snarkily.  Am I missing something here? 

[asterix]

I don't see the problem here, just show the Dean the part of the document that says that the Dean approves the recommendation of the faculty, and point out that nowhere does it say that the Dean may disapprove.  S/he will not be able to argue with your logic.