next »

[voxprincipalis]

Which is great on paper...but are you going to risk continued employment by teaching something controversial without the protection of tenure? 

I see this argument a lot, but has anyone actually seen a non-tenured professor dismissed for teaching a controversial topic or concept? My employer is religiously-affiliated, and even they keep their hands out of the classroom.

(Kvetching about the institution doesn't count - I mean teaching something controversial in an academic context.)

I think this is the experience Sikora had. So, yes.

VP

[retrenchment]

Those policies are completely reconcilable. All you have to do is recognize that JMU does not consider adjuncts "faculty," and there is no dissonance whatsoever.

Yes and I hear that ketchup is a vegetable.

[fiona]

For non-tenured dismissed for controversial teaching: see the employment history of Brigham Young University, for one. Check the case of Cecilia Conchar Farr. Do a search of Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed issues and you'll find many examples. There are examples from Wheaton College in Illinois, among others.

The Fiona

[pooksocket]

Kecthup?

At JMU, adjuncts are not faculty. Instead, they are disposable packets of cheap embellishment.

[infogoon]

For non-tenured dismissed for controversial teaching: see the employment history of Brigham Young University, for one. Check the case of Cecilia Conchar Farr. Do a search of Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed issues and you'll find many examples. There are examples from Wheaton College in Illinois, among others.

Thanks for the pointers.