Mike and Jerry sung out for some discussion of
how one copes with being a head of an academic dept,
especially in a time of budget stress. jerry had
earlier intimated that he believed that the "progressive"
becomes harsh in their IR management and soon becomes one of the ruling class.
to a certain extent this email expands on, albiet in a different direction, the recent
theme about the class location of the academic. it also has relevance to the way we see
unions i think.
for louis and the other realists - the activists (ha) - it is a real life
account of the problems facing people on the left who take on organisational
positions. for obvious reasons i am not really going to tell all the gory
details as promised (i lied) b/c they involve real people, at least one of
whom is one this list.
my dept has 27 full-time academics down from 31 a year ago. By the end of 1997
it has to be down to 20. the uni is in a provincial city of newcastle (OZs 6th
largest) which is a coal and steel town. the uni has 15k students. for years it
has been asleep and very little staff turnover occurred. I came to it in 1990 and
was one of the first "external" appointees (most having been locals and/or former
students). there was no research culture - some did very good work many did nothing.
some have not written a thing in 20 or more years. the dept had plenty of money
and more students to teach than it cared for. it was an easy life.
in 1989, the federal g. forced unis (offering education) to amalgamate with
college of advanced educ (offering vocational teaching). this was a way of
breaking the power of the unis and forcing us to take more students in line with
the labour govts social wage policy (of expanding tertiary ed). our faculty
which had previously had economics and commerce (accountancy) suddenly
inherited a bachelor of business studies which is a (speaking cautiously)
somewhat lower in rigour offering.
the students have rushed the latter over the last 5 years and the demand for the BEc
has
fallen dramatically. In 1994 the feds introduced a new funding system - not based on
staff levels but on student numbers. it was meant to stimulate competition. the result
is that my dept is seriously over funded and in deficit of some $A570k or about 5-6
positions. the business dept is booming and while it does hardly any research it does
get huge $s b/c of its student intake. we can make up some of the funding losses if we
publish more. the problem is that only a minority really publish much.
so what do you do?
1) my starting point as a marxist is that i am a public servant and a member of a
collective (the dept). i expect of myself - that i will contribute to the collective
as much as i can and also i will not treat my wage as a sinecure. the public who pay me
(sort of) include coal miners, factory workers, shop assistants, and whatever. they
face
much more inflexible working conditions than i and in most cases earn less.
so apart from capitalist ethics - my belief is that if you get paid to be an academic
then you better work for the cash.
put it this way - when i was a younger person (post grad etc) i mixed with many left
academics. most of them were not terribly motivated and were into pontification.
i used to get really disillusioned and it certainly contributed to my somewhat
singular approach to the struggle. i used to think that if this lot are
socialists then i would rather live with them in capitalism. they would be
dangerous in a socialist state.
that is my bottom line - in a socialist state - organisation of work and collective
responsibility still has to occur. if someone bludges then the collective suffers.
somehow the collective has to keep itself functioning.
2) i see my role as HOD as being the person who the collective is currently choosing
implicitly to take this role. i will finish in 18 months now and go back to where
i came from. the collective expects me to make decisions, to organise and to
plan and strategise the future. there is a big debate in my dept about this though.
many of my colleagues are not really keen on the idea of management.
many are not really aware of the full import of the changes in the tertiary
ed sector (student nos, budget changes etc). many have not even realised fully
that the union traded in our tenure some years ago for a measly 2 per cent
pay rise. and this is now formally in our award change. the union has also
agreed to performance appraisals and many other intrusive things in the latest
round for another pathetic 2 per cent. most staff have not realised a lot of things.
when i tell them - they want to shoot me (the messenger) b/c they think
it is a marxist plot to radicalise the workplace.
3) i have tried to push the dept into a better position. i aim to preserve the
jobs of the junior staff who are exposed but more aware of things and who
want to participate in a research milieu. i have no real concern for the
old guard persons who patently refuse to embrace an active research life and
who in some cases have been on the books for 20-25 years and published little or
none. i have no regard for staff who are lazy and whose lecturing performance
is mediocre as a consequence.
4) i pushed a thorough subject review through late in 94. this was the first
formal review in 25 years. we scrapped many subjects. we put on tutorials in the
remainder which did not have small class teaching despite the fact that the
students had been crying out for it.
this move created bitterness b/c many of the old guard felt their property rights
were being infringed. they wanted no change despite the fact that an external
review was coming anyway which would have killed us. we pushed the changes
through 18 to 5 (of those who voted). it left residual aggro. but we were
applauded by the external review for having flexibility and insight. the fact
is that we had many subject with 4-9 students in them. going nowhere and attracting
no-one. we now have a lot of revitalised offerings. the younger staff who have come
since me and who are active researchers are now able to teach in their
special areas which are on the frontier - feminist economics, political economy,
urban and environmental, etc.
2 staff left at the time - alleging i had pushed the dept into the change. leadership
was needed. the old habits were forcing us down the drain.
5) i also formed a research committee. brief - interview every member of staff with
all CVs on the table. initial reaction - this is stalinist. most eventually
co-operated. some refused to participate alleging it was infringing their academic
freedom. their CVs would not have made much reading anyway. this was the first
time anything like this had been attempted. i was sick of people whispering
in corridors about how lazy x was or how little y had done. and the lies and
excuses that people made to cover up their lack of work. i wanted a document
up front to catalogue who does what and why other don't. a pro-forma had to
be filled in and supplied with the CV. it led to the development
of a research strategy which btw was applauded by the external review c'tee.
i was able to put the younger staff into teams (if only with myself and one other).
we were able to outline incentives for others who were keen.
i told the dept that we would have a 12 months transition. prior to that only
teaching was considered in the formal load. research was not considered. i told
them that it was unfair for someone who was working hard publishing to have to take
the same load teaching as someone who never published. this was met with
huge resistance but individuals had to be careful b/c after the research c'tee
report everyone basically knew once and for all who did what. i offered staff
development assistance to start putting out papers. the carrots were there
in the form of less teaching for 1995. but the stick was that in 1996 i would
introduce a 3 tier scheme - cat a researcher (a certain no. of external pubs for
94 and 95), cat b (a certain no. of internal pubs), cat c (none). the difference
b/tw a and c might be around 5-7 hours of teaching a week.
the dept accepted it but there are some who resent it and have acted very badly towards
me (i have a harassment complaint against me on this issue - challenging my right to
impose higher teaching loads on some - max will be about 14 hours a week btw).
they argue that
those who do research get the private benefits of promotion so they forgo that.
i point out that they were hired to do 40 per cent of their time (approx) in
research and there never has been a time when no research was an option. the excuses
and lies is rather daunting.
6) i have had to take action based on staff and student complaints against some staff
who abuse their teaching. there are guidelines. the uni. expects all of us to hand
out reading guides and give students in advance notice of the assessment.
i have been accused of impinging on a person's academic freedom for insisting on
this (another formal complaint against me). in the past the HODs have ignored all
sorts of things like this. i refuse to ignore it. the students deserve to be
treated with respect and it in the interests of our discipline (a sort of moral
responsiblity to the on-going richness of the art) that the students are
stimulated to learn and to criticise.
7) i have had a member of staff who refused to teach anything but a few very minor
subjects and who refused to co-operate on any admin level (telling me what
exam details were, etc). this has a long history (over 20 years) and previous HODs
have
ignored it. I refused to. i told the dept when i took the job that i would treat every
one equally - no fear nor favour. that is my brief. if a person refuses to teach it
imposes costs on the collective. the same has written no published output in over 20
years btw. i received death threats as i mounted a campaign to push the uni authorities
into action (it is very hard still to sack a full time staff member who came in under
the old tenure scheme). finally they suspended him and he awaits a formal disciplinary
hearing. was i behaving in a way befitting one of the ruling class? i think not. i
think
that in a socialist economy, i would still be doing the same thing. no one deserves
a free ride if they are able. everyone deserves a free ride is they are unable.
8) some in my dept say that i am adopting a managerial stance and that i am pushing the
agenda of an increasingly corporatist central admin. they say the HOD should just be
one
of them. i disagree on both counts. we are under threat from the system. the contract
staff (junior) will go first despite the fact that they (with exception) work hard and
deserve security. we must attract more students with superior teaching and more money
from research output. we simply cannot afford the luxury of the past when people could
teach like dogs and publish little or no research. i feel responsible for those who do
the right thing to shield their jobs from the pressures. faced with the choice (not my
choice but the system's choice) i will not sacrifice them for the non-performers. they
have had 20 or more years in some cases to show their stuff. now it is too late.
and as i said at the beginning - i feel this is an imperative of a collective and has
little at all to do with the increasing corporatist world that unis operate in. even in
socialism i would be giving some the march.
but i also say to them that yeh, it is easy to want someone who is one of you. one of
the gang. but when they go home at some time and other days don't come in at all, and
take 3 months of at summer, one person is still there carrying the shitcan. not them,
not one of the gang, but me. if one of them fucks up, it is me who is taken down if i
don't do anything about it. if there is a budget deficit it is me who has to find ways
to manage it. it is me who has to give the support staff a day off when there are
death
threats made not them. so in that sense, a collective has to in this environment
respect
that the person who is carrying the can for them will never be exactly one of them
while
he/she is carrying it.
9) i also have to write reports for people. like recommendations re: promotions. the
norm has been for the applicant to gild the lily and for the HOD to gild some more.
this
year i was faced with this (my first time as HOD). i refused to tell lies. i had to
write reports and i set a precedent by opposing the applications. i cannot say more.
but
i argued that i was not going to support hierarchical fetishism. that i was not going
to
corrupt the wage structure. that other people were more deserving but were waiting
their
turn and an application that was gilded and trying to jump the queue was not to be
supported. i was attacked vehemently for this. this was nothing to do with
managerialism
trying to keep the workers down. it was about plain straightout truth. the system might
be corrupt everywhere. i hate that to be sure. but i am not and i am not going to be
corrupted by it just b/c of fucking middle class niceties and conventions.
so that is enough i think. it gives some idea of what goes on. i have avoided chapter
and verse for legal reasons. i spend hours chasing up complaints against staff, helping
them through, being abused by those who don't want to listen, helping junior staff get
some papers done, listening to every fucking excuse under the sun as to why it is too
hard to write 5000 words and send it off to a journal (despite the same expecting
students to write 4 times that in a year). etc etc
yes, it is hard realising that you are not one of the gang anymore. that you have to
make sticky decisions about your colleagues which affect their futures. i remind you of
my opening point. in a socialist society honesty is above all. fuck the conventions of
capitalism. as a HOD i have to be honest. that means often i have to make negative
inroads of staff. it is hard but i never waver. i don't see myself as a vanguard for
the
corporatists. i tend to abstract from them. i see myself as just an honest bloke doing
a
job. whether it fits the needs of the corporatists to slim down and make people work
hard or not it irrelevant to me - there is a higher ethic to be honoured. if i listened
to the arguments of the so-called lefties who say i should barricade the place up and
defend the staff at all costs i would be allowing some staff to rip of their fellow
workers blind, rip of the students who are young and full of expectation, and to rip of
the general public who are much less well off on average than the academics. i just
can't do that.
anyway, today was xmas day - something about a bloke being born only to be strung up on
a cross in a few months. capitalism loves it. the environment hates it. and i was
the only one in at the office as usual b/c like other things i refuse to get
sucked in by middle class habits. as a marxist i have no right to celebrate xmas.
hope some of this is useful
kind regards
bill
#### ## William F. Mitchell
####### #### Head of Economics Department
################# University of Newcastle
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
################### Phone: +61 49 215065
##### ## ### +61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
