On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote: > > When I think of management functions I think of the right to hire and > fire > > and to set compensation. I know of no faculty tenured or otherwise that > have > > any of these rights. > > well, as a tenured prof, I've participated in hiring and even firing > decisions. The management can veto these, but in many cases the > faculty can, too. It's true that tenured profs can't set compensation. > We may be management, but it's lower management. as a non-tenured prof, i have, too, but it was always emphatically in teh form of a "recommendation." usually, at least in my own limited experience, this will mean that deans, provosts, and presidents will defer, but it always reserves for them the right to refuse a recommendation. we had good candidates scuttled on more than one occasion because of this not just "effective" but quite explicit veto power. we did manage to resist having anyone forced on us. so technically i think, and this might or might not have been rudy's point, the actual right to hire and fire is administrative, even when some faculty, particularly a department chair or a faculty review committee, might wield considerable (even dangerous, at times) influence. > > > > This is one of the reasons why the Yeshiva decision is > > such a travesty. > > yes, it was a travesty. Thanks for the details about it. here at least there is consensus. and btw, before GHW Bush, the NLRB was prepared to acknowledge graduate students being covered under the act insofar as they were compensated for teaching. but of course that changed. > > > > I say all of this as a tenured faculty member at an institution where we > > have a collective bargaining agreement. In this agreement there is an > > article on management rights which makes it absolutely clear that the > > administration manages the university. > > at a small and prosperous university with no union, the line between > the upper management and the tenured faculty is less clear. A > collective bargaining agreement clarifies that line, among other > things. > > (BTW, LMU _is_ becoming more corporate every day. But we still have > this medieval commitment to teaching theology and philosophy and > requiring that all students take them.) yay! well, on the philosophy front. but also, i'm a medievalist. students and faculty used to march out, in those days! in paris and bologna, most famously. never see it now. and if you attend a jesuit university, i don't reckon it's ridiculous that you take a theology class. at MOS, i taught a required biblical lit course, the only real effect of a church affiliation. yes, yes, they had to read the bible. but god knows there's worse stuff in the world to read, and our approach was historical-critical, for the most part. it was something like the reverse of an indoctrination. half my students thought i was a fundamentalist, and half thought i was out to lay waste their faith. i always reckoned this was because they can't distinguish (on either side) between someone taking the text seriously and not thinking it "fact," on the one hand, or on the other hand, seeing the bible as a historical-cultural artifact and not thinking it "false" or "wrong." anyway, sorry -- even further off-topic. j > > Gene, as I understand it, Bruce Franklin ended up at Stanford after > being kicked out of Harvard. > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
