Michael Sylvester wrote:
> The Eurocentric tenure committee was not buying his argument.They wanted
> to see his committment to scholarly publications.
Is that unreasonable, given the research thrust of Universities?
If he were teaching at a community college, or a small, non-research
oriented, four-year college, it might make sense to put substantial weight
on his commitment to the community. But in a research oriented setting, it
is his commitment to his _science_ that is important, not his commitment to
his community!
> It would seem that community service does more for the community and
> society than some publications that are read by only a few people.
Really?
Contributions to science (which are what peer-reviewed publications are all
about) provide benefit to people everywhere. Would you care to list the
contributions to his community this professor made that have benefited
myself, or any other member of this list not a resident of your area?
> I suspect that down the road colleges and universities will be held
> accountable for improving the social service health of the community.
Why not? Public schools are held accountable for baby-sitting--why
shouldn't the colleges be held accountable for doing the government's work
for it?
Sorry, Michael, but colleges and Universities have an obligation to further
_scientific knowledge_; that, not whether the faculty members participate in
community activities, is their value to our society.
Most colleges DO support their community--and the role of volunteer is a
familiar one for students, regardless of their campus (I--and many
other--instructors give students extra credit for doing discipline-related
volunteer work in the community). Whether a professor personally involves
him/her self in the community or not isn't something that the college has
any reason to consider when the subject of tenure is up. The alternative
would be to effectively force non-tenured professors to reduce either their
research time or their teaching time to make room for the extra load of
"compulsory community activities" necessary to insure tenure. Do you REALLY
want to see yet another barrier to tenure offered to good
teachers/researchers?
> It is one thing to enjoy the petty bourgeoise life of an academic,
> but the real intellectual heroes may be those who become
> public intellectuals to save society.
I notice that for all your put downs of our culture, you _voluntarily_
choose to profit from it and live as a part of it. When you start teaching
for minimum wage (donating the rest of your salary to a community charity),
voluntarily relinquish your authority over your students ("But comrade
professor, I can't take tests on Friday, I have to be at the weekly 'trash
the establishment' protest!"), and drop the PhD from your signature (as a
sign you reject the crass euro-centric system of education in our culture),
we might take you a "bit" (not much--just a "bit") more seriously. It's just
too easy to trash the system when you live comfortably and have plenty to
eat.
> Parallel to another post, what are the pros and con of not academia
> vs.industry, but that of academia vs.public service?
Personally, I've been an activist first and an academic second all my adult
life--so I see service to the people as VERY important (I'm also not
tenured--in large part as a result of that commitment to activism--nor do I
expect or demand to be). Public service, on the other hand, smacks too much
of "government" service. As far as whether service to the public or academia
offers the most benefit--that's hard to answer. Which was the greatest
benefit to American society, the contribution of Martin Luther King or that
of Jonas Saulk [sp?]? One helped pave the road to civil rights the other
stopped the spread of polio. And _neither_ could have done a very good job
of taking over the other's role.
Think about it.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, Michigan
