2008 Woodie Awards
MS3 professor disappointed in final decision
Issue date: 4/1/05 Section: Rocket Letters
To the Editor:
MS3 is stuck. Right where it is. The decision was no decision. President Smith considers this an administrative decision, couched conveniently in a fiscal crisis. The department of geography, geology and the environment (GG&E) wants the program and both faculty; Parks and Recreation/ Environmental Education needs to keep one; a faculty position can't be created out of thin air; the state's withholding; the math doesn't add up. Can't do it, end of story. Blame the state. Nice.
What a cop out. There are plenty of possibilities. And this is not simply an administrative issue. This is about faculty fairness, and most importantly about what it takes to really support graduate education. As MS3 coordinator, unanimously elected by my department, I have a professional responsibility to consider program needs. I administered the state mandated self-study and 5-year program review two years ago. The recommendations of the internal and external program reviewers corroborated those from two past program reviews: inadequate departmental support and the need to retain program faculty. "Support your faculty" was a resounding conclusion. MS3 students are continually abandoned by the regular turnover of MS3 faculty. We are the fourth-round of MS3 faculty in its 15 year history. The rotation of faculty is unheard of in any other program on the SRU campus and points to department mismanagement. MS3 faculty are fired or frustrated and leave, each citing poor program support. At some point it makes sense to consider different choices. The 15-year effort to bring MS3 into the fold of Parks and Rec, even if initially done with good intent, has not been successful.
What about faculty fairness? Two assistant professors (Bruno Borsari and myself), both within months of tenure, each with 3 and 4 years of positive recommendations, and ample evidence of outstanding performance in teaching, scholarly growth and university service in our current portfolios get the boot from their department. On what basis? Didn't they read their evaluative responsibilities in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? My grievance against the president is that he uncritically accepted the recommendations from my department without fully considering the evidence, including a positive recommendation from the dean, my responses to the department's contrivances (48 pages of clarifications, corrections and rebuttals to their five pages of unsubstantiated claims), as well as my past performance. President Smith met my proposed remedy in my grievance, that a committee outside the department be set up to review the evidence, when he invited GG&E to consider receiving the program as well as Dr. Borsari and me. After reviewing both MS3 program information and the same evaluative materials that PREE ignored to reach their recommendation of non-renewal for Dr. Borsari and me, GG&E, in an informed vote, chose by majority to receive the program and both faculty. This is a vote of renewal.
MS3 is stuck. Right where it is. The decision was no decision. President Smith considers this an administrative decision, couched conveniently in a fiscal crisis. The department of geography, geology and the environment (GG&E) wants the program and both faculty; Parks and Recreation/ Environmental Education needs to keep one; a faculty position can't be created out of thin air; the state's withholding; the math doesn't add up. Can't do it, end of story. Blame the state. Nice.
What a cop out. There are plenty of possibilities. And this is not simply an administrative issue. This is about faculty fairness, and most importantly about what it takes to really support graduate education. As MS3 coordinator, unanimously elected by my department, I have a professional responsibility to consider program needs. I administered the state mandated self-study and 5-year program review two years ago. The recommendations of the internal and external program reviewers corroborated those from two past program reviews: inadequate departmental support and the need to retain program faculty. "Support your faculty" was a resounding conclusion. MS3 students are continually abandoned by the regular turnover of MS3 faculty. We are the fourth-round of MS3 faculty in its 15 year history. The rotation of faculty is unheard of in any other program on the SRU campus and points to department mismanagement. MS3 faculty are fired or frustrated and leave, each citing poor program support. At some point it makes sense to consider different choices. The 15-year effort to bring MS3 into the fold of Parks and Rec, even if initially done with good intent, has not been successful.
What about faculty fairness? Two assistant professors (Bruno Borsari and myself), both within months of tenure, each with 3 and 4 years of positive recommendations, and ample evidence of outstanding performance in teaching, scholarly growth and university service in our current portfolios get the boot from their department. On what basis? Didn't they read their evaluative responsibilities in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? My grievance against the president is that he uncritically accepted the recommendations from my department without fully considering the evidence, including a positive recommendation from the dean, my responses to the department's contrivances (48 pages of clarifications, corrections and rebuttals to their five pages of unsubstantiated claims), as well as my past performance. President Smith met my proposed remedy in my grievance, that a committee outside the department be set up to review the evidence, when he invited GG&E to consider receiving the program as well as Dr. Borsari and me. After reviewing both MS3 program information and the same evaluative materials that PREE ignored to reach their recommendation of non-renewal for Dr. Borsari and me, GG&E, in an informed vote, chose by majority to receive the program and both faculty. This is a vote of renewal.
