[Truman colleagues: In response to an initiative from the Board, VPAA Gordon has begun a group to be a "Faculty Roles and Responsibilities Retreat." We met this past week, and as a follow up, Garry asked us to reflect on what would indicate that Truman values or does not value its faculty. Below is a response that I sent to the listserve for that group.]

Let me suggest three things that would increase the experience of the faculty as valued.

1) Close the library less during breaks. These are the times that faculty have to catch up on some reading or try to start a scholarly project. It's disappointing as well as frustrating to see the heart of a university dark. Yes it would cost and there'd be less use, but there are about 1000 faculty and staff whose opportunities are important.

2) Ditto for the "Student" Recreation Center. Especially in the early mornings. Again these are important times for Faculty and Staff to "catch up" on our well-being, this one bodily. And don't forget the value of the wellness to the institution, including mitigating the stress and improving mood.

Those two were easy. This one isn't, because it large measure it cuts against some of the history of this place and looks toward, one hopes, its future.

3) Following the model and lead of the University of Missouri (that is, it can be done in Missouri) we desperately need a faculty grievance process. (Because it would work for resolution and solutions, it should be separate from the punitive dismissal process.) We need this here precisely because of our historical culture, in order to work toward the culture that we have set as an objective for ourselves. The ethos of most parts of this campus is no longer as authoritarian as it was, yet the divisional/VPAA structure itself tends to reproduce the authoritarian effects independent of personalities or good intentions. Particularly as we are tending to hire administrators from inside, we are left with the two people who made a decision that might need rethinking or reflection--division head and VPAA--being the folks who are asked to reconsider. Guess what: turns out they were right. As we strive to accomplish a new culture we need a check on our inevitable blindspots.

Is a grievance process entirely consistent with our history? Nope. Would it take some institutional energy and resources? Yep. There are all sorts of outcomes--that a grievance committee would sustain the faculty member's position, sustain the administration, or perhaps even sustain the faculty member but then be ignored by the administration. Even with the second and the third, we'd be in a healthier position relative to an aggrieved faculty member than at present. At present there is the sense of their being no recourse or sounding board: we simply allow frustrations to fester for years.

Such a process might be rough for a while. Compare our healthy shift from division heads deciding tenure and promotion to much more faculty involvement in these decisions. There have been tensions and probably failures during this transition: we had to grow a professional culture that had been underdeveloped and that does not happen without some pain. But having that culture is necessary, even if difficult.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1998

Answers

Another way of showing that Truman values faculty and the effort they put into their work here would involve some equity in the way new LSP classes get discussed in Undergraduate Council. So far a good deal of the kinds of inequities that Ramesh discusses under faculty salary seems to show up here as well. Item: an "education abroad" course proposed by the Business Division gets a clear 'pass' without restrictions on 'out of class preparation time' per credit hour, while a current course with a lot of preparation time and informational instruction is promised quite a lot of flak about credit hours, etc. Not to mention the kinds of comment that reflect on the ability of instructors to prepare and teach what they propose to teach.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 1998

I think a faculty grievence procedure is a wonderful idea. AAUP and the Administration have had this unpleasant relationship over at least the last few years--some say AAUP only focuses on the negative, and some say the Administration acts without being accountable to the faculty. If we had an established grievence procedure, we could actually DEAL with issues as they come up. It is the ignoring of issues that, I think, is the cause of many of our problems.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 1998

How do we assess the value which Truman places on faculty? I believe I would add: (a) a salary that is above the average for other Missouri state universities, justified by the excellence of our teaching and institutional reputations; (b) the establishment of a clear teaching-equivalency policy, which would allow for (earned) reductions in our 4/4 teaching load based on research and publication, grant acquisition, and other significant contributions to the institution. (other universities do this, why can't we?); (c) a clear explanation of our benefits package, of the provider selection process, and of any changes that take place from year-to-year; (d) implementation of a grievance policy (above) is a fine idea; (e) strong, clear, convincing *commitment* to faculty development in use of information and communication technologies (f) scheduled administrator meetings with faculty at large, every once in a while...

-- Anonymous, December 18, 1998

Let me quibble with one thing on faculty load structure: the baseline from which we start the analysis. Let's not start from the perpetually irrelevant Faculty Handbook--12 hours or 4/4, so that we're always arguing that we should get a break somehow. Let's start with the commitment that we've made to the state and that the state has made to us, as "highly selective": 9 hours. Then we can turn up the heat: why are many of us teaching loads that indicate a failure to complete our goals.

Let me add one thing about the "good news" in Social Science. We all need to be careful that we don't talk about this as "cutting" or "reducing" the teaching load. It is much more a re-structuring and re-arranging, and I think a smart one: the real gain is dropping the bureaucracy and paper shuffling of the additional section. I think we can fairly characterize this as a move for quality and emphasis on the real things of teaching and learning. We're trading a few more students in each section for the four section. The bottom line is tha t whether I have 100+ students in 4 sections or 100+ students in 3 sections is not as salient as the fact that I have 100+ students. As we in PHRE wince at the coming LSP implementation avalanche, we also have to worry that the "7th" section/course that we are punting isn't always the advanced course or the seminar that both faculty and students need as well as the service stuff.

dfg

-- Anonymous, December 19, 1998

The American Sociological Association has recently revised its Code of Ethics, and I was wondering if the following guidelines would be useful to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Below I have taken out the word sociologists and put in the words Truman faculty. Are the following guidelines an example of the type of work that the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities is doing? When Truman made the mission change, it created, by default, personal animosities and intellectual differences among faculty. Originally, the University was a regional teaching college. Later, the University became a public, state-wide, liberal arts university. It was inevitable that this structural change would create some personal animosities and intellectual differences among faculty. I think that the University needs to establish parameters which identify the inappropriate and unethical ways to express the personal animosities and intellectual differences which arise from the dramatic change which the University has undergone. Perhaps the following guidelines would be helpful.

1. Truman faculty are obligated to protect the rights of students to fair treatment. a. Truman faculty should provide students with a fair and honest statement of the scope and perspective of their courses, clear expectations for student performance, and fair, timely, and easily accessible evaluations of their work. b. Truman faculty must refrain from disclosure of personal information concerning students where such information is not directly relevant to issues of professional competence. 2. Truman faculty must refrain from exploiting students a. Truman faculty must not coerce or deceive students into serving as research subjects. b. Truman faculty must not represent the work of students as their own. c. Truman faculty have an explicit responsibility to acknowledge the contributions of students and to act on their behalf in setting forth agreements regarding authorship and other recognition. 3. Truman faculty must not coerce personal or sexual favors or economic or professional advantages from any person, including students, research assistants, clerical staff, or colleagues. 4. Truman faculty must not permit personal animosities or intellectual differences vis-a-vis colleagues to foreclose student access to those colleagues or to interfere with student learning, academic progress, or professional development.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 1999

My own two cents is that what Keith has provided us with for discussion is not at all false, but I would worry if it were taken to be the whole of the story of Truman faculty "roles and responsibilities," rather than one part.

I think one of the things that emerged clearly from our "Faculty Roles and Responsibilties" meeting last fall is that many faculty feel that our institutional culture already too much defines faculty as mere means toward student goals rather "ends" in a richer version of an academic community.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

This discussion begins to sound alarmingly like the controversy over the value of "research" in a "teaching" institution. Under ideal conditions, faculty research (in a teaching institution) contributes either directly or (somewhat) indirectly to classroom practice. A professor who actively pursues research frequently brings new ideas and tactics to the classroom, and helps students reach higher goals in their own education.

At Truman, the ideal ideal also involves students in this research. Some disciplines make this more convenient and practical than others do.

But we need to see restrictions and rules (like research) as serving both faculty and students. Students need to know when faculty cross an invisible line in conduct; faculty need to know what they can count on from administration and other faculty if they have problems as well. We should not see either of these issues in the rhetorical category of "false dilemma." We need to seek balance -- and an improved atmosphere as well as improved opportunities for all of us.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 1999

Keith Doubt writes --

Regarding research and student research, I wonder what direction Truman University is taking. In the past, I have supervised students on research projects, and students have received significant financial support for their work and research whereas I received none for this work. Once this research resulted in a co-authored article in a refereed journal. This inverted stratification and disconcerting disparity gives an odd message. Can the University encourage student research while deemphasizing faculty research? Can faculty support student research if their own projects are not supported? If faculty are discouraged from engaging in research that influences and contributes to the development of their field, how can they influence students to undertake this activity? It is important that the University not exploit the good will and positive spirit that many faculty show when they inspire and motivate students to undertake lively and interesting research projects. Utilitarian logic and pragmatic strategies will debase faculty good will, and such action will destroy the norms and values that sustain a liberal arts environment.

David Gruber replies: I'll be more blunt than Keith was: Am I remembering correctly that the student research stipends are for research that is "special" and "extra" enough that it earns the student $2000? So a student does $2000 worth of student-level research, and the faculty member supervising/directing this receives zero/zip/nada recompense? Particularly when we are encouraged to do these in the summer?

VPPA Gordon has asked what would show valuing faculty; this is not it: having our work taken for granted. Sadly it is the continuing model at Truman, from Freshman week, to summer teaching, to workshops, to portfolio reading: we are always operating in a discount mode, as a sacrifice.

At a ratio of 16/1 we already have so much to do to sustain the quality of work appropriate to a liberal arts institution. We should be more careful about our most precious resource: faculty time and energy.

dfg

-- Anonymous, February 27, 1999

For an online version of the VPAA's Sept. (2000) draft statement on faculty roles and responsibilities (and cover letter), see the VPAA website at: http://www2.truman.edu/vpaa/

- ghj

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000