From maffly@email.unc.edu Tue Apr 11 22:45:11 2006 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:43:14 -0400 From: Laurie Maffly-Kipp To: Andrew J Perrin Subject: Re: Request for Information from Candidates for Faculty Office Dear Andrew, Thanks for your email. I'll try my best to answer the questions you've raised. I agree that it is really helpful to know where candidates stand on a variety of important issues. Your questions give me some clue to your own interests (and those, presumably, of the other folks who will read this). I should preface this, though, by saying that some of these questions are difficult to respond to in the abstract; obviously, I can't tell you exactly how I would react in specific situations. And, furthermore, in my work on the council I would try as best as possible to articulate and reflect the views of the faculty that I was representing--so, your questions are equally helpful to me as a sample of some of the concerns of my colleagues that would steer my decisions. > 1.) To what extent to you believe faculty interests differ from those > of administrators? Ideally, I'd love to believe that we are all here for the same reason: to do the best job we can to train our students and to further cutting-edge research (in my case, in the humanities). But we all know that increasingly, faculty feel as though their opinions are not represented or even well presented to administrators. Conversely, economic realities compel administrators to make decisions that don't seem to reflect the best interests of the teaching and research mission of the university. I've come to believe that, while some of these structural tensions are inevitable (or at least long-term), there are many ways that the bureaucratic apparatus at Carolina could be both more flexible and more responsive to the input of faculty. The problem isn't simply one of faculty versus administration: it is the outcome of a bureaucracy that is feudal in structure, in which isolated departments report to deans without feeling as though they have any comparative sense of what is going on elsewhere. Chairs, as "middle-level managers," are disempowered by their lack of consultation with other chairs (outside of the highly formalized setting of the chairs meeting), and faculty all too rarely consult across departments and disciplines. There are certainly more progressive ways to make faculty feel as though their voices in administrative decisions are not simply heard but are actively solicited. How this can happen is, admittedly, a tough task. The inertia of tradition and a vast and complex structure makes change hard. But I am optimistic enough to believe that sharing knowledge among ourselves, and of consistently voicing our concerns to administrators in constructive ways, is necessary to making UNC the place we want it to be. > > 2.) How should we maintain academic integrity in the face of > increasing financial pressures? Consultation and meaningful dialogue, the encouragement of creative thinking, and a willingness to experiment. Talking and more talking, in ways that really involve faculty. I also believe that we need to be better at modeling (for our many constituencies) exactly what academic integrity looks like. It's not that we don't have it, but I think we tend to take it for granted that our goals are self-evident. Instead, we may have to say some things out loud--louder than we might want to--about why we are here, what we are about as teachers and researchers, and why it is so critically important that we do what we do. It takes a lot of repetition to get that message out. All too often, we are caricatured as cranky reactionaries responding negatively to the "innovations" of entrepreneurial thinking, rather than as intellectuals who have a positive vision for how scholarship can change the world for the better. > > 3.) What are your views on increasing inequalities within the faculty > based on, for example, tenure-track vs. fixed term appointments and > differing salary levels? I am and have always been adamantly opposed to the many inequalities within our salary system (which is, once again, dependent on a feudal system in which departments vie against one another and amongst themselves for resources). Salary compression for advanced assistants and associates, the pressure to attain external offers as a means of procuring raises, and a star system that rewards work in uneven ways, all seem to me to be a recipe for breeding all the things that we don't want to encourage among faculty: a lack of loyalty to UNC, a desire to see all of one's intellectual rewards coming from outside sources, and a sense that salary pools within departments pit the interests of close colleagues against one another. I have spoken out about these problems before (not always to welcoming ears) and will continue to do so. There has to be a better and more just way to make some of these hard decisions. > > 4.) How would you respond on behalf of the faculty if you found out > that administrators had circumvented serious faculty consultation to > pursue major outside funding for a controversial new curriculum? Obviously, my response would depend on how and why the curriculum was controversial in the first place. Controversy isn't always bad in an intellectual context; at one time, for example, the idea of creating a Black Cultural Center was deeply controversial on this campus--and there were quite a few faculty who didn't see the wisdom of it. On the other hand, I do believe that a curriculum should be governed, first and foremost, by faculty considerations of what our students need--not simply what is economically viable or expedient. As universities have become more entrepreneurial in seeking external funding, they are in danger--we are in danger--of forgetting that an education is not simply a consumer-fueled snack bar, driven singularly by the desires of wealthy donors. But we have to be vigilant about making that argument in ways that others--administrators, legislators, news columnists, etc.--can hear not simply as criticism, but as extension of a better and richer approach to education, one that will, in the long run, yield much more "value" in terms that they can appreciate. > > 5.) Would you prefer to see a faculty governance system that is > focused on prominent University issues (e.g., academic freedom and > educational policy) or one that is more focused on faculty's specific > needs (e.g., benefits and salary)? Or, alternatively, how would you > seek to balance the two? It seems to me that we have to try to do all of those things, as hard as that sounds. As I said previously, I believe that faculty have to play a major role in issues of curriculum, educational policy, academic freedom, etc. But material needs are impossible to separate from those intellectual questions. If we don't have good health care, maternity benefits, or childcare, it is hard to see how we will have the time and energy to devote to the academic issues that are so timely and important. If morale is low among faculty (and I believe that it is relatively low), how can we pursue the teaching, research and service that we desire? But how to balance the two? I don't have an answer, other than to constantly keep them connected (and not just for faculty, but for housekeepers, groundskeepers, and yes, even administrators!) and in play. If this is a community, then all the parts need to be cared for. And all the voices need to be heard: so, with that in mind, I would assume that I wouldn't need to have all the answers--as long as I could help establish modes of communication and engagement that would keep the ideas coming from all sides. Thanks for taking the time with this. Laurie Maffly-Kipp Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies Department of Religious Studies, CB #3225 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (919) 962-3927 maffly@email.unc.edu