From milg@med.unc.edu Tue Apr 11 16:38:42 2006
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:33:13 -0400
From: Sharon L. Milgram <milg@med.unc.edu>
To: Andrew J Perrin <andrew_perrin@unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Request for Information from Candidates for Faculty Office

Andrew: here are my answers to your questions. Thanks for asking -

Sharon


> 
> 1.) To what extent to you believe faculty interests differ from those
> of administrators?


We all share a common goal of building a strong, diverse community of
scholars but it is often the case that faculty interests differ from those
of University administrators. The tension can be very good for the
University in that it makes for vigorous dialogue and forces everyone to
clearly define their positions, to look for common ground, and to
compromise. On the other hand this type of tension can be destructive,
especially if different interests are not acknowledged and discussed openly
throughout the decision-making process. That is why I am interested in
serving on the Chancellor's advisory committee -- this is a good place for
difficult discussion and a way for faculty to bring up issues be addressed.

> 2.) How should we maintain academic integrity in the face of
> increasing financial pressures?

By remembering that each of us has an individual code of ethics and that we
must take our responsibilities as educators seriously. Also the University
needs to remain vigilant to assure that faculty who misuse power or who
exhibit questionable ethical judgment are held to a high standard. There is
no room for equivocating on issues of academic integrity.
 
> 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?


Some of these inequalities reflect the reality of how difficult it can be to
attract and retain outstanding faculty. That said, we need to be certain
that we also take care of our fixed-term faculty because they fill a
critical need on our campus. We also need to look carefully at staff
salaries - they are appalling and it is increasingly difficult for staff to
live in the CH community where they work.

> 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?

It is not clear what you mean by serious faculty consultation or
controversial new curriculum, so this is a difficult question for me to
answer.  That said, whenever the faculty council agrees that the
administration bypassed proper channels in approving a new curriculum or any
other academic issue, they should speak up vigorously. Within reasonable
limits I would support outside funding for any controversial curriculum that
meets our academic standards and does not violate our non-discrimination
policies. 

> 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?

Both of these areas need to be addressed but the work of the faculty council
should be more heavily focused on issues of academic policy. Faculty
governance committees should collaborate with other units on campus
to assure that issues relating to the specific needs of faculty are
addressed. However, I can see times when the faculty council should take a
strong lead on dealing with these types of issues.