From michaeljgerhardt@gmail.com Thu Apr 5 07:19:08 2007 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:17:18 -0400 From: Michael Gerhardt To: Andrew Perrin Subject: Re: Faculty Governance Survey My responses are below -- On 3/29/07, Andrew Perrin wrote: Greetings- I am writing as part of an effort to generate more information on candidates running for faculty governance positions at UNC. This survey is a project of the American Association of University Professors' UNC chapter. Any answers you choose to provide to the questions below will be posted to my faculty governance page at http://perrin.socsci.unc.edu/fg and will be publicized to interested faculty. Thank you for your service to the university! Best wishes, Andrew J. Perrin Department of Sociology andrew_perrin@unc.edu 1.) What issues, concerns, and areas do you hope to address through your service on faculty government? I hope to address several issues, concerns, and areas through my service in faculty governance: First, I want to make the promotion and tenure process as transparent as possible. It is important for everyone (but particularly for those seeking promotion and tenure) to be as fully informed as possible about how the promotion and tenure process works. Second, I am interested in helping to improve the mentoring process for untenured faculty. Third, I am interested in trying to build bridges between different parts of the university. My hope is to help us better understand teaching, scholarship, and service opportunities and challenges throughout the different parts of the university. Fourth, I hope to facilitate accountability for the people who make decisions on promotion and tenure. Accountability is of course an important check on what the promotion and tenure committee (as well as what every other committee) does. 2.) To what extent to you believe faculty interests differ from those of administrators? I believe the interests of administrators and faculty are overlapping and not precisely the same. We all care about a lot of the same things -- such as the quality of teaching -- but as a representative of the faculty I intend to be especially sensitive to some matters -- such as the allocation of resources -- on which the faculty and administrative outlooks are not likely to be the same. 3.) How should we maintain academic integrity in the face of increasing financial pressures? Maintaining academic integrity is one of the most important obligations we have as faculty. I do not believe "increasing financial pressures" should influence our strong commitment to maintaining academic integrity at the highest possible level. 4.) 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 concerned about increasing inequalities within the faculty based on tenure-track vs. fixed-term appointments and different salary levels. I am familiar with the advantages of providing different kinds of faculty appointments, but we should do everything possible to maintain the highest quality teaching and services to our student and to maintaining equitable standards for everyone who teaches and serves the academic community. I recognize that the promotion and tenure does not have complete power, or authority, over those issues, but would remain as sensitive as possible to these issues to the extent they do fall within the authority of the committee. 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? The faculty governance system of course has to balance as well as it can its focus on prominent university issues with its focus on faculty's specific needs. I recognize further that university-wide committees are frequently deciding very specific issues that affect the lives of real people. In making decisions about specific cases, the committees should be careful, I believe, not to be caught up in abstract causes but make the best possible decisions on the merits of the real issues before them. To put that point slightly differently, I would very concerned about imposing on committees or using committees to vindicate broad principles without sensitivity to the particular merits of specific cases. I appreciate that the "merits" of specific cases may depend to some extent on personal philosophies about broader issues such as academic freedom. Of course, we should defend these broader principles, but when we do we should do at least two things: First, we should disclose which principles we are defending. Second, we should be careful not to treat our colleagues as means to some ends. I am prepared to review every case as thoroughly as possible and to respect (and do what I can to preserve) the dignity of everyone coming before the committee. 6.) Are you a member of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)? Yes 7.) Any additional comments?