CSU Faculty Voice: November 2009

Saturday, November 14, 2009

CSU in last week's news

Just in case you haven't been watching the latest on CSU in the news...

Peter Sachs is back reporting on education in The Chicago Current the new on-line local watchdog for Chi politics. Two articles from November 9, 2009 to check out:

"CSU Students Question Quinn Appointments"
http://www.chicagocurrent.com/articles/30720-CSU-students-question-Quinn-appointments

and a follow-up to Dr Watson's actions at City Colleges, "Questionable Spending for Watson's Posh Party"

http://www.chicagocurrent.com/articles/30719-Questionable-spending-for-Watson-s-posh-party

The Chicago Tribune hopes the appointment (at last) of four new trustees will help the situation at CSU:

"Starting Over" November 11th

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1111edit2nov11,0,1204074.story

And if you can access the Chronicle of Higher Education you can read what is really a love letter to Dr. Watson and Rev. Finney. Note--not one faculty member or representative of the faculty is quoted in this article even though two students appear. Is Hermene Hartman ghostwriting for the Chronicle now?

Chronicle of Higher Education November 8, 2009

"A Real-Life Lesson in Why Accountability Matters" by Goldie Blumenstyk

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Real-Life-Lesson-in-Why-A/49067/

Saturday, November 7, 2009

First Amendment Anyone?

This week a draft document titled "CSU Policy Manual" made its way into our e-mail boxes with a request for comments. Self-described as "a reference tool to help managers understand and implement University policies," it is troubling on several levels.

First, the document is vague about which employees are being addressed. Sometimes, there is a reference to "all employees," although the majority of the document's text seems to be directed at CSU staff rather than faculty.

Second, the section titled "Public Relations" is extremely problematic. The full text reads:

"The Public Relations policy reflects and supports the University's one face to our students, community and supports. The policy makes it easier for everyone at the university to work with the news media and improves coordination of media relations throughout the organization.

All university employees are required to comply with this policy.

All inquiries from the press or other media must be referred to University Public Relations.

When anyone receives a call from the news media, ask and record the following information, then contact Public Relations:

Date and time of call
Caller's name
Name of publication, station and location (city, state)
Phone number
Specific question
Deadline, if any"

Again, this section is quite vague, other than its insistence that the policy be followed by "all employees." For example, all inquiries from the media must be referred to the university's public relations section? How about questions that pertain to a faculty member's area of expertise?

However, with the caveat that this document is simply a draft, I think the tone of the policy is the most troubling aspect of this particular section. I wonder how this policy squares with the first amendment to the constitution? As long as a particular faculty member does not claim to be articulating official university policy why the need for censorship? Or for a unified message? Given the recent admonitions from our incoming administration to avoid talking to the press, this seems like an attempt to muzzle dissent at a time when we should be engaging in vigorous debate.

Am I being an alarmist here? I would like to hear from others about their thoughts on this matter.

Thanks to Haki Madhabuti

"1. He/she must be a scholar of national note, with significant peer review publications and books in his or her field. There must be no doubt as to his/her standing in the community of scholars. This would also include a history of the candidate’s participation in the appropriate professional organizations.

2. He/she must have served with distinction as the administrative head of a major unit within an institution of higher learning or at the important position of Provost and/or Dean. Of course, prior service at the presidential level is preferred.

3. He/she must have a documented history of raising significant monies from the private and public sectors. At most major and research one universities it is not unusual to expect the president to come with a plan to raise in excess of half a billion dollars or more in the first few years.

4. The prospective president must have a consensus buy-in from the faculty, students, administration and staff, therefore, arriving with a unity mandate to lead by joining a University community that has bought into his or her vision for the future."

From an open letter to the CSU Community, 2009.