On my way off campus last week I ran into a colleague (no, not one of the "cadre," no, not one of the "disgruntled white faculty" for that matter), but a colleague whom I can only describe as "incensed" over the recent news of appointments that day both interim and others at the administrative level. "She does not even have her Ph.D. .." She, being the newly named, but no big surprise, interim provost.
Well, technically, I guess, at least I think "she" does, I mean no one would be styling themself "Dr" in all those memoranda since February if they had not actually acquired a Ph.D. in hand, right? What would happen if someone tried to ask directly for information? Someone should try.
And let's not forget where we are. The rules that apply to faculty don't apply to administrators and anything that applies at other universities, does not necessarily apply here... Faculty are usually required to have a Ph.D. in hand upon taking up employment (unless of course you are given the job by the president outside of proper faculty searches). But who really cares about these technicalities? My colleague of last week was fuming about lots more than just a provost without a Ph.D. or experience at anything more than the 7 City Colleges (CSU of course could now simply qualify as the 8th).
Interim this, interim that.
The Grand Master, the Puppet Master of us all has been using his power over the Trustees and the coattails of Emil to do anything now. And nearly everything is an interim position these days . In case you hadn't heard, there are no chairs appointed for anything but what is now an interim one-year position. The same person has been hired as Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for the third year in a row! What a joke.
Everyone is interim unless you are in the legal department. Two new lawyers added just today--wonder if they are 6-figure salaries or just $90K? Well, why hire faculty when CSU is really now less an institution of higher learning than a truly, madly, deeply political patronage hiring machine? A number of time-consuming searches in departments and deans offices netted NOTHING in some places (again) this year. The Prez is "not impressed" with the calibre of candidates brought to his desk (again at any other university besides a patronage pit, the Deans and Provosts are the last approval, the prez is too busy raising money to interfere). And you've heard the stories about how at City Colleges he turned back searches because there were no women/"minorities" (depending on his audience) in a particular the department. Uhm excuse me, I thought quotas were illegal? Tell me Dr W. is not cloaking himself in quota hiring? You've got enough lawyers on staff, better figure out a way to square that with EOE. Or is the intention something else? No more outsiders need apply (read that any way you want DWF). And after the Prez's interference in the retention and tenure processes over the past two years one could construe a pattern of just eliminating tenure altogether (except for those administrators whose contracts he wants to rewrite and place in tenured positions in departments of course).
Other Buzz...a retirement in CJ last month--will we see yet another lawyer friend (or 2 or 3) given the tenure-track job?
Napoleon Moses, where are you?????