CSU Faculty Voice: More thoughts on the Administration's Survey to Dismantle the Faculty Senate: "I will not be completing this survey without more information..."

Sunday, October 19, 2014

More thoughts on the Administration's Survey to Dismantle the Faculty Senate: "I will not be completing this survey without more information..."

The survey many (apparently not all) faculty have received this weekend has elicited more than a few discussions online here and among faculty and I believe it will continue at the UPI membership meeting tomorrow.

This survey illustrates the Administration and Board of Trustees' naked desire to take over the CSU Faculty Senate and turn it into its own rubber stamp, a body that will not trouble it when the Administration tries to do things like mandate curriculum (senior/M.A. theses), institute your department's DAC, or impose faculty members in your department (Criminal Justice hirings) in trumped up searches --the only kind they know how to run. They've already neutered the SGA (invalidating their elections last year). Now the Faculty Senate is targeted with the same excuse to shut it down. Who's left then? Look out UPI.

At any rate, our colleague, Dr Arthur Redman, offers this assessment of the administration's attempt at surveying the faculty. He is allowing me to print his comments here:

"One of the advantages (or disadvantages, depending on your perspective) of teaching social research methods is the development of a very critical eye regarding surveys.

If one of my students submitted this in class he or she would receive a D (for effort only). Not only is it poorly developed, it has the worst type of research design possible in surveys (10 open-ended questions). Moreover, it fails completely in one key element. To wit, every survey should have a clear introduction which identifies the survey-writer/s, the intended purpose of the survey, and how its results will be used. This survey does none of those things. It merely says that it is gathering information for an "ongoing conversation," and that we should send it to our chair, who will send it to the Dean's Office, which will forward it to "the administration."

I will not be completing this survey without more information. I want to know who sent it and what they intend to do with it. I further recommend that all of us exercise great caution with this survey. I am cc'ing Dr. Jones in hopes that we can get clarification on this survey."

Thanks Art.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.