|
Post by anony on Nov 28, 2010 12:13:02 GMT -5
You're right - I can't find the book or the article published in Journal of Social Sciences. From what I can tell (and any faculty should chime in) book chapters don't count, neither do conferences papers
|
|
|
Post by thatsite on Nov 28, 2010 12:31:31 GMT -5
That website doesn't make her case very well....maybe in addition to not being a particularly great scholar, she was just not very pleasant to have around.
|
|
|
Post by anony on Nov 28, 2010 13:18:42 GMT -5
I also am suspicious of selective quoting. I think what would make her case stronger is if she posted the original documents (marking out names etc)...
|
|
|
Post by Puzzled Too on Nov 28, 2010 13:36:05 GMT -5
We know that the majority in the department voted for tenure on the basis of teaching, scholarship and service. After the controversy, they switched their vote. If her publications were deficient at the time of the first vote for tenure at Ithaca, why did they vote for her later? Isn't it specious to assume that her publications were the independent variable when they didn't vary?
We also know that the person who was alleged to have harassed the tenure candidate did not recuse himself. There is no evidence and it is highly unlikely that the administration even looked at recusal, so to conclude that "the evidence was adjudged insufficient," is unfounded. More generally, people recuse themselves. They do it to avoid bias or the appearance of bias. How could anybody suppose that there is no appearance of bias when the alleged harasser sits in judgment of his accuser?
As sociologists, as specialists in "social justice" (as the job description specifies), is this the kind of behavior that we want to encourage or discourage?
|
|
|
Post by Care less on Nov 28, 2010 13:41:36 GMT -5
I don't care if we discourage or encourage. The question is whether I would want to trust this department with my tenure decision. That answer is obvious. No Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by anony on Nov 28, 2010 13:55:15 GMT -5
How could anybody suppose that there is no appearance of bias when the alleged harasser sits in judgment of his accuser?
____
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or the recent discussion but whether there was biased was not the question I was raising at all. Clearly, a person who is accused of sexual harassment should not be a part of the tenure review process. There was a 4 to 3 original vote (and again - this is what she is saying. I'm not questioning it I'm just saying this is the only source I'm able to find) for her. She, and I quote, asks "With such strong record, how was it possible that some faculty within my department opposed my tenure? Well, there were four faculty who voted in favor of me receiving tenure; there were three who voted against." And goes on to explain why she thinks the others did not vote for her (re: sexual harassment - again, let me be clear, I am not questioning whether or not the sexual harassment occurred nor am I saying that this was a fair denial)
The questions I'm bringing up or comments I'm making just refer to her scholarship (which she calls, along with the service and teaching "such a strong record"). Obviously there were three who voted along with this and agreed her scholarship is strong. I just was/am curious about this portion since I think this probably has the most weight. I'm also curious (see my above reply saying that IIRC that conference papers and book chapters don't count) as someone who is also trying to understand why someone would or would not be approved tenure since hopefully I will be going through that process sometime in the future.
Again, I am trying to look at the evidence at hand to see what her scholarship record is, and how it holds. I'm not saying that she was or was not fairly denied. That's not the point of my questions at all since if the accused sat on her review committee that is HIGHLY problematic and should be grounds for a re-review.
I know Andy Smith - who was denied tenure at UM - and like her as a person but am not familiar with her written work - I've only heard her speak (and yes, I should take the time to read it, I have a book on my shelf but haven't gotten around to it). I can't really comment on the rigor of her work (since American Studies is not what I'm in so I can't tell "good" versus "not so good" presses and journals). I think one of the problems faculty of color face is being a token at their university - getting pulled in to all different directions (with student orgs, sitting on a bunch of committees - and speculatively I would think there is much more pressure or being asked from faculty of color to do these activities) and don't get to spend time on their scholarship
|
|
|
Post by Sleuth on Nov 28, 2010 14:41:04 GMT -5
We know that the majority in the department voted for tenure on the basis of teaching, scholarship and service. After the controversy, they switched their vote. If her publications were deficient at the time of the first vote for tenure at Ithaca, why did they vote for her later? Isn't it specious to assume that her publications were the independent variable when they didn't vary? Speaking in general, a committee might change their vote if they learned that publications claimed and credited for a first vote still had not appeared by two years later for the second vote. After two more years, you'd expect a stronger record, not a vanishing one. Such a finding would also raise questions about the colleague's credibility.
|
|
guest
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by guest on Nov 28, 2010 15:08:18 GMT -5
So for the alleged victim, we dig into the details to see what she might have done wrong. We examine her writings although there is no evidence that this was the basis of the denial.
For those who are alleged harassers, we give them every benefit of the doubt. We imagine that they found something suspicious on the second vote, although there is no evidence of that.
If you are really serious about her lack of scholarship, compare it to her tenured colleagues and see if she is comparatively deficient.
Maybe they were wrong and maybe they were right to deny her tenure, but I agree with "Care less." No way would I trust my career to these people. Especially now that I know that if they deny my tenure on some sexist/racist basis, other sociologists will investigate my record and make up excuses for whatever they do.
|
|
|
Post by Okay on Nov 28, 2010 15:21:46 GMT -5
A tenure denial occurs. One side says it is justified by Reason 1. The other side says the denial was caused by Reason 2. So why is it wrong for people to check whether it might in fact be Reason 1?
|
|
|
Post by hahaha on Nov 29, 2010 9:43:56 GMT -5
So for the alleged victim, we dig into the details to see what she might have done wrong. We examine her writings although there is no evidence that this was the basis of the denial. For those who are alleged harassers, we give them every benefit of the doubt. We imagine that they found something suspicious on the second vote, although there is no evidence of that. If you are really serious about her lack of scholarship, compare it to her tenured colleagues and see if she is comparatively deficient. Maybe they were wrong and maybe they were right to deny her tenure, but I agree with "Care less." No way would I trust my career to these people. Especially now that I know that if they deny my tenure on some sexist/racist basis, other sociologists will investigate my record and make up excuses for whatever they do. This is a perfect example of why no one takes sociologists seriously.
|
|
|
Post by anony on Nov 29, 2010 14:06:09 GMT -5
This is a perfect example of why no one takes sociologists seriously.
____
Haha- I must be tired because I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with guest
|
|
|
Post by NY NY on Feb 3, 2011 16:36:54 GMT -5
Anyone have news on this position?
|
|
|
Post by weak tie on Mar 28, 2011 10:46:52 GMT -5
Candidates are still coming out this week.
|
|
|
Post by Whazzup on Sept 11, 2011 13:19:24 GMT -5
Was this controversial position filled? There are assistant professors on the faculty roster but I can't tell if any are new hires.
|
|