The Albany Times Union reports today that Shirley Jackson has accused a well-respected Arts Professor of supporting terrorism and ordered his exhibit shut down. The Institute is now being slammed for censorship by other artists. This isn’t the type of attention we need.
I wish I could say I didn’t see this coming.
The results of this week’s faculty referendum speak for themselves. 200 to 21, in favor of the resolution below:
We, the faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, wish to declare our support for the Faculty Senate as our representative body, and endorse the Faculty Handbook as the sole instrument presently in force concerning faculty governance at Rensselaer.In particular, we affirm the legitimacy of the spring 2007 election that was conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Faculty Handbook, and we call for the immediate restoration of the Faculty Senate and its committees to their governance functions.
Furthermore we support only those proposals to revise faculty governance that follow the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook for such changes.
Finally, we call on the Provost to enter into dialogue with the Faculty Senate in a legitimate process of shared governance that results in restored mutual trust.
We’re also seeing results in the attention we’re getting. The Albany Times Union reported on the situation at Rensselaer today. Toeing the line for Shirley Jackson, Bob Palazzo had the following to say:
“The board in my opinion is strengthening the role of tenure in university governance and stewardship,” said Provost Robert Palazzo. “It’s basically calling for the tenure and tenure-track faculty to take responsibility.”
Was it not these same tenure and tenure-tract faculty who started this fight by saying they wanted to extend the right to vote to clinical professors? Some other good observations have been made on the “Digg” website.
Finally, you can look at Bob Palazzo’s Shirley Jackson-choreographed performance in front of the student government (it’s around 44 minutes in). It takes a while to load, but that gives you enough time to think about how much money Bob must be getting paid to propagate this rubbish.
Happy anniversary, Rensselaer. Tomorrow, September 24, 2007, is the eighth anniversary of the arrival of Shirley Jackson. This is probably an appropriate time to remember what her formal welcome entailed.
Shirley Jackson declared that every VIP was to be picked up in a Lincoln town cars rented exclusively for the occasion. None of the faculty on the inauguration committee were allowed to use their own vehicles for the purpose. Shirley Jackson also declared that each of the roughly 900 guests receive a hand-crafted Steuben vase as a party favor, which cost approximately $60 each. When she was told she would have to pay for the party favors out of pocket, her taste suddenly shifted towards something more low-key (I believe it was a 50 cent bookmark).
The ultimate pricetag was upwards of $2 million dollars.
Remember the property in the Adirondacks that Rensselaer purchased in 2004, supposedly for use as a retreat but actually as a residence for Shirley Jackson? If you don’t, we can recap it: apparently, the Institute-owned estate at 2005 Tibbits Avenue wasn’t enough. Perhaps it was too close to that pesky campus. Or maybe the iron fence and round-the-clock Public Safety presence wasn’t providing enough security.
In true Shirley Jackson fashion, this was done wth total disregard for the truth. The official reason for the acquisition, reported by the Albany Times Union, was that it was “to be used as a retreat and conference center for faculty and staff”. Here’s the evidence to the contrary:
To the best of my knowledge, this is the approximate location of the house. I’d certainly like to know how much the Institute is spending to guard it, operate it or maintain it.
“A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.”
- Josef Goebbels
In March 2005, an email went out to the faculty. It asked the reader to provide their opinions of several statements, including the three below:
9. Some type of legal work action (e.g., “work-to-rule”) should be used to illustrate the current state-of-mind of many faculty on this campus that governance is failing.
10. If attempts to repair the current situation fail, I would support brining in an outside mediator (e.g., the Committee on Governance of the American Association of University Professors).
11 . If all attempts to repair a worsening situation fail, I would support organizing the RPI faculty.
Within days of the distribution of the survey, an edict came down from then-Provost Bud Peterson denouncing the survey and declaring that the action of simply typing the above sentences was illegal. In the interest of rectifying this miscarriage of justice (and ending the misconception that the action of making such statements warrants reprimand), let us explore these radical ideas from the safety our homes.
Some type of legal work action (e.g., “work-to-rule”) should be used to illustrate the current state-of-mind of many faculty on this campus that governance is failing.
This could mean anything from wearing a certain color clothing to putting pieces of yarn around office doorknobs. To say that such expression is somehow prohibited by the law or Institute policy is insane. We’re allowed to wear purple wristbands to raise awareness for pancreatic cancer. We’re allowed to wear pink ribbons to raise awareness for breast cancer. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to wear red armbands to raise awareness for the cancer in the Troy Building?
If attempts to repair the current situation fail, I would support bringing in an outside mediator (e.g., the Committee on Governance of the American Association of University Professors).
Before considering the concept of outside mediation, perhaps it’s prudent that the most volatile part of that statement (the mention of the AAUP) be examined.
Through assistance and advice to individual faculty members and administrators, state and federal lobbying, amicus briefs before the courts, support for collective bargaining, and other means, the AAUP helps shape American higher education and ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good.
While the AAUP is engaged in the formation of unions, statement 9 was referring to one of the many other services by the organization. Had mediation by another organization been suggested, it’s unlikely that the Provost would have been able to make a case against it.
If all attempts to repair a worsening situation fail, I would support organizing the RPI faculty.
There’s consistently one answer to this: Yeshiva. A 5-4 Supreme Court ruling more than 20 years ago said that faculty members were considered by the law to be members of management, thereby prohibiting them from unionizing under federal law. The administration would have us believe that Supreme Court rulings are written in granite, and in the case of those affecting college campuses, empower the President and the Provost to tar and feather those who would violate them. This is not the case. In its two centuries in existence, the Supreme Court has reversed plenty of past decisions, and there’s no reason to believe that Yeshiva can’t be one of them. The administration might still try to make the argument that the survey was soliciting support for a cause, something which is forbidden by the Human Resource Policy Guidelines; however, in defining those causes which are and are not acceptable (professional societies instead of political parties) I suspect we’ll find that the chief requirement be that the cause be one which seeks to advance RPI, and that, my friends, is what this is all about. So what can we take away from these three statements and the reaction they caused?
Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.–Macbeth, Act IV, Scene 1
Whenever someone asks me to compare Shirley Jackson to a figure in history or literature, it’s always to MacBeth. The air of superiority she casts and her belief that her actions are without consequence is of a magnitude to which we must look to fiction to find anything comparable.
Last week’s meeting didn’t bring anything unexpected. The faculty voted overwhelmingly to affirm their support for the Faculty Senate and endorsed the Faculty Handbook as the sole instrument concerning faculty governance. The ball is now in Shirley Jackson’s court, but we all know that her answer, delivered eloquently by her hand-picked Provost, will be nothing constructive. In the interest of being proactive, let’s talk about what happens next. We’ll vote no-confidence in Bob Palazzo (by a huge margin) and in Shirley Jackson (by less, but still a majority). Being the impermeable warrior she is, Jackson will stay on. The only people with the power to remove her–the Trustees–have already shown their indifference for our opinion in allowing things to continue as they have. This will leave us with a very unpleasant choice: call a strike of the faculty, or allow Shirley Jackson to step on us once again.
Frankly, no one I’ve spoken to wants to see the Institute shut down, solely because no one wants the education of the thousands of students to be used as a bargaining chip. Ergo, we need to find another avenue to resolve this problem. This fight must be taken to Shirley Jackson and the trustees. If there’s one thing I know gets under Shirley Jackson’s skin, it’s seeing her name in print in a negative light. So let’s talk about some of the many things that Shirley Jackson doesn’t want us talking about:
Let’s imagine a New York Times profile on “the other side” of America’s most overrated college administrator. Perhaps Forbes will do a story about Jackson’s spending and extrapolate how long it will be before she bankrupts the Institute. Even better, I wonder how little it would take to get the state attorney general to open a probe into the failure of the Jackson administration to fully address those reports of sexual misconduct.
Shirley Jackson may be one cool customer when the faculty are badmouthing her, but when things show up in ink, this won’t be the case. If we can show the world that the misdeeds of this administration are newsworthy, we’ll get the changes we’ve been waiting for.
“…at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy.” –1984, Chapter 17
As late as December 2001, Institute-issued literature was referring to the building that would later scar the west hill of campus as the “Electronic Media and Performing Arts Center”.
Then one day, it became the “Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center”.
As the story goes, Shirley Jackson misspoke at an important event related to EMPAC, saying “experimental” rather than “electronic”, and in true Orwellian fashion, Jackson’s error became the new title.
We need money to heat the buildings, to maintain the campus and of course, to support Shirley Jackson’s ever-changing tastes in vehicles. To finance these expenditures, and to solidify RPI’s financial footing, Shirley Jackson undertook the capital campaign. On paper, it’s a great idea: strengthen the Institute’s endowment which presently stands at a fraction of those of top tier establishments. Unfortunately, Shirley Jackson brings the same capacity for deception of the capital campaign is done in the same manner as she’s done everything else.
Let’s take a look at where that project stands.
The capitol campaign is presently at $1.24 billion. This would be great if that amount of wealth were piled in the Troy building in the form of precious metals or greenbacks, but it isn’t. It’s in the form of promised donations (which we may or may not see), or worse, “in-kind” gifts, the real values of which are subject to debate.
The PACE software that was donated in 2006 was valued at $514 million. Shortly thereafter, the goal of the capitol campaign was increased to $1.4 billion, as the Trustees claimed that they’d reached their $1 billion goal with the PACE gift. I realize that I’m not the first person to say this, but that seems like something of a cop out. By that same logic, someone could donate $200 million of gem-encrusted furniture to department lounges, and by virtue of the fact that students and faculty have access to it, Shirley Jackson could declare that to be putting her one step closer to her goal.
The capitol campaign seems to me like more of a cloak for Shirley Jackson’s spending practices than it is a genuine effort to strengthen the Institute’s financial standing. At present, we’re pouring money into the EMPAC, the ECAV and other pet projects with preposterous price tags, going further into debt under the premise that the money will come in before the debt load cripples us. Seeing as we’ve had our bond rating cut recently, it seems that this sentiment is shared by those outside the Institute.
The strong possibility that the money won’t be here doesn’t bother Shirley Jackson because she won’t be here, either.
Don Steiner wrote a fantastic letter to the faculty, reprinted below.
From: Don Steiner
Date: Sep 5, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Faculty Senate resolution
To: Larry Kagan
Cc: V-Faculty-L@lists.rpi.edu, Clinical-Faculty-L@lists.rpi.edu, leusnj@rpi.eduDear Larry:
I am glad to see this resolution and I commend you and the Faculty Senate. However,I am concerned that the Senate appears to be taking a somewhat reactionary position when I believe a more proactive position is called for. Specifically I would recommend that the Faculty Senate take the following actions:
1. Urge the Faculty not to participate in the Provost’s Governance Review which I consider to be in violation of two of the Middle States Standards as I discussed in a recent memo which I attach to this email..
2. Hold a referendum or circulate a petition requesting that the Administration accept the results of the Spring 2007 elections and halt its current Governance Review until a Review Process can be identified which is acceptable to the Faculty Senate and Faculty.
3. If item 2. above yields no positive results, call for a Vote of No Confidence in the Administration.
I think that the time has come for the Faculty Senate and the Faculty to fight back and actively resist the “illegitimate” actions of the Administration.
Sincerely,Don
Larry Kagan wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> At its Wed meeting the Faculty Senate (suspended) passed the following
> resolution:
>
> We the Faculty Senate resolve that the Promotion and Tenure Committee and
> the Curriculum Committee as elected in Spring 2007 are legitimate as
> constituted.
>
> The Faculty Senate is confident that the spring 07 election was
> legally carried out according to the handbook rules that were then in
> effect, and that no unauthorized clinical faculty voting took place.
> The Faculty Senate also intends to show that the brief that the
> administration presented as the rationale for its suspension of
> governance is not supported by the facts.
>
> Larry Kagan
> Arts Professor
> FS President
Don’s plan is a good one. Give the administration a chance to rectify the situation, and if they ignore the opportunity, take action.
I was approached just now by a distraught student who informed me that the remembrance ceremony for the attacks of September 11, 2001 had been canceled on the ridiculous grounds that Shirley Jackson would be out of town. Can anyone substantiate this?
