Results

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.

The MacBeth of Rensselaer

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:

1. The staff have taken an effective pay cut over the past few years, as raises haven’t kept up with the cost of living.
2. The Institute has had a very serious problem with sexual misconduct by faculty members.
3. Her election to the National Academies was not without some funny business.
4. The Provost search committees were largely ignored.
5. The life expectancy of Deans has been dismal since her arrival.

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.

Governance

It’s hard to set foot on campus these days without hearing the “G” word. Unfortunately, most people–including those in the press–have no clear idea what ‘governance’ in this context means, or, for that matter, just what the faculty are looking to fix. Plain and simply, the faculty would like to have a voice in where the Institute is headed. I think it’s fair for people who have such a vested interest in Rensselaer to have more than what they have now, which is nothing.

Part of the problem begins with the misuse of the Office of the Provost. I don’t mean to single out Bob Palazzo, because the problem certainly predates him. As the Chief Academic Officer, the Provost shouldn’t be a hack for the President. Unfortunately, instead of being a listening ear, the Provost is merely a hatchet. Provosts under Shirley Jackson have lacked the independence to an extent I’ve never seen at another school. Most recently, the process by which the new Provost was selected was a charade. If the search committee’s recommendations were truly considered, Shirley Jackson would have gone with someone else. Those involved wanted anyone but Bob Palazzo, as they feared he would be controlled by Dr. Jackson.

Two years ago, a survey was circulated about this topic by the Faculty Senate. I don’t have the full text in front of me, but it essentially asked the faculty about such radical ideas as having the faculty elect a trustee (a practice Cornell allows) and forming a union. Shirley Jackson ordered then-Provost Bud Peterson to order the Faculty Senate to destroy the survey results, and being no more than a hired gun for Jackson, Peterson complied. We all agree this was an outrageous overstepping of boundaries, but the only way to prevent such actions from happening again is to improve the governance structure.

There have been plenty of other actions and practices by the Administration which have led to great concern amongst the faculty. When the graduate tuition system was changed several years ago, many of us lost good graduate students who we could no longer fund. Lacking an avenue to influence this policy, we watched countless students make the painful decision to abandon the pursuit of advanced degrees. At the same time, we’ve watched tens of millions of dollars being thrown into arts and sports complexes while the strength of the Administration’s commitment to science and engineering becomes increasingly subject to debate. Keep in mind that all of this is occurring as the Institute incurs a record amount of debt, of which Shirley Jackson personally assumes no liability whatsoever.

To conclude, I love RPI. I have given it many years, and I want nothing but the best for this school. As such, I believe we need to give the people who share that best interest–the faculty–a bigger say in where things are headed here. Before it’s too late.