August 24, 2007
Covenant faculty and control
Let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect for the faculty at Covenant, and highly value the education I received from them while I was there. None of my complaints about the college are directed at them.
But if the administration at a major research university or state school--heck, even a liberal arts school worth its salt--attempted such a blatant power grab as has been made by Anderson et al over student publications, the faculty would be up in arms before the order was finished printing. Though while I was on campus there was a general feeling that the faculty was frequently less-than-pleased with administration policies, nothing was said publicly and no real opposition consolidated, and I think I've figured out why.
Covenant professors don't have tenure.
The best they can home for is something like a five or seven year contract--the maximum length escapes me--but they are always subject to removal at the end of their contract if they piss off the wrong people. Faculty at other institutions are more or less permanent and may only be removed for cause, a la Ward Churchill, so it takes actions as over the line as his to put one's job at risk.
As such, though I do wish there was more the faculty would do, I don't think I can in good conscience ask them to stand up to the administration. They've mostly got families and kids to take care of, and they've made sufficient sacrifices working at Covenant--research output is nothing like it would have been elsewhere because of the nature of the school--that getting hired elsewhere is not guaranteed.
The system has been this way for as long as I can remember, and has probably been this way since the college was founded. I'm not sure whether this was designed primarily as a method for institutional control or simply a financial necessity, but it can certainly be used as the former, and I can see it going down that way in this case. This policy cannot be attributed to the current administration, as they were not its authors, though it certainly helps them.
So my sympathies go out to the faculty. Their hands are tied.
and while we're beating the drum for the faculty, I hear (but havent yet been able to verify) that their health plan deductible is now $8000. I understand that healthcare costs are crazy these days, but if that figure is true, that's going to drive or keep away some good folks, especially those with young families and/or health issues.
Posted by: bobw at August 24, 2007 11:14 AMHonestly, its the faculty that makes Covenant as great as it is. The Student Development and Administration can only add or subtract from the Covenant experience outside of the classroom. I did not realize that faculty did not have tenure at Covenant.
Seriously profs, you have the highest respect of the alumni. You shaped most of our experience during our time on campus for the good. Thank you.
Do people really think that a non-performance based system like tenure would make the situation any better?
In my experience, the distinction of Covenant College was the extent to which the professors taught the material themselves and engaged the students (not to mention from a reformed approach). With universities that offer tenure, the incentive is to brown nose whomever will be sitting on your tenure committee, and then, upon achieving tenure, to cease all meaningful teaching activities, because you face little chance of ever losing your job.
Posted by: Ben at August 24, 2007 01:29 PMThat's one of the arguments against a tenure system, one which I actually find rather compelling. I'm not trying to argue that Covenant should grant tenure, and I don't think there in a position to do so anyways. But it does make a difference in the way faculty can express themselves, and I just wanted to point that out.
Posted by: ryan at August 24, 2007 01:44 PMhow can i contact you about the bagpipe issue and the stuff you're working on w/josiah? i want to get involved with this and i don't have your email.
Posted by: aihley at August 25, 2007 04:17 AMI can't speak definitively for now, but historically the faculty have operated under 1, 3, and 5 year contracts. But all of those contracts had enough "weasel words" in them to allow there to be no true "tenure" in any sense of the words. The last contract I saw said: "It is understood that this contract may be terminated by the College for failure to fulfill the duties described in the _Faculty_Manual_, pp. 12-49. The following are examples of reasons for terminating the contract: doctrinal deviation, moral failure, neglect of duty, such friction with colleagues or with the administration as would, in the opinion of the College, be disruptive to the unity of the College, or financial difficulties of the College. The termination of the contract because of financial difficulties of the College shall be within the power of the College and at its sole discretion, but such discretion shall be exercised in good faith."
In hindsight, I guess I'm surprised that the contract wasn't presented on a rectangular "frame" of paper with the contract wording written in this thin "edge" around an enormous HOLE ... indicating just how much of a "contract" this really was! :-)
On the other hand, I think (again historically speaking) complaining about the health care benefits is not the weak link on the college's part that some would make it to be. As long as Bob Harbert had anything to do with it (and I know he might not now), the college was always exceptional at trying to find innovative and unique ways to provide quality health care insurance at reasonable prices to the faculty and staff. Any problems there I would attribute to the generic problems we all face in this area as a country, not to any limiting influence of the administration.
--
RDS
Bob FYI the deductible I believe at CIGNA healthcare was upwards of 8000 dollars as well... scott could verify that. I was astounded to find out that Josiah and Coptix a company of 20 people or so had better health insurance than I did at CIGNA a company of 1000s upon 1000s.
Posted by: holton at August 27, 2007 03:59 PMI'm not going to criticize the administration for their decisions on health care. Not only do I not really know what's going on, but health care is a problem faced by the economy at large, and Covenant has to deal with it just like everyone else does. I believe that they're trying to do their best on healthcare, and I'm not in a position to say that they aren't.
I am, however, in a position to say that nationalizing all student publications is a bad move regardless of motive, and I need not assign malice to anyone to say that. I frankly don't care why Anderson et al decided to do this: it's the wrong thing to do.
Posted by: ryan at August 27, 2007 05:32 PM