|
Absurd Alhazred posted:And the headline if his dismissal remains in place is "UIUC loses departments and outside visitors due to unwarranted reneging on tenure hire promise". How long is it going to sustain donors and State funding like that? Gee, its almost as if UofI's 2030 Master Plan calls for increasing full-fee paying students. I'm sure a bunch of Chinese princelings there to study engineering and compsci really give a poo poo whether UofI has an indian studies department.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gee, its almost as if UofI's 2030 Master Plan calls for increasing full-fee paying students. I'm sure a bunch of Chinese princelings there to study engineering and compsci really give a poo poo whether UofI has an indian studies department. What department it was doesn't matter, what matters is they broke protocol. Don't be dense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gee, its almost as if UofI's 2030 Master Plan calls for increasing full-fee paying students. I'm sure a bunch of Chinese princelings there to study engineering and compsci really give a poo poo whether UofI has an indian studies department. Presumably his story concludes with the students sacking the Chancellor's office while singing La Via Boheme, and then the smart shy guy gets the cute girl with glasses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:What department it was doesn't matter, what matters is they broke protocol. Don't be dense. Where, exactly, in the timeline I posted last page, was protocol violated? Either deans of universities now have the power to appoint tenure faculty which the state is on the hook to pay for, or executive agents are required to approve all contracts witg the state of Illinois and its legislatively-authorized authories. Its almost as if I believe in constitutional process and executive oversight, rather than awarding contracts willy-nilly in this bill-backlogged state. E: Kaal posted:Presumably his story concludes with the students sacking the Chancellor's office while singing La Via Boheme, and then the smart shy guy gets the cute girl with glasses. Followed by a judicial tribunal expelling the "organizers" (non-cloutlist) and accepting an increased volume of full-paying students. Why, I think you've found a plan that'll help with Champaign's overbuilt rental market! Quick, call the property developers, there's some money to be made. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gee, its almost as if UofI's 2030 Master Plan calls for increasing full-fee paying students. I'm sure a bunch of Chinese princelings there to study engineering and compsci really give a poo poo whether UofI has an indian studies department. [citation needed]. I'll help, here's the master plan, what page are you looking at? Also, the US is full of State universities eying the international market, and most of them have better residency policies, meaning that international students would do much better going there, paying a year of out-of-state tuition, and then proceeding with in-state. Also, it may be a university that doesn't have a huge national scandal associated with its name.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:[citation needed]. I'll help, here's the master plan, what page are you looking at? Also, the US is full of State universities eying the international market, and most of them have better residency policies, meaning that international students would do much better going there, paying a year of out-of-state tuition, and then proceeding with in-state. Also, it may be a university that doesn't have a huge national scandal associated with its name. Don't be a fool. You know as well as I do that there's the plan you release for outside consumption, and the plan you pursue. And do detail how this scandal will reduce princeling enrollment in the conpsci and engineering departments, I'm sure most Chinese parents care adamently about academic freedom and indian studies and not "They made HAL." E: I mean, gently caress, do you think the cloutlist don't exist no more? It does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Don't be a fool. You know as well as I do that there's the plan you release for outside consumption, and the plan you pursue. And do detail how this scandal will reduce princeling enrollment in the conpsci and engineering departments, I'm sure most Chinese parents care adamently about academic freedom and indian studies and not "They made HAL." Ah! So is this an argument from privileged information, or argument from conspiracy?  Anyway, it doesn't matter what they plan to happen by 2030 if they don't have a functioning university by 2020. Nobody's going to come all the way from China to learn at Urbana-Champaign Technical College that has been downgraded from a university due to an academic scandal and the tanking of academics and collapse of governance that resulted from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Ah! So is this an argument from privileged information, or argument from conspiracy? Its Illinois politics, ain't no loving conspiracies when you can watch everything out in the open. E: PM me if you wanna talk about this more. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Why are people still replying to Kaal and My Imaginary GF when both have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no clue about how academic employment works, that they don't even read the articles they link themselves, and that they will move the goalposts and nitpick things to death just to win by exhaustion? The ignore list is your friend. On the topic at hand, the boycott of UIUC has gained some steam: http://crookedtimber.org/2014/09/01/salaita-by-the-numbers-5-cancelled-lectures-3-votes-of-no-confidence-3849-boycotters-and-1-nyt-article/
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its Illinois politics, ain't no loving conspiracies when you can watch everything out in the open. If it's out in the open you should have no problem posting some links here. Note that I do not have a grenade by my name, as I am absurdly bereft of plat privs. Anyway, the consequences for UIUC, both in terms of boycotts, governance issues, and the discouragement of future hires "I got this offer from UIUC, but I don't know.. I heard they've reneged on offers before, maybe I'll stay on the market/keep my current position" should be motivation enough to not go down this road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Why are people still replying to Kaal and My Imaginary GF when both have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no clue about how academic employment works, that they don't even read the articles they link themselves, and that they will move the goalposts and nitpick things to death just to win by exhaustion? The ignore list is your friend. Not surprised at all by this, and I wouldn't be surprised if after all is said and done it's the Chancellor that finds herself out a job rather than Salaita. This was such a breathtakingly stupid decision by the administration I can't believe that they made it. A university lives and breathes by its academic reputation, and doing anything that can even be remotely interpreted as an attempt to silence a professor is irreparably damaging to that. If the faculty is even perceived as having to toe a political line of one sort or another in order to keep their jobs it casts doubt on everything they produce. If this whole thing really was started by a donor threatening to pull funding, the administration should have done the smart thing and told him to go pound sand. Donors come and go, but the university's academic reputation is irreplacable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:If this whole thing really was started by a donor threatening to pull funding, the administration should have done the smart thing and told him to go pound sand. Donors come and go, but the university's academic reputation is irreplacable. Several donors, and hundreds of millions in commitments. And not a threat; you don't threaten others at that level. You suggest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:you don't threaten others at that level. You suggest. What's the difference? Especially if the outcome is the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Shinobo posted:What's the difference? Especially if the outcome is the same. I think he just wanted to say something that sounded cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I think he just wanted to say something that sounded cool. Shhhhh. Don't spoil it. I want to see his likely cringe inducing answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Why are people still replying to Kaal and My Imaginary GF when both have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no clue about how academic employment works, that they don't even read the articles they link themselves, and that they will move the goalposts and nitpick things to death just to win by exhaustion? The ignore list is your friend. What would the actual result of a lawsuit be - could it force them to rehire him, or would he be out tenure no matter what? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
This seems pretty open and shut. Both Salaita and the university agreed to the terms of an employment contract. The university was selling students courses and accepting payment for work Salaita would perform as if he were already an employee and would likely be unable to fulfill if he weren't an employee. Salaita for his part would be attending meetings and doing class prep before the semester began and wouldn't be able to do his job after the contract was formalized by the board without working before the board did so. Between both sides agreeing to the terms of his employment contract, both sides behaving like the employment contract is in effect and everyone else believing that Salaita is in fact a contract employee of UIUC, it seems like the contract is in fact in effect. If the board wanted to exercise its oversight authority, it's had its chance around when the contract was being signed and before Salaita upended his life to work for the university. At this point that ship has sailed, returned, been sold for scrap metal and melted down into toasters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Shinobo posted:Shhhhh. Don't spoil it. He hasn't even answered the questions from the first page, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Also I don't really want to open that particular can of worms, but one of the big take-aways of this whole affair is that, once again, the US education system with its lack of federal funding and subsequent reliance on donor money is at the heart of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Several donors, and hundreds of millions in commitments. And not a threat; you don't threaten others at that level. You suggest. I thinks that's probably a little overblown, but even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. The long-term damage isn't worth it. Funding to universities comes in from donations, tuition, and grants pulled in by faculty. The latter two are entirely dependent on a school's academic integrity and reputation. The "pie in the sky idealistic free inquiry" that you deride about universities isn't just some Platonic ideal--it affects a school's bottom line in a very tangible way. Students mainly pick a school on its academic reputation--even if they're cynical and see college as little more than glorified job training, they want a good school on their resumes. The prestige and quality of the research at an institution greatly affects the quantity and quality of grants that faculty pull in. That's often why you see professors who are terrible at teaching mollycoddled by the administration--they can bring in a lot of money via grants. Making academic hiring decisions based on the whims of donors (who might also donate based on academic reputation, I might add) directly undercuts the school's academic reputation and greatly affects the amount of funding they can bring in through those revenue streams. What professor wants to do research at an institution with a reputation for silencing faculty on the basis of politics or donor complaints? Likewise who would want to give grants to a school with that reputation? And once the academic reputation of a school is damaged in such a manner fewer students will want to attend, damaging income from tuition. What's worse, once the reputation is damaged in that way it's much harder to undo, because what guarantee is there that it won't happen again? You ignore the donor, you maybe lose money in the short term and get some bad press at worst, but the academic reputation stays intact. There will always be new potential donors as people graduate. By listening to the donors and taking a shiv to the reputation, you risk a serious long-term drop in funding. It's a foolish and enormously short-sighted thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Since I'm not really qualified to add anything to this thread, but am interested, I would love it if this happened because engaging the shitposters is turning the thread to poo poo, and both of them have both clearly demonstrated both their lack of knowledge on the topic and complete unwillingness to engage in honest discussion. At this point, the chancellor has decided to forward Salaita's name to the board for confirmation. The question is if this is a good faith attempt, or an attempt to cover their rear end ahead of the lawsuit (since the chancellor violated protocol by not even forwarding his name). If it is the latter, then UIUC is bracing themselves for a fight. I think it is doubtful that courts would force them to rehire Salaita if the board rejects him. If Salaita is successful in his lawsuit (which many people expect he would be), the result would then be whatever remedies exist with regards to loss of employment and/or breach of contract. That is, the likely result is that Salaita would receive a large settlement. In fact, if I had to guess, I think this doesn't even go to trial. UIUC settles for anywhere between 1-5 years of salary and tries to move on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:I thinks that's probably a little overblown, but even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. The long-term damage isn't worth it. Funding to universities comes in from donations, tuition, and grants pulled in by faculty. The latter two are entirely dependent on a school's academic integrity and reputation. The "pie in the sky idealistic free inquiry" that you deride about universities isn't just some Platonic ideal--it affects a school's bottom line in a very tangible way. I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. You could easily ask the same question and replace "a reputation for silencing faculty" with "a reputation for not supporting Israel", which in the US political climate might be a significant deterrent as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2014-09-02/salaita-prompted-donors-fury.html More stuff about donors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:What professor wants to do research at an institution with a reputation for silencing faculty on the basis of politics or donor complaints? Likewise who would want to give grants to a school with that reputation? When it comes to any field that contains the word "studies", a university could require you to slit your mother's throat to get tenure and they'd still get 100 resumes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
botany posted:I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. You could easily ask the same question and replace "a reputation for silencing faculty" with "a reputation for not supporting Israel", which in the US political climate might be a significant deterrent as well. I don't think that's very likely. When it comes to grant-writing the main questions that the granting organization will be asking are "does what is being proposed make sense/is it worth pursuing", "does this professor know what they're doing/is their research any good," "does the professor in question have a reasonable chance of producing a result," and "does the institution they work for have a reputation for turning out quality research." Long story short, the granting organizations are looking for a return on their investment in some form or other. "The institution in question has a reputation for not supporting Israel" has no bearing on any of those things. There aren't a lot of organizations that are that nakedly political in how they dole out grants. Private companies aren't going to give a crap, as they only care about research that might turn them a profit in the future. Government organizations similarly aren't going to stop giving grants based on that either for the same reasons a smart university wouldn't silence faculty--it undercuts the reputation and quality of the country's research worldwide. Take China for example--a lot of Chinese institutions are having a whole lot of trouble being taken seriously in academia because of the systemic corruption there that affects the educational system--often politically-motivated financial incentives for researchers to make up or plagiarize research, that sort of thing. Plenty of good research comes from China but it's having a ton of trouble remaining globally competitive by the environment that researchers have to operate in. On the other hand "this institution has a reputation for silencing faculty" has enormous implications on the quality of research that they produce, so any sane country will go to very long ends to prevent that sort of reputation for coming about. The US is especially sensitive since it's widely regarded as having one of the best higher education systems in the world, and draws in students and academics from all over the globe. If it ever got a reputation for monkeying with education funding based for political rather than academic reasons, it would make it a lot less globally competitive. on the left posted:When it comes to any field that contains the word "studies", a university could require you to slit your mother's throat to get tenure and they'd still get 100 resumes. Too true. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
botany posted:I'm not sure it's that clear-cut. You could easily ask the same question and replace "a reputation for silencing faculty" with "a reputation for not supporting Israel", which in the US political climate might be a significant deterrent as well. Anyone who's concerned about how pro-Israel the university they're donating to would probably be turned off by the South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies department, no matter what the actual opinions of the professors in it are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What would the actual result of a lawsuit be - could it force them to rehire him, or would he be out tenure no matter what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Courts won't generally force people to do things, but they will force people to pay to make up for damages they created (look up specific performance). Salaita presumably spent significant money and effort moving and preparing for his new position based on the understanding he had a job, any of that would be fair game, I would assume the school would settle as lawyers are expensive, and this isn't good publicity for anyone. This is specifically a government institution though, and I was under the impression there was a history of court-ordered reinstatements for lost government positions due to various sorts of violations? I could be wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
If every professor who wished death on a group were fired for it, 90% of faculty would immediately be dismissed for wishing death on the collective university administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:Courts won't generally force people to do things, but they will force people to pay to make up for damages they created (look up specific performance). Salaita presumably spent significant money and effort moving and preparing for his new position based on the understanding he had a job, any of that would be fair game, I would assume the school would settle as lawyers are expensive, and this isn't good publicity for anyone. This is true in a broad sense, but a person can be estopped from exercising some part of a process. FOR EXAMPLE if, barring x occurring, you would be employed (in this case the decision being treated differently than literally every other tenured appointment to ever come before the board, and that has come before the board before), you can be "estopped" from making a given substantive choice which would violate in a sense the spirit of the ongoing agreement. For example since promises and representations made to Salaita were broken in a way that is radically different from what has happened to all other people in his situation, and the practices and dictates of academia demanded he take a certain risk while acting on their promise by leaving his former tenured position (and especially since things like them advertising courses by him, offering him information on various things he can do "now that he is a scholar point to their intention to create an interim employment relationship while waiting for it to tick over) - there is a better argument than you'd think that their actions created an estoppel situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
So apparently the Board isn't considering Salaita on the 11th. Tweeted by a professor at UIUC @ted_underwood Regret to say that last night's report from students appears premature. Faculty have since met with Wise, & report no change in position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile, more boycotts and a statement from the American Historical Association on the case. Meanwhile, the board chair at UIUC has said that they are "open" to a financial settlement. I guess at this point they are willing to throw whatever money necessary to make this go away (which, incidentally, only makes the claims that Salaita had no case all the more laughable).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Is there any chance this might effect UIUC's accreditation if it isn't dealt with? If I recall when UVA removed their president under similarly dubious circumstances there were threats to that effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Is there any chance this might effect UIUC's accreditation if it isn't dealt with? If I recall when UVA removed their president under similarly dubious circumstances there were threats to that effect. None. Accreditation bodies will have specific rules about governance and even more minute details regarding institutional structure, but it generally does not cover hiring/firing decisions or tenure cases. There are plenty of universities without any tenure system that are fully accredited. Hell, there are much more egregious academic freedom cases out there than this (read the AAUP's stuff on BYU, for example, or how Kansas has passed a law that professors can be fired for what they say in social media after a professor had the nerve to criticize the NRA), but accreditation isn't about tenure and hiring/firing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Meanwhile, more boycotts and a statement from the American Historical Association on the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Did UIUC think there wouldn't be backlash? Given how badly they handled this up to now, I can't even imagine what they were thinking would happen. Considering that the Kansas Board of Regents has decided since last year that even tenured professors can be fired for what they say on social media (because a U of Kansas professor had the nerve to criticize the NRA on social media), and not many people noticed, UIUC probably thought the same would happen there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Considering that the Kansas Board of Regents has decided since last year that even tenured professors can be fired for what they say on social media (because a U of Kansas professor had the nerve to criticize the NRA on social media), and not many people noticed, UIUC probably thought the same would happen there. I don't think anything came of KU's social media policy, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Update: Board voted not to hire Salaita. Dorf filing an injunction to force UofI to let Salaita teach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Update Bump: Salaita was on Chicago Tonight giving an interview. The most saliant point was, when asked where Salaita was aware that his appointment was pending Board approval, he responded "I was unaware of that, no."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Making academic hiring decisions based on the whims of donors (who might also donate based on academic reputation, I might add) directly undercuts the school's academic reputation and greatly affects the amount of funding they can bring in through those revenue streams. What professor wants to do research at an institution with a reputation for silencing faculty on the basis of politics or donor complaints? Likewise who would want to give grants to a school with that reputation? And once the academic reputation of a school is damaged in such a manner fewer students will want to attend, damaging income from tuition. I don't know it seems like there is a lot of exactly that going on in many, many universities (both public and private). It's also seems like it doesn't really even take that much money to do. Like the whole business of "Science of Liberty Research Topics" or "Liberty Studies" stuff pushed by the Kochs on Economics departs all over the country via donations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Somebody forgot to tell 9/13 of the Executive Committee of the Program in Jewish Culture and Society at UIUC that Salaita is antisemitic and should be barred from campus. Those dopes!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 20:44
|
|