|
EvanSchenck posted:off-color Is this how we spell "accurate" in the year of our lord 2014?
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
As an academic I'm wondering why he didn't spend a year at uiuc while on leave but still employed by Virginia tech. Every tenured prof I've known who moves to another tenured spot has done this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:As an academic I'm wondering why he didn't spend a year at uiuc while on leave but still employed by Virginia tech. Every tenured prof I've known who moves to another tenured spot has done this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I get the importance of allowing academics the freedom to express controversial, or even downright hateful, ideas in their work, but I don't see why that should be stretched to just any retarded opinion they may have. Would anyone be defending this guy if he tweeted some ChimpOut poo poo about Ferguson? If you support academics being given freedom to express even hateful ideas on their work, is your issue the medium by which these ideas were expressed? How do you decide if an opinion is "retarded" in this context? Who decides? Also, This guy was a massive racialist at a prominent university in Canada. He believed that intelligence was genetically based and that the determining genes were largely the same as the those which determine race. Thus he argued that African-Americans were inherently less intelligent than Caucasians and Asians. Later on a group he founded and led was identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was never fired because he has tenure. I'll add that this is in Canada where the right to free speech is limited relative to the USA (which has benefits as it kept Anne Coulter out of our country).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:If you support academics being given freedom to express even hateful ideas on their work, is your issue the medium by which these ideas were expressed? That seems like a much worse case than this guy and there's no question he shouldn't have been teaching college classes either. What was the benefit of keeping him on, other than to wave the academic freedom flag? quote:The Canadian press reported that in interviews, first-year psychology students who took Rushton's classes said that he had conducted a survey of students' sexual habits in 1988, asking "such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate."[40] First-year psychology students at the University of Western Ontario are required "to participate in approved surveys as a condition of their studies. If they choose not to, they must write one research paper. Also, many students feel subtle pressure to participate in order not to offend professors who may later be grading their work. However, if a study is not approved, these requirements do not apply at all."[40] For his failing to tell students they had the option not to participate in his studies without incurring additional work, the university barred Rushton for two years from using students as research subjects. He had tenure at UWO.[40] No really, "tenure" should not be a magic word that gets you out of white supremacist beliefs or asking 18 year old freshmen you have supervision over about penis size. This is A Dumb Thing. Adar fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
I agree, let's abolish tenure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:I agree, let's abolish tenure. You're being disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is it impossible for someone to oppose the settlements in the West Bank without hating Jews, or does it just require that they repeatedly affirm that removing the settlements requires full compensation for the land etc. etc. while saying that the settlements are illegal and immoral colonization? It is really easy to oppose the settlements without hating Jews. It is even easier to oppose the the settlements without publicly fantasising about hundreds of thousands of civilians (who just happen to all be Jews) "disappearing." emanresu tnuocca posted:Hmm, you know, it's not his fault that the illegal settlers are of Jewish descent, he's expressing a political sentiment, although phrased in a somewhat inflammatory fashion, against the presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. You can say he's a dick but conflating statements against settlers as statements against Jews seems like a deliberate effort to paint Salaita's opinions as bigoted. I don't know if you're American, so this analogy might miss. But if I say, "I wish the cops would teach those loving punks in Ferguson a lesson." I would be expressing a political sentiment about rioting and proper relationship between police and the broader society. I would also be a racist rear end in a top hat. These are not mutually exclusive states. After all, it wouldn't be my fault that most of the protesters and rioters were black. Ddraig posted:It's also rather indicative of his wider point that anti-semitism has lost its meaning as "hatred towards jews" and has instead become a byline for "is critical of Israel" With respect, that is a really bad test for whether a statement is anti-semetic. Like nothing that Kevin B. Macdonald wrote, "hinges solely on Jews being terrible people" but if you can't figure out why "Judaism is an evolutionary strategy to out-compete gentiles" is anti-semetic then I'm not sure what to tell you. That all said I think Salaita would have good case if he sues, and I hope he does. His tweets aren't worse that what other tenured professors have said, and the situation where the university can promise him a job, assign him classes (and again, he would have been teaching those classes before he had officially been hired) and then effectively fire him (while claiming that he had never been hired in the first place) is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I don't know if you're American, I'm pretty certain he's Israeli.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:As an academic I'm wondering why he didn't spend a year at uiuc while on leave but still employed by Virginia tech. Every tenured prof I've known who moves to another tenured spot has done this. I am an assistant professor who has done research on academic careers in the US, including surveys where thousands of professors submitted their work histories and CVs to my group, and I have never, ever seen this happen. Maybe you are in a field that is different from the US norm where that happens, but in most fields starting a position elsewhere while still being employed is considered a major ethical breach. The only situation where professors will be on leave from one institution and teaching/working at another is when it involves temporary teaching or research positions. I've seen professors take a one year leave to teach as a Fulbright fellow abroad, or to be a scholar in residence at some big shot research center. But if you accept a permanent job elsewhere (tenured or tenure track), the norm is to resign from your current position some time between the time you accepted the new position and the time you start at your new position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:As an academic I'm wondering why he didn't spend a year at uiuc while on leave but still employed by Virginia tech. Every tenured prof I've known who moves to another tenured spot has done this. Because he's dumb and clearly thought that he had the job in the bag and was untouchable. If he didn't think that he wouldn't have been posting stupid reactionary poo poo on his Twitter. I mean seriously, teachers have been telling students for more than a decade to watch what they put on the Internet because it can affect their hiring prospects - this is hardly an unexpected outcome. Employers are going to look at the whole character of a potential applicant - and in the case of a teacher they have a responsibility to their students to do so. Also: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/08/08/essay-defends-university-illinois-decision-not-hire-steven-salaita https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/15/cary-nelson-faces-backlash-over-his-views-controversial-scholar
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Because he's dumb and clearly thought that he had the job in the bag and was untouchable. If he didn't think that he wouldn't have been posting stupid reactionary poo poo on his Twitter. I mean seriously, teachers have been telling students for more than a decade to watch what they put on the Internet because it can affect their hiring prospects - this is hardly an unexpected outcome. Employers are going to look at the whole character of a potential applicant - and in the case of a teacher they have a responsibility to their students to do so. He thought he had the job in the bag because he pretty much had the job in the bag. There is a reason why every single legal scholar to write on this thinks he has a pretty solid legal case. The wisdom of the tweets is irrelevant. Someone already linked Dorf's and Leiter's columns. But here's another one where Brian Leiter talks to contract law faculty at the university of Chicago law school: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...-which-are.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:If you accept a permanent job elsewhere (tenured or tenure track), the norm is to resign from your current position some time between the time you accepted the new position and the time you start at your new position. Agreed, but it sounds like that's not what happened here. He resigned from his position prior to having accepted the new position. And for what it's worth, I've known plenty of people who've moved between schools, and most of them finalized their new position prior to making the jump. Even if it meant taking leave for a term. Given the industry, it seems extremely foolhardy to do the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed, but it sounds like that's not what happened here. He resigned from his position prior to having accepted the new position. And for what it's worth, I've known plenty of people who've moved between schools, and most of them finalized their new position prior to making the jump. Even if it meant taking leave for a term. Given the industry, it seems extremely foolhardy to do the opposite. That is not what happened at all. He had an offer and accepted it. It is very common for academic jobs to start without signing a contract as that generally can take some time. My first year as a professor was based only on an offer letter and my signature on it. I only got a contract for the second year, due to all the steps the process has to go through. In academia, once you accept an offer it may be a while before you actually get the contract. There is a reason every legal opinion that has been published on the matter has raised the issue of promissory estoppel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I don't know if you're American, so this analogy might miss. But if I say, "I wish the cops would teach those loving punks in Ferguson a lesson." I would be expressing a political sentiment about rioting and proper relationship between police and the broader society. I would also be a racist rear end in a top hat. These are not mutually exclusive states. After all, it wouldn't be my fault that most of the protesters and rioters were black. Well, ok, so if myself and some other Jews start a Jew-Only-Mafia, and someone says "Man, I wish someone would take care of this Jew-Only-Mafia", are they automatically anti-Semitic? Following this logic it would seem that as long as I get a predominantly Jewish group of people we can do whatever we want and claim that any criticism of our actions is anti-Semitic... I might be on to something here, someone call Abe Foxman this is gonna blow his mind!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I don't know if you're American, so this analogy might miss. But if I say, "I wish the cops would teach those loving punks in Ferguson a lesson." I would be expressing a political sentiment about rioting and proper relationship between police and the broader society. I would also be a racist rear end in a top hat. These are not mutually exclusive states. After all, it wouldn't be my fault that most of the protesters and rioters were black. What the gently caress is this argument? Is it the equivalent of "not being allowed to be racist is racist against us!" that certain white supremacist groups in the UK like to throw out? It is entirely possible to think Israel, on the whole, are racist bigoted scum, without making any concession towards their ethnicity or religious affiliation. Israel loves to conflate Jews and Israel so an attack on one is an attack against both but this is not and has not ever been true. All Jews are not Israelis, a large proportion of Israelis are Jews. To criticize Israelis is not to criticize the Jewish people, unless the reason you are criticizing Israel is because they're Jews. This is not a difficult thing for most of the world that isn't Israel to accept. I think Nazis are loving scum, I happen to be rather indifferent to Germans as a whole. Likewise, I think the Israeli state is bigoted, racist and practices apartheid policies. I am indifferent to Jews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:That is not what happened at all. If you went through a year of teaching without getting paid, then that's on you. If the university was paying you without having a contract, then they should be sued for graft. More likely you had some form of legal contract, even if it was a mix of verbal and unofficial written contracts, and it was eventually conglomerated into a single document. As for Salaita, promissory estoppel requires a violation of a legal contract or the promise thereof, and it's a stretch both to say that a contract can be violated without coming into effect, or that the board was contractually obligated to approve the contract. In short, the limitations of the contract are part of the contractual promises. If that wasn't the case, the advertising industry would collapse in a week. "Read the fine print" is a common American saying for good reason. The appointment wasn't ratified, due to the administrative action, subject to the lack of board approval, contingent upon concerns of fundamental character (i.e. civility), as a result of repeated public political statements. The legality of the decision appears pretty airtight. Even the AAUP takes no issue with the legal process, instead arguing that the board decision was taken without due consideration - a position that is pretty legally subjective. It's all well and good to hyperbolically say that "all legal scholars agree with me", but it's much more accurate to say that very few legal scholars have taken the time to address the merits of the case. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you went through a year of teaching without getting paid, then that's on you. If the university was paying you without having a contract, then they should be sued for graft. More likely you had some form of legal contract, even if it was a mix of verbal and unofficial written contracts, and it was eventually conglomerated into a single document. As for Salaita, promissory estoppel requires a violation of a legal contract or the promise thereof, and it's a stretch both to say that a contract can be violated without coming into effect, or that the board was contractually obligated to approve the contract. In short, the limitations of the contract are part of the contractual promises. The appointment wasn't ratified, due to the administrative action, subject to the lack of board approval, contingent upon concerns of fundamental character (i.e. civility), as a result of repeated public political statements. The legality of the decision appears pretty airtight. Even the AAUP takes no issue with the legal process, instead arguing that the board decision was taken without due consideration - a position that is pretty legally subjective. It's all well and good to hyperbolically say that "all legal scholars agree with me", but it's much more accurate to say that very few legal scholars have taken the time to address the merits of the case. And I don't know why you think the legality of the decision is airtight when that's obviously not the case. I also don't see how you interpret the AAUP letter that way; they're clearly convinced that this is a deeply problematic result and seem to imply that this is a case of promissory estoppel. They mention due consideration because they think this is a case of summary dismissal without due consideration, since they consider him to be an employee of UIUC!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:And how does that verbal and unofficial written contract mix not apply in the case of Salaita? That's how academic appointments work at virtually every university, including UIUC, and so Salaita would be under contract based on those expectations. That's why people are claiming he has a strong case here. In JoePineTree's case there was an exchange of consideration. He worked for them, and was presumably paid in kind. Even if the contracts are verbal or unofficial, they're strongly supported by that exchange. In Salaita's case there isn't an exchange of consideration - he never worked for them, and they never paid him. The strongest thing that can be said for him is that they sent him a contract, and he signed it - but they never ratified it themselves. And when time came for them to ratify it, they decided not to. Now obviously it sucks for him personally, and probably the unions would do well to change that status quo so that professors and grad students would have better job security, but that's tangential to the legality of the contract and its withdrawal. quote:And I don't know why you think the legality of the decision is airtight when that's obviously not the case. I also don't see how you interpret the AAUP letter that way; they're clearly convinced that this is a deeply problematic result and seem to imply that this is a case of promissory estoppel. They mention due consideration because they think this is a case of summary dismissal without due consideration, since they consider him to be an employee of UIUC! The comments about promissory estoppel are coming from a pair of law professors who were speaking prior to the AAUP statement, not the AAUP. The AAUP doesn't talk about promissory estoppel at all, and reiterates several times that they view Salaita as effectively already being a faculty member, and therefore being fired without cause. Their legal rationale is that the board approval was essentially a rubber-stamp, and was not actually required for Salaita to assume the position, and that the board acted without due consideration in any case. That rationale is, to my mind, shaky at best. Courts usually take a dim view of applicants arbitrarily deciding which elements of a contract are important. I assume the contract was also subject to Dean approval, and I hardly can imagine that being dismissed as a "rubber stamp" even if Salaita thought it was unimportant. If there's any takeaway from this story, it's that people should be getting signed contracts before making professional sacrifices. In my opinion, this story would have been a complete Page Six if Salaita hadn't burned his ships. The academics I've known, and there have been many, have tended to do that. You have to in this environment, particularly if you're on tenure-track. I don't know why this isn't the case elsewhere, but clearly it should be the standard. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Well, ok, so if myself and some other Jews start a Jew-Only-Mafia, and someone says "Man, I wish someone would take care of this Jew-Only-Mafia", are they automatically anti-Semitic? Following this logic it would seem that as long as I get a predominantly Jewish group of people we can do whatever we want and claim that any criticism of our actions is anti-Semitic... I might be on to something here, someone call Abe Foxman this is gonna blow his mind! Yeah, that analogy did not work. So let me try again. It is not anti-semetic to criticize Israel, or to call for the end of the occupation, or to criticize Jewish groups. However, it is more than possible to do all of these things while being anti-semetic. Most of Salaita's criticism of Israel (and of the occupation) that I've seen haven't been anti-semetic, but that one was. Edit: Kaal posted:Their legal rationale is that the board approval was essentially a rubber-stamp, and was not actually required for Salaita to assume the position, and that the board acted without due consideration in any case. That rationale is, to my mind, shaky at best. Courts usually take a dim view of applicants arbitrarily deciding which elements of a contract are important. This is getting technical, but the board neither approved nor denied Salaita's appointment. What happened is that the Dean's office that extended the offer to Salaita promised to forward his application to the board for approval, but then did not due so. So at the very least, the Dean's office broke it's written promise to Salaita. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you went through a year of teaching without getting paid, then that's on you. If the university was paying you without having a contract, then they should be sued for graft. More likely you had some form of legal contract, even if it was a mix of verbal and unofficial written contracts, and it was eventually conglomerated into a single document. As for Salaita, promissory estoppel requires a violation of a legal contract or the promise thereof, and it's a stretch both to say that a contract can be violated without coming into effect, or that the board was contractually obligated to approve the contract. In short, the limitations of the contract are part of the contractual promises. If that wasn't the case, the advertising industry would collapse in a week. "Read the fine print" is a common American saying for good reason. I agree that it makes sense to split out the agreements into different contracts. I'd break it into three bits: Part 1 (offer letter + promises): Rely on the fact that the written contract is a done deal. Spend money moving. Also quit your existing job so you can get a jump on teaching. Part 2 (informal labor contract): Work for us until we get the formal contract approved. We'll pay you at the negotiated rate Part 3: The contract that never got signed. Salaita has a great 'efficient reliance' argument for damages under part 1. The university asked him to spend money furthering a mutual goal. He did. Then they backed out. They should should compensate him for lost wages + moving costs. This makes Salaita as well off as he was before relying on UIUC. Part 2 seems like pay for ongoing work. I agree that Part 3 is simply a contract that didn't get signed. ==== I think the academic freedom argument really comes into play in why the written contract didn't get signed. There are argument to be had there, but I see them as being more internal-policy questions than an employment law thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Let's be honest, if the guy said something anti-Palestinian you would be defending him to the death right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I agree that it makes sense to split out the agreements into different contracts. I'd break it into three bits: I think this is probably a good way of deconstructing it. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any Part 2, since the contract was withdrawn prior to the beginning of the school year and the assumption of his official duties. According to the summary in the AAUP statement, the closest thing would be invitations to various professional meet-and-greets, which could potentially be seen as semi-official duties but that'd be really stretching the concept because plenty of people don't go to those. This is what differentiates Salaita and JoePine's personal example. Part 1 is definitely the element where the most debate is taking place, particularly the folks talking about promissory estoppel. But it's problematic, because it's not like the university actively told him to spend money or quit his other jobs - certainly no university I've ever heard of has had particular views of where its faculty were outside of teaching hours - those were sacrifices that he made in pursuant to meeting the basic requirements of the position. He didn't quit teaching in Virginia and move because Illinois demanded unswerving loyalty - he quit because he couldn't be in two places at one time and he didn't work out a distance learning program with Virginia. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Edit: Wise forwarded Salaita's name to the board, whereupon the board informed Wise of its intention to not ratify Salaita's proposed contract, and therefore Wise acted as the designated agent of the board by withdrawing Salaita's name from consideration by the board. Standard procedure of the university in accord to its governing structure. Edit: Board does not equal boars. Dear god, I'm not calling Mr. Kennedy nor Mr. Fitzgerald boars; I might need one to approve some contracts in the future 
My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Part 1 is definitely the element where the most debate is taking place, particularly the folks talking about promissory estoppel. But it's problematic, because it's not like the university actively told him to spend money or quit his other jobs - certainly no university I've ever heard of has had particular views of where its faculty were outside of teaching hours - those were sacrifices that he made in pursuant to meeting the basic requirements of the position. He didn't quit teaching in Virginia and move because Illinois demanded unswerving loyalty - he quit because he couldn't be in two places at one time and he didn't work out a distance learning program with Virginia. I could quote pretty much anything you've written in this thread so far, but this one really makes it clear you have absolutely no idea how the academic job process works, what tenure is, or pretty much anything related to academia. You bet all universities are very interested in what their tenured professors do outside of their teaching hours, as well as their research and service hours, and still being tenured in another institution would be really, really interesting for them. The sacrifices he made are indivisible from a good faith offer of tenured position, and at the very least he absolutely has them in the hock for that, if not for the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you went through a year of teaching without getting paid, then that's on you. If the university was paying you without having a contract, then they should be sued for graft. More likely you had some form of legal contract, even if it was a mix of verbal and unofficial written contracts, and it was eventually conglomerated into a single document. As for Salaita, promissory estoppel requires a violation of a legal contract or the promise thereof, and it's a stretch both to say that a contract can be violated without coming into effect, or that the board was contractually obligated to approve the contract. In short, the limitations of the contract are part of the contractual promises. If that wasn't the case, the advertising industry would collapse in a week. "Read the fine print" is a common American saying for good reason. How the hell do you read what I said and interpret it that way? You clearly have no clue about what we are talking about. Of course I got paid. The point is that in academia once you agree to an offer it is pretty much like agreeing to a contract. So much so that people frequently work without a contract their first year because the bureaucracy takes up so much time. It is, in fact, very much standard practice in many state systems ( see the following thread in the CHE forums: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,21596.0.html see reply number 5, for example ) As you can see in the links already posted here, at a minimum there is an issue of promissory estoppel. But as Leiter's blog that I posted above indicates, a majority of contract law professors also think that there was indeed a contract in place here. Kaal posted:I think this is probably a good way of deconstructing it. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any Part 2, since the contract was withdrawn prior to the beginning of the school year and the assumption of his official duties. According to the summary in the AAUP statement, the closest thing would be invitations to various professional meet-and-greets, which could potentially be seen as semi-official duties but that'd be really stretching the concept because plenty of people don't go to those. This is what differentiates Salaita and JoePine's personal example. It is clear that you both have no idea about how academia works and what is involved in changing jobs as a senior professor. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Haha, senior professor indeed. Salaita was an associate professor in Virginia who had only recently picked up tenure, and the associate professorship in Virginia was accordingly tenure-track rather than being immediately conferred. Hardly senior, he isn't even a full professor. Please tell me more about how academia works. 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Haha, senior professor indeed. Salaita was an associate professor in Virginia who had only recently picked up tenure, and the associate professorship in Virginia was accordingly tenure-track rather than being immediately conferred. Hardly senior, he isn't even a full professor. Please tell me more about how academia works. Um tenure = senior professor. At my university tenured profs with the "assistant" or "associate" designation can apply to upgrade to "full" and "assistant", respectively. This is an optional promotion which comes with a pay increase. To the best of my knowledge, this was the process at my undergraduate university as well. For instance, the Dean of undergraduate studies was an "assistant professor", but had an established career with many accolades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:Um tenure = senior professor. At my university tenured profs with the "assistant" or "associate" designation can apply to upgrade to "full" and "assistant", respectively. This is an optional promotion which comes with a pay increase. My magical powers of precognition indicate that Kaal will now attempt to derail the conversation into an argument over what "senior" means instead of acknowledging he understands nothing about academia or tenure or contract law, really, any kind of information which would be necessary for him to actually contribute meaningfully to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Haha, senior professor indeed. Salaita was an associate professor in Virginia who had only recently picked up tenure, and the associate professorship in Virginia was accordingly tenure-track rather than being immediately conferred. Hardly senior, he isn't even a full professor. The rest of your post is hand-waving. What? Holy crap are you clueless. Associate professor is a tenured position, so he wasn't "tenure track." A few very rare universities separate promotion to associate from tenure, but for the overwhelming majority of universities associate professor is a tenured position. Please stop talking out of your rear end. Salaita was tenured in Virginia, and the position in Illinois was likewise tenured. Not being "full professor" is meaningless in terms of tenure, and the informal division in terms of discussing academic labor market issues is that "junior faculty" refers to untenured faculty, and senior to tenured. If your reply to the information that I posted is to wrongly try to nitpick "Senior," it is clear that your views here are based on the bigger issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict, because you are clearly clueless on academic matters. There are enough links to clear, concise discussions of the legality of it all that you shouldn't have to rely on trying to nitpick "senior."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:My magical powers of precognition indicate that Kaal will now attempt to derail the conversation into an argument over what "senior" means instead of acknowledging he understands nothing about academia or tenure or contract law, really, any kind of information which would be necessary for him to actually contribute meaningfully to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:... If you're referring to me, where do you think we disagree about academia? Your thread matches my position pretty precisely. Offers are not contracts, but they are promises to provide contracts and made with the intention that people will rely on them as if they were contracts. That's very much 'efficient reliance'. I sketched it out a little informally, but it's defined properly on page 490 of this paper. (Let me know if you don't have JSTOR access) It's worth pointing out that promissory estoppel is sufficient but not necessary to argue for reliance damages. Estoppel requires a contract with mutual consideration. Reliance doesn't. Via wiki: Reliance Damages posted:Reliance damages are the type of damages awarded in promissory estoppel claims, although they can also be awarded in traditional contract breaches. This is appropriate because even if there is no bargain principle in the agreement, one party has relied on a promise and thus is damaged to the extent of their reliance. These damages must be proven with reasonable certainty. It is not enough that one party simply guess as to how much they are actually damaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_damages
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:Um tenure = senior professor. At my university tenured profs with the "assistant" or "associate" designation can apply to upgrade to "full" and "assistant", respectively. This is an optional promotion which comes with a pay increase. To the best of my knowledge, this was the process at my undergraduate university as well. For instance, the Dean of undergraduate studies was an "assistant professor", but had an established career with many accolades. I suppose the terminology varies by school, but assistant professors are tenure-tracked, not tenured, and I've never heard of a dean who was less than a full professor - and usually significantly more experienced than that. An assistant professor might be only a few years out of their doctoral program, particularly in a field that is as purely academic as English. There's usually adjuncts that have significantly bigger careers under their belts. Tenure is good, but it's hardly a mark of seniority. My assumption is that your school has it as Associate > Assistant > Professor rather than the other way around, and that the undergraduate studies dean was actually an Assistant Dean. A quick Google shows that Salaita began teaching at Virginia Tech in 2006, after graduating out of Syracuse in 2003/2004 and publishing his dissertation "The Holy Land in Transit: Colonialism and the Quest for Canaan". His position was Assistant Professor of English, a tenure-track position. He was a postdoc then, not a senior professor. After eight years he's not a postdoc anymore, but there's nothing "senior" about him. Give him another 15-20 years and he might be a "senior professor", assuming he learns to keep his Twitter under control. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
I'm curious about people's take on first amendment arguments. We could make a spectrum of hypotheticals: A. The board didn't hire him because they disliked him. B. The board didn't hire him because donors disliked him. C. The board didn't hire him because donors disliked his religious/political views. D. The board didn't hire him because they disliked his religious/political views. 'A' would put the board on solid 1st amendment ground. 'D' would have clear constitutional problems. Case 'C' seems to get much sketchier. There's clearly religious bias. But it's entirely filtered through a secular interest ("get money").
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:My magical powers of precognition indicate that Kaal will now attempt to derail the conversation into an argument over what "senior" means instead of acknowledging he understands nothing about academia or tenure or contract law, really, any kind of information which would be necessary for him to actually contribute meaningfully to this thread. 5/5 prediction. Nice to see that nothing can stop Kaal from being a racist stain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Ah yes, talking about academia in a thread about academia. Truly the worst.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Ah yes, talking about academia in a thread about academia. Truly the worst. Well if you were just asking questions it would be different. Trying to argue a position at the same time comes of as a bit disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I'm curious about people's take on first amendment arguments. Or, Case E: The board was requested to weigh in on the contract by Wise, and due to Salaita's uncivil conduct, informed Wise that it did not intend to ratify Salaita's nomination to be awarded a public contract.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
DisgracelandUSA posted:This is actually a not uncommon thing at all, particularly with administrators. A department might hire someone to come become the chair of their department / director of their program, and grant them tenure with the hire, as how are they supposed to do a good job administrating the department while they're working their rear end off to make tenure? Also, varies from school to school and field to field, if you've gotten tenure once, you can probably get it again, etc, etc, etc. I should have been more clear with my question. I meant like, is it common for a tenured professor at University A to accept a tenured position at University B (via the method you described) and then while waiting for their tenured position at University B to be confirmed (and going through the whole process of waiting for confirmation while starting to teach, getting a paycheck, and all that) KEEP their tenured position at University A, therefore having BOTH a tenured position at University A and for all intents and purposes a tenured position at University B. I mean, my understanding is that the answer is clearly no. That is basically loving unheard of and Imaginary GF's argument should be destroyed based on this and a number of other factors that point to its insanity. I was just being nice. Other people have already done a good job of this. I guess I'm still in the "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about" phase of my grad education and don't have to confidence to stomp on things that need stomping. Thank you for answering though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Kaal posted:I suppose the terminology varies by school, but assistant professors are tenure-tracked, not tenured, and I've never heard of a dean who was less than a full professor - and usually significantly more experienced than that. An assistant professor might be only a few years out of their doctoral program, particularly in a field that is as purely academic as English. There's usually adjuncts that have significantly bigger careers under their belts. Tenure is good, but it's hardly a mark of seniority. My assumption is that your school has it as Associate > Assistant > Professor rather than the other way around, and that the undergraduate studies dean was actually an Assistant Dean. The Dean had been at the university for at least 30 years and is now about to retire. He is an assistant professor now, and has never been a full professor. Post-docs are not required. It's rare, but it is possible to be hired as a professor without doing a post-doc. Post-doc is a separate position from a professorship. You can't be both a Post-doc and a professor simultaneously. You can be a Post-doc and teach undergraduate (and potentially even graduate but I'm not sure on that) classed. Tenure-track =/= tenure. Tenure = senior. Junior =/= tenure track. Post-doc =/= first few years after completion of a PhD. Hth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:31
|
|