sun herald article on dvorak --- a must read

Date: Apr 17, 2004

sun herald article on dvorak --- a must read

Date: Apr 17, 2004

After reading this article, I have a few questions. I believe that the VP for Research got the power to review tenure when Don Cotten was the Vice-President for Research. Everyone trusted him to make good decisions on that, so no one made a fuss about it. Also, didn't Dr. Cotten have tenure as an instructor before he came out of retirement to take on the Vice President for Research? I understood that he was a professor before he became the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs. (Early 1990's) If we look at Angeline Dvorak in comparison to Dr. Cotten, does she fare well? Do you trust her to decide tenure? Is she qualified to do that? I think that the tenure issue is actually a qualification of the job that she does, in retrospect to what was decided under Dr. Cotten. So therefore if she doesn't hold tenure at a four year university, she's not qualified to fill the position she is in. Just my two cents.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: concerned
"After reading this article, I have a few questions. I believe that the VP for Research got the power to review tenure when Don Cotten was the Vice-President for Research. Everyone trusted him to make good decisions on that, so no one made a fuss about it. Also, didn't Dr. Cotten have tenure as an instructor before he came out of retirement to take on the Vice President for Research? I understood that he was a professor before he became the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs. (Early 1990's) If we look at Angeline Dvorak in comparison to Dr. Cotten, does she fare well? Do you trust her to decide tenure? Is she qualified to do that? I think that the tenure issue is actually a qualification of the job that she does, in retrospect to what was decided under Dr. Cotten. So therefore if she doesn't hold tenure at a four year university, she's not qualified to fill the position she is in. Just my two cents."

The VP of Research definitely has input in this matter. In fact, in the letters from the Provost informing me that I had received tenure and promotion - he made direct reference that he had consulted the VP of Research who had concurred with the Provost's evaluation of what the University Academic Council had recommended to him. I still have those letter (actually two letters, one addressing tenure and one on promotion). Don Cotten's vita is the real thing - he's over at Arkansas State as Vice-Chancellor increasing the academic profile of that very fortunate university.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: concerned
"After reading this article, I have a few questions. I believe that the VP for Research got the power to review tenure when Don Cotten was the Vice-President for Research. Everyone trusted him to make good decisions on that, so no one made a fuss about it. Also, didn't Dr. Cotten have tenure as an instructor before he came out of retirement to take on the Vice President for Research? I understood that he was a professor before he became the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs. (Early 1990's) If we look at Angeline Dvorak in comparison to Dr. Cotten, does she fare well? Do you trust her to decide tenure? Is she qualified to do that? I think that the tenure issue is actually a qualification of the job that she does, in retrospect to what was decided under Dr. Cotten. So therefore if she doesn't hold tenure at a four year university, she's not qualified to fill the position she is in. Just my two cents."

Precisely the issue. There is no perceivable accountability in the hiring of administrator's these days. We do not know if there is a search process, how that process is determined or who runs it. This is an area Faculty Senate is looking into apart from the Dvorak fiasco.

The second point is that she has never been through an academic tenure appointment process in which her work is submitted for review by her peers and then on up the line.The Senate's position is you cannot sit in judgement of people if you yourself have not been through that process.

Finally, Dvorak's credentials might get her an administrative tenure appointment somewhere, but not an academic one. Unless there are things we haven't seen (and why would she hide them as a cv is intended to advertise your qualifications) then there simply is no way, for instance, she would ever be tenured in the English Department here. I suspect the Business folks would feel similarly. She does not have the credentials to be sitting in on promotions at the Associate and Professor ranks nor on tenure review.

So . . . . correct. The job description should have been chnaged in they wanted to hire her OR they should have hired someone qualified.

But hey, why play by the rules?

I think Angie feels aggrieved. She probably feels she has been doing a good job (for all I know, she has been). Had she not been sitting on promotion and tenure reviews I doubt this would have come up. Had she right from the beginning simply said "oops", and admitted to some possible errors of judgement and then quietly asked the President to change her job description, instead of going on TV and throwing further fuel on the fire, we would probably have been done with this.

The truth is that the administration didn't really conduct an "investigation" of Dvorak's credentials -- it went on an expedition to destroy the credibility of two professors and the organizations (AAUP and Senate) who raised the questions. The anger from the administration isn't righteous anger -- it's the anger that comes from being caught doing something it shouldn't have been doing.

The Dvorak case is significant because it undermines the administration's claim of expertise and good judgement in the professional and the academic world. It makes it impossible to believe that it knows what it is doing when it makes hires and that it has adequately vetted those hires.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Precisely the issue. There is no perceivable accountability in the hiring of administrator's these days. We do not know if there is a search process, how that process is determined or who runs it. This is an area Faculty Senate is looking into apart from the Dvorak fiasco. The second point is that she has never been through an academic tenure appointment process in which her work is submitted for review by her peers and then on up the line.The Senate's position is you cannot sit in judgement of people if you yourself have not been through that process. Finally, Dvorak's credentials might get her an administrative tenure appointment somewhere, but not an academic one. Unless there are things we haven't seen (and why would she hide them as a cv is intended to advertise your qualifications) then there simply is no way, for instance, she would ever be tenured in the English Department here. I suspect the Business folks would feel similarly. She does not have the credentials to be sitting in on promotions at the Associate and Professor ranks nor on tenure review. So . . . . correct. The job description should have been chnaged in they wanted to hire her OR they should have hired someone qualified. But hey, why play by the rules? I think Angie feels aggrieved. She probably feels she has been doing a good job (for all I know, she has been). Had she not been sitting on promotion and tenure reviews I doubt this would have come up. Had she right from the beginning simply said "oops", and admitted to some possible errors of judgement and then quietly asked the President to change her job description, instead of going on TV and throwing further fuel on the fire, we would probably have been done with this. The truth is that the administration didn't really conduct an "investigation" of Dvorak's credentials -- it went on an expedition to destroy the credibility of two professors and the organizations (AAUP and Senate) who raised the questions. The anger from the administration isn't righteous anger -- it's the anger that comes from being caught doing something it shouldn't have been doing. The Dvorak case is significant because it undermines the administration's claim of expertise and good judgement in the professional and the academic world. It makes it impossible to believe that it knows what it is doing when it makes hires and that it has adequately vetted those hires. "

I don't know about a "good job." How has she contributed to the decisions to deny tenure to worthy people, for instance, Melissa Whiting?

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: present professor
"...she would ever be tenured in the English Department here. I suspect the Business folks would feel similarly. ..."

Right on PP, the Business School would never have hired her let alone tenured her!

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must re

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must read

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"well, of course that yes . . . . I was speculating about her work as VP for Business and Research pf which I have no knowlege . . . "

Nor I. My humble observation is that lying, or "misrepresenting" one's self, is a character flaw, and the resume' fib is probably not her only. I wonder what a true investigation into her past business dealings would reveal? My opinion is that she has ethics problems--her refusal to submit her CV to the faculty senate, her insistence that she was tenured at UK, the questionable way in which she came on board at USM and brought Hanbury with her--these all contribute to my suspicions about her lack of ethics. I wonder if her staunch defensive position is driven by anxiety that once the first domino falls, the rest, too, will tumble.

And, Present Prof, I didn't mean to sound disrespectful of your post...I typed that last response with a sarcastic smile on my face.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Had she right from the beginning simply said "oops", and admitted to some possible errors of judgement and then quietly asked the President to change her job description, instead of going on TV and throwing further fuel on the fire, we would probably have been done with this. The truth is that the administration didn't really conduct an "investigation" of Dvorak's credentials -- it went on an expedition to destroy the credibility of two professors and the organizations (AAUP and Senate) who raised the questions. The anger from the administration isn't righteous anger -- it's the anger that comes from being caught doing something it shouldn't have been doing. "

Right on pp! I was stunned to read in today's article (can't remember if it was the HA or SH) that she continues to claim she was tenured AT the Univeristy of Kentucky. Then I saw her comment that she just doesn't understand why the faculty senate won't sit down and talk with her???

"Earth to Angie, come in Angie..."

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: RE: RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must re

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must read

Date: Apr 17, 2004

Many interesting observations - agree with lack of tenure review, but one does not need tenure, nor does one need to be tenuable to serve in administration in a university. To the first point - we have 4 deans who do not have tenure, only Doty was smart enough to ask for a position with tenure. To the second point there are examples from here in the fine state of Mississippi where the president/chancellor of the university did not even have a PhD.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must re

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: someone
"Many interesting observations - agree with lack of tenure review, but one does not need tenure, nor does one need to be tenuable to serve in administration in a university. To the first point - we have 4 deans who do not have tenure, only Doty was smart enough to ask for a position with tenure. To the second point there are examples from here in the fine state of Mississippi where the president/chancellor of the university did not even have a PhD."

I believe all the deans had tenure somewhere in the past, and all have extensive experience in university education. In her case I think the lack of tenure at any university is a proxy for a lack of experience at the university level. A lack of research success also detracts from her ability to make judgments about the research of others. With some people this would not be a big problem because, being aware of their limitations, they would not interject themselves into promotion and tenure decisions as obtrusively as she does. For goodness sake, she's still claiming to have been tenured at the University of Kentucky. There's no hope.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

RE: sun herald article on dvorak --- a must read

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: someone
"Remember we are in Mississippi - not where the 4 deans came from. The state does not recognize tenure from anywhere else in the world with the exception of 3 people who were able to carry their tenure with them"

This is a no brainer. She hasn't had an academic tenure at a four year university. She doesn't have the credentials to be on a tenure or promotion committee above the asst. professor level. As far as I know, the university doesn't give administrative tenure -- everyone is tenured in a home department. She is welcome to choose a home department and go through that process.

Finally, as VP for Research she damn well ought to be both credible and tenurable as she is sitting in judgement on people who have done the academic chops she has not.

Sorry -- can't even come close to justifying this. The Senate (an advisory body) is recommending she step down. She says she'd love to but can't because it is in her job description. It's easy -- she goes to the boss and says I'm not qualified for this, let's change my job description. They both have the power to do this. It is not like a job description is carved in stone.

Don't know if you are faculty, or tenure track. But had I known what I know about her when I went up for tenure (successfully), I'd have not wanted her on the committee. We have standards for a reason -- standards are what make the process credible. No credibility -- no process.