Great!  First the administration goes after its world-renowned Donne scholar, and now it begins treating shabbily its world-renowned Faulkner scholar. 

It's possible you're confusing an "agreement" and a "contract."  The contract is the thing you get every year, and sign every year, and if THAT specifies your load, why, you're good as gold. 

If you're talking about a letter that Aubrey Lucas or someone else signed long ago saying you could have a 2/2 load, then that's an agreement with Aubrey Lucas and if he's still president then you still have an agreement (unless, of course, he's changed his mind).

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: noel polk
  I told this story to Amy Young, president of the AAUP. She also thinks it is a serious issue, and asked me to put it on the Message Board... 

---

Dr. Polk -- I believe that you may have an AAUP "Committee A" issue.  While the focus of this committee is, strictly speaking, tenure and academic freedom, virtually any legitimate faculty grievance concerning the administration can be considered.  The likelihood that any element within the current administration will engage with an AAUP committee is small indeed, but then persistent administrative refusal to respond to valid faculty concerns helps to build a persuasive case for natiional censure.

While it doesn't make for headlines, sustained advocacy for aggrieved faculty is perhaps the most meaningful effort an AAUP chapter can make.  (It's also a great membership recruitment strategy.)  I would encourage all faculty with valid complaints to contact Ms. Young for further guidance.  No doubt Dr. Thames believes that AAUP-USM, with its former president silenced and having failed to "undermine" the Thames administration through the Dvorak affair, will fade away.  Drawing attention to "small outrages" like the one you are suffering may be the best way to prove him wrong.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"i am glad noel polk finally revealed the details of his 1985 deal.  it  has often been rumored about in the former college of liberal arts.  more importantly, he now indicates that his teaching load agreement was somehow extended to english department faculty (only full professors).  interesting.  i'm glad noel opens up old wounds among a number of cla faculty about how full professors in english got such teaching loads, but were denied to faculty in other departments (full professors, phd programs).  if his agreement "became the standard for the English Department," i want to know why it didn't become the standard for all doctoral programs in the college?  i would hope the aaup would investigate this issue.  "

---

I know many of you out there are inclined not to like unions but one advantage of being unionized (I was with the UUP at State University of New York) is that it is very nearly impossible to have specialized agreements worked out in secret. They can be worked out -- and sometimes they need to be. But it is important that these things be known. It also keeps all parties open and aboveboard.

The reason this is important (besides curtailing secrecy) is that unions tend to insist on some kind of mechanism for ensuring relatively standard teaching and research loads across the board. It isn't easy because of effort and productivity quantify differently in different disciplines. None the less the union has a very strong interest in seeing that its membership are treated with equality and perform with equality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"i am glad noel polk finally revealed the details of his 1985 deal.  it  has often been rumored about in the former college of liberal arts.  more importantly, he now indicates that his teaching load agreement was somehow extended to english department faculty (only full professors).  interesting.  i'm glad noel opens up old wounds among a number of cla faculty about how full professors in english got such teaching loads, but were denied to faculty in other departments (full professors, phd programs).  if his agreement "became the standard for the English Department," i want to know why it didn't become the standard for all doctoral programs in the college?  i would hope the aaup would investigate this issue.  "

---

This is not an issue, iddad. So what if the "standard" teaching load for full professors in English is 2 courses per semester. Good for them. Rejoice! I would assume that the more productive of their faculty would sometimes carry an even lighter load (e.g., those who were grant funded, those whose scholarly and other contributions were "a cut above." I would also assume that the lesser productive of them might teach a bit more. Not too many years ago, I was told that "standard" in our college -- not liberal arts --(at USM) was an outrageously high 12 hrs. per semester! What a royal waste of the taxpayers money that model would have been!  I have known departments at major universities whose faculty teaching loads varied from 0 to 9 hrs. per semester - depending on their productivity in the research and service areas, of course. So not to worry. There are far more important things to be concerned about at this time other than whether full professors in another department carry a 6 hr. teaching loads.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Bubba loves Catfish
"This is not an issue, iddad. So what if the "standard" teaching load for full professors in English is 2 courses per semester. Good for them. Rejoice! I would assume that the more productive of their faculty would sometimes carry an even lighter load (e.g., those who were grant funded, those whose scholarly and other contributions were "a cut above." I would also assume that the lesser productive of them might teach a bit more. Not too many years ago, I was told that "standard" in our college -- not liberal arts --(at USM) was an outrageously high 12 hrs. per semester! What a royal waste of the taxpayers money that model would have been!  I have known departments at major universities whose faculty teaching loads varied from 0 to 9 hrs. per semester - depending on their productivity in the research and service areas, of course. So not to worry. There are far more important things to be concerned about at this time other than whether full professors in another department carry a 6 hr. teaching loads. "

---

excellent post Bubba.

And just so my previous post on unions is not misunderstood -- the object of having all contracting public is to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly but also to enable the differences among the disciplines and programs to be public as well. There tended to be less animosity and jealousy that way. It also made it easier when reviewing an out of college dossier for tenure and promotion to understand how various loads were structured. I can't say there was no jealousy or envy, but the general level was a lot lower and the faculty tended to be a lot more unified and a lot less divided when it came to university politics.

 

STEPHEN JUDD POSTED:

. . . . . . the object of having all contracting public is to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly but also to enable the differences among the disciplines and programs to be public as well . . . . .

Excellent point, Stephen. My experience has been that such important matters are normally prescribed in a Faculty Handbook. What does the USM Faculty Handbook say about teaching load? (I belive I already know the answer to that, so you really don't need to respond to that question).

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"noel made his "contractual" teaching load an issue, not me.  you don't really respond to my point.  why was his "contractual" agreement which became a part of the english department load, denied to similarly situated faculty in other doctoral granting departments?  if the aaup is going to investigate something, why not that issue?  i know only too well that teaching loads for those in doctoral programs is too high, at least in COAL.  again, why the discrepancy between departments in the old CLA?  "

---

As a former faculty member in liberal arts under terry harper i can guarantee you that the 2/2 load dr. polk is talking about was NOT standard or anything like it in the college or even in the english department. certain particularly productive faculty members had similar loads, but it was the exception rather than the rule.

 

IDDAD POSTED:

. . . . . . you don't really respond to my point.  why was his "contractual" agreement which became a part of the english department load, denied to similarly situated faculty in other doctoral granting departments? 

I do see your point now, Iddad, and it is a good one. I don't know the answer to your question. Could it be that those in charge of the administrative units of which you speak were either unaware of national teaching load standards in their respective disciplines?  Or, alternatively, perhaps those chairs were unwilling to press their case with their respective deans? A good department chair is, in his or her heart, part of the faculty - not part of the administration. That is a sine qua non of being a good chair at a good instution.

What everyone has to understand is that with Dr. Polk's classes you're talking QUALITY, not quantity.  I've had three classes and an independent study under him.  I've got two classes to go to finish my coursework for my Ph.D. (well, outside of comps, and, of course, my dissertation), and I can assure you that he's head and shoulders above ANY other prof I've had.  Period. He can unlock a text and make it unfold before you unlike anyone I've ever seen.  Plus he publishes like a maniac and attends a conference, like, every other week.  His dedication to his students is remarkable and USM is damn lucky to have him.  And damned if they lose the like of him.  SFT, Pood, and company are terribly foolish to risk losing him like this, but I wouldn't blame him if he said to heck with it and went to the house.  He deserves better.  For that matter, we all do. 

   

quote:

---

Originally posted by: AmLitChick
"What everyone has to understand is that with Dr. Polk's classes you're talking QUALITY, not quantity. . . .  He can unlock a text and make it unfold before you unlike anyone I've ever seen.  Plus he publishes like a maniac .  His dedication to his students is remarkable . . . . . "

---

Bubba is with you on those points, AmLitChick - every single word. Please understand that there are some of who do recognize the importance those characteristics.   Productive teacher/scholars such as Dr. Polk do warrent a reasonable "stand-up" teaching load, even if such a load is less than some of their colleagues. I am referring to what is sometimes called a "variable teaching load," common in many major research universities.

You were not the object of my plea, dear heart. 

Iddad, i'm genuinely sorry to learn that the deal I brokered with the administration is an "old wound" that apparently still rankles 20 years later. Jeez, I don't think i did anything then that anybody else wouldn't have done under the circumstances, and I would certainly have supported you if you had had a similar offer.  Like it or not (and I dont like it), getting an offer from another university is the way people in good universities get raises; in fact, though, for what it's worth, I did NOT seek the job at Ole Miss, it came my way because of the Faulkner connections, and I had in fact decided to refuse the Ole Miss offer before USM came through with its overmatch. What would you have done? Said No to the deal, holding out until Lucas would offer the same deal to everybody?

I was not aware that there was anything secret about the deal I struck: my salary, like yours, is a matter of public record, listed in a printout placed in the library every year, and my teaching schedule is, like yours, printed every semester in the printed list of courses. I rather suspect that my raise and reduced load was a good thing for the English Department, at any rate, if only because my increased salary increased the total amount used to compute the departmental increase every year (total + percentage) for distribution to all of us. And if colleagues shared the benefit of a 2-2 load, isn't that a good thing? Why is it my fault if our good fortune didn't apply to other similar departments?

I'll be very happy, if you like, to share with you my vita since 1985, so you can see what I've done with the 2-2 load; I'd be happy to compare my record with anybody else's, and more than happy to argue that there ought to be equity everywhere across the board when it comes to rewards for productivity. That inequity is precisely why I'm so angry at Dean Pood right now, and patly why I'm angry at the entire Thames administration. Though my specific argument is the way they are treating me, my general argument is how they are treating us all, how they intend to deal with us all on financial and contractual matters. What else would you have me do?

 

 I'm glad that noel polk finally revealed the details of his 1985 deal.  it  has often been rumored about in the former college of liberal arts.  more importantly, he now indicates that his teaching load agreement was somehow extended to english department faculty (only full professors).  interesting.  i'm glad noel opens up old wounds among a number of cla faculty about how full professors in english got such teaching loads, but were denied to faculty in other departments (full professors, phd programs).  if his agreement "became the standard for the English Department," i want to know why it didn't become the standard for all doctoral programs in the college?  i would hope the aaup would investigate this issue.  "

---

quote:

Iddad, I can't answer these questions because I dont know the answers. I suspect that those in the English dept. who "benefited" from my raise and reduced teaching load did so because they asked for it. If anybody in other departments "similarly situated" had asked, he or she might in fact have gotten similar raises and reductions. If they asked and did NOT get similar treatment, I'm on your side: they should have. But why should this be an issue now, when the enemy of us all is so palpably in the present moment?

---

 

 

Originally posted by: lddad
"noel made his "contractual" teaching load an issue, not me.  you don't really respond to my point.  why was his "contractual" agreement which became a part of the english department load, denied to similarly situated faculty in other doctoral granting departments?  if the aaup is going to investigate something, why not that issue?  i know only too well that teaching loads for those in doctoral programs is too high, at least in COAL.  again, why the discrepancy between departments in the old CLA?  "

---

May I say, finally, on this topic, that I dont mean to make this thread about me, though I'm the particular example because that's the fight I'm having with Dean Pood. It's about us, what they are doing to us. Can't we talk about that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LVN
"Making Dr. Polk so uncomfortable that he will do just that is exactly the goal.  And Dr. Wallace, Dr. Lares, Dr. Chambers, Dr. Judd, Dr. Weinauer, Dr. Barron, Dr. Young,and others I know I am omitting.  These people put their names out here KNOWING that reprisals were guaranteed.  I know there are professional issues here, but I implore the members of this board not to attack one other, nor divert energy and thought, towards old problems.  If people get really riled, send a personal email, but let's not hand the adversaries any ammunition."

Thank you, LVN, for making this important point.  I'd like to add that this thread was started (at Amy Young's suggestion) so that we could see if there is a pattern, not pick apart one particular case.  If there IS a pattern, that information could be helpful to our cause.

Let Freedom Ring

---

I agree 100% with Truth4USM here.  I hope this discussion can get back on focus.

As a Psychology professor in a College of Business and Behavioral Science, I'm well aware that in Business, which was traditionally more highly valued by the upper administration, tenured professors used to teach 2 courses a semester whether they were publishing or not (and some are still doing that).  And I've also been aware that a highly productive Social Science professor will normally be paid less than a not very productive Business professor.  But our department has kept these issues within the college, and pushed for bringing our working conditions closer to those of the Business professors rather than making their working conditions more like ours (and we've had some success).

Most importantly, we don't squabble with the Biz guys when the upper administration is pounding on our college.  Which has been happening recently, with an overambitious Provost pushing our Dean out. 

And our Provost isn't nearly so dangerous as Shelby Thames.  If we were facing such a President from Hell, we'd concentrate on the matter at hand, and happily put off equalizing working conditions across the College till later.

So, back on track:

Noel Polk's perfectly legitimate question was whether the weird system at USM, of issuing yearly contracts to tenured professors, allows the administration to renege on agreements made in writing in the past.

I'm hampered here, because I still don't understand the function of yearly contract renewal for tenured professors.  If you're tenured, and you're not being fired for cause, and there's no "financial exigency," how can the administration not extend your contract for another year?  So what, exactly, is the point of the exercise?

A lawyer who knows employment contracts and knows universities needs to examine the entire squirrelly way that USM has been doing things.  I still think that Thames has a huge "exposure," as we used to say at IBM, if he tries to get rid of tenured faculty by "forgetting" to send contracts out on time, or by ordering his deans to renege on the terms of existing contracts.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"So, back on track: Noel Polk's perfectly legitimate question was whether the weird system at USM, of issuing yearly contracts to tenured professors, allows the administration to renege on agreements made in writing in the past. "

---

I queried this system sometime in the distant past and was told it was a product of the state system of doing business. 

Further, with regard Dr. Polk, I don't see that he has a leg to stand on, given that he apparently had a casual (even if written) agreement with a prior administration. The idea that this casual agreement itself would bind a subsequent administration is kind of silly, or so it seems to me. He could certainly be expected to try to re-arrange the deal, but if any new administration believes the deal is not in its best interest, I can't imagine why it would sign. 

It's also unusual, I believe, for contracts to specify teaching loads. I've known people who have asserted that they have such-and-such a load and "it's in my contract!"  But of course it wasn't in the contract, it was an arrangement or "understanding" with a particular administrator or department under a specific set of circumstances.

Seems to me that our "arrangements" with our departments, our colleges, our deans, etc., are subject to the vagaries of time and circumstance. We get along great with one set of administrators, not so well with another--one might even say that Polk had an advantaged relation with some prior administration and has now fallen on hard times inasmuch as that privileged relation has evaporated.

Practical: It was NOT a "casual" agreement, it was an agreement worked out on both sides, in writing, and the 2-2 load was a condition of my continuing employment here, one of the items in the Ole Miss offer that USM matched.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: PracticalMe
" I queried this system sometime in the distant past and was told it was a product of the state system of doing business.  Further, with regard Dr. Polk, I don't see that he has a leg to stand on, given that he apparently had a casual (even if written) agreement with a prior administration. The idea that this casual agreement itself would bind a subsequent administration is kind of silly, or so it seems to me. He could certainly be expected to try to re-arrange the deal, but if any new administration believes the deal is not in its best interest, I can't imagine why it would sign.  It's also unusual, I believe, for contracts to specify teaching loads. I've known people who have asserted that they have such-and-such a load and "it's in my contract!"  But of course it wasn't in the contract, it was an arrangement or "understanding" with a particular administrator or department under a specific set of circumstances. Seems to me that our "arrangements" with our departments, our colleges, our deans, etc., are subject to the vagaries of time and circumstance. We get along great with one set of administrators, not so well with another--one might even say that Polk had an advantaged relation with some prior administration and has now fallen on hard times inasmuch as that privileged relation has evaporated."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I agree 100% with Truth4USM here.  I hope this discussion can get back on focus. As a Psychology professor in a College of Business and Behavioral Science, I'm well aware that in Business, which was traditionally more highly valued by the upper administration, tenured professors used to teach 2 courses a semester whether they were publishing or not (and some are still doing that).  And I've also been aware that a highly productive Social Science professor will normally be paid less than a not very productive Business professor.  But our department has kept these issues within the college, and pushed for bringing our working conditions closer to those of the Business professors rather than making their working conditions more like ours (and we've had some success). Most importantly, we don't squabble with the Biz guys when the upper administration is pounding on our college.  Which has been happening recently, with an overambitious Provost pushing our Dean out.  And our Provost isn't nearly so dangerous as Shelby Thames.  If we were facing such a President from Hell, we'd concentrate on the matter at hand, and happily put off equalizing working conditions across the College till later. So, back on track: Noel Polk's perfectly legitimate question was whether the weird system at USM, of issuing yearly contracts to tenured professors, allows the administration to renege on agreements made in writing in the past. I'm hampered here, because I still don't understand the function of yearly contract renewal for tenured professors.  If you're tenured, and you're not being fired for cause, and there's no "financial exigency," how can the administration not extend your contract for another year?  So what, exactly, is the point of the exercise? A lawyer who knows employment contracts and knows universities needs to examine the entire squirrelly way that USM has been doing things.  I still think that Thames has a huge "exposure," as we used to say at IBM, if he tries to get rid of tenured faculty by "forgetting" to send contracts out on time, or by ordering his deans to renege on the terms of existing contracts. Robert Campbell"

---

I think we determined, in a conversation back from the Board meeting, that the "contract" also can serve to alert the administration of a faculty member's potential job change. Not all professors have been equally good about giving timely notice . . . .

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"i am glad noel polk finally revealed the details of his 1985 deal.  it  has often been rumored about in the former college of liberal arts.  more importantly, he now indicates that his teaching load agreement was somehow extended to english department faculty (only full professors).  interesting.  i'm glad noel opens up old wounds among a number of cla faculty about how full professors in english got such teaching loads, but were denied to faculty in other departments (full professors, phd programs).  if his agreement "became the standard for the English Department," i want to know why it didn't become the standard for all doctoral programs in the college?  i would hope the aaup would investigate this issue.  "

---

Iddad,

In my experience as a grad student at the Univ. of Illinois and Penn State, none of my professors taught more than 2 classes.  And at PSU profs were even given a semester off the semester before they went up for tenure.  Of course we're talking about major research-oriented institutions.  You simply cannot PUBLISH or carry out big administrative tasks if YOU ARE TEACHING.  It is a simple fact.  I have liked being at USM because I find the teaching load fair 3-3 with what I have understood to be the requirements for research and publications. 

Still in order to manage major administrative duties my colleagues in foreign languages have benefitted from course reductions.  The graduate director gets a course load reduction per semester.  The profs who coordinate study abroad in Mexico and Spain also get a course reduction- per year-they manage graduate level studies in these off-campus sites.  The instructors who coordinate lower-level Spanish (with 1000 students) get a course reduction etc... and so it has been.  And I think this is fair. This is what we need in order to have the balance between teaching, administration and carrying out research. This is what we need in order to complete the work of the department.

I applaud Noel for his contributions to USM, to research and teaching.  When a prof gets a job offer at another university it is typical of him/her to see what the present institution is willing to offer in return.  That is part of a market economy, that is part of competition in the academy.  Noel was smart and benefitted.  I'm sure he deserved what he got. Institutions do this for their productive faculty who get recruited away.  It makes good sense and it maintains and keeps good scholars. 

Yet I would also hope that some form of raises for those not on the market or who don't get job offers elsewhere could also be possible. The way raises were handed out this year was disastrous and not the way to handle it. But that is another topic and certainly not Noel's fault...

Interesting thread. I never heard off a "teaching load" agreement that is intended to be in force in perpetuity. In psychology, new faculty are provided course re-assignments that produce a reduced load (usually 2-2) to allow them to jump start their research. This is usually a time limited arrangement with the chair (say two years).

Some issues were raised by Dr. Polk's initial post. A teaching load that does not  reflect what is weighted in decisions about course re-assignments for all faculty and sub-units in a department can create hard feelings, if not lawsuits. So, even if an  long-term individual "agreement" is reached, it is reasonable to periodically examine that teaching load in context to ensure that this arrangment reflects current unit standards for all faculty, whatever those standards may be.  

Second, how time is re-assigned across campus is articulated differently, with variable attention to detail. In EPY, we are planning to address this and related issues in our various college councils in the summer or fall. A fair and well-articulated unit plan that is evenly applied and accounts for differences in units' cultures and expectations is a good starting point for minimizing heartache.

Third, teaching loads at USM are higher than I would like to see in our units, but having site visited several institutions (LSU; U Cinncy), I don't see them as ridiculously out of line in most cases (at least in units comparable to ours).

Last, it's odd to have a faculty member negotiate teaching loads with a dean. I hope that local unit management and responsibility rests with the chair in all but the most extreme circumstances. 

Hope y'all are having a great break.

Mitch          

i stayed away to see the "heat" i took for my response to noel, and i know this will garner more.  i'll avoid a lot of what i could say.  noel selectively responds to several points i and others made, but ignores other points.  he doesn't respond to how his agreement was extended to other full professors in english.  i hope it isn't "if it's good for me, then it's good for others."  so much for it being performance based.  i don't mind noel getting all he can for himself.  bully!  but all other full professors!?  did they negotiate such deals?  but, when other departments got wind (review my point about similarly situated departments), why were they denied such relief when they asked (sorry, some chairs asked)?  some point to noel's productivity--what is it?  i know people who have exemplary teaching, research, and service in other departments in the old CLA and were doing it with a 3-3 load!  noel, on the record, how many dissertations or theses have you directed in the past 5 or 10 years?  a colleague of mine on a 3-3 load in the old CLA finalized a book last year and completed 2 dissertations, along with some convention papers. i don't think it is as much an administrative issue as you want to frame it.  it may be for you.  i'm sorry if i offend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"when other departments got wind (review my point about similarly situated departments), why were they denied such relief when they asked (sorry, some chairs asked)? "

---

Iddad,

I'm not an academic and I don't have a dog in this hunt, but as an interested outside party, there's something I don't understand. Perhaps you can clarify. Are you suggesting that Noel Polk had some responsibility to negotiate a similar teaching load for professors in "similarly situated departments", departments other than his own? I may well be drawing the wrong inference, but it sounds as though you're holding him accountable for his colleagues in other departments having been "denied relief", as you put it. I understand that the inequities you describe would rankle, but I'm having trouble seeing Dr. Polk as the responsible party. Wouldn't it be the department chair, or the dean, or the Provost?

AE

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"i stayed away to see the "heat" i took for my response to noel, and i know this will garner more.  i'll avoid a lot of what i could say.  noel selectively responds to several points i and others made, but ignores other points.  he doesn't respond to how his agreement was extended to other full professors in english.  i hope it isn't "if it's good for me, then it's good for others."  so much for it being performance based.  i don't mind noel getting all he can for himself.  bully!  but all other full professors!?  did they negotiate such deals?  but, when other departments got wind (review my point about similarly situated departments), why were they denied such relief when they asked (sorry, some chairs asked)?  some point to noel's productivity--what is it?  i know people who have exemplary teaching, research, and service in other departments in the old CLA and were doing it with a 3-3 load!  noel, on the record, how many dissertations or theses have you directed in the past 5 or 10 years?  a colleague of mine on a 3-3 load in the old CLA finalized a book last year and completed 2 dissertations, along with some convention papers. i don't think it is as much an administrative issue as you want to frame it.  it may be for you.  i'm sorry if i offend."

---

This sounds like sour grapes to me.  Don't see how this has anything to do with Noel Polk.  Sounds like it has everything to do with how your own department is run.  Instead of holding Noel Polk accountable for your own departmental woes (most bizarre, IMHO), why not take this up with your dept. chair and dean?

PS--If you're wondering what Noel has been doing with all of his "free time," do a Google search of his name and "William Faulkner."  I'm sure you'll find plenty there.

I find this discussion quite interesting. It points out the contrasting views that faculty of different disciplines and mind sets bring to the academic setting. The core of the discussion is the issue of the difference between market-driven behavior and equity driven behavior. There is merit in both, and organizations (for profit, non profit, mutually-beneficial) seldom are totally one or the other. Professor Polk possessed market power when he negotiated the initial agreement. He acquired this market power by hard work, talent and scholarly output, an accomplishment that is not all that easy at USM compared to Universities that provide greater resources to faculty. Thus, another university was willing to bid more for his services. Other faculty in his department and college either did not have this market power or chose not to exercise it. His detractors feel that others who possessed similar rank and had the same job description should have been provided similar rewards. That is, faculty with the same rank and job description “should” be rewarded equally. This equity concept carries over into inter discipline comparisons. A full professor in college of science or college of business should not make more than a full professor in liberal arts or college of health. So long as universities compete with each other for faculty, situations such as Professor Polk faced will always occur. It is the competition between universities that has made the U.S. university system the best in the world. Indeed, one of the best measures of the quality of a university is how many of its faculty are sought by other universities. Another measure is how hard a university attempts to keep those sought after faculty. My view is that the actions of USM’ to retain Professor Polk should be viewed as a signal of quality. It is exactly the opposite that exists now under SFT and his sycophant administrators.

I would estimate that Noel got his deal for extraordinary scholarly productivity well beyond what counts as excellent at this university. He is, by all accounts, one of a handful, and a small handful at that, of top rank Faulkner scholars in the world today. He is, as far as I can gather, a particular "kind" of Faulkner scholar, of which there are not so many. In all, he is well above the superior category and probably deserves whatever he's gotten.  My sense is that there are VERY few individuals on this campus who are as well regarded in their areas as Noel is in his.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: noel polk
""

---

Noel: 

Iddad is simply a contrarian.  All he ever does on the board is disagree with facts.

I'll have to stick up for Iddad too.  Sometimes I'd like to go through the screen and shake him/her, there is a bit of disagreeableness, but we don't know why, and Iddad has been a friend.  We need all the friends and supporters we can get, let's cut each other some slack.  Iddad, that goes for you too.

Can y'all get back to the question as to whether other "visible" and outspoken faculty are getting pressured like Dr. Polk?

I agree Tinctoris, Iddad is not the other problem. Are we now going to have other world class scholars summarily investigating the C.V.'s of other colleagues without election? Is this not how this c**p got started in the first place in the CoAL? Unless you can now post jobs on this site, this isn't a contest over clout. It's a site to throw gnomes out! Let it go N.P., it doesn't measure up to you "status."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Cossack
"I find this discussion quite interesting. It points out the contrasting views that faculty of different disciplines and mind sets bring to the academic setting. The core of the discussion is the issue of the difference between market-driven behavior and equity driven behavior. There is merit in both, and organizations (for profit, non profit, mutually-beneficial) seldom are totally one or the other. Professor Polk possessed market power when he negotiated the initial agreement. He acquired this market power by hard work, talent and scholarly output, an accomplishment that is not all that easy at USM compared to Universities that provide greater resources to faculty. Thus, another university was willing to bid more for his services. Other faculty in his department and college either did not have this market power or chose not to exercise it. His detractors feel that others who possessed similar rank and had the same job description should have been provided similar rewards. That is, faculty with the same rank and job description “should” be rewarded equally. This equity concept carries over into inter discipline comparisons. A full professor in college of science or college of business should not make more than a full professor in liberal arts or college of health. So long as universities compete with each other for faculty, situations such as Professor Polk faced will always occur. It is the competition between universities that has made the U.S. university system the best in the world. Indeed, one of the best measures of the quality of a university is how many of its faculty are sought by other universities. Another measure is how hard a university attempts to keep those sought after faculty. My view is that the actions of USM’ to retain Professor Polk should be viewed as a signal of quality. It is exactly the opposite that exists now under SFT and his sycophant administrators. "

---

 

Cossack,

Well said.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tinctorius, Mrs.
"

..a sincerity response ..."

---

...make that a SINCERE response.

Mea culpa.

I'm late on this long thread, but I want to say that when Pood came to my department to have a "friendly chat" when he first got here, he spent lots of time badmouthing the lazy English profs who were only teaching a few courses (no indication that they might actually be publishing madly), and everyone got mad and went tsk tsk and sided with him. It's a divide and conquer strategy (and exceedingly unprofessional on Pood's part), and look at this thread. IT'S WORKING. Everyone gets mad at Noel or defends Noel, and forgets that the problem is Pood.

Pood also told us the standard load was 4 and 4! I'm sure there are lots of you out there teaching that. But for the nonacademics, 4 and 4 is NOT the load of a "world-class" research university. It's not even the load of any kind of "research" university. I don't want to play into the "those profs don't teach" attitude of the general public, but as someone said earlier, if you want us to produce new knowledge you have to give us time to do it, and reward us when we do.

I can't believe Noel Polk is bi***ing about teaching 2 classes.  His complaints betray this site by painting a picture of faculty as the lazy malcontents they claim we are.  Noel, don't betray the cause!

I've been troubled by the various attacks on Noel on this list.

I'm a member of this year's English department personnel committee--among other things, we're all pretty overworked over in English--and have thus reviewed all English faculty activity for the calendar year 2003.  I can assure you that Noel's productivity is staggering.  I'm also his neighbor on the third floor of LAB (or whatever it is now) and can tell you that as DGS his door is always open and he is always available.

What many of the posts seem to have overlooked is that Noel's presence at USM benefits not only himself, his publishers, and his students, but also his university colleagues in any discipline.  He is a world-class Faulkner scholar, and he has chosen to stay in Hattiesburg, MS rather than go to Oxford, MS--which is, please note, the shrine of Faulkner studies.  Surely his own reputation would have been enhanced by being on site in Oxford, but he chose to stay here.  (For comparison's sake, imagine the rest of us turning down an Ivy League offer.)  Yes, he asked for a lighter load on one hand in order to publish more on the other, but with such a heavy producer we are still getting a bargain.  Having Polk at USM adds to our international clout; it makes all of our jobs more valuable, even those of us in other colleges.

Conversely, for the administration to overlook his contribution to international scholarship, and particularly for it to ask him to renege on publishing agreements already in place puts the entire university in a bad light.  Word gets out quickly in the publishing world about such difficulties.  Publishers in any discipline will begin to think twice about negotiating contracts with any members of our university community.

Noel Polk is one of the reasons that we are a world-class university, and I don't take it kindly that the administration seems bent on shooting off this particular toe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"We have to continue to assert the worth of ideas..."

---

Or teaching, for that matter. I thought it odd when I filled out the FAR that there was no place to indicate that I was teaching an overload. If I had been teaching 2-2, what I was citing would have been quite meager. As it was, I was teaching 4-4, and my output was remarkable (at least in the context of my field). It seemed to me that people (whoever the intended audience for the FAR actually was...) obsessed with my productivity would have been curious as to what I did with 90% of my day.

The wider point: I’ve seen the same pattern that Noel has represented play out in my department more than once. Pood announced to our college that he considered a full load to be 4-4, with consideration for committee work, advising, etc. This “load” thing seems to be used only as a weapon. As in most large departments, there are a couple of unproductive faculty, but no one ever mentions their load. It is the outspoken people who get called into the Dean’s office to justify their “light schedule,” and then have onerous and/or excessive duties assigned. Many of these outspoken (and, yes, productive) people are accepting offers from elsewhere.

I was tenured just before Shelby and Co. took over. I would be despairing if I was coming up for review now. There are no grants in my field; I’ve checked. I write articles for which I’m not paid, or I pay my own way to professional conferences to read papers. The only activity this administration considers productive is bringing in money- not teaching, not scholarly research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Need information
"What, exactly is 2/2 and a 4/4, etc teaching load? What does this mean for those of us not familiar with this? Thanks"

---

It's shorthand for how many courses a semester one is assigned. So, "4/4" means 4 courses in the Fall, 4 courses in the Spring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tinctoris
"Pood announced to our college that he considered a full load to be 4-4, with consideration for committee work, advising, etc."

---

Interestingly, Pood came to Southern Miss from the University of North Alabama, which according to its website has a grand total of FOUR graduate programs-- all at the master's level:

http://www.una.edu/academic/graduate.html

Perhaps a 4-4 teaching load was standard at UNA, being it is not a comprehensive, research-centered university. Could it be that Pood is in over his head???

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over. And he knows it too. That's why he hides so much.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Googler
Could it be that Pood is in over his head???"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"I'm late on this long thread, but I want to say that when Pood came to my department to have a "friendly chat" when he first got here, he spent lots of time badmouthing the lazy English profs who were only teaching a few courses (no indication that they might actually be publishing madly), and everyone got mad and went tsk tsk and sided with him. "

---

I work in an area of CoAL outside of English, and he made similar disparaging comments about English profs during our "friendly chat."  I wonder if it's part of his shtick--like telling people that he's certified to blow things up (fitting hobby). 

This whole discussion has degenerated.

For heaven's sakes, Noel merely responded as ANYONE would to the laws of Supply and Demand.

I suppose Iddad will argue Supply and Demand do not exist, or it they do, that they do not apply to higher ed.

WRONG !

Demand grew so high on Noel Polk that he made a wise and rational choice that most anyone would have, and the resulting higher "wage per unit effort" was well deserved.

Get off Noel's back.

The students and the university were well served by this market "adjustment."

I'll call you later Noel.

I vowed not to respond to this thread because the lack of basic facts was so staggering.

But I just can't resist.

To my knowledge there is NO PhD granting English Department in the United States that offers a 3/3 teaching load: it is too high for a PhD research program and all institutions know it. Threrefore, to my knowledge every PhD granting English Dept in the US offers at a 3/2 or a 2/2 load. Period. One again, this makes USM unique to my knowledge because it makes USM the only PhD English program with a faculty essentially prevented from doing PhD level research: It has the highest teaching load of any PhD progam in English in the US.

I did a survey of all PhD granting English programs for the four state region. Therefore, I know for a fact that of all the PhD programs in English in the four state area--LA, AL, AK, and MS-- USM has highest teaching load. No other PhD program requires its faculty to teach a 3/3 load.

This means that EVERY 26 year old fool with a degree getting hired in a PhD granting English department is going to have a load comparable Noel's. Ok? It is the standard load for PhD programs for a profession containing upwards of 18,000 professors.

And by the way, Miss State only has a Master's program, no PhD, and yet their standard load is 3/2. Ole Miss with a PhD program has a 2/2 load if I recall correctly. That means every 26 year old fool with a fresh degree getting hired by Ole Miss is teaching what Noel teaches. The difference is that at USM he had to wait 30 years for the industry standard to kick in....

So, please, work with the facts or lay off. A PhD granting research department is not the same as a northern alabama community college...