Written Comments to 1998 Survey
These comments are arranged by question (each question is followed
by comments relating to that question). Comments not related
to a particular question are at the end. A very few comments
that could be construed as mean spirited have been edited out.
Though all respondents did not answer all questions, there appear
to have been approximately 175 respondents, close to half of all
Truman faculty. Bear in mind that these comments were written
during the Spring 98 semester. The mean response (1.00 = strongly
disagree, 5.00 = ambivalent, 9.00 = strongly agree) is given for
each question. It should be noted, however, that most of
the responses were NOT gaussian in shape. For example, for question
8 (mean of 3.94), 38% of the respondents checked 1, and the other
62% of the respondents were spread out more or less evenly over
the other 8 choices, no one choice getting more than 12%.
Other responses (questions 3, 6 and 11, for example) appear to
be highly bi-modal, with one peak at the ì1î
end and the other in the middle.
Dr. Peter Rolnick
job promoting a liberal arts and sciences culture. [5.38]
This is the VPís job. He will!!
We should help!!
Strongly disagree. The administration does a
good
job of promoting cheapness at Truman (Money
Magazine Mania) and of promoting Assessment
figures. New faculty orientation and new faculty
meal meetings … stress ìreturning to our
assessment roots. The administration fails to
look beyond our assessment reputation and deal
with faculty load, salary, adequate time to
reflect and conduct meaningful research, uniform
support for conference attendance, the display of
our own past and heritage and development of
traditions, time and financial support for
interdisciplinary research and interdisciplinary
minors and interdisciplinary majors or joint
appointments or team teaching or even looking at
what the top 20 liberal arts colleges in the
nation do.
The administration lacks a vision of liberal arts
culture and seems to think that the Residential
Colleges should bear the major burden in
facilitating such a culture. Thus, other (more
productive?) avenues are not explored, and the
fact that most upper-class students live off
campus is apparently forgotten.
The administration hasn’t defined or doesnít
know
what a LAS culture at Truman should be. There is
no vision or leadership in this area.
Trust among disciplines and a shared sense of
purpose–even pride about the core–should be
hallmarks. Instead, we have star chamber
governance, nasty and uncollegial curriculum
debate and apparently little clue about what it
would take to get us working together.
2. The new Liberal Studies Program
implementation plans and procedures are proceeding in a timely,
systematic, and facultative manner. [4.01]
The implementation has been compromised & turf
protection some decisions.
Strongly disagree. The Liberal Studies Program
could have offered us a solid base on which to
build a good academic reputation, course
innovation and tradition, reflection,
interdisciplinarity, and a liberal arts culture.
[Some faculty attempt to]… recreate Truman in
their image. The LSP is proceeding in a
poorly-thought way–ad hoc; ready, fire, aim manner. It
has hit major problems this year which
demonstrated only how far we are away from being a
liberal arts college. Facultative? UGC has
facilitated the current apathy among faculty.
Weíll teach and go home.
Timely? some pushed through–some dragging
Systematic? Mostly, but some duplicative effort.
Too fast
Lack of leadership means that the petty-minded can
exert a disproportionate amount of control.
Creativity is inhibited, not encouraged, under
such conditions.
No, this has turned into a policing of syllabi
(what of academic freedom?) and the policing is
often poorly considered and by non-specialists.
Planning was given time; but no planned phase-in
of the LSP was implemented.
Magruder began the discussions on the LSP eight or
nine years ago and has provided no leadership to
bring the issue to a satisfactory conclusion. He
has left it totally up to many different
committees. Here again, no guidance and certainly
no practical vision of the problems involved with
its implementation. …
No. It has been slow , mean, disrespectful, and
redolent of inner circle politics and private
agendas.
3. Assessment of student learning
is appropriately collected and reported, thereby facilitating
a reflective culture aimed at improvement. [4.83]
Do you know about any (much) of the data?
Strongly disagree. Assessment is collected, sits
somewhere, is trotted out to bludgeon innovation
with (live in the past, live in the past, donít
disrupt our long-term data collection) and to feed
to state legislators. It promotes stasis on
campus, because of the long-term studies at stake,
but what improvement? By their fruits you shall
know them–show us the Rhodes, Mellon, or
Fulbrights at Truman because of assessment. Show
us the 3-3 teaching load because of assessment.
Show us faculty from first-tier liberal arts
colleges who have accepted jobs at Truman because
of assessment. Show us a SIS system that works
because of assessment. Show us prosecution of
hate crimes and assaults on faculty and students
because of assessment. Show us salary increase
for staff because of assessment. Show us
increased alumni donations because of assessment.
We have no Assessment Office to facilitate use of
info that has been collected or to develop
assessment instruments that might better monitor
the progress of innovative curricula. Assessment,
as it is conducted here, is backward
looking–almost counterproductive.
We like to congratulate ourselves more than we
truly examine what sort of job weíre doing.
Collected yes–but feedback and reports are not
given in forms I can understand.
Assessment has become a big joke … We still
generate all
kinds of data, but it is not used in any
structured way. There is no process in place to
use it. …
Not used properly. Numbers are misrepresented.
Its collected, but itís not reported in ways
that
are helpful or useful–and a great fuss is made
over tiny changes that are statistically
insignificant.
Assessment is frequently conducted in a manner
inconsistent with acceptable methodology and the
results are often used unethically.
4. The currently proposed expansion
of Freshman Week is the appropriate tool for increasing retention
and graduation rates and for promoting a living/learning community.
[4.88]
Strongly disagree. Retention begins in the
Admissions Office (they do a good job, too). It
begins with making sure that students know they
are coming to a LIBERAL ARTS college not an MBA or
MAE school. It begins with making sure that
students come because we’re cheap, cheap, cheap,
and for not other significant reason, that when
the thrill of cheap, cheap, cheap wears off, they
may transfer to a school that offers what they
can’t live without.
Living/learning Æ lends itself to Residential
College.
I see it as one possibility among many.
Freshmen women seem to respond very positively.
Change ‘an’ and I’ll give it a 9.
The Freshman week expansion has distinct
possibilities. However, another example of a lack
of administrative leadership. Too many committees
involved and, as a result, very slow if any
movement forward. Still no clear agreement on
retention.
It has some prospects, but itís too early to
tell.
If itís implemented well and nurtured by faculty
who have the right attitude–too many ìold guardî
faculty are negative and fail to see the promise
in this structure.
Iíve seen no evidence in support of this.
5. Physical facility resources (e.g.,
space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for my teaching and scholarly
needs. [4.42]
Ambivalent. Sure we’ve got offices with windows
that don’t open, computers that work, classrooms
with chalk and VCRís, and a lot of money spent on
annuals rather than perennials each year. Maybe
with Violette or OP or Baldwin or Science Hall
renovated or wide sidewalks instead of cow paths
everywhere, I could agree with this. On the other
hand, Pickler is the most competently run entity
on campus. Thank you, thank you. they work hard
to help with listening to faculty needs,
purchases, interlibrary loan, and helping out
students.
The question should have been broken up–supplies
very adequate, space quantity fine but quality
very poor
I waste an hour of my day going to another
building because of lack of classroom space in my
own.
Would like one less class during the day to do
research, etc.
Recently, the heating/cooling system has make
working difficult: either weíre in a sweat lodge
or we freeze. This doesnít help concentrate on
work and students fall asleep.
No more windowless renovations, please.
Environmental control.
In OP218, the board is to one side of the
classroom, which means that students seated in the
other half of the room cannot see the board well.
Please do something to the board in that room.
My classrooms are all broiling hot, and my office
which I share is noisy and unprivate–and without
adequate space for my books.
6. Enhancement of the liberal arts
culture and the living/learning environment through expansion
of the Residential Colleges Program should be a top priority of
the University. [4.46]
Strongly agree. And it took us ten years to
figure this out.
[This question] I think is important, but should
not be a top priority.
The Residential Colleges is another mess. They
are all but extinct. …
Yes, if we figure out what to do with advising.
I agree it should be supported, but a ‘top
priority’ is worded too strong.
7. The current or proposed plans
enhancing technology on campus are, or will be, adequate for my
teaching, service, and scholarship needs.
[5.61]
When [Computer Services] tells the Admissions,
Business, and Registrar’s offices that they are
too demanding in their computer wants, itís time
to look at moving Truman into 1998 computer
technology. Every other school Iíve been at was
years ahead of the technology here. Students
canít even depend on a printer in the library let
alone expect anything like phone registration or a
SIS system that operates with any sort of speed.
Plans and implementation will likely differ…
Proposed plan is unclear.
I have given up any hope of improvement in
technology at this campus.
What technology plans!
Support staff are still crucial–and I see little
reason for optimism about getting all campus
buildings (including residential ones) wired for
the network.
Iím worried about it.
8. The procedures used in the search
for, and appointment of, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs
were expedient, fair, and impartial at all levels. [3.94]
I believe it is the president’s choice. I think
VP Gordon will be excellent!
Poor question.
Strongly disagree. You’ve got to be kidding.
Read Ramesh’s letter in the Index. The search
committee worked hard and did a great job….
[The writer feels that the current administration
is only comfortable with people who are white,
male, and from the geographical area.]
If we’re going to appoint from ‘within,’ please
don’t waste the committee’s & faculty’s time and
money with costly search process.
Reference Ramesh’s letter in the Monitor–it was
perfect.
I have no reason to believe they were not, though
I wish we had hired from outside.
You must be joking.
The fact that a highly qualified external
candidate was dismissed from consideration by
Pres. Magruder without any explanation to the
faculty has created a massive morale problem that
will not be ameliorated any time soon. It also
puts a nice guy in a tough situation. But we ask
for excellence and accountability from students
and from faculty–why not from administrators?
Closepet Ramesh put it very well in his letter in
the Index, 4/16/98. It is a missed opportunity
for Truman.
I hope they were impartial about important values.
I think Garry Gordon is a very fine person and he
is very competent as an administrator. However, I
do not like the way he was selected.
[This question] cannot be addressed by most
faculty; which one of us can be knowledgeable
about procedures ‘at all levels?’
The VPAA search was a joke. Magruder put his
friend in as interim and made a big point of
stressing to the faculty that Gordon’s appointment
was only temporary and that he would not be a
candidate for the position. Gordon told many
people during the last year that he would not be a
candidate. The search committee was not consulted
in the final decision making process. We all knew
that Magruder [wouldn’t] … hire someone who
would be threatening …
I was disappointed as a faculty member that I was
not directly asked who was the better VPAA
choice. I was disappointed that as a VPAA search
committee member that the VPAA decision was made
before we had a chance to review faculty
comments. Quite frankly, internal candidates
should not have been finalists for the long term
good of the university, students and state that we
serve.
You must be kidding! Hiring a faculty member
requires much more academic rigor than these
appointed administrators!
It appears that the Truman mania for insiders and
known quantities came through once again. The
search appeared to be a waste of time.
What a joke.
9. Adequate time, support, and resources
are available for my scholarship needs and
requirements. [3.89]
Is there ever enough?
Poor question.
Strongly disagree. When some divisions give a
faculty member $1,000 in travel funds to
professional conferences and other divisions give
a faculty member $350 is that adequate support?
If you want to read SWE or Portfolios or conduct
Junior Interviews than you can get time AND money
from Truman. If you choose not to do assessment
and instead choose to continue your intellectual
development, professional development, work on
something you can use in your courses, then maybe
your division head will notice it at your annual
interview but don’t fantasize about a course
release if you get a book contract. Stop
expecting us to come up with answers to the
bureaucratic problems, that’s what the
administration gets a salary for. We want time to
reflect and research and prepare to teach not time
to attend a committee meeting because the
administration is lean.
Need more secretarial support.
Again, possible only if we donít eat, poop or
sleep. Or if I have projects that would require
changing samples and writing one paper/sample.
Itís hard to assign and grade all the stuff
that
enhances learning and still have fresh new class
material/lecture.
Some libraries will not lend books to Truman!
How
can we be in the forefront of research if we do
not have access to books?
The only time I have (or would have) is during
summer, and then I must teach to supplement my
salary.
Things are getting worse, much worse, not better.
10. Salaries and benefits at Truman
are commensurate with comparable institutions and
reflective of the teaching, service, and scholarship
loads undertaken by faculty. [3.28]
Hah–we all know the answer–what do you get for
this?
Poor question.
Strongly disagree. Have people on the benefits
committee or in the benefits office worked at
universities outside Missouri? This is the best a
highly-selective institution can do? Staff
salaries and part-timersí salaries are insulting.
Benefits are barely that (what does out changing
benefits companies so often say?).
Please push on [this question]. Where is the
9
hour load? Why are Mizzouri folks paid more to
teach less?
They donít compare well with similar institutions
and there is strong evidence of salary compression
in the middle ranks.
11. The Universityís
increased use of part-time and non-regular faculty positions is
appropriate. [3.63]
There is little or no increase actually!! Except
maybe in one or two places. In some places
temporary positions have actually decreased!
Poor question.
Strongly disagree. Every single instance of our
use of a part-timer indicates our commitment to
cheap rather than long-term investment or
quality. Admit freshmen and then expect someone
to teach courses with multiple preps, large
enrollments for $2,000 or $2,500 with no
benefits? Since we do this year after year after
year after year why donít we turn those into
tenure-track slots? Because of the cost? Cheap,
cheap, Money Magazine cheap.
But salary schedule should be implemented.
Must be evaluated case by case.
No info on this item.
Iím always concerned about exploitative wages
and
lack of benefits. Iíd need to study the
conditions here to know how extensive our problem
is–and I believe such a study should be
undertaken.
More info needed to evaluate this.
This is not a true statement in my division.
The hiring of so many non-regular faculty will
have a drastic negative impact on the university
in the not too distant future. We cannot
accomplish all of the initiatives that are before
us without appropriate administrative leadership
and a somewhat stable faculty.
COMMENTS NOT LINKED TO A PARTICULAR
QUESTION:
We should support our part-time & non-regular
faculty with research opportunities and with
permanent job placement. Currently, the in-house
grants are not available to one-year temps.
Serving as a temp provides a wonderful opportunity
to gain valuable teaching experience; however, it
is a very demanding job. Many of the temp faculty
will seek permanent positions elsewhere. Their
year is full with developing lectures, becoming
acquainted with Truman, developing job seminars
and sending out applications. They provide a
valuable service to Truman State. In return, we
should help them with job placement by all means
possible. It would enhance Trumanís reputation
and increase out ability to attract talented
temporary faculty if we demonstrate success in job
placement.
Truman is very good at creating an image, but so
ineffective at utilizing the available resources
to support its educational mission and meet the
expectations of its students and faculty. On a
daily basis I see the university squandering
scarce resources when I have minimal support for
my teaching and scholarship activities. This
creates frustration and burn-out. An image
without substance to support it simply becomes a
facade. An image attracts students to this
campus, substance is what keeps them here, makes
them successful and keeps them coming back.
Examples of some of the major challenges facing
this university which are not being addressed
include:
-lack of viable hiring, tenure and promotion
policies, practices and procedures campus-wide,
along with inconsistent definition of faculty
workload
-Physical Plant is a joke, Computer Services is an
oxymoron and Campus Planning is non-existent
-the ìgood olí boy,î local mentality
is once again
the rampant operational philosophy on campus.
Decision-making continues to be concentrated in
the hands of a few who have no viable experience
or management skills. One possible bright spot on
the horizon is the hiring of a Director of
Physical Plant who was apparently successful in
the real world before coming to Truman. …
-University facilities are not designed, managed
or maintained to effectively support the
educational mission of the University.
-Some faculty bust their butts for the University
and receive minimal support and recognition for
their work and thus become frustrated, burned out
and have poor attitudes. Other faculty are
totally clueless, do very little for the
University (they are usually on campus less than
20 hours per week) and this group continues to
exist, collect their inflated paychecks are
basically coddled by the administration. Maybe
something needs to be done with these slackers.
-There just seems to be a lack of management
ability at all levels–the ability to convert
policy into action, the ability to utilize
available resources effectively–faculty,
facilities, resources and ideas. Part of the
problem certainly is that experienced,
knowledgeable, caring faculty are not involved
effectively in the decision-making process.
Irregardless of the facade, it just doesnít
happen. Some would probably disagree with
that–if so, then why isnít there a real faculty
member on the Board of Governors? … there seem
to be many people on campus at all levels who seen
to think that their job is to make policy and
decisions for others to carry out–the problem is
the lack of people, time and support to get the
work done. The proverbial ìtoo may chiefs and too
few Indians syndrome.
What I am trying to convey is my serious concern
for and frustration with the inability of the
University to effectively convert its resources to
end product. Until serious improvements in
management are instituted, I feel that the
University will be teetering on the brink of
mediocrity.
The state of the university is stasis and
paralysis. [The President] might have his board
fooled and might get money from the legislature,
but as long as we have the high number of old boy
administrators cloning themselves, we will not
make progress toward the liberal arts. … The
problem with our in-breeding at the administrative
points is that it reproduces itself and new ideas
canít survive in that arid yet fetid environment.
The McClain impulse–not just to sit around, but
to try to evaluate ourselves–has been lost in
insular self-congratulation that doesnít know any
better because it embraces its isolation–under
the guise of being ìdistinctive.î ìDistinctiveî
is how we excuse ourselves from our challenges of
being more than cheap. The choice of [VPAA] only
demonstrates our fear of fresh ideas and the
desire not to explore ways of improving. The big
threat is when we get caught for our pervasive,
sadly unconscious unfairness to women: the only
issue is how big the settlement or judgment.
I feel very strongly that the University is
currently in a state of crisis. Closepet Rameshís
letter to the Index only reinforced many of those
critical issues, and I would like to take this
opportunity to reiterate and support the concerns
he voiced in that letter, namely a reexamination
of the lean administrative culture, a serious look
at faculty load–and ensuring that loads are
equitable not only within each Division, but
university-wide–, and finally compensation. In
talking with colleagues it has become clear that
most faculty feel unable to have an impact on
decisions made at the university; the
Vice-Presidential search was only one indication
of that. The fact that everyone I spoke to felt
that the outcome of that search was a foregone
conclusion before the search even began indicated
that sense of helplessness. It also indicates a
serious problem at the university, and that is the
tendency to promote from within, an issue which is
particularly problematic in these days of change.
Change should be welcomed and not feared,
particularly at a so-called ìself-reflectiveî
institution. The proclivity to promote faculty
from within ensures that we do not change; at
times someone on campus is the best person for a
job, but at times not.
On the issue of faculty load, this does not have
to do with faculty wanting an easy life. If this
university truly values high-quality teaching–as
administrative staff says it does–, then
professors need to be given the time to maintain
high-quality teaching. This does not mean filling
out quantitative forms, or reviewing student
writing portfolios, or working on assessing ìhow
weíre doingî but rather having time actually to DO
what they teach: that is, to keep up not only on
new developments in their field through reading
and conference attendance, but also contribute to
that field. Again, this is not selfishness, but
rather a drive to want to be better in the
classroom. If the legislature in Jefferson City
believes that this is indeed self-indulgence then
it is the job of the people in charge of the
universityís well-being to convince them
otherwise. the current state of faculty load and
contributions not only effects morale on campus,
but also our reputation as a liberal arts
university nation-wide. While student assessment
is critical, it is also critical to look at what
our faculty are being asked to do in comparison to
other highly selective liberal arts institutions.
The current amount of non-teaching or research
work which faculty are being asked to do is having
a seriously detrimental effect on morale,
particularly among young faculty and this must be
addressed immediately if the university is to
remain a lively, vital, and pleasant place to be.
I challenge the Vice President and President, when
gathering information on faculty opinion not to
make such sessions into cheer-leading sessions for
the university, but to truly be receptive to
faculty comments and criticism; they are meant in
a spirit of constructive improvement to the
university. We have excellent faculty and
excellent students here, but I also feel that if
the current situation in terms of morale and
faculty work-load continues that we are on a
steady slope towards losing all the hard work that
has been put in in past years.
On the issue addressed on the evaluation form
regarding the LSP implementation, this is a
process which has been undertaken FAR too quickly
and under FAR too much pressure. Decisions are
being made which will affect students for years to
come, and they are being made hastily and without
proper time or consideration. One year to
completely overhaul the core requirements is not
nearly enough, and most faculty fear advising next
year because no one seems to have any idea what is
required.
The LAS program could be postponed until after the
LSP has been implemented for a couple of years.
The categorization of disciplines by the LAS
committee sets groundwork for interdisciplinary
prejudices and rivalry.
The university is becoming infatuated with Phi
Beta Kappa as the standard for LSP–we need to set
our own standard.
9 [scholarship support], 10 [faculty salaries] &
11 [non-regular faculty] are especially important
in the longer run.
Given our mission, our salaries do not correlate
with being the ìPremier Liberal Arts and Sciences
University!î
Residential Colleges and Extended Freshman week
are two important venues for increasing
retention/graduation rates and promoting
living/learning community. Good advising is
equally important. Advising is not rewarded and
students suffer from faculty who donít want to and
they donít advise.
Iím surprised by the survey. If youíre
not trying
just to foster divisiveness but to get a clear
picture, you need to provide a question for each
variable. E.g.–time, support & resources are
connected but I could have a different response to
each–plenty of time but not resources, plenty of
resources but no support from a division head,
etc., etc.
Where was AAUP when all the many drafts of the
Master Plan were available for review, advice?
Why are you always after the fact rather than
proactive during the process?
I am constantly amazed at what this University
gets away with, without an uprising at the Faculty
level. Faculty apathy is also a very real concern
which has and will continue to cause
embarrassment, disappointment, and student apathy
as well.
The mishandling of the VP search confirms the
worst of my suspicions of old-boy networks.
Some of these points contain several different
issues and are therefore impossible to give a
single answer to.
As a member of the athletic department, I believe
that all athletic programs on campus are taking a
backseat to the priorities of the University.
These other priorities often make the athletic
program feel ignored. Just a few of the
recommendations that many coaches have made of the
past few years are: more rooms and space for
meeting with student-athletes (this way no one has
to sit in the middle of a hallway for a meeting),
better facilities and more access to them, i.e.:
lights for all athletic fields, improved
weightroom facilities for all student athletes,
improved fields and courts that are level,
drainable, and playable, improved locker room
facilities, especially the baseball locker room
and football locker room, improved financial
support for better equipment, scholarship money,
recruiting costs, and more coaches, improved
financial support for coaches and student
assistants, renovation of Stokes Stadiumís press
box for track meets and football games, renovation
of Stokes Stadiumís bathroom and concession
facilities, increased support (other than verbal
rhetoric) from administration for athletics,
increased funding for full allotment of
scholarships and assistant coaches.
We need to be honest to incoming and prospective
students. For example, U. S. News and World
Report named us # 1 public regional midwest
university (look it up)–not # 1 public midwest
university. We lie constantly–it doesnít help
us.
There is no public discussion about salaries,
workloads, etc. There is a culture of
closed-minds, closed-mouths. Because we have no
local media of any worth to discuss campus issues,
everyone just accepts what is done and no public
discussion of issues takes place. Why doesnít the
faculty as a whole get told about % available for
raises?
We desperately needed an outsider for
VP–rewarding someone because he helped with a
coup several years ago just shouldnít cut it.
They do not want to hear that the emperor has no
clothes.
If weíre taking in such wonderful students,
how
come they canít write or think! Truth–the ACT
score is an average–not a requirement for getting
in. We have a lot of average and below-average
students who need attention.
Where is this 16:1 student:faculty ratio–who has
that number–what division? Wouldnít it be great
if it were true?
ìSelectionî of … VP was a very
dispiriting
process…. His selection guarantees that the
university will continue to be run by a very small
group of ìinsidersî with no understanding of or
regard for the universityís liberal arts mission.
I would have thought that Gordonís lack of the
doctoral degree specified in the job ad would have
distinguished him from any consideration for the
position. His selection sends out an ominous
message to the faculty–credentials simply donít
count; favoritism is the name of the game.
The liberal studies debate in Undergraduate
Council has been an ugly one, to say the least,
and shows the need for some kind of academic
leadership (but not control) from the
administration, which seems to condone and perhaps
even approve of the current chaos, with UGC
apparently making up its own rules as it goes and
bending to the will of several overly powerful and
extremely vocal members.
President Magruder continues to function as an
ìabsentee landlord.î It would be nice if he
would
at least appear to take some slight interest in
the academic affairs of the university.
In the wake of the Warren resignation, assessment
has returned with a vengeance. But will anyone
ever seriously assess assessment?
There should have been a university-wide
discussion of VP candidates with Magruder before
decision was made. As he said publicly, the
faculty evaluations were not the determinant in
deciding on the winning candidate, but that he
depended on his own knowledge of Gordon. What a
waste of taxpayersí money to allow Magruder to
make the final, biased decision! There should
have been a more objective body of people making
such a final, critical decision. As a faculty we
demonstrated tremendous complacency in comparison
to the other candidateís own home institutionís
faculty who stood up and refused to accept an
in-house candidate.
It is also disappointing to see that the small
number of Language and Literature Division faculty
who had discredited the first Search Committee for
Division Head (by claiming that the Division
faculty should have the right to look at dossiers
of candidates not chosen) and thus get their
person in, these same people in NO way made any
stance or objection about dossiers of VP
candidates not chosen, not made available to
public or faculty. It indicates a disturbing
hypocrisy and opportunism on the part of people
who make moral objections only when their own
interests are threatened.
I am concerned about the direction being taken.
The workload (busy work) is higher each year;
concern for faculty wellness/scholarship/time from
the administrative end is poor.
Enhancement of liberal arts culture should be a
top priority but there are many other ways besides
residential colleges to do this.
I am concerned that efforts to do assessment
appropriately are seen as disloyal, and are
ignored. The result is an assessment program
which is all show and no substance.
Areas where administrative leadership is needed-
a) Where is the new student info. system,
including on-line registration?
b) Changes in free drop/deadline to allocate
resources more effectively, i.e., fewer empty
seats–adequate sections of surveys.
Why wasnít such a questionnaire distributed
by the
faculty senate before commitments were made to the
University Master Plan?
The apparent contradiction between my responses to
# 5 [physical resources] and # 9 [scholarship
support] probably reflects the Violette renovation
underway.
My general feeling about the state of the
University is more positive than is indicated
here; the questions are tilted towards areas of
concern, so that the results may be somewhat
misleading. Having said that, I am grateful for
an opportunity to voice dissatisfaction about
several critical issues identified by the
questions.
The administration needs to take a long realistic
look at the state of the university. It is not
the rosy picture painted in our PR brochures; in
fact, it is a far, serious cry from it.
Stagnation, moral and intellectual, is the rule at
TSU. The Universityís Master Plan is hyperbole.
… Magruder had an opportunity to appoint a
candidate with academic integrity and credentials
(Gormly) but unfortunately, despite strong and
vocal faculty opposition, he chose Gordon. The
comments and actions of Magruder and Gordon
demonstrate that they do not understand academics,
they do not sympathize with the professorate, and
they will not seek any kind of excellence in
teaching and scholarship.
In 26 years at Truman Iíve learned that I cannot
live within the seriously flawed, stultifying,
equivocating, unfair, and dishonest mixture called
ìthe unique culture and heritageî of TSU. The
same ignorance that was in charge when I came is
in charge now. The only change is that it sells
better downstate.
We need Liberal Arts folks in charge of a Liberal
Arts university, not the cronyism. We seem scared
to grow–we will anyway, but the rate of
growth–though palpable–is at times dispiritingly
slow. If we want to keep our edge, we have to be
a lot less self-congratulatory. the ins need to
be out; the outs need to be in…eventually (&
inevitably–but the sooner, the better).
On the whole, I think we are a fine public
institution.
These questions seem loaded to me. I would give
you the responses that seem to be prompted, but
then where are we? Iím afraid this instrument
will diminish AAUP credibility, and I think thatís
unfortunate.
We are in a mess.
The AAUP survey of President Warren was used
by
[some] to oust Dr. Warren. We now have a
clique/cabal that has used its powers to
manipulate the President, disregard faculty
concerns, and has come to believe that it knows
what is best for the university. And we all know
what it is donít we?! ASSESSMENT! The Why,
What,
Wherefore of assessment is as foreign to me as the
Trobianders. What about the ìMaster Plan?î
It is
a grand homage to ìincrementalismî in the
minimalist tradition! It provides no vision, it
is all puffery and pompous nonsense bound within
glossy covers.
On a positive note, I do like
building/construction plans/programs; the
improvement in the library after the arrival of
Mr. Coughlin; and the upgrading of the computer
technology/services.
We have missed a chance for ìrealî change
by
having Prof. Gordon thrust on us as the
ìpermanentî VPAA. His articulation of any vision
is as full of PR puffery as can be expected from
an insider who has made a Faustian bargain!
Questions 3 [assessment] & 4 [freshman week] are
double-barreled and are not valid indicators.
AAUP should focus its efforts on # 10 [faculty
salaries] and # 2 [LSP implementation].
Physical situation in Science Hall has improved
some, but we are still very short of space.
Assessment reporting has gotten better, but still
a problem.
I do not believe that we are truly committed to
all aspects of a Liberal Arts degree. We talk the
talk, but we do not always follow through.
Examples would include funding for Fine Arts at a
rate much greater than for that of athletics.
Especially when FACILITY concerns are included.
I think the university treats students as clients,
who are always right, and who must be pampered.
Students then demand lower standards, less effort
and higher grades. Classes must be entertaining
to be considered good and telling students that
they must do better, giving substantial homework,
or asking them to produce something not spelled
out on a book is considered cruel and unusual
punishment. Unless the university changes its
business approach, any of the goals reached
(retention, achievement, etc.,…) will be more
propaganda/advertising than true learning.
There is little time to think. I thought teaching
at this University would be a more thoughtful
occupation.
We are lacking too many books and resources in the
Foreign Language area.
It is too bad that more faculty canít understand
and see these things!!!!!!!
Thanks for listening.
There can be no change if the leadership fails to
change (and hence no improvement).
Health insurance benefits are poor.
Provincialism and in-breeding are dangerous,
especially in a geographically isolated rural
area. Administrative appointees (i.e. friends of
the Pres.) keep our school short sighted and
myopic. We say one thing and do another.
University should do away with part-time
positions. It reflects an institution that is not
serious about higher learning.
I think itís about time we unionized!
See
attachment re evaluation of Magruder:
President Magruderís major strength, in my humble
opinion, is his wonderfully warm personality which
has, I believe, served him well (and,
consequently, has served the university and
community well) when it comes to working with
alumni, community leaders, parents and
politicians. A few people with whom I have spoken
perceive his interactions with others as being
disingenuous; I do not. I continue to believe, as
I always have, that he is an earnest and ingenuous
individual. However, I am increasingly becoming
aware that his virtues may foster vices in others
and, as president, he must be judged not only by
his actions but by the actions of those above and
below him. Iíll try to explain myself.
It appears that Truman State has moved from a
president who operated from an autocratic,
paternalistic style of management to one whose
style is best described as laissez-faire.
Ideally, laissez-faire administrators surround
themselves with administrative subordinates who
are honest, competent, and have integrity.
Ideally, those who guide the former (e.g., Boards
of Directors) have the same virtues. Such
administrators and Board members do exist at
Truman State and I have known a few personally.
However, a significant number of them have
demonstrated a contemptuous and arrogant disregard
for the rights, dignity, and safety of faculty and
others who, in spite of this treatment, continue
to serve students, the university, the community
and the state. Some, if not all, administrators
refuse to recommend formal action be taken against
students who are academically dishonest. One can
hardly claim that such inaction encourages ìhigh
expectations for performanceî and fosters the
noble goal of insuring that students internalize a
set of ìinformed ethical values.î Some
administrators have been given the authority to
threaten with punitive action students who refuse
to complete assessment tools, misuse the language
of assessment research, employ incorrect
statistics to analyze data, and recommend
institutional and instructional changes which are
not warranted by the findings and which are more
often than not based on logical fallacies. In
short, although the president may have a strong
commitment to assessment at the cognitive level,
he has not demonstrated a commitment to ìstrongî
assessment by trying to ensure that the misuses I
have outlined do not occur. The president has
knowingly participated in at least one person
being relieved of a job at this university, not
because of poor performance, but because of the
unadulterated prejudices of some members of the
Board and (possibly) the ignorance of other
members. Administrators and Board members presume
a lot when they approve of a mission statement the
basic tenets of which they unabashedly and,
apparently, proudly violate. What is most
disturbing, however, is the presidentís penchant
for remaining mum when the safety, health and
dignity of faculty and other members of the
University community are threatened. There are
many examples of the latter; the most recent is
the trivializing of the assault and battery of a
member of the faculty by a student and the
intimidation that discourages the former from
seeking justice.
What is the president to do? The faculty is
expected to overhaul the system under which it has
operated for years, and among the faculty there
are leaders at the front who are egging us along.
It may be time that a similar shakeup at the
administrative level, led by the president, take
place as well. This will require that the
president abandon his laissez-faire approach to
management and adopt a more democratic management
style dedicated to, among other things, curbing
the excesses and abuses of those above and below
him.