Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Philosophy Departments Under Attack…

Brian Leiter

…in Pennsylvania.  A philosopher in Pennsylvania writes:

Here's what I've been told, by those involved at the state level with our faculty union. The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Board of Governors has adopted, as an informal policy, to require special justification for any program not graduating thirty majors in five years. This includes the philosophy programs at Clarion U., East Stroudsburg U., Edinboro U., Indiana U. of PA, and Mansfield U. These programs must provide such justification by about mid-April or face a moratorium on new majors, which would likely lead to an eventual phase-out of the philosophy major at those universities. They are being encouraged to teach philosophy courses online and establish collaborative distance-ed programs with sister institutions. I have also been told that faculty retrenchment is now on the table at the state system, particularly with a view to when federal stimulus money runs out in a year and a half.

Comments are open for postings by those with additional information.  Also feel free to post suggestions about what others can do to help support the threatened programs.

Leave a Reply to Robert Timko Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

42 responses to “Philosophy Departments Under Attack…”

  1. Jon Cogburn

    University of Louisiana at Lafeyette lost their BA in Philosophy last year for being "low completer" and my school (Louisiana State University) lost their Linguistics Phd for the same reason, and are scheduled to lose their comparative studies PhD this year.

    At least here the system wide Boards of Regents do this as a way to show they are making the system more efficient. It's a procedure that doesn't require any thought either.

    The problem is that low completer programs are almost always that way because of a history of staggeringly low investment by the university in those programs. For around than the price of a new assistant professor, graduate stipends could be increased to get the MA and PhD programs in compliance. And in many cases you see the kind of thing that is happening at King's College, where lots of new lines are being hired as financial reasons are being given for not helping out the programs with horrible resources.

    More generally, it's the result of the "build to strength" strategy used at schools where the only thing nationally competitive is the administrator's salary. How do they justify this salary? Typically with the idea that you can make your university nationally prominent by having a few nationally ranked programs surrounded by a sea of mediocrity. Of course this is never put that way, and in fact the academic version of trickle down economics is almost always invoked. But it works just as well.

    The weird thing is that the "build to strength" model is staggeringly inefficient. It costs a whole lot of money to move your best program one rank up on National Research Council Rankings, almost nothing to take a lot of cheaper departments (in terms of lab space and faculty pay) and get them on those rankings. And the latter strategy would actually boost the university's reputation far more.

    I have on pretty good second hand information that the reason Texas A&M is such a powerhouse today (compared to other agricultural schools who were comparable to it thirty years ago) is that they commissioned an external review to convince them *not* to pursue the trickle down "build to strength" strategy. Instead, they used flush times to build up departments that it was affordable to actually build up. And look at what they've done with their philosophy program (I should add, not just in terms of becoming more Leiterific (though they have done that) but in terms of really smartly setting up the degree so that their job placement is proportionally better than what one would expect given their Leiter rankings).

    In the bigger picture, there are so many statistics about how much better a philosophy degree is for things like life-time earnings and grades on all five of the major pre-grad tests (only philosophy majors graduate on average in the top quintile in all of the following: two GRE generals, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT). But I guarantee you that this information is not even remotely relevant when the relevant universities decide how to allocate resources and course requirements in ways that could allow them to jump through the low-completer hoops.

    Reply
  2. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Dear Fellow philosophers–especially, but not only, in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education:

    A university without a robust philosophy major (including courses well beyond those which service Gen-Ed) is simply anathema to the mission of a university. This is not about enrollment; it is about what distinguishes a trade/professional/technical school from a university. Every single minute we are willing to play ball according to the Chancellor's rules which fallaciously link enrollment to program quality, we are in point of fact conceding to play by these rules. Enrollment is not a measure of program quality (and this is particularly true of a major that recruits its students from within the university–not from the high schools–since students rarely know they might major in philosophy until they take a philosophy course and talk to a professor). Nonetheless, I can think of no better strategy to divide PASSHE philosophy departments from each other than the endeavor to persuade us of this link, and thereby persuade us to let our lesser enrolled ("qualified") fellow departments meet their moratorium doom.

    This is not to say, of course, that we are not ourselves responsible as departments for some (and I mean SOME–isn't this administration's job?) active and meaningful effort to recruit GOOD students, offer them EXCELLENT courses, provide them realistic hope that if they work very hard they may qualify for graduate study. It is to say that the mere number of students enrolled measures nought but our popularity–and as we all know from fickle student evaluations, this has relatively little to do with the strength of particular courses or instruction.

    Make no mistake about it–any strategy that facilitates trimming philosophy faculty either through retrenchment, replacement through temporary adjunct, retirement incentive, moratorium, or insuring intolerable working conditions (say, teaching forever in a Gen-Ed eternal return) will put to an end the teaching and scholarship we call philosophy in PASSHE. I am not suggesting we would not still be philosophers without a department, but it requires no leap of imagination to see that our professional lives would be so seriously damaged without the opportunities, collegiality, etc. that department membership provides that the notion we could recruit even the most remotely adequate faculty to teach those future Gen-Eds is laughable at best. We could not–and without this, we can hardly even call ourselves a "faculty" since we can realistically have neither our students' educations nor our own professional/scholarly interests at heart.

    While it is certainly reasonable to ask why PASSHE has targeted programs (philosophy, foreign languages) that are so relatively inexpensive to maintain, I'd venture the following: We are merely the trial run/test case. Should we pose little resistance to this calculated move to whittle away at our (relatively small) departments and programs, the chancellor would have just as little reason to think that the same strategy wouldn't be effective for larger departments and their programs–whomever does not fit the vision of a PASSHE remade to fit the "business model," the language that some Board of Governor members now use entirely openly–making explicit comparison of students to products, teachers to "educational delivery systems," and departments to "manufacturing units."

    And this, of course, is just the point. If we allow the chancellor to continue to define the terms over which we struggle to hold onto our departments–IF WE DO NOT BEGIN TO ENGAGE THIS DEBATE AT THE PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL OF WHAT THE MISSION AND VISION OF A GENUINE UNIVERSITY OUGHT TO BE– we have already lost–and worse, we will have lost our credibility as PHILOSOPHERS. For who on earth is better suited to THIS debate than we?

    This is not about "fighting" retrenchment; this is about demanding that the value of philosophy's place in anything that calls itself higher education be unambiguously recognized, celebrated, and fully supported. Why are we so failing to do what we are ourselves educated to do?

    Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
    Department of Philosophy
    Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
    Bloomsburg, PA, USA 17815
    wlee@bloomu.edu/570-389-4332

    Reply
  3. J. Edward Hackett

    This is extremely unfortunate. I am currently a PhD student in philosophy at SIUC and a byproduct of the wonderful undergraduate experience of Slippery Rock University. I have known students from the above schools. They tried this a while back during my attendance to SRU. This is unfortunate.

    The SSHE schools run a wonderful undergraduate conference called the Interdisciplinary Association of Philosophy and Religious Studies. Moreover, the students were active with the Greater Philadephia Undergraduate Philosophy Consortium and regularly have access to great conferences held at Pitt and Penn-State respectively. Pennsylvania is a great state for philosophy.

    Reply
  4. Shane Ralston

    I'd like to express solidarity with my fellow philosophers who are affected by this measure. Though I'm a faculty member at a higher ed institution in PA, ours is not affected because we are not part of the PASSHE (which I've always thought a bit odd given the university's name and slogan, "We are Penn State," for a list of those institutions affected, see http://www.passhe.edu/universities/Pages/default.aspx). Still, I'd second Professor Lee's message that we philosophers should be more vocal and engaged in these debates over the direction of higher education. Not only do we need to appeal to administrators who wish to eliminate philosophy departments with low course enrollments and few majors, but we also need to demonstrate the relevance of philosophy to our colleagues in other departments and to the public-at-large. I've argued elsewhere ("Recovering Pragmatism's Practicality: Four Views," Philosophical Frontiers, http://www.philosophicalfrontiers.com/page813.html) that if we philosophers are to avoid our own marginalization within the Academy, then we must become better interdisciplinary scholars and public intellectuals. The time is ripe for us to seriously take up this challenge!

    Reply
  5. Gilford Moss

    I attended Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, during the years 1965 through 1967. I received an appointment as graduate assistant, serving in the Philosoply Department. John Anderson was chariman.

    I am now on the threshold of old age. Those years at Penn were wonderful. My mind was set on fire with new ideas. That fire, while dormant during the 40 years of my working life, has now burst forth anew. I hope that the fire will burn through the end.

    In old age, career and ambition are no longer encompassing. Only the life of the mind is sustaining. Because I was granted the privilege of graduate school, I now enjoy a rich old age.

    Guilford Moss
    M. A. Philosophy, Pennsylvania State University, 1967

    Reply
  6. Robert Timko

    The cuts go deeper than those mentioned in the original post. The Chancellor's office is targeting 10 of the 13 programs in Philosophy in PASSHE. We had an informal visit from a member of the Board of Governors last week about forming collaboratives. The man had no educational experience. His job has been in business to downsize and merge, and he sees no difference between the bottom line in business and the bottom line in education. I told him all collaboratives and strictly on-line programs that are being considered lack both pedagogical and ethical integrity, and he took that as a challenge to his expertise.

    If the state has its way only three of the existing programs will survive. The others will have to go on-line or become service programs.

    At Mansfield we had a decline in enrollment because two members of the department were reassigned to administration to help the school survive. The program in Philosophy had to survive with adjuncts. Since the return of the regular faculty, enrollment in the major has increased by close to 60%. Enrollment in the minor has experienced a similar increase. All but three of the courses we offer in the major also service other majors in politics, health sciences, biology, criminal justice, etc. The same level of offerings would have to continue. There would be no financial advantage to state to put the program in Moratorium. This is simply about power politics and people in Harrisburg looking to position themselves for their next corporate job. The philosophers in the state need to become active and against an administration that is looking at the short term benefits for the Chancellor and his assistants to the detriment of all the students in the state.

    Remember this is the same administration that has closed countless French, German, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish language programs because they didn't graduate an arbitrary magic number in the last five years.

    By the way, we actually will meet the state standard for minimum graduation rates this year, but they don't seem to want to acknowledge that in Harrisburg.W.e will graduate 7 and we are the second smallest university in the system

    Bob Timko
    Chair, Philosophy, Mansfield

    Reply
  7. Mark Decker

    For what it's worth, I think any philosophy department needing to justify its existence to its institution would do well to use these articles from 1997, 2007, and 2008, respectively, showing that even if producing marketable graduates is the main goal of the university, philosophy is the way to go:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/26/business/philosophers-find-the-degree-pays-off-in-life-and-in-work.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/20/choosingadegree.highereducation

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/education/06philosophy.html

    Reply
  8. Anonymous PASSHE philosopher

    From the experience at my PASSHE department, I think some of these fears may be unfounded.

    First, I think it is a mistake to infer that the admin is targeting philosophy specifically– as the original post mentions, it is about low-enrolled programs (at my university this included some programs in the sciences, for instance).

    Second, in October we were forwarded a lengthy reply from the chancellor to a philosophy faculty member's inquiry. His letter gave me a very different impression from that given by Prof. Timko above. He seemed like a sincere guy who (for a top-level administrator) had thought a lot about what philosophy had to offer. First and foremost, he said that there had been no discussions of eliminating philosophy departments or majors among his staff. He also said that 126 programs had been cut so far, and none of the cuts had been protested, since they either got rid of redundant tracks or created better ones for the students. Beyond that, he also gave some reflections about how philosophy was integral to the education of our students and said that he hoped we would continue to offer them interesting and creative instruction. I haven't seem any evidence beyond hearsay that he has changed his mind about all this in the last five months.

    I am relatively new to the PASSHE system, so of course I may be out of the loop as far as new information goes. But I will say that on several occasions I've been presented the worst-case scenario by a senior colleague about what the administration is up to this time, only to have it later contradicted by direct experience. Thus I worry about taking some of the above comments at face value.

    Reply
  9. Wendy Lynne Lee

    If what Bob Timko is claiming here is true–and I have every reason at this point to think that it is true–the changes he describes paint a mortifying picture for philosophy in PASSHE, one more ominous than the one I suggest in my original post. 10 of the 13 philosophy programs in PASSHE IS, for all practical purposes, the gutting of philosophy in PASSHE. What will the remaining three programs do to effectively represent philosophy in PASSHE? I think the answer here must be "nothing." What CAN we do? Majoring in philosophy in such a gutted system is meaningless if the only choices are three institutions–meaning that only students who are (a) portable or (b) near by would have this opportunity. Why would they deliberately seek out, say Bloomsburg, when–and closer to home–they could go to Penn State, Temple, or Pitt. (assuming they have the resources)? I think it is true that philosophy majors are more likely to be recruited from within the university than from the high schools; be this as it may, however, I find it very hard to imagine maintaining robust and vibrant programs at the remaining three campuses under these conditions, and hence hard to imagine why students would be attracted to them even from within their institutions. And while, again, there are few reasons to think we could attract really good faculty to any of the three under such conditions, the real question is why–short of the sheer economic necessity that might keep us at our posts–we'd want to be a party to this….sham?

    Bob's observations about Mansfield also confirm my suspicion that the 30 majors/5 years numbers are really nothing more than a post-facto "justification" for what PASSHE plans to do regardless any real numbers. The number-game is merely cover. After all, if these decisions are scheduled for this upcoming April, it's not as if any department has had any time to do anything about improving their enrollment rates. I agree with Bob that much of this is about the power politics of folks in Harrisburg positioning themselves for their next jobs–but I also think it's something far more than this, namely, the first move in the course of remaking PASSHE over according to a radically different vision of what STATE schools are intended to accomplish: the technologically well-equipped workforce of the 21st century–including all of the foreboding feel of class division between state and state-related or privately funded institutions that this suggests. Ironically, all this is occurring at the same time state funding for PASSHE is drying up. So we are now faced with the prospect of becoming state technical schools with no state funding! Privatized AND "State"!

    There's something both very old and very new about this venture. Very new in that it involves technologies in ways that rewrite what we even mean by education–but very old in that it smacks of that archaic division between the workers who–however well-trained–fuel the now global economy and those more leisured whose affluence offers the opportunity to dabble in things like philosophy–and who get to bestow such opportunity on their children by sending them to the more expensive state-related and/or privates. I mean this in no way as a criticism of those institutions–I went to a private for my own graduate education–but as an observation about the direction I think such remaking may take. This is not, then, really about philosophy; it's about the conversion of humanities education–and the absolutely vital role it plays in the education of citizens into workforce competition units for the global market.

    Last October, Professor Kurt Smith (Philosophy, Bloomsburg) and I had the opportunity to meet with Chancellor Cavanaugh on our campus for about an hour. The chancellor assured us that no such retrenchment (etc.) plan was afoot, and he exclaimed his love and respect for the humanities–wanting indeed to grow such programs in PASSHE. While I cannot speak for Professor Smith, it is my view that the chancellor was speaking largely if not entirely disingenuously. Perhaps to put us off? I can't say. But what I can say is that the evidence does not support these claims.

    So, the question, fellow colleagues, is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND ACTUALLY START STRATEGIZING A CONCERTED RESPONSE?

    Wendy Lynne Lee
    wlee@bloomu.edu

    Reply
  10. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Reply to "Anonymous PASSHE Philosopher": The response you received from the chancellor is virtually identical to the content of my and Professor Smith's conversation with him. Indeed, he does seem like a sincere guy. The evidence since this time, however, is in fact inconsistent with this response. Please take a look at what's actually occurring at institutions like IUP or Edinboro. I think you are quite right that this is not about philosophy, but it is also not really about targeting low-enrollment programs (that–as the chancellor strongly implied to us–no one would miss). I remain convinced that low-enrollment is simply the instrument of choice for this first gambit at remaking the system according to the business-model vision outlined in my own posts and those of several others.

    I would, however, be delighted to be completely wrong (even partly wrong), and hence I am very interested to know what you mean by "direct experience"–other than the chancellor's claims–that confirms that these worries are overstated. After all, this would be an immense relief to myself and no doubt to many other faculty in PASSHE humanities who'd rather be getting on with our scholarly work than being compelled to defend our profession.

    Please, could you elaborate?

    Wendy Lynne Lee
    wlee@bloomu.edu

    Reply
  11. harry b

    Wendy and Bob and others,

    Two books worth looking at.

    Zemsky, Wegner and Massy, Remaking the American University
    Weisbrod, Ballou and Asch, Mission and Money

    My guess is there'll be a good deal in both that you dislike. But I agree with Wendy's initial point, which is that we need to ask what the purpose is of having a University. What both books argue in different ways (and if your administrators haven't read them they need better professional development…) is that efficiency must always be defined in relation to mission. They both argue, for example, that there can be very good reasons for engaging with commercial forces outside the university, but that those reasons have to be grounded in a reasonable judgement that doing so will yield income to support the core mission. Of course, most administrators (and frankly most academics) have only vague ideas about what the mission is/should be, and those ideas wouldn't survive a 5 minute interrogation by a skeptic. Both these books will provide resources for constructing arguments in favour of Philosophy being a central part of the mission of a university, and will help you to make the case (in public, or in private) for cross-subsidization (which is really what you want to happen).

    I would keep away from arguments concerning what professors will really enjoy and care about doing (working with Philosophy majors on the subject they love). That is a reason to become a professor, but not a reason for anyone to subsidize us. It will, you are right, make it difficult to recruit high quality professors if you lose the department, but then that doesn't seem to be a priority for the administrators involved anyway.

    Final piece of advice (I'm sorry to be doing this, and I know I offer this all from a position of complete safety, just take it or leave it) — take a look at the instructional practices in what you regard as "safe" departments, and compare them with instructional practices in your own. I'd guess that if you documented your practices you could make a case that there are good reasons to suppose that your students are actually learning quite a bit that they wouldn't otherwise be learning. (Tip — start with Economics, a notoriously safe discipline with notoriously weak instructional practices). Getting students to learn must be part of the core mission of the University, no? Zemsky Wegner and Massy are very good on this.

    Reply
  12. Andrew D. Cling

    In Alabama we have a similar state-wide, one-size-fits-all "viability" standard. Programs offering bachelor's degrees are viable only if they graduate an average of 7.5 majors per year, measured over five years. Here at UAH–alas, you've all heard of us now–we faced a significant challenge to meet this (unreasonable) standard several years ago. We are a small university of about 7000 students with a public face that emphasizes science and engineering.

    In my experience, it is a waste of time to argue about the reasonableness of the standards since your arguments are unlikely to persuade the administrators they are presented to (if they work, so much the better) and it will take away from the time that could be spent building your program.

    Happily, we went from an average of between 5 and 6 graduates per year to a current rate of about 11 graduates per year. I do not know what worked since we had no time for controlled tests. I would be happy to share what we did with chairs and others who might be interested.

    I am at clinga@uah.edu.

    Reply
  13. Steve Hicks, President, APSCUF (PA state system faculty & coaches union)

    All,

    Wendy forwarded me this link and I find it revelatory. I wonder if Dr. Cavanaugh, Chancellor of the state system, reads it, too.

    Here's my news: at a special meet & discuss yesterday at Kutztown University, their provost announced that the philosophy department was one of six they had identified to begin the retrenchment process. That program was on the low-enrolled list mentioned here.

    More stunning, given Bob Timko's citing of 10 of 13 PASSHE schools having their phil programs on the low-enrolled list, is that KU is retrenching at all. They have grown from 8,000 to 8,800 undergraduates in the last 5 years and have the lowest faculty cost in the system. Last year, they ran a surplus.

    If they feel the need to start retrenchment proceedings, who or what is next?

    And Jon Cogburn hit the nail on the head: the state system has a publicly declared "play to strength" strategy.

    Reply
  14. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Three brief points to be made about Steve Hicks post:

    1. That Kutztown would be on the retrenchment list is truly stunning–given low faculty cost, growing enrollment, and the fact they they ran a surplus. This convinces me all the more that this isn't about the money in the sense that it might be a legitimate response to a national recession. Were this the case, Kutztown would not likely be on that list. No, this is about the money in another sense: Remaking PASSHE over according to the "play to strength" vision of its chancellor–in other words, "play to strength" is code for corporatizing, privatizing, and going on-line.

    2. That six programs at Kutztown are on the retrenchment chopping block indicates, again, that this isn't about philosophy (or languages) per se, and it isn't really about low-enrollment; it's about "play to strength." Start with the smallest programs–work your way to the bigger ones.

    3. Apparently the chancellor does not feel the need to provide an answer to APSCUF's question as to why Kutztown? This too is ominous. As any philosopher knows, giving reasons is crucial to formulating responses. But it is becoming more and more clear that the chancellor is not interested in responses–that is, in what we think. My bet is that he thinks we'll whine and complain–and actually do nothing. And if he's right about this, we deserve our retrenchment fate. So again, my question: What are we going to DO?

    Reply
  15. Kurt Smith

    Retrenchment in PASSHE is, as Professor Lee rightly notes, part of a much larger "make-over" of the very institution of higher learning. Just look at the Governor's Conference on Higher Education 2010 (you can find it here: http://pahigheredconference.com/ ). The big picture is that KINBER (Keystone Initiative for Network-Based Education and Research), a private (non-profit) corporation, has received nearly $100 million in stimulus funding to lay fiber-optic cable across Pennsylvania, under the guise of "democratizing" the internet (making it available to those living in the rural areas). KINBER has attracted not only PASSHE, but the University of Pennsylvania, Penn State, and the University of Pittsburgh. There is also another $29 million that has been "invested" by private corporations who want in on this.

    The Governor's conference is basically one meeting of the partners who will be recipients of the KINBER funds. Who is sponsoring the Governor's conference? The Governor? No. It is Kaplan Higher Education, AcademyOne, Inc., ConnectEDU, ETS, Evaluations Systems Group of Pearson, Docufide, Sungard Higher Education, etc—ALL private corporations involved in "online education" and "distance learning." No doubt they will benefit greatly by the new fiber-optic infrastructure (which is why they've kicked in the above mentioned "investment"). As Professor Lee suggests, the Chancellor's vision for PASSHE seems to be one that would rework the curriculum so as to reflect a technology-based curriculum, where the humanities is relegated to providing just enough general education courses to "count" as an education (as opposed to simply job training). What is more, given the emphasis on "online" and "distance learning," it would appear that whatever humanities remains in the system will eventually be "taught" via the new "online information delivery system" (a phrase used by administrators).

    This is not fantasy (though it certainly sounds like it is). It is happening right now in Pennsylvania.

    Reply
  16. Robert Timko

    The problem is much more extensive than we are ready to admit. It is about the arts, the humanities, the theoretical sciences, and the social sciences. At Mansfield, all language programs were told they are to go into moratorium. Sociology was given a very brief deadline to reinvent its program. The same for anthropology. The Masters in Art Education was told to go into moratorium. Philosophy was not alone. Our first report actually showed that we had already done all the things required in the original "show cause" documents. Our second report after the first was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor, show that we were not only meeting the requirements but growing by a significant percentage. I don't think the second report has been forwarded to the state as of now. I do have a promise from both the Provost and the President that they will fight for Philosophy. We will graduate 7 this year and we currently have either 23 or 24 majors and 16-20 minors in Philosophy. Not bad for a school with an undergrad enrollment of around 3200 (head count). We have three different tracks in Philosophy–a traditional, a pre-law major in philosophy, and an applied/professional ethics track. All three have shown growth. The inquiries into all three tracks are up by 50% over last year. Mansfield's stated mission is that of a public liberal arts college, and we are in the middle of restructuring general education with a strong liberal arts emphasis/foundation. The philosophy programs (all three) at MU have the reputation of being among the most academically rigorous on campus, and we are growing in number. We also rank the third highest in enrollments in upper division courses. So the attacks on philosophy, languages, sociology, etc., have to be based in some deeper agenda than merely wanting the programs to align with each university's mission.

    My meeting with a member of the Board of Governors, however, did confirm my belief that they are pushing to create on-line collaboratives in programs like philosophy and foreign languages. His final words were we can be assured that we would be hearing more about collaboratives from Harrisburg. Wendy and Kurt are right on the mark when they mention a technology based and technology driven curriculum.

    We not only need to act in concert as teachers and philosophers but we we need to get our campus CAOs and Presidents involved.

    Reply
  17. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Absolutely, Robert. This point cannot be stressed enough. However much enrollments may offer the "excuse" to begin the moratorium/retrenchment process, this is not about enrollment.
    It is not about the quality of the programs.
    It is not about the quality of the faculty teaching in those programs.
    It is not about the quality of our scholarship (and it is interesting–and horrifying–to note that NONE of this discussion at the PASSHE level appears to be about this).
    It is about the privatizing of higher education AND corporatizing it. It's not even just about adopting a "business model" in the interest of making higher education more efficient. It's about converting universities into corporate enterprises–efficiency, yes–but to radically different ends that are not necessarily in keeping with any academically defensible vision of what university education is for.

    Kurt Smith is dead-on about the conference he mentions in his post. I would only encourage once again anyone who cares about higher education in Pennsylvania to take a look at the website he mentions. It is revealing indeed.

    Reply
  18. Robert Timko

    Wendy asked that I share this with the Blog

    Here are the concerns about collaboratives I shared with the member of the BOG who visited Mansfield:

    1) Although presumably all philosophy programs have the same goal, they don't necessarily choose the same path to get there. Requirements vary, and the programs may not align in the way Harrisburg imagines. This could cause, rather inappropriately, some territorial struggles between the various schools.
    2) Each school has faculty with distinct and unique talents and interests. The curriculum at any given school at any given time aligns with faculty research and teaching interests. This is why students choose the school and the programs they do. Students do not want to enroll in a program that looks like every other program out there.
    3) Collaboratives will see a decrease in student enrollment and interest. Collaboratives will cause some current faculty to retire early or seek employment outside the state system. All these things will have a negative impact on the quality of PASSHE programs.
    4) There are things we do and things we teach that require face-to-face dialogue and argumentation. The technology would undermine these opportunities. Technology tends to force all learners into one mode of learning. On-line courses tend to disadvantage learners who start with the large picture and move to the details. On-line courses also tend to disadvantage auditory and kinesthetic learners, trying to force everyone into a visual mode. One size does not fit all in education. Also, the heavy emphasis on technology discriminates against those who cannot afford the latest upgrades in hardware or software. Unless the state is intending to provide every student with 100% access to the latest learning tools, they are engaging in class-discrimination.

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    As a philosopher who teaches part-time at one of the PASSHE schools and also at a "lesser" institution (FT), I can tell you that the dialogue regarding these programs is ominous. I should also add that my undergraduate education was at one of the PASSHE schools that does not seem to be targeted for immediate retrenchment. Eliminating 10 of 13 philosophy departments and majors is surely a prelude to eliminating philosophy along with other humanities majors across the system.

    Nevertheless, it is also disturbing to read the comments of FT PASSHE faculty above concerning those of us who, out of economic necessity and an extremely poor job market are forced to teach in General Education Departments at schools without philosophy majors. Questioning our abilities and scholarship as "less than" full-time faculty members of PASSHE schools is also elitist. I attend, participate and present in prominent scholarly organizations in my field where I rarely, if ever, see PASSHE faculty who share the same AOC/AOS. (I know many of you and do not see you there.) I would also like to see evidence from those of you who think we "outsiders" cannot perform addequately in the classroom showcase your own "superior" teaching abilities. If putting down your PT colleagues and others at "lesser" institutions in order to justify your existence is the plan for saving your programs, then it is sure to fail.

    To be clear, I firmly support your efforts to save these programs, but am offended by your lack of understanding concerning the realities of the job market outside of your own institutions where many of you have been entrenched for decades. No one chooses to be an adjunct or FT faculty member at a "lesser" institution; it happens because we are starving and there are no FT-TT positions at "real" schools. Retirees have generally been replaced with adjuncts over the last 15 years and we are left to eek out a meager existence as "lesser" institutions while dealing with all of the insulting assumptions recounted above. According to the arrogant reasoning from some FT faculty above, if your scholarship & teaching are really so superior compared to all of the adjuncts/PT faculty, you should not worry about being back on the job market with decades of experience since you are obviously so much more skilled than your counterparts. But alas, you all know that the job market is weak and finding a new TT position would be quite a challenge.

    The bottom line: pick a strategy to save these programs that does not involve insulting your colleagues who have been forced by necessity to take the jobs that you are obviously too good to occupy. If I had the chance to teach an undergraduate major today, I would never advise him/her to go to graduate school for philosophy unless he/she was independently wealthy and would never need a FT-TT job.

    Reply
  20. Brian Leiter

    With respect to the last comment (which makes several important points that I do not dispute), let me observe that the *correct* advice to give to undergraduates is only to go to a strong PhD program with faculty whose students have successfully found academic employment. Advising students not to go to graduate school at all is not warranted by the actual facts.

    Reply
  21. Kurt Smith

    Concerning Anonymous' post (9:32AM), I completely agree that the attempt to save the PASSHE programs should never be at the expense of trashing the temporary and adjunct faculty. If anything, both Professor Lee and myself believe that it is BECAUSE of the protection afforded us by having tenure (and our being members of a strong union) we have an obligation to protect untenured and temporary and adjunct faculty.

    I am a bit confused about Anonymous' remarks, for I am unaware of any derogatory remarks made concerning the quality of adjunct faculty members. No doubt Anonymous will agree that to convince those in power to increase the number of full-tenured positions would be better, even though this might result in a decrease of adjunct positions (ideally, the adjuncts themselves would become tenure-tracks). May I ask Anonymous to clue me in on which posts he or she finds offensive? It seems as though your concerns, though related, are importantly different than the main of the discussion here.

    Further, I'm not sure about the challenge (concerning research and teaching). I'd invite Anonymous to look at Professor Lee's or at my CV located on our faculty websites, or at the CVs of my other colleagues. I believe that Anonymous will find colleagues who are well published and are active in the profession.

    Lastly, I don't believe that anyone who has posted has even suggested (besides you) that teaching at a Community College is "lesser" (do you have something else in mind, for you don't say what "lesser" entails). Am I missing something, since I do not see even the term "lesser" in any post other than yours.

    Reply
  22. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Brief response to Anonymous: Like Professor Smith, I would be interested to know how you drew the conclusion that any of these posts involves a questioning of the abilities or scholarship of philosophy faculty at community/two-year colleges (assuming that's what you mean by "lesser"). I would not only strongly dispute the claim that any such "elitist" assumptions characterize these posts, but argue that few are likely to be more supportive of the improvement of working conditions at community colleges than folks here.

    That you feel you need to defend the claim that you present at professional conferences–yet remain anonymous posting here–is simply odd given that none have disputed the quality of our colleagues at the community colleges, and this discussion is just not about whether community colleges have a place in the academy.

    No one here doubts the value of general education. But I also sincerely doubt that–given the option–you'd not wish to teach specialized/upper division courses in addition to the introductory.

    Robust defenses of, for example, tenure are in no way elitist, but are in keeping with other highly significant values such as academic freedom.

    Lastly–and most important–Anonymous' post–though it surely raises legitimate concerns about divisions of class within academia–is not the focus of this particular discussion. The focus here is the future of philosophy programs–and what we are willing to DO to foster, nourish, and defend them in PASSHE. Let us neither be distracted from this central topic nor divided by the introduction of what–in this venue–are extraneous issues. We frankly don't have time. This semester is winding down.

    Reply
  23. Ron Hoy

    For better or worse, the discussion on the Leiter Blog about the challenge to philosophy in Pennsylvania’s state-owned university system (PASSHE) might have gotten a bit ahead of itself. But it might also be behind itself. I am actually more worried about PASSHE’s programs in anthropology, physics, math, languages, and more.
    Why? At the end of the now threatening “review” process it should be easy to show that philosophy programs are all nearly free major programs, and so should be retained on all campuses. If they are not, then they are being attacked for political or ideological reasons, and this would call for a different response.
    At California University of Pennsylvania (CalU), philosophy underwent de facto retrenchment several years ago when retirements reduced our size from six to two professors. At the time the university did not have the resources to replace our lost faculty. What suffered most dramatically right away was the failure of the department to service other programs (not just general education) – no formal logic, no medical ethics, no aesthetics, no philosophy of law, and more. Now that we have done some hiring, we are up to four professors (serving about 6,000 students), but we are still challenged in our general education and other-program service role (check out our marketing friendly profile at calu.edu). But my main point here is that even in lean years of few philosophy majors, all philosophy departments should pretty much teach the same courses in the service of the whole university. The philosophy major courses are all also taken by students in other majors. So it is a no-brainer to keep the philosophy major. Why would any university turn away majors when the same courses will need to be taught anyway? So I am more worried about other traditional majors that are vulnerable to the Board of Governors (BOG) challenge and that will find it difficult to make the same case. Who wants to teach at a university that has no physics majors, no anthropology majors, no language majors, etc.? The BOG might not realize it, but they are really at risk in failing in their duty to protect the universities, the universities as wholes, from economic and ideological challenges.
    I am sympathetic to Professor Lee’s and Professor Timko’s calls of alarm. But I would urge that the focus should not be just on philosophy, and the aim should not be primarily at local presidents or even the chancellor. In the end, they will say they are “just following orders.” What president or chancellor would want the weakening of the universities to be their legacy? Is the ship really in such bad shape that our heritage of the liberal arts and sciences needs to be thrown overboard?
    Rather, the focus should be on the BOG and, more specifically, on the bad advice they have purchased. Pennsylvania is an old state, but PASSHE is a relatively young system of state-owned universities. Since it was formed in the 1980’s, its BOG has sponsored a series of outside consultants. I recall a Philadelphia bank giving the recently born PASSHE a large grant. Then Chancellor McCormick was asked by reporters what the system would do with the money. His response was that he did not know, but I seem to recall that very quickly the money went back the business community (even the same bank or an affiliate?) under the guise of consulting services. These were the times of “Wall Street” (the movie), Enron, merger and acquisition activity, and privatization. The mindset was that “business models and values” should rule even institutions like hospitals and universities. This has been the tone, if not the explicit assumption, of all the “outside consultants.”
    The result has been something close to a disaster: universities forced to compete with each other (due to “performance funding”); nonstop outcomes assessment and program reviews; and faculty diverting time from teaching and research to bean counting in the hope of appeasing the new gods of efficiency and productivity. Has collegiality and authentic faculty productivity suffered? Has the curriculum suffered? You bet it has. Some campuses have been led down the road (simply obeying BOG directives) of “whatever it takes” to show the board short-term “gain.” We now know what happens to businesses (including banks) that do this. Do we need a new round of consults to inform the BOG that the same fate (failure) will face its universities? Is it too late for the BOG to hire as consultants some Nobel Prize winners, some Pulitzer Prize winners, some humanitarians?
    When the reporter Bill Schackner broke the story of this PASSHE crisis in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (February, 21, 2010), he seemed to want to shame the universities: could Pennsylvania’s state-owned universities “still afford to graduate young adults versed in the works of Socrates and Nietzsche?” O dear. What if Pennsylvania has so many sophists Pennsylvanians could be persuaded that executing Socrates was a good idea? And don’t focus groups show that there are counties in Pennsylvania where a majority would like to ban Nietzsche altogether? And, what’s really wrong with selling Pennsylvania youth four-year vo-tech degrees with a very thin veneer of liberal arts and NCAA division II athletics (especially if marketing surveys show this is want they want)?
    Pennsylvania will always have a few strong private universities (even if they are “state-related”). And it will always have excellent small liberal arts colleges. The affluent and the elite will not settle for less. But will it always have accessible (defined economically and geographically) publically-owned universities that are authentic universities? The enabling legislation and mission statements for PASSHE say it should and that it is the responsibility of the BOG to protect these publically owned universities. Wise and strong boards succeed in protecting universities from economic challenges, curriculum dilution, and political meddling — they don’t facilitate it.

    Ronald C. Hoy
    Professor and Chair
    Philosophy Department
    California University of PA

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    As a professor at a PASSHE university I am concerned about the effects of both program moratoriums and faculty retrenchment. I am also concerned about the quality of education that is afforded by the state of Pennsylvania.

    Those concerns, however, do not mitigate the structural financial problems inflicted on state-owned schools. We face increasing enrollments in the face of declining support. To make matters worse, the legislature is unwilling to either raise state support or allow the schools to pass on their true costs through higher tuituin. Think of a gas station that has to buy gas for $2.00 per gallon, but is restricted to a selling price of $1.50. See the problem?

    But the chronic-underfunding problems of the past have been exploded by the present historic recession. Pennsylvania's high unemployment, low wages, and low tax revenues have all eliminated the degrees of freedom that allowed any pricing flexibility in setting past tuition.

    The state is faced with only ugly choices. Tax the unemployed? Free the felons? Reduce the programs to the disabled? Fire the state police? Or try to reduce college expenses.

    To make matters worse, the state retirement system is obligated to raise the contribution of the universities by about 30% (for faculty in that retirement system, due to chronic underfunding) and institutional healthcare costs can reasonably be expected to continue their rapid rise. Faculty raises, though moderate, further exacerbate the dilemma.

    The Governor has proposed a "flat" appropriation to the PASSHE. But the reality is that even a flat budget is likely to substantially under fund the institutions. So what should reasonably be done?

    It does not seem unreasonable to me for the state to attempt to integrate the universities with the aim to reduce faculty compliment, and, it seems reasonable, on the face of it, to start with low-enrollment programs since they directly impact fewer students.

    I know that some of us will not be around in 2 or 3 years. I am sorry for the loss of caring, talented, and thoughtful colleagues. I may be unemploued, too.

    I know that some of our programs will be lost. I am sorry for the loss to the broader definition of a university as well as some splendid, successful, programs. My department put one of our majors in "moratorium."

    But that said, I don't see any other way for the institutions to survive. And that, I believe, is the greater good.

    We can rail about administrators, legislators, governors, taxpayers, and tuituin-paying students. Likely to no avail.

    We can write diatribes about why OUR programs and institutions are special, or why distance education cannot possibly be implemented in a mindful way to produce education, or why life is unfair. Fools errands.

    The fundamental problem remains limited resources in the face of increasing expenditures. Regrettably, since state-owned universities in PA are unable to raise additional revenue, we are compelled to save our institutions by helping reduce costs — through dismantling them and reducing faculty compliment. My metaphor for our situation is the Donner Party. I pray that relief comes before the institutions themselves perish.

    Reply
  25. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Brief observations about Ron Hoy's post:

    1. My view–and I think the evidence supports it–is that the reasons for looking to retrench philosophy programs are two-fold: (a) they are small, and as a move towards the remaking of larger programs, an excellent pilot/test case. (b) As a pilot/test case, philosophy programs merely exemplify courses of study that do not fit the ideologically motivated strategy of the PASSHE Chancellor's office. In other words, the motives at issue here ARE ideological/political, as I (and others) have tried to describe in several of the posts above. As I have argued, this is not about the money on the short term; it IS about profiteering from the conversion of higher education in PA into technical training sites all-the-while advertising AS IF we were still engaged in meaningful education.

    Keep the facade; chuck the substance; make the bucks.

    2. De facto retrenchment is not really comparable to intentional retrenchment, hence I'm not sure it follows that what happened at California implies all that much for what is occurring now. Be that as it may, the claim that "even in lean years of few philosophy majors, all philosophy departments should pretty much teach the same courses in the service of the whole university" does not support the claim that we should therefore maintain whole philosophy departments since these "service" courses are primarily lower-division, introductory, or geared to other majors. We need departments for MAJORS–for folks who want to go on to utilize a philosophy degree in something relevant to it–graduate school, law school, for example, and this requires a range of courses both upper division and specialized; AKA: NOT merely service. Moreover, while few would likely dispute the value of all philosophy departments teaching something like an Introduction to Philosophy course, the notion that philosophy departments should teach the same courses across the system is just noxious. Who's to decide what these courses should be? Administration? Doesn't this have some pretty damn dark implications for academic freedom?

    3. I don't think any party to this exchange narrowly focuses on philosophy. Queen of the humanities, indeed, but I think we all get it that philosophy is merely the trial balloon for downsizing the humanities. The point–as I see it–is not at all that the liberal arts across PASSHE are in "such bad shape that our heritage of the liberal arts and sciences needs to be thrown overboard." it's that they do not fit a vision where instruction (no, let's call that what it is: training) can be fully executed on-line, where professors are "delivery systems," where critical thinking is replaced by "preparing the 21st century worker."

    4. The information you offer about the history of PASSHE and its outside consultants is most useful. Thank you. It may well make sense to see the current scene here as a continuation of long-standing (if unspoken) BOG policy. However, I'd also argue (a la the Shock Doctrine) that the Chancellor sees in the recession an opportunity to good to waste via the remaking of PASSHE after this perhaps old–but yet newly "technologized"–vision.

    5. I agree that one of our foci must be the BOG. And we can continue to retrace this history. But we ARE short on time. What I want to know is HOW we're going to reach BOG members and convince them that this course is misguided? What would you be willing to help DO, Ron? Write letters to the BOG? Draft petitions electronically signed by PASSHE humanities faculty?

    Reply
  26. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Anonymous (3.12; 8:57AM) paints a very grim "Donner Party" picture of a PASSHE system utterly beleaguered by economic woes. But in point of fact, this picture is not really accurate. The facts are that hiring among administrators at virtually all levels in the system has increased substantially over the last two decades and in significant disproportion to hiring faculty. APSCUF has this quite well documented. Please consult: apscuf.org/print/documents/27millionreasonswhywedidn.pdf. The savings of eliminating even just a few of these administrative positions–beginning in the Chancellor's office–could save a humanities major–or several. Moreover, it simply stands to reason that monies now being directed in even greater sums to the expansion of Pennsylvania's prison system could very likely be better spent preventing the production of more criminals. Education contributes in valuable and measurable ways to this goal.

    The real question raised by Anonymous post, however, I take to be this:

    What lengths should we be willing to go to save the PASSHE institutions–and call them universities?

    Again, tethering dollar savings to low-enrolled programs in the humanities is flatly specious given that, as Ron Hoy and others rightly point out, they are virtually "free." What costs there are are attributable to faculty salaries, so the only possible savings is through faculty attrition/retrenchment. And even this saves but a pittance in the short haul. Anonymous' reasoning simply does not hold water as a strategy to save money–except for in light of specific ideologically motivated goals.

    Hence the question becomes: What kinds of institutions are we willing to see our universities become–and call them universities? Why is it "to the greater good" that an institution survive gutted of its mission? At Crooked Timber (crookedtimber.org/2010/03/10/whats-the-point-of-having-a-philosophy-department-in-a-university/), a challenge was raised to define a university mission. I suggested this: "a university is that essential social institution whose mission it is to engage in the production, dissemination, and ongoing critique of knowledge; to query regularly and meaningfully what counts as knowledge for a given discipline, to advocate for the value of knowledge in all its forms—scientific, sociological, psychological, philosophical, literary, aesthetic, etc.—and to instill in our students as well as encourage in our colleagues that value."

    The concessions that Anonymous seems prepared to make are not consistent with maintaining even a semblance of this mission, and it is not obvious at least to me what the public good would be in the continuation of the facade that pretends to be higher education. If what we are producing are consumer/workers and not citizens who can think, we are NOT an institution of higher learning.

    But I contend that the fundamental problem is NOT "limited resources in the face of increasing expenditures." The fundamental problem is the exploitation by the Chancellor and the Board of Governors of the recession in order to recast PASSHE's mission as a high-fallutin' trade school.

    Perhaps it's easy for Anonymous to make the claims he/she does in light of the admission that she/he won't be around in a few years. But anonymity in this case comes with very little justification–especially given the concessions she/he has already made. Is this a cheap shot? No. The ship anonymous is prepared to jump has benefitted her/him economically, intellectually, and socially for a career, and I think it hypocritical indeed to, as it were, take the money–and run.

    Reply
  27. Anonymous

    To recap Wendy's arguments:

    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ——–KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ——–KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ——–

    Firstly, the PASSHE does not have financial problems that could not be solved by 1) the reduction of administrators or 2) the closing of prisons.

    Secondly, reductions in faculty compliment would save only a pittance.

    Thirdly, the definition of a university requires the maintenance of all of its' constituent parts.

    Finally, she posits that my motivation is "take the money and run."

    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ——–KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ——–KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    —————

    I'd argue that her first three propositions are factually untrue. I'm sure she would disagree, so I'll leave it to the reader, and history, to sort out the truth values.

    But as to my motives, in reality, I assume that I will get retrenched. Fired. Put out of work. Donnered. I'm not jumping the ship. I'm being pushed, thankyouverymuch. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to evaluate if Wendy's charges were a cheap shot.

    My point is that public education is worth saving. And we have to do everything possible to keep it alive in Pennsylvania.

    Will their be pain? Indeed there will. Is this unfortunate? Indeed it is. But let's not start dealing with reality by denial or by demonizing others (administrators, prisons, and colleagues come to mind).

    We have real problems. We can either sit by and watch others determine our institution's fate or we can participate, thoughtfully. Doing nothing is delusional.

    Reply
  28. Wendy Lynne Lee

    I'll not belabor this:

    That "Anonymous" is willing (or compelled) to resort to straw fallacy and overgeneralization in order to try to weaken the argument for resisting PASSHE's remaking of higher education in Pennsylvania's state universities attests only to the weakness and/or lack of resolve with which he/she holds their own position.

    I–of course–DID NOT say that PASSHE's financial problems could be simply resolved by reducing the number of administrators and closing prisons. I DID say that the growth of administrative positions has significantly outstripped the growth of faculty positions, and that if reductions must be made, they should start with the former. Moreover, not opening MORE prisons in favor of spending the money on precisely those strategies that help people avoid going to them is obviously NOT the claim that prisons should be closed. Though surely even "Anonymous" would like to see the need for fewer.

    If reductions in faculty compliment would save only a pittance, why retrenchment? This claim makes my point that this isn't ABOUT saving money on the short haul; it's about MAKING it on the long haul through remaking the system.

    Public education is absolutely worth saving IF it's public EDUCATION. If what we're to become are training institutes for high tech jobs, then truth in advertising demands that we be honest about it. A university without a meaningful philosophy department is NOT a university.

    I have not demonized "Anonymous" (can you demonize…the anonymous?). In fact, by misrepresenting my position, precisely the opposite is true, hence I shall add fallacy of projection to the list.

    Right on, "Anonymous." "Doing nothing IS delusional." Yes Yes Yes. So why are you advocating that we concede? Why not push back? Why accept being "donnered"? And, if you're not prepared to accept this, what are YOU prepared to DO?

    Reply
  29. Anonymous

    I stand corrected.

    Reply
  30. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Folks, if we are going to DO anything that stand's a whisper of a chance at reaching the reasoning will of the chancellor, it will have to be better than this.

    Reply
  31. John Marsden

    As an active APSCUF member (statewide membership committee chair) and PASSHE faculty member (in IUP's English Department), I am fascinated by this blog. IUP English has more faculty than any other department in the State System, and we too have been seeking ways to increase enrollment. My fear is that those programs not currently under "review" may be complacent and not concerned with those that are under review.

    I note that recruitment is the primary purview of administrators hired for that purpose. Thus, I assume I could argue that "underenrolled" programs are a direct consequence of the failure of administrators to do their jobs.

    Statistics are clear: in the last fifteen years, faculty numbers have decreased while adminstrator numbers have increased exponentially.

    I just want to express my support and, I believe, that of APSCUF not only for the discipline of philosophy, but also for other programs (French, German, etc.). We all know that the business model applied (20% of programs produce 80% of "profit") not only is flawed but also inaccurate.

    By the way, IUP's Master's degree in Physics is under scrutiny, despite the fact that last year, in Pennsylvania, only Carnegie-Mellon "produced" more graduates with that degree.

    Thanks to my student who this morning drew my attention to this blog. The issue will be on the agenda once again at the next statewide union meeting.

    In solidarity,

    Reply
  32. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Many thinks to John Marsden for this thoughtful missive–and to the student who drew this blog to his attention.

    I think your dead-on, John, about the temptation to become complacent if one's department (mine, for example) is not among those not (currently!) under review. I also have a couple of observations about this I think we should take seriously–and I very much hope others will respond with comment and criticism here:

    1. Whether under review or not OFFICIALLY, such departments ARE under review. For all practical purposes, the enrollment "law," as it were has been laid down for us every bit as much as for those departments who are more directly threatened–and we'd be fools to think otherwise. First, the pressure to insure that we do NOT end up under review WILL have deleterious effects on our course scheduling. In the interest of insuring enrollment, we will be pressured to teach more lower division courses, bigger classes–with easier requirements (the wholesale pretense that administration cares about grade inflation should feel like a slap in the face–grade inflation is an EXCELLENT tool for guaranteeing enrollment). Second, this creates pressure to hire even more adjuncts (as opposed to creating more expensive tenure tracks) since this is how we can show that our departments create lots of bang for their buck.

    2. The irony is that we cannot maintain a major when the pressure to teach more lower division courses results in too few upper division courses. Hence we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. I cannot imagine they don't get this.

    3. Hence my main contention here: The preservation and indeed growing of a program–especially one so intimately tethered to the very definition of a university–should not be determined AT ALL by enrollment.

    I make this as a philosophical claim: The value of philosophy (English, foreign languages, ect.) ,is not measurable by how many 18 year olds we can interest in it. While I am no partisan of the notion of "inherent value" (for anything), the value of philosophy can be measured in myriad other ways beyond the crassly quantitative–epistemically, aesthetically, for example. Its contribution to every other discipline is as well-established as it could possibly be. And I truly fear that WE don't believe this anymore–why else would we concede to the bean-counting without first defending the value of our discipline AS PHILOSOPHY? AS a pursuit of knowledge and idea? Do we get it that "philosophy" stands for EVERY humanities discipline in this remaking of higher education in Pennsylvania?

    I make this as a practical claim: Under review/not under review–doesn't matter. We may have known less about one another's departments a year ago than we do now, but what happens at IUP, say, or Mansfield, or any PASSHE school, happens at every other PASSHE school in the very effort to prevent review/moratorium/retrenchment. And it is a sad sad day indeed when–because we have effectively been fear-mongered to do it–we concede to this quantitative valuing of our scholarship, our students, and our profession, and do the chancellor's work for him.

    I very much look forward to the next state-wide union meeting, John–and I want to encourage you and everyone here to prod their colleagues across the humanities to read this Blog–especially the union representatives.

    Reply
  33. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Up date: Please see CHE article: "Disappearing Disciplines: Degree Programs Fight for Their Lives,"

    chronicle.com/article/Disappearing-Disciplines-/64850/?key=TGkmIQExMShEN3ZveyNGKyNROXUpcx94bCETbHAaYFlQ

    Reply
  34. Dr.Maria del Carmen Rodriguez

    I am a full time faculty member at Kean University, Union, NJ. The Philosophy/Religion Department at my public university is under siege. The source of the attack comes from a narrow-minded Administration which claims we deliver "world class education". These technocrats diligently destroy the department of philosophy using dubious accounting methods which present a fabricated picture of low enrollments and majors. My entire education as a professional has been possible to countless professors who infused their teaching with the profound contributions made by the global philosophy community. I am resolved to defend my Philosophy colleagues. An institution of higher education without a philosophy deparment does not deserve to be called a "university". As Plato eloquently said: "A life unexamined is not worth living". Namaste!

    Reply
  35. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    I recently discovered your blog almost by accident. I teach philosophy at Kean University in New Jersey. Kean is public, with 15,000 students, mostly undergrad. My Dept, Philosophy and Religion, was abolished by the Admin a year ago, along with four other Depts. Nothing so dramatic ever occurred in the many years I’ve taught at Kean. However, for the time being our major program remains, with two faculty “reassigned” to Political Science and three to General Education. The Admin’s justifications for abolishing our Dept were declining overall enrollments, a deficit of $500,000, and few majors. Except for the last–a half-truth at most–those allegations were entirely false, as it took much time and effort to establish (Admin controls and does not readily share data).

    I discovered your blog when I read an article in the Chronicle quoting Wendy Lynne Lee. The article was included with some others in a recent University document announcing that all Dept Chairs will be eliminated at Kean, effective this June 30, and replaced with appointed administrators, who will be paid more than faculty. I suppose that article quoting Wendy was included in that University document to show that drastic steps are being taken all around the country, not just at Kean. Anyway, after reading her quoted comments in that article, I Googled Wendy’s name, and found your blog.

    The big event in NJ public higher ed occurred sixteen years ago, in 1994, when ex-Governor Christie Whitman abolished State “oversight,” i.e, abolished the Chancellor, Board, and Dept of Higher Education. As a result, there is no State supervision of the publics, except that tuition levels are regulated. This means that each institution’s Board of Trustees is the highest authority, and there is no appeal from their policy decisions. Therefore, there are no system-wide policies because there’s no system. The Boards are, of course, political appointees controlled by the State Senator representing the district where the Board sits. Is it a coincidence that in this set of circumstances some of the Admin’s have gone on building binges, accumulating “capital construction debt burdens” in the hundreds of millions in just a few years while shortchanging most everything else (such as numbers of full-time faculty). At Kean, the debt burden is approaching half a billion (up from less than half a million just a few years ago), while numbers of FT faculty are steadily declining and reliance on PT/adjunct faculty is rapidly rising. Those who must pay off that debt burden are the students, mostly working-class, first-generation students, often with families to support.

    The other part of the story at Kean has been the tyrannical character of its Admin, led by a Pres who is a former Kean faculty member. (Google his name–Dawood Farahi–and you’ll find a few things. One interesting article is entitled “Potemkin University.”) Farahi seems determined to practice every oppressive administrative policy under the sun. Some believe this is motivated by sheer vindictiveness against the faculty at large based on God-knows-what, but maybe partly on the fact that his colleagues many years ago tried to have him fired when he came up for tenure. For example, one of his stunts was to have a subordinate recommend that most of the untenured faculty be fired. Make them relive what Farahi himself went through in his time. As for professional staff, who work on multi-year contracts, he has forbidden supervisors to give unqualified recommendations for renewal. Any supervisor who does so will get it back with instructions to downgrade the rating. And he isn’t above reprisals against students as well. For example, when Social Work undergrads circulated a petition to the Board a couple of years ago protesting Farahi’s imposition of a new class-schedule on the campus without consulting students (faculty weren’t consulted either), Farahi ordered their program, the BA in Social Work, abolished, even though it had 150 majors. In addition, he seized control of the Kean student govnt’s bank accounts, turned its elected officers into his part-time employees, and also eliminated the student-run newspaper and replaced it with a newspaper he controls. And so on and so on and so on. The list of atrocities over the past seven years would take a week to recount. We have a faculty/staff union (AFT/AFL-CIO), and we’re trying to fight back, but it’s a long, hard slog. Complaints to State officials are essentially ignored (speak to your Board we are told).

    Now, this is all just at Kean, not at any of the other seven institutions in our sector of NJ public higher ed. So, although my Dept is one of several abolished a year ago, this is not part of any larger, system-wide plan. Indeed, the decision to abolish five Depts a year ago apparently sprang from retaliatory motives against particular faculty members in the targeted Depts. For instance, I circulated flyers criticizing Farahi for attempting to sneak through a “Professional Code of Conduct” under which faculty and staff would have no rights of due process whatsoever if accused of misconduct. (“No rights of due process whatsoever” means, literally, that they wouldn’t even know they had been accused of anything until after they had been convicted and sentenced, and then, and only then, would they be allowed to put forward a defense, but only in writing–a scheme that would have delighted the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland.”) Another philosopher helped students send ex-Governor Jon Corzine thousands of postcards protesting the new class schedule (Corzine had no public email address as Governor). Still another philosopher filed grievances protesting new work rules unilaterally imposed on all faculty by President Farahi. So the decision to abolish the Dept of Philosophy and Religion at Kean seems to be a matter of punishing faculty who have dared criticize this President publicly, just as the decision to abolish the Social Work program was a matter of punishing students who dared circulate a petition. And so forth in the case of the three other abolished Depts.

    What initially caught my attention in your blog was all the talk about some larger scheme in your PASSHE institutions of abandoning the humanities, indeed abandoning the traditional teacher-student-classroom arrangement, in order to move in a different direction more aligned with corporate imperatives. That caught my attention partly because of the uncertainty on my campus about why we are being subjected to such persistently oppressive administrative abuse, but mostly because of the impending replacement at Kean of faculty Dept Chairs with appointed administrators. That innovation will no doubt translate into substantially increased administrative control over all academic programs. What is the Admin going to do with that control?

    And then there is the fact that Wendy kept raising the question of what you folks in PASSHE are going to DO about your situation. We at Kean also have that question. What the hell ARE we going to do? Suggestions welcome.

    Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Reply
  36. Rarian Rakista

    Not much is going to happen unless you can get the board to kick him out and that is not going to happen unless you make such a decision easy for them to make. So either grease hands and play their games or put their laundry out for the local media to air out.

    Reply
  37. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Following up on my previous post re the elimination of the Philosophy and Religion Dept at Kean University in New Jersey, here is the text of a flyer we recently distributed explaining that the Kean Admin's allegation that Philosophy and Religion lost nearly half a million dollars in FY 2007 was false, i.e, was based on improper accounting procedures:

    HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOUR DEPARTMENT ALLEGEDLY LOSE?
    A DEFENSE OF THE PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION PROGRAM, PART 2
    By Drs. Diaz, D’Souza, and Pezzolo of the former Philosophy and Religion Department (June 7, 2010)

    Six weeks ago, we circulated a flyer entitled “FOR THE RECORD: A DEFENSE OF THE PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION PROGRAM.” In that flyer we demonstrated the falsehood of the Farahi Administration’s claims that our Dept had virtually no enrollment and that it lost almost half a million dollars in FY 2007. Those were the justifications offered in May 2009 by Mark Lender, the Acting Provost, for abolishing our Dept. Lender implied that the Philosophy/Religion faculty are a bunch of good-for-nothing do nothings who are a drain on University resources and deserve to be put out of business. However, we published in that flyer the official University headcount and FTE course enrollment figures for Philosophy and Religion from Fall 2000 through Spring 2010. Those figures show that the Dept enrolled an average of 800 students per semester over the past ten years, and that the average student headcount per course section in Philosophy and Religion during that decade was 27 students, far above the campus-wide average of 19 students per course section.

    With reference to the alleged loss of nearly half a million dollars in Philosophy and Religion in FY 2007, we pointed out that this allegation was based by the Farahi Administration partly on charging our Dept for the cost of employee health and pension benefits that had been fully paid by the State for that fiscal year (in the amount of $20.3 million for the University as a whole), and partly on failing to attribute to the Dept on a per-FTE basis a portion of the $39.6 million in State Appropriation monies that Kean University received in that fiscal year. The State Appropriation has always been intended by the State to subsidize the costs of instruction, thereby keeping tuition lower than would otherwise be necessary. (That is what it means to say that Kean is a public, tax-supported University.) Consequently, it should be considered part of the revenue generated by student enrollments in Depts. After making those points, we said:

    “USING THOSE DUBIOUS METHODS, THE ADMINISTRATION CAN UNDOUBTEDLY CALCULATE SERIOUS BUDGET DEFICITS IN MOST ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS, THEREBY RENDERING THEM VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS LIKE THE ATTACK ON PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION. IN THAT SENSE, THE CONSEQUENCE OF ADMINISTERING THE UNIVERSITY IN THE FASHION TO WHICH FARAHI HAS BECOME ACCUSTOMED IS THAT MOST ACADEMIC PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN JEOPARDY.”

    Subsequently, the KFT, on our suggestion, made an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the Administration’s “revenue and expenses” calculations for every academic Dept in FY 2007. (Note that FY 2007 preceded the onset of the current recession.) On the back of this page you will find a summary of that Administration data, showing which Depts lost money in FY 2007 according to the Farahi Administration and which ones made money. Here, in short, is what that Administration data indicates regarding profit and loss in each academic Dept across the campus:

    • According to the Farahi Administration, 31 out of 36 academic Depts incurred financial losses in FY 2007, ranging from a high of $2.3 million in losses in the Dept of Design to a low of $129 thousand in losses in the Dept of Counselor Education. Most of these alleged losses far exceeded the alleged loss of $495,704 in Philosophy and Religion. According to the Administration, only 5 academic Depts showed a profit in FY 2007, ranging from a high of $1 million in profits in the Dept of Educational Leadership to a low of $234 thousand in the Dept of History. Farahi’s own Dept, Public Administration, was not among them. Rather, Public Administration lost more money ($527,483) than the losses attributed to Philosophy and Religion ($495,704). Clearly, our concerns about the consequences of the improper accounting methods used by the Farahi Administration to justify its attack on the Philosophy and Religion Dept have been vindicated by the information set forth above. Given that information, few Depts would not be vulnerable to an attack like the Farahi Administration’s attack on Philosophy and Religion.

    The total losses attributed by Farahi to academic Depts for FY 2007, namely, $28.5 million, were obviously fictional. Those alleged losses were purely a consequence of the false pretense that the only revenues attributable to Depts are tuition and fees. By that standard, as the summary page of its audited financial statement for that year unequivocally shows, the University itself ran a deficit of $52 million. However, when the State Appropriation and paid fringe benefits were taken into account, then the University’s revenues exceeded expenses by over $9 million. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the University itself can avoid deficits only by relying on the “non-operating revenues,” as they are called, of the State Appropriation and paid fringe benefits, then the same is true for most academic Depts. What, then, was the purpose of the Farahi Administration’s pretense to the contrary one year ago? There is no room whatsoever for any doubt about the answer to that question. The purpose was to manufacture false justifications for the elimination of five academic Depts in phase one of the so-called Academic Reorganization. In order to justify what he wanted to do, President Farahi instructed his subordinates to lie about the facts. And that is a fact.

    Reply
  38. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Thanks to Rarian Rakista for the brief comments about the circumstances I described at Kean University. Yes, we have been trying to tell our side of the story in the local media.

    In NJ, the main daily newspaper is the "Newark Star-Ledger." Would you believe that favorable news coverage can be bought–by those able to purchase substantial advertising space in the paper? And I don't mean that anyone can tell their side of whatever story by purchasing space to do so in a newspaper. Rather, I mean that one can, in effect, purchase favorable news coverage as a quid pro quo for purchasing substantial advertising space in the newspaper on a regular basis. Support the newspaper in that way and they will spin stories in your favor from time to time. And that is what the Farahi regime at Kean did for several years.

    Here's how. For years, the Star-Ledger published every week a reprint of a page from a children's science encyclopedia called "The World of Wonder." These were usually in the "Home & Garden" section of the paper on Thursdays. Although these pages were never identified as being "sponsored by" (i.e., paid for by) Kean University, a small one-eighth-of-a-page ad for the University was always included at the bottom of each page. Now, full-page ads in the Star-Ledger cost $25,000 each. So this was costing the University $1.3 million a year, year after year. As of a year ago, when I circulated a flyer protesting this practice, the Farahi regime had spent, since 2003 when Farahi was appointed President, nearly $8 million of taxpayer's money on the "World of Wonder" pages in the Star-Ledger. (After my protest, those pages stopped being printed in the Star-Ledger.)

    How had President Farahi benefited in terms of Star-Ledger news coverage from this huge expenditure of public funds for a purpose unrelated to the needs of the University? I believe you can judge that for yourself by examining a relatively recent, relatively long article about the Farahi Administration in the Star-Ledger. This was an article entitled "Kean University President Dawood Farahi earns mixed marks on campus" in the 12/7/08 issue of the Star Ledger. You can Google that title and read the article, or just Google "Dawood Farahi" and that will probably be the first thing that pops up. As I suspect you might recognize, even though you don't work at Kean, the article, despite its title, is rather tilted in Farahi's favor in various ways, even though a few of his campus critics were (briefly) quoted. Indeed, Farahi’s political sponsor, State Senator Raymond Lesniak, who controls membership on the Kean Board of Trustees, is quoted at the end of the article (thereby getting the proverbial last word) endorsing Farahi on the grounds that he is, even if a dictator, nevertheless a “benevolent” one. So it's difficult to get this kind of story out from the employee point of view, although we do manage to get letters to the editor in the Star-Ledger from time to time.

    That's just one small example of what you're up against when unscrupulous people are given unreviewable control of a public institution such as a state university. The Farahi Admin's expenditure of 8 million dollars of taxpayer's money on those "World of Wonder" ads in the Star-Ledger might be thought to be "waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer's money," to cite the phrase the State of NJ applies to improper expenditures of public funds. However, no State enforcement agency has so far drawn that conclusion.

    However unpleasant it is for employees at Kean, I suggest to faculty colleagues from time to time that the Farahi regime provides a rare opportunity to study the phenomenon of dictatorship up close in a relatively benign environment. So far as we know, none of Farahi's campus critics or enemies have actually been tortured, dropped into the Atlantic from a helicopter, or "disappeared" in some other fashion. In that sense, what Farahi is operating might be called a "sandbox dictatorship." It's certainly vicious–no question about that–but still not the real thing. Therefore, everyone who can do so should be taking careful notes and collecting documents. Someday someone might be able to write one hell of an interesting book about this experience. For example, you would think that university faculty, who are among the most secure employees in the history of the human race, would be up in arms almost to a man and a woman protesting this "sandbox dictatorship." However, the truth is, when people are afraid, most of them hide (or worse, turn on one another)–even if they are tenured Full Professors.

    Few of us expected a few years ago that that is how things would play out at Kean, and we were mighty surprised when they did. However, one who almost certainly did expect that most faculty would be too afraid to stand up and talk back was President Farahi himself.

    Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Reply
  39. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Here are some of the latest developments at Kean University, in more detail than mentioned in my first post above. First, a flyer I recently circulated, followed by a summary of the results of the faculty vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" in the administration of President Dawood Farahi.

    UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE WITHOUT RHYME OR REASON
    by Dr. Peter E. Pezzolo (of the former Department of Philosophy and Religion) 5/5/10

    For the third year in a row, the Farahi Administration has chosen the very end of the Spring semester (i.e., the close of the academic year) to suddenly impose unprecedented changes in long-established academic arrangements at Kean University–thereby precluding meaningful consultation with affected faculty and others.

    • Two years ago, in 2008, a completely revamped class schedule was announced on April Fool’s Day, and imposed officially by the Board of Trustees a few weeks later, despite protests by many students, among others. Shortly thereafter unprecedented new work rules were imposed on the faculty without even a pretense of consultation. Since then, Farahi has offered nothing to show that any of that accomplished his declared objectives (substantially increased tuition revenue as well as accelerated graduation rates, he said).

    • One year ago, in mid-May of 2009, Farahi performed the same stunt once again when it was announced that several academic departments would be “reorganized,” i.e., abolished, ostensibly to achieve cost savings in what was described as a fiscal climate of “imminent peril.” As was obvious to most, the real purpose was to punish students and faculty who had dared protest Farahi’s whims the year before.

    • Now, just last week, Farahi announced an academic “reorganization” of the entire campus, abolishing all departments and department chairs (except one) and grouping them in new configurations called “schools.” This sweeping modification of the basic structures which deliver instructional services is headed for approval by the Board of Trustees in less than three weeks (at a Board session on May 24–to be held not on the main campus in Union, but at the branch campus at Ocean County College fifty miles south).

    You don’t need a license in abnormal psych to recognize that sequence of events over the past two years as a pattern of ritualistically reenacting the domination of the University’s faculty, imposing the President’s will upon them over and over again. Nor is any special insight needed to recognize that a University President who resorts to such tactics appears cowardly–unable to face those he seeks to dominate, unable to provide any reasoned justification for whatever he imposes upon them. He evidently knows just one method of communication: Do as I say or else!! (Or else what??)

    Which is not to say that subordinates aren’t sent forth to make a show of justifying such impositions. Case in point: Acting Provost Mark Lender’s performance on behalf of Farahi at yesterday’s Faculty Senate meeting, which was ostensibly intended to cause teaching faculty to meekly submit to whatever Farahi has decided to impose upon them. Lender began by saying that the University’s budgetary situation is “dire,” thereby justifying draconian measures. However, after acknowledging that the proposed “reorganization” would save, at most, about $400,000, he changed his tune, saying the University is actually in fine fiscal shape, with a current budget surplus of $4.5 million. That was contradicted by Phil Connelly, the University’s chief financial officer, who hastened to interject that no one should infer that the institution wasn’t facing a serious budget deficit. If so, then how can this unprecedented “reorganization” be a solution to that problem when the projected savings will cover less than 10% of the stated deficit?

    The centerpiece of the proposed “reorganization” consists of the creation of fifteen or more “School Executive Director” positions–each of which would be charged with administration of two or more academic programs. “Program Coordinators” for each program would report to the “Executive Directors.” These “Executive Director” positions would be compensated on a twelve-month basis above the current salary schedule for faculty. Despite having a year to work this all out, Lender was vague about the financial details. To old-timers in the room, it sounded like nothing so much as a scheme to create an elite corps of non-unit “super-faculty” comprised of Farahi’s personal favorites, whose primary role would be controlling the teaching schedules of all other faculty. Anyone gets out of line, just screw up her schedule.

    What is to be done? Above all, we must not forget that we are professionally dedicated to passing to a new generation the ideals of freedom of inquiry and speaking truth to power. Our purpose is to give the young the benefit of accumulated human wisdom, as best we can. When necessary, we must take a stand, make a statement. The statement that most needs publicly making on this campus at this time is that the dictatorial methods of the Farahi Administration are incompatible with the ideals to which our profession is dedicated. In my humble view, the best way to do that in present circumstances is to ask the Kean Federation of Teachers (KFT) to arrange for a swift, secret-ballot vote on the question whether we do or do not have “confidence” in the Farahi Administration. AN EMPHATIC FORMAL VOTE OF “NO CONFIDENCE” IN PRESIDENT FARAHI IS, MORALLY, OUR BEST PROFESSIONAL COURSE OF ACTION.

    ************

    Subsequently, the KFT hired the American Arbitration Association to conduct a formal, secret ballot NO CONFIDENCE vote in the Administration of President Farahi. There were 353 eligible full-time faculty voters (including librarians). The results, announced on May 21, 2010, were as follows:

    • 179 faculty (51% of eligible voters) voted NO CONFIDENCE in the Farahi regime
    • 36 faculty (10% of eligible voters) voted CONFIDENCE in the Farahi regime
    • 138 faculty (39% of eligible voters) failed to vote

    The 36 faculty who voted that they had CONFIDENCE in the Farahi regime are Farahi’s hard core of faculty supporters. That’s it, just three dozen folks. They are Farahi’s “enablers” and “facilitators.” Among them are those who hope to benefit personally from the replacement of elected faculty Dept chairs with appointed administrators (who will be paid more than faculty).

    Some of the non-voters told the KFT that they and others they knew were “too afraid” to vote, meaning that, if asked, they wanted to be able to tell Farahi that they had not voted against him. That’s foolish. He knows perfectly well that failing to vote for him is voting against him.

    So think of it this way, 90% of the faculty in one way or another voted NO CONFIDENCE in the Farahi regime (either with their heads or with their fears).

    SO WHAT? That’s exactly what the Board of Trustees said, in effect, three days after the vote was announced. At that meeting, held 50 miles off-campus, the Board adopted a resolution approving Farahi’s sweeping “reorganization” of academic Depts. They did so in “executive session,” after misleading most everyone during the public portion of their meeting into believing they would not act on that matter at that meeting, and that opponents would have another opportunity to speak against it in a month.

    Some “school,” Kean University! The “lessons” it mainly teaches, in terms of its own official behavior as an institution, are that money and power talk, and nothing else counts.

    In truth, those are good “real life” lessons for the young adults who study at Kean to learn first-hand . . . in this “land of the free and home of the brave.”

    Peter E.Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Reply
  40. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    How does a State University reach the point where 90% of its faculty lack “confidence” in the Administration? (See my previous post for an explanation of the basis for that percentage.) For now, I’m going to leave this blog with one last post regarding that set of circumstances at Kean University. The flyer below, distributed almost two years ago, comes closer, I believe, than anything else to describing how the Farahi Administration lost the confidence of the faculty. In essence, the Administration did so by declaring war upon those whose profession it is to fulfill the very purpose for which the university exists: passing truth and wisdom to a new generation. Declaring outright war upon them. That is the only adequate description for the type of Administration policies and practices described below. Whether Kean University faculty and students will find a way, in the not too distant future, to regain the respect to which they are entitled, remains to be seen. But the Farahi Administration should not think this war is over. It should not assume the faculty and the students have been defeated. Farahi won a few battles because the nature of a university, which is based on trust, enabled a few unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of those subject to their power. That trust has been shattered. For most, whatever this Administration wants is now suspect. It is pointless to predict where that fact will lead. But the wheel turns, however slowly. And those who have chosen the path of dictatorship can seldom prevail against it.

    Welcome back to Farahiland!!

    DEAN DOLLARHIDE’S COMMANDMENTS:

    MY FACULTY SHALL DO EXACTLY WHAT I ORDER THEM TO DO.
    AND I CAN ORDER THEM TO DO WHATEVER I PLEASE.

    by Dr. Peter E. Pezzolo, Department of Philosophy and Religion (9/22/08)

    Ken Dollarhide, Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, imposed on “his” faculty, during June 2008, a new set of rules governing teaching assignments and office hours beginning with the Fall 2008 semester. That is, he imposed these new rules on an already scheduled semester in which many hundreds of students had already advance-registered for classes. In a memo to my department chair dated June 26, 2008, Dollarhide stated that if he did not receive faculty scheduling grids in full compliance with his orders “by 9 am on Monday, June 30,” then (referring to himself in the third person) “the Dean’s office will make the schedules for all faculty members.” In other words, the choices were: Do what he says or do what he says.

    In my little department, the consequence of Dollarhide’s forcible “rescheduling” of Fall ’08 was the cancellation of 200 students out of their advance-registrations in seven course sections—for no reason other than to satisfy Dollarhide’s grandiose conception of himself.

    On that same date, June 30, 2008, I filed two grievances against Dollarhide’s unilaterally imposed “rescheduling” of my department. Grievance #1 challenges Dollarhide’s imposition of a rule requiring all faculty to teach three different courses every semester. Grievance #2 challenges Dollarhide’s imposition of rules forbidding faculty to teach any back-to-back course sections whatsoever as well as his imposition of a rule requiring all faculty to spend two hours per day four days per week in their offices, such office hours to be in two-hour “blocks” (i.e., not in between class periods) and “staggered” (i.e., in different time slots on different days).

    One basis for these grievances is that no such rules have been officially announced by the Administration and no such rules are included among the new rules that the Administration has unofficially circulated. For example, one unofficial circulation of new rules governing faculty teaching assignments was in the form of the so-called “bulleted list” (the Administration’s own label for it). This is an unattributed, undated, page-and-a-half document that the Administration handed the KFT on May 6, 2008 in evident retaliation for the spirited student-faculty protest rally against the new course-scheduling grid that occurred on May 5 (Cinco de Mayo), one day earlier. Another unofficial circulation of such new rules was in the form of a May 27 e-mail from the Council of Deans containing “Scheduling Policy Recommendations.” Neither document has been officially adopted or announced by the Farahi Administration. Moreover, neither document contains any of the rules Dollarhide imposed on faculty in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

    Last Thursday, September 18, 2008, Dollarhide testified as an Administration witness at the Step One grievance hearing of my grievances (they are “my grievances” because I filed them, but I filed them on behalf of every faculty member on this campus, not merely on my own behalf). These grievances were presented at the hearing by an experienced staff representative from our union’s statewide Council Office. This included cross-examining Dollarhide. In his testimony, Dollarhide shot himself in the foot repeatedly, evidently because he hopes to curry favor with President Dawood Farahi, who is the front man for Senator Raymond Lesniak, the power behind the scenes who calls all the shots at Kean University. (Governor Corzine won’t appoint anyone to Kean’s Board of Trustees to whom Lesniak objects. So Lesniak controls the Board, and thereby everyone else in the Kean University Administration. Believe it or not, Ken Dollarhide recently told me with a straight face that he has never heard of Senator Raymond Lesniak. Doesn’t he read the newspaper?)

    Dean Dollarhide’s basic posture during his testimony at this grievance hearing last Thursday was that, as Dean, he has the authority to impose whatever rules he pleases on “his” faculty without consulting them or anyone else other than his boss, who he said is Mark Lender. Lender, former chair of the History Department, was the architect of Farahi’s attempts in the 2006 and 2008 KFT elections to seize control of the KFT. For those efforts on Farahi’s behalf–efforts intended to deprive faculty and staff of a union independent of Farahi’s control–Lender was “elevated” from the faculty to a position as acting Provost, directly under Farahi. Dollarhide specifically testified that he “never” speaks to Farahi. He only speaks to Lender. And Lender authorized everything Dollarhide did to “his” faculty when Dollarhide “rescheduled” the Fall ’08 semester. So said Dollarhide.

    When I say that Dollarhide claimed the authority as Dean to impose on “his” faculty whatever rules he pleases, that is not my characterization. Rather, that is what he asserted. Thus, he testified that it is irrelevant that none of the rules he imposed on faculty during the “rescheduling” of Fall ’08 has ever been even unofficially published, let alone promulgated, by the University Administration. He’s the Dean, he makes the rules for “his” faculty (provided Mark Lender approves). Indeed, Dollarhide disclaimed all knowledge of the “bulleted list,” saying he had never seen it before, and speculating that maybe it was a list of talking points from some Dean’s meeting (but denying that he knew that it was). As for the Council of Dean’s “Recommendations,” he was free, he said, to disregard them since they were merely “recommendations.” He’s the Dean. He does whatever he pleases (provided Mark Lender approves, as he apparently does).

    With reference to the specific rules he imposed on “his” faculty during the “rescheduling” of Fall ’08, Dollarhide testified as follows:

    The “mandatory three course preparations” rule: The Master Contract says that “The teaching assignment of a faculty member shall not require more than three (3) different course preparations in any semester, except [in unusual circumstances, such as programs offering 2-credit courses].” (Article XII B. 2. a.) However, the Administration’s position, as articulated by Brian Scott, who represented the Administration at this grievance hearing last Thursday, was that “no more than” means the same as “no less than.” In other words, he argued that a ceiling is really a floor, that a maximum is really a minimum. Of course, he never put it that way, but he did the equivalent because he claimed several times that the Master Contract “requires three course preparations.” It does no such thing. If it did, it would say “no less than.” Moreover, I testified that in 38 years of teaching at Kean I had never been expected, let alone required, to teach more than two course preparations. And that’s a fact. Brian Scott attempted to refute that fact by pointing out that faculty sometimes choose to teach more than two preparations. Evidently, he doesn’t understand the difference between “choosing to” and “being commanded to.” And Dollarhide, who repeated Scott’s argument in his testimony, also evidently doesn’t recognize, let alone accept, the difference between individual freedom of choice and subjection to his orders.

    Dollarhide never attempted to argue that the “three course preparations” rule would somehow benefit students. Evidently, it never occurred to him to claim that it would. And it would have been an unpersuasive argument if he had attempted to make it. Take my own case. At the moment, I teach exclusively three courses in philosophy of law (jurisprudence) that are “service courses” for students in another program. I offer two sections (one day, one evening) of one of those courses, “Justice and Human Rights,” every semester. I offer two sections (one day, one evening) of another of those courses, “Philosophy of Law,” every Fall, and two sections (one day, one evening) of the third course, “Theories of Punishment,” every Spring. But as Dollarhide rearranged my schedule, I will now be offering one section of each of those last two courses every semester (thereby causing me to have three preps), not two sections of one in the Fall and two sections of the other in the Spring. How is that better for the students? It isn’t. It’s a wash. But it makes life more difficult for me because juggling three courses every semester is more difficult than juggling two. Why would anyone want to deliberately make things more burdensome for the teacher if doing so does not benefit students?

    The “no back-to-back course sections whatsoever” rule: At the April Fools Day Faculty Senate meeting last semester where the Farahi Administration’s new course-scheduling grid was first publicly announced, Vinton Thompson, the former Provost, argued that faculty should generally not be permitted to teach two evening classes of two hours and forty minutes each in one evening. His argument was that no one can teach for that long and do a good job. It’s a nonsense argument, unless he was referring to calisthenics classes. Teaching is just talking and listening. Anyone who can’t do that for five hours straight doesn’t belong in the classroom. (Socrates, the father of us all, used to do it from sundown to sunup with no trouble at all.) But Ken Dollarhide wants to keep the dubious legacy of Vinton Thompson alive, and even go him one better. Dollarhide says that teaching two daytime sections in a row (which is the equivalent of teaching just one double-period evening section) is too taxing. Therefore, in the best interests of the faculty, Dollarhide forbade any back-to-back course sections at any time, day or evening. The faculty need to rest after teaching each section, he said, so Dollarhide has imposed that rule upon them against their will in their own best interests– thereby pointlessly lengthening their work day. Why would he want to lengthen the work day?

    The “office hours must be staggered in two-hour blocks” rule: This rule means that office hours cannot be scheduled in the class period (or time slot) between two daytime course sections because the interval between class periods in the daytime is not a “two-hour block” (unless the interval consists of two successive time slots). Further, this rule means that two-hour blocks of office time cannot be scheduled during the same hours (or time slots) on two or more days, for in that case the two-hour blocks would not be “staggered.” The only justification Dollarhide offered for this rule during his testimony at the grievance hearing last Thursday was that when he came to Kean as Dean in January 2005, what he found was that faculty office hours were “not uniform,” rather they were “all over the place.” He offered about a dozen course syllabi in support of this point. One faculty member had office hours in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening. During his testimony, Dollarhide would pick up a syllabus, pronounce it “non-uniform” or “all over the place,” then drop it on the table with a disdainful expression on his face. So what was his argument? Evidently, Dean Dollarhide wants all faculty to march to the same drummer, and to be cut from the same cloth. The concept that different faculty have different schedules because they are specialized members of a team, serving different purposes within their programs, rather than interchangeable units indistinguishable from one another, is foreign to him. He doesn’t like it. He won’t tolerate it. So he has forbidden it.

    The “eight-hours-in-the-office (two-hours-per-day, four-days-per-week)” rule. What’s the rationale for requiring all faculty to be in their offices eight hours per week (except department chairs, who are required to be in their offices twenty hours per week)? I began teaching at Kean almost forty years ago. In all that time there was never any expectation of more than one hour per week of office time per course section (until Farahi increased it to five hours total per week a couple of years ago). Why did Ken Dollarhide double that long-established maximum when he “rescheduled” the College of Humanities and Social Sciences for Fall ‘08? He was asked at the grievance hearing last week how many majors there were in my department currently, and he said there were 11. (We are essentially a “service” department, primarily offering courses to help students meet the requirements of the General Education and other programs, not primarily instructing majors of our own.) There are six full-time faculty in my department. Why do we need 60 hours of office time per week (five times eight plus twenty for the chair) to advise 11 majors (which would be 65 hours of advisement per student per semester)? Dollarhide could not answer that question. So he said that every student in our courses, including all those who are not philosophy majors, are our advisees. That is complete nonsense. I would never presume to advise students majoring in another program (there are dozens of major programs at Kean), and I would not want faculty in other programs advising philosophy majors.

    Although the “bulleted list” and the Council of Deans “Recommendations” both require four-day teaching schedules rather than three-day teaching schedules–which have been the norm at Kean for the past 40 years–Dollarhide did not impose that rule in his “rescheduling” of Fall ’08 in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Why not? Probably, he got confused and forgot. Ken Dollarhide is far from being the sharpest tool in the tool box. Essentially, he is someone who cannot be taken seriously. It is virtually impossible to have a worthwhile conversation with Dollarhide because his attention span does not permit that. Moreover, when challenged, he disintegrates into facial tics, accompanied by trembling, shaking hands and arms. If you talk back to him, he loses bodily control and quivers like a leaf. That’s what happened at the grievance hearing last Thursday. When our Council Office staff rep, who presented these grievances at the hearing, cross-examined Dollarhide, Dollarhide was shaking in his boots. Visibly. It was pathetic.

    WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

    Rank-and-file faculty seem to presume that “the union” is going to correct this nasty state of affairs for them. That is a delusion. The KFT leadership consists of too few individuals spread too thin to accomplish that. Anyway, the word “union” means the rank-and-file united. It does not mean a few elected officers. Rank-and-file faculty, especially tenured faculty, need to get off their butts and get busy fighting this battle in their own best interests. Tenured faculty in Dean Dollarhide’s College should set an example, since their College was the first target of attack by the Farahi Administration. Go speak to Dollarhide in small goups of two and three. Ask him to justify what he did to your schedule over the summer. What you will discover, I can guarantee you, is that he should not be a Dean. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He should not be exercising unchecked power over your professional life. If you let him do it, then it will only get worse. Take command of your own career at Kean, and refuse to accept the incompetent, dishonest “leadership” of Ken Dollarhide. After you speak to him, write it up and circulate it on campus. Or you can use the blog that has been set up for this and other purposes at http://www.concernedkeanfaculty.blogspot.com. And you should send what you write to Governor Corzine and to the NJ Commission on Higher Education as well as to the NJ State Senate and State Assembly committees on higher education. The KFT will e-mail you all the addresses.

    During the year after that flyer was distributed, Dean Dollarhide added a requirement that all faculty have four-day teaching schedules (just because he said so, he said), and the new policies were imposed by the Deans on faculty across the campus. Since they imposed the same policies, the Deans thereby gave the lie to Dollarhide’s claim that these were his policy choices, not Farahi’s. In doing so they also exposed Farahi as the coward he is, unable to face the faculty himself and justify his policy choices rather than hiding behind the Deans.

    There was one notable exception, the Dean of the School of Visual and Performing Arts, who left it to her faculty to decide whether to voluntarily comply with all the new rules. She was promptly sacked by President Farahi, thereby demonstrating, again, that these are his policies. She holds a special place in our hearts.

    A final note. I would like to express my appreciation for their work to Brian Leiter and his staff (I assume he has a staff). He and they are a treasure!

    Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Reply
  41. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, Kean University, Union, NJ

    Following on from my earlier posts about Administration policies and practices at Kean University in New Jersey, here is a recent flyer describing the overall state of affairs.

    ADMINISTERING THE UNIVERSITY AS A DICTATORSHIP:
    A RESPONSE TO THE DEFENSE OF DAWOOD FARAHI
    BY THE KEAN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

    by Dr. Peter E. Pezzolo, Professor of Philosophy, 7/19/10

    (This flyer is a response to a letter from a member of the Board of Trustees that was distributed by blast e-mail to the campus community on July 9, 2010. Kean University President Dawood Farahi has been defended as a “benevolent dictator” by his political sponsor, NJ State Senator Raymond Lesniak.)

    Dear

    Public statements by a member of the Board of Trustees have been rare, possibly unprecedented. That raises the question why your “letter” extolling the policies of University President Dawood Farahi was issued at this time. You say you are merely offering a “progress” report on “the goals we [the Board] set for ourselves. . . .” That seems improbable, given that your “goals” were evidently set many years ago. More likely, your letter was occasioned by the recent formal faculty vote of NO CONFIDENCE in President Farahi (which revealed that, seven years into his Presidency, only 36 out of 353 full-time faculty support him) combined with widespread faculty opposition to what you call “Our latest efforts to re-organize the academic structure at the university . . . .” The way that “academic reorganization” was imposed was, frankly, disgraceful, and now you are evidently attempting, on behalf of the Board, to justify President Farahi’s authoritarian tactics in that matter.

    You say that this “academic reorganization”–which abolished elected faculty department chairs and replaced them with appointed administrators–will “improv[e] student outcomes,” i.e., graduation rates for full-time, first-time freshmen. Farahi himself made no such implausible claim. Rather, the Administration estimated only that there might be an overall cost-savings of $400,000. It is interesting that you don’t mention that flimsy rationale for this unprecedented exclusion of the full-time faculty from any voice in choosing the leadership of their own programs.

    However, the main question is why the Board helped Farahi ram this “reorganization” through with no advance notice at the end of the Spring semester, and no opportunity whatsoever for actual “consultation” between the Administration and the faculty. The Acting Provost, Mark Lender, made presentations at two special Faculty Senate forums. What he had to say, as he noted both times, was on a “take it or leave it” basis. In other words, the faculty were told what “structural” changes were going to be made. We were not offered an opportunity to share in the process of deciding what those changes should or would be. Then the Board simply rubber-stamped what Farahi wanted, at that Board meeting 50 miles off-campus. The Board did so after falsely suggesting, during the public portion of that meeting, that the matter would not be decided that night, and that there would be an opportunity for further discussion at your next meeting in a month. In fact, the Board approved what Farahi wanted that very night in executive session.

    You say in your statement that Kean is, or aspires to be, a “world-class” institution of public higher education. There is no institution considered to be “world-class” anywhere in this land that treats its faculty and professional staff with the arrogance and contempt with which President Farahi treats us.

    The question is why the Board encourages and endorses such dictatorial behavior on his part.

    • When the State of New Jersey abolished “State oversight” of public higher education in 1994, it did not abolish all “oversight” of its public colleges and universities. Rather, local Boards of Trustees, appointed as they are by the Governor, were charged with that responsibility. The 1994 legislation specifically states that the Boards remain “accountable to the public” for their management of the institutions. However, the Kean Board, perhaps alone among our sister institutions, has abandoned any such accountability altogether. Approval by you and your Board colleagues of whatever Farahi wants, no questions asked, has become a foregone conclusion. You evidently consider yourselves answerable to no one.
    We have seen this pattern of Board behavior three years in a row. In June 2008, the Board rubber-stamped Farahi’s new class-scheduling grid, despite a student petition with 1,400 signatures requesting that the entire student body be consulted about that, and despite the request of Farahi’s own supporters on the Faculty Senate that they be consulted as well. Then, in June 2009, the Board rubber-stamped Farahi’s recommended elimination of five academic departments (based in some instances on outright falsehoods about the enrollment or financial status of those departments). Now, in June 2010, the Board has done the same thing again, this time rubber-stamping a sweeping “reorganization” of all academic departments, eliminating elected faculty chairs and replacing them with appointed administrators. Each time, Farahi or his spokesmen have claimed that these steps will bring significant benefits, in terms of tuition revenue, or in terms of retention and graduation rates, or in some other way. Yet nothing is ever forthcoming from the Administration to substantiate any such predictions. Frankly, Ms Morell, that is the fault of you and your colleagues on the Board, because you never require the Farahi Administration to substantiate anything. If you did, then you would share that with the campus. You never have.

    What is this all about, this pattern of oppressive, dictatorial administrative tactics practiced by Dawood Farahi with the support and approval of the Board? Personally, I think the answer is self-evident. The only thing Dawood Farahi has definitely accomplished as President of Kean is that he has run the institutional debt-burden up from less than half-a-million dollars when he took office in 2003 to a figure approaching half-a-billion dollars seven years later. Where’s the upper limit, Ms Morell? Is there any upper limit? Who is actually profiting from that crushing burden of accumulated institutional debt? Certainly not the students and their parents, who will be paying it off for decades to come.

    You encourage such recklessness when you claim Farahi transformed a “run-down and antiquated” campus into one to which “every parent would be proud to send his or her child.” What an insult to the intelligence of students and parents! Do you think people choose a university based on the buildings or the lawns and flowers? Since when have buildings and grounds taught even one student any worthwhile lessons? It is the teaching faculty and the academic support staff–the very professionals whom Farahi treats with contempt every day of the week–who educate the students and make a difference in their lives, not the buildings and grounds. Parents and students know that. How come the Board doesn’t? Don’t you people know a house is not a home, that the quality of life cannot be measured by the price of the house? For example, the year after you ignored the student petition mentioned above, you abolished the thriving Social Work program (it had 150 majors at the time). That shameful act of retaliation against the handful of Social Work undergrads who circulated that petition struck fear in their hearts. Persecution and intimidation should have no place at any university, let alone one claiming to be “world-class.”

    I said the answer to the question why Kean is administered as a dictatorship is self-evident. What Farahi is primarily about is big money for capital construction and renovation projects. Although the Board approves everything he wants in that respect, he cannot justify all of that in educational terms to the faculty and staff, or to students and their parents, who must pay the bills. So he imposes oppressive academic policy decisions on students as well as professional employees. The obvious intended effect is to intimidate the entire campus. Why would anyone engage in such indefensible behavior except to benefit financially in some way? That is the only logical inference. It is the inference which you, as a member of the Board and a defender of Farahi, have the burden of refuting. If you can.

    A Board of Trustees which routinely approves whatever the University President proposes has renounced its most important duty: its fiduciary responsibility to safeguard the resources entrusted to it by the taxpayers. Failing to demand accountability eventually compromises access to affordable education for students who must work while attending college (as is true of many, probably most, at Kean). Sooner or later, this financially reckless way of administering the institution will become the focus of public attention. The people of the state will then demand explanations from those directly responsible for any impropriety as well as those who stood idly by and failed to exercise their obligation to preserve the patrimony of all New Jerseyans. The members of the Kean University Board of Trustees should reconsider the path they are on and fully honor their fiduciary responsibilities.

    Reply
  42. Wendy Lynne Lee

    Brief Comment:

    These developments at Kean are indeed very disturbing–and wholly inconsistent with the very idea of a university. But they are wholly consistent with the corporatizing and privatizing of the future "university." On-line, for profit, with little need for niceties like the humanities. Indeed, I have come increasingly to believe that the humanities–and maybe especially philosophy–is seen not merely as an obstacle to be whittled down to negligible size in this new vision of "education," but that it's professors are seen as a positive danger to the future of Mc'Eduction. After all, we facilitate precisely the critical thinking skills needed to see through this gutting of our professions. And, as been pointed out a number of times here, it's the students who are being cheated (this is a polite expression for what I really mean to say).

    That we here in the PASSHE System are unionized is crucial to this fight against what seems quite rightly described as an emergent dictatorship at Kean. This is NOT about enrollments. This is NOT even about the technologies of on-lines; this is about money and the conversion of an enterprise called education–the exploration of ideas, the dissemination of knowledge, the clash of arguments–into one that can only be called the manufacture of "degrees," essentially passes to become 21st century workers and consumers. The ability to critically evaluate the quality of such degrees, to demand that the humanities continue to be at the heart of the creation of thinking citizens, does not fit the profit-driven vision of on-lines like Phoenix, Cardean, Walden, or InterEd. The key, as I see it, is to recruit our fellows in philosophy and the humanities more generally into resisting this assault on education. So for excellent, if however, pretty horrifying perspective, let me recommend the recent CHE article:

    chronicle.com/article/Outsourced-Ed-Colleges-Hire/66309/

    Here you can read pseudo-academics like Robert Tucker of InterEd: "We also lose a great deal by adhering to this antiquated approach to teaching. A "roll your own" approach is desirable for the few distinguished intellectual leaders who teach, especially when they teach unique content in a rarefied atmosphere. However, I see little justification for adhering to it when the subjects represent industry-standard courses that will be taught by (sorry) the undistinguished professors who make up the majority of the modern professoriate (student admissions are not the only standards to have declined). Demonstrated time to proficiency is the most important loss when an average professor teaches in an average way. This is an efficiency or productivity metric. The application of modern learning and evaluation sciences can reduce the average time to proficiency from 20% to 50% (the differences in time owing to the material to be learned, available resources, and the nature of the learners). Such application also leads to more durable and generalizable proficiencies; i.e., more positive effects on the lives and careers of students."

    By "antiquated approach," Tucker means in a classroom. By "roll your own," he means professors who are in control of their own syllabi and course content. By "few distinguished" he means to leave the humanities to the privates–in direct contradiction to his claims concerning the on-lines as levelling the playing field for those who can't afford a real education. By "industry standard," he means "according to the on-lines, boards of governors–the profit-visionaries of the new "university." By "time to proficiency," he means "bang for the buck"–and this bang is HUGE for the on-lines. BY "positive effects," he means that operations like InterEd get students into the jobs that InterEd exists to feed. By "linves of the students" he means insuring the creation of good worker/consumers. Am I overly cynical? I don't think so. Read the CHE article and judge for yourselves.

    BUt Tucker's by no means alone. Several of the marketers of the on-lines effectively hijack this CHE article and use it to advertise for their "universities." Such sites, folks, are the trenches. Go to the article. Comment. Let CHE know that you recognize a hijacking when you see it. Let them know that their articles are being used as BILLBOARDS for the on-lines.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress