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. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  2. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  3. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  4. Mark's avatar
  5. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

  6. F.E. Guerra-Pujol's avatar

    Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…

  7. Claudio's avatar

    I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…

The attack on tenure in Wisconsin continues, and this time the Madison campus is the target

Details from IHE.  Comments are open for more links, information, perspective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

2 responses to “The attack on tenure in Wisconsin continues, and this time the Madison campus is the target”

  1. The article gets it pretty close to right. I'll add a little bit more context. The UW-Madison faculty senate passed changes to its faculty procedures and policies that were consistent with the change to state law, and had protections for tenure consistent with AAUP standards. The chancellor's strategy at that time was to pass the change, and have it approved by the UW system board of regents (as any such changes must be). At the same time, the regents had their own task force on tenure, which proposed SYSTEM policies. The UW-Madison chancellor indicated at the time that there could be a general policy for the system, and more specific measure for UW-Madison.

    Then, the regents decided they would NOT vote on Madison's policy until they had voted on a system policy, which they did. And it was weak (as Alan White has discussed in these forums); it allows program closure for educational purposes, but educational purposes *includes* financial considerations. Still, UW Madison people thought (based on the chancellor's assurances) that the UW-Madison policy could supersede the system policy. NO DICE. Today the regents are meeting and going to "harmonize" UW-Madison policies with the system policies.

    What's the chancellor's reaction. She now says that "top research institutions simply do not lay off tenured faculty." And she assures us that even if there are program closures, faculty will find homes in other departments. It's the chancellor who has the power to make these decisions now (not the faculty), and she assured us that she would never allow that to happen. She did not assure us that she's be here long term. And the regents (who are both appointed by the governor and who are creating this clusterf***) can insert candidates into chancellor finalists in the future.

    Oh, and the scheduled presentations on the latest round of budget cuts has been cancelled:
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/uw-system-leaders-leery-of-dwelling-on-cuts-as-next-budget-looms-b99701463z1-374769171.html

    So, regents are trying to hide news about the effects of the last round of budget cuts (just as we're about to go through our bienniel budgeting from the state), and implementing changes to governance that allow program closure for educational (including financial purposes), and which allow faculty layoffs based on program closure.

  2. When I first addressed the UW Tenure Task Force last Fall, I noted that in many states tenure, the backbone of academic freedom, was suffering from legislatively imposed osteoporosis. Despite the removal of tenure from Wisconsin statute and new law that removed financial exigency as the standard of terminating tenured faculty, I also stated that the TTF should not produce some form of "tenure-lite" that really does not protect academic freedom or produce a two-tiered system based on the relative financial strength of Madison as against the other more vulnerable campuses. Well, as far as I can see, both of my fears for tenure in UW have in fact come to be policy. Madison will still only have a "tenure-lite" like the rest of us, but will have some de facto protection from the sheer size its budget (and foundation) affords. Offices are already dark on my campus from the latest budget cuts. My additional fear now is that not just departments will close and tenured people will be fired, but entire campuses will be at risk in the long run.

    And here's an account of the arduous deliberative process the Regents pursued today:

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/regents-panel-approves-new-university-of-wisconsin-tenure-policies-b99702320z1-374942471.html

    Most all of this is the result of backroom, closed-door deals. A shameful way to run a once-vaunted university system, now just being run into the ground.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress