Many faculty have asked me about the purpose of the vote. In emails and in person, they want to know what end may come of all this. I can offer two thoughts and a list of specific recommendations in response.
Recognize Our Problems
We have a host of systemic problems here at Kutztown University. The claims are not “fiction” as the administration would have local media believe. Classes are too large. Office space is too limited. We know these problems are real. We see them every day.
Our process is broken. In Meet & Discuss, in the array of committees that inhabit our campus, in the endless meetings that we hold, the process does not work. We must recognize this as well.
Stonewalling is not recognition. Avoiding responsibility is not recognition. If the president, the trustees, and the PASSHE are not willing to take responsibility, it is up to the faculty to do so. A vote will recognize that we have a problem at KU.
Provide Solutions
A vote is a clear statement that we want concrete solutions to the many problems affecting Kutztown University. It is a statement that we will not be satisfied with another ad hoc committee or outside consultant. It is a statement to the powers that be on campus, to PASSHE, to the many outside entities watching Kutztown that what matters most are tangible commitments and not just words.
The attached list is a collection of solutions posited by the faculty. I have asked the representatives to contribute more. This list will grow in the future.
The APSCUF-KU Executive Committee began a debate. It left to the faculty the responsibility to authorize a vote.
On 14 February 2008, the faculty will be asked to provide permission to vote. It will be a hard decision. However, as I said when I started my term in office, sometimes the hardest decisions are the best ones to make.
Let the faculty vote
11 comments:
I've seen your office Dr. Mahoney. It looks pretty nice with all of your posters. If I'm not mistaken, you had this nice office before you got your tenure. And as a CURRENT student, The largest class that I was in was my BIO class... that had 90. Every other one has had 20-25... some of my core classes have had 15. How can you say classes are getting to big across the board?
Also, the photos that you have on the noconfidence blog spot are from 2 years ago and alot of them look like they were taken over the summer. Isn't the summer generally the time when universitys make repairs to buildings? Maybe you need more up to date pictures. Oh, and maybe APSCUF needs to stop whining... because if you ask any student, they would tell you ITS NOT THAT BAD!
I am happy that Harry Potter has had such a good experience at KU.
In terms of the photos, as you know from your education here, it's important to establish a historical pattern in support of your argument. While anecdote is useful and can assist in making an argument, it cannot stand in for concrete research. What you see in the photos are part of that process.
I blame myself for running into some technical problems...I am having trouble loading the video of the coaches working conditions. In that video (taken this past year) we have direct evidence of the coaches offices located in a former shower stall (go to the head coach of football in Keystone Hall and go through the conference room and make a left). I'll do my best to load additional supporting evidence to respond to your desire to see more up-to-date pictures. I would like to point out, however, that two of the photo albums were taken recently. And, another point, that the reason of showing the two summers of problems is that the photos were taken just days before the beginning of the fall semester. It would have been great if these issues were addressed at the beginning of the semester.
I would also like to draw your attention to the additional evidence linked on the right side of the blog. Under the class-size reports, you will see concrete empirical research on class size conducted by a PhD in Stats using the administrations own numbers. When you ask how can I say that classes are getting big across the board, I point you to the concrete research.
Finally, it's true. After sharing an office for my first two years at KU, I did get my own office. It doesn't meet current Maxatawny building regulations (it was grandfathered in because of the age of the building), but I rarely complain about my office. Or at least, I have not argued in this context that my office space is the issue. You see, I believe in working for other people as well as myself...the "least of my brothers (and sisters)." If I turn my back on people and work only to advance myself, I violate my ethics and values. No one needs to agree with my ethics and values...but that is what guides me.
In terms of "stop whining"--an interesting take on "love it or leave it," I choose to try and make it better. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. That's the beautiful thing about democracy. People can disagree and argue and debate and advocate. That's America. American's get to critique and advocate for change. It's a fundamental American value that I embrace.
Bread and Roses,
Kevin Mahoney
When President Cevallos took Office he said the following, don't tell me what you think I want to hear, tell me what you think the problems are. As far as the management goes, this has yet to be the case. They are nothing but a bunch of yes men running around telling him what they think he wants to hear. Cevallos is to blame for allowing this to happen. If he was a serious leader he would at the very least hold some of his managers accountable for their mistakes.
I believe President Cevallos is a caring man who has done many great things for Kutztown University and the surrounding community.
I believe that the items addressed in APSCUF-KU’s job performance evaluation of President Cevallos (REQUESTED by KU’s Council of Trustees, and submitted at the Council meeting on April 30, 2007) and the current Bill of Particulars spell out SERIOUS problems that have NOT been addressed by KU’s administration, an administration ultimately piloted by President Cevallos.
I believe the status quo of “non-response” to these serious problems on the part of the KU administration has disheartened many faculty members and Kutztown Borough officials.
I believe Kevin Mahoney’s explanation that this culture of “words-without-meaning” has permeated campus, and caused confusion about when and to whom considering a vote of no confidence was originally announced.
And I believe professor Walt Nott, who I quote here from his comments on the “Save the ELC” petition: “Decisions that impact the entire university community, as well as the greater Berks community, need to made in the open with the informed participation of the community. Openness and participation together form the very essence of democracy and collegiality.”
I applaud Mike Gambone and APSCUF-KU for going public with these concerns. It’s a hard road ahead, and not the easiest path, for sure. But they chose it, I believe, for the greater good of us all.
--a concerned KU alum and Kutztown citizen
Harry Potter,
I just read your blog entries and I found them filled with misinformation. Get your facts straight, kid. I'm not as diplomatic as Dr. Mahoney. And, I wish I worked 32 weeks of the year and 14 hours a week. The university would shut down if we ONLY taught.
I never said my comments about the amount of time faculty works were fact... just an educated guess...
What I can say is that there have been PLENTY of times in which I have tried to go to a professor's office about class related things and they were no where to be found (and this was during posted office hours) and I've heard from many a department secretary about how many professors are only on campus 3 days a week.
Dr. Mahoney... why is APSCUF concerned with a coaches office... now, I'm not 100% sure of this, but aren't coaches in a different union? Ill check back for your response.
And to the person who called me a kid... I would LOVE to know what else you do besides teach 3 classes a semester. Or a better question is, have you updated the syllabus (with the exception of the semester and dates) in years? I know thats is a big thing profs do. They plan a class from start to finish 1 time and then reuse that course syllabus, assignments, quizzes, and tests every semester after that... correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, I don't want to start a pissing contest, but... I really don't see how any of you really have it that bad... I just think its getting greedy.
P.S. I do have a lot of respect for PROFESSORS. And If you knew who I really was, I'm sure many would agree.
P.S.S. I'm not latino. This isn't about race. This is about the fact the I think growth is a good thing.
P.S.S.S I also really feel like the we're in a catch-22 with these building projects. Because we pay for these buildings with state funds... we have to use the lowest bidder or else the tax payer has a flip-out. They're the lowest bidder for a reason. But the problems that I've seen are relatively minor...
Your friend,
Harry Potter
P.S.S.S.S
Dr. Mahoney, Thanks for being diplomatic with your response... lest we forget, I'm just a kid!
hehehehe
H.P.,
First, no, you're incorrect. The coaches are also APSCUF-KU members. They do have a separate contract, but they are in the same union.
Second, just take a minute to look at the language you are using in your posts. You say you don't want a "pissing contest," but your language suggests otherwise. As I have said all throughout my teaching career, vigorous argument does not need to digress into ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem attacks. For example, take a look at your first post. You begin by attacking me by insinuating that I am greedy and even a liar.
In contrast, look at all the posts and messages we have posted here concerning a no confidence vote in president Cevallos. Yes, it's true that we are asking people to consider his accountability as a leader (by the nature of his position he is responsible for the direction of this campus), but no where are we making attacks on is character. Ad hominem attacks form one of the key "logical falacies" in classical rhetorical teaching. That's important here because one of the connection between ethical argument and democratic process. I am sure you will have issue with that, but given that this is what I teach and what I believe, I thought I would be as explicit about my position as I can in this short note.
Third, I do not think anyone would argue with you that there are SOME professors that put together a syllabus and then never change it. However, you have a certain burden of proof to be accountable to. That is, how prevalent is this practice and which professors are doing it.
For example, I update my syllabus every semester and change it substantially about every year and a half. Frankly, I would bore MYSELF to tears doing the same thing over and over again. If I were a faculty member who was supposed to teach a standardized course that needed to cover specific content in exactly the same way from semester to semester (for accreditation purposes or because a department or college demanded it) I might be more inclined to make fewer changes to my syllabus each semester.
What is ironic here is that large class size contributes to the issue that you are raising. That is, the greater distance there is between the students and the faculty, the more likely it is that faculty will resort to standardized testing. If that's what you want, that we have nothing to argue about. We just want different things.
In terms of growth, again, no one is arguing about "growth" per se. That is, I actually agree with you that growth can be good. I have actually been pleased to know that the university is growing. The issue for me, however, is the MANAGEMENT of growth. That is, growth BY ITSELF is not an automatic good.
For example, in the 1990s there were 50 or so students with learning disabilities on campus and two staff members in the disabilities office. Now there are around 600 students with learning disabilities (an EXPECTED consequence of growth) and there are still only two staff members in the disabilities office. Now, if you want to make the argument that it's just "too bad" for these students and they are just going to have to "deal with it," well, again, we are just going to circle around and around about this issue because we will never agree. I do not believe students with learning disabilities should be sent adrift. (That is just one example, there are tons more regarding testing areas, the impact on writing in the disciplines, conferencing space, office space, the impact of growth on wastewater processing in the borough, etc.)
I would like more of an explanation as to how I am being "greedy" for advocating for better education. Our contract negotiations are long over. All of the issues raised on this site (and over the past several years) have been about health and safety, quality of education, management of growth, the integrity of the curricular process, and quality of our working conditions.
Office space is an issue on several fronts. First, in order to meet with students with a reasonable amount of confidentiality, you have to have the space in which to do it. Putting 12 faculty in one big room makes that impossible (see the "auxiliary office" on the first floor of Lytle Hall). More than that, it forces faculty to change their teaching. For example, I can conference with all of my students over their papers. If I were in the Auxiliary Office, I would not be able to do that because I would be interfering with all the other faculty.
Also, while the central emphasis of our job is teaching, we also have heavy service loads. That means, we do lots of committee work on curriculum, course development, planning conferences and events, hiring faculty, and a ton of other things. In order to do that work, you need a place to do it, a place to keep all the associated paper work, etc.
In addition to service, we are also required to do research. That's right, research is PART OF OUR JOB. Our contract lays that out in detail. In order to have your contract renewed and get tenure and/or promoted, faculty MUST do research. That means we need to have a space to do it and the materials necessary to do it with. We must have adequate space for books. Computers must work. And we must have chunks of time to do that work. If we don't, then we are not doing our jobs.
If faculty do not have the space to do this work on campus, then they must find a place to do it. And, you're right, that sucks because that means faculty will not be as accessible for students. Again, if growth was managed effectively, these issues would not be issues.
Just my thoughts.
Hi,
First off- Dr.M, I wasn't calling YOU a liar or saying YOU were greedy. I believe I was talking about this overall process and mostly thinking that the union demands were a little greedy (to me). If I offended you with this... please forgive me. It wasn't my intention.
We'll chat more!
H.P.,
First, I wasn't "offended." It takes quite a bit to offend me actually. My primary concern is always ethics in argument and the connections between what we say and the consequences of what we say.
For example, when you say "I've seen your office Dr. Mahoney. It looks pretty nice with all of your posters. If I'm not mistaken, you had this nice office before you got your tenure" and "How can you say classes are getting to big across the board?" and "Oh, and maybe APSCUF needs to stop whining" there are implications and consequences to your argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but these statements seem to suggest:
1. I am misrepresenting things because I have an office. You say I have a "nice" office and that I got it before tenure. That suggests that I am in a relatively cushy position (even before, to follow the logic of your argument, I deserve it).m There is a charge made directly against me through an attack on my credibility. Again, this is not a question of me taking offense. This is what I do with arguments--I look at the logic of the rhetoric and what is both explicit and implicit.
2. Your argument rests upon your experience...or, better, your representation of your experience...and yet you dismiss my experience out of hand and with it the research provided on the blog and on the APSCUF-KU website. While neither I nor the APSCUF-KU leadership claimed that ALL students have the experience of large classes, we have shown in detail the impact of the AF has had on class size...ESPECIALLY on students who entered KU AFTER the Academic Forum went on-line.
And, again, our argument has not been that we should not use the forum (and let it rot). Our argument has been that management has been unwilling to plan for and mediate the impact of large classes on students (especially at risk students) and faculty workload.
3. We are beginning from different principles. I believe that community is important and that it is my responsibility (based upon my values, morals, and commitment to democracy) to do more than look out for myself. I concede that any individual student could choose a major that shielded them from the impact of some of the changes. We know that, structurally, some majors are shielded from some of the negative impacts of poorly managed growth. We know that some faculty have it pretty good in terms of their facilities and class sizes. But I believe that if I am invested in the university as a whole and higher education in general, it is my duty to look beyond my own self interest. That is what seems to me as ironic concerning your charges that I and APSCUF-KU is "greedy." I don't get paid for the work I do for the union. I don't get perks. I just get more work. I VOLUNTEER to do this work for the betterment of the university.
4. And, yes, if you call APSCUF-KU a lying organization or a bunch of whiners, you are talking about me. I helped rebuild this union and my work is invested in the course of action we have pursued. I take my responsibility seriously. I do not want special treatment. That is, I stand in solidarity with other members of APSCUF-KU who, along with me, made a decision to begin this discussion.
Dr. Mahoney, you ARE a liar. Regardless of your protestations otherwise and the philosophical dribble you use as a smoke screen to your true self, the raw, true facts are that you are a prevericator to the nth degree. You exaggerate, overstate, mistate, and lie. Your perceptions are skewed and it would appear that you have not visited any other institution of higher education (and especially not any other PASSHE campus)in the last ten years to see the state of affairs at those campuses, else you would not whine, yes WHINE to the level that you do. You are out of touch with reality, happily cocooned in your web of deceit and protected by the long outdated concept of "tenure", which allows you not just "academic freedom", but freedom to participate in the wanton desruction of the very institution which affords you these priveleges. You and your elitist academic "brothers and sisters" of APSCUF gave up your rights to governance by joining a collective bargaining unit. Governance is the act of shared management of an institution of higher education; by its very definition, a union is not management, thus, how can you claim the right to participate in the management of it? You have no responsiblity or accountability, your union mentality makes you merely destructive parasites with nothing but entitlement as your moniker. One can only hope that if nothing else results from this APSCUF created crisis, that you and your ilk are exposed for what you truly are.
I would be interested in your evidence, "anonymous." This is what democracy is about. If you think I am exaggerating, let's see your counter-argument. Only through principled argument can we work toward any truth.
You can name-call all you like. That's what we call in my field, ad hominem attacks. So, when I look at your post, I look for kernels of evidence to support your position. I think anyone reading this blog would benefit from such evidence.
For the record, I have been at several other PaSSHE schools, I have taught at two other universities (George Washington and George Mason) and was a graduate teaching assistant at both Miami University (OH) and Syracuse University. I would not argue with you that other universities have it worse. For example, when I was up in Edinboro a couple of years ago, I was blown away by some of the poor conditions there.
What you seem to be arguing is that the only people who have any right to work for positive change are those living/working in the most destitute conditions. Only the poorest of the poor, mistreated of the mistreated, have any right to call for change. Everyone else in your argument seems to lose their right to work for a better world. And by "better world" I do not mean utopia. I just mean leaving the world a better place.
Like I've said before, I believe in working to make my community, my workplace, my world better. At Kutztown, I will try and make things better until I exhaust all possibilities. Only then will I consider leaving. I think living in this country carries with it a set of responsibilities as well as freedoms. I think we have the responsibility to protect the principles of democracy, equality, and freedom in all aspects of our lives.
For me, that includes my place of work. If I see problems, I see it as part of my responsibility to work hard in the best way I know how to make things better. Those who disagree with me can work against me and argue with me. Again, I see that as a beautiful part of democracy.
So, I would encourage you to offer your arguments and evidence. Support your claims. Or, you can continue to throw accusations at me. It's your choice, after all.
Post a Comment