ARE YOU INSUFFICIENTLY SENSITIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT?

I was an assistant professor aspiring to become associate; and had to prove my teaching, publications and service met the mark. My "course evaluations" were quite good. (Actually they are customer satisfaction ratings — but it is unwise to call them that.) My publications also met muster. The problem was my "service."

 

And in this institution, "service" was defined by service on college committees. Here, I was drawing a blank. Despite regularly volunteering, in writing, mind you, for whatever committee slots were available, I received not a one. 

Favored veteran faculty, who often had been educated by the religious order running the school, got the great majority of the key committee assignments. They even garnered these coveted assignments when they hadn't filled out the requisite areas of interest form. In contrast, I filled mine out carefully. Although I indicated preferences, even expressing willingness to serve on any committee, I got zero assignments.

Zero committee work would doubtless sink my prospects for promotion. So I decided to inquire into this situation. Assignments were made by our faculty senate's "Committee on Committees. It largely consisted of old boy faculty who were alums of the formerly all male school. Oddly, though, this committee was chaired by a woman. What distinctive qualities won her this position? It seemed to me there were two. First, she was a co-religionist. That seemed to be an unwritten prerequisite. Second, and of greater importance, she demonstrated slavish servility to every administrative power holder. 

I requested an appointment with this woman, And was in no mood to genuflect. So, I opened the meeting by boldly declared that I had repeatedly volunteered for any committee assignment, but got nowhere. I noted other favored faculty had received one assignment after another. What, I asked, was going on? Her reply? It had been determined that I was "insufficiently sensitive to administrative intent." 

How to respond to that? Here's what I did. I reminded this academic weather vain that my promotion was at stake. I told her that I had kept a careful record of my futile efforts to volunteer as well as who had received them instead. Then I suggested that if I failed to get promoted because of any alleged "lack of service," she and the other committee members might find themselves legally liable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I never again had any trouble getting committee assignments. And my promotion followed in due course.

Care to guess what subsequently became of this weather vane chair of the Committee on Committees? It wasn't long before she was appointed, perhaps "anointed" is a better word, Dean of Arts and Sciences. And once in this exalted office, she continued to manifest her finely-tuned sensitivity to administrative intent. Of course, the consequences of her newly-acquired influence frequently disadvantaged the very faculty whose interests she supposedly represented. Before she rise to power this gal was a professor of English, not meteorology. Nevertheless, she always knew which way the wind blew.

What can be learned from this story? 

1. That course evaluations actually measure customer satisfaction. 
2. That there are irreconcilable, though unmentionable, tensions between the interests of the administration and those of the faculty. 
3. That a surprising number of faculty are craven lick-spittles. 
4. That brown-nosing pays — at least in terms of promotion.
5. That one's alleged colleagues might not be collegial. 

What else, more generally, can be learned from this? That there are covert academic realities reminiscent of the missing genitalia on censored human anatomical illustrations. Genitalia are obviously critical components of human anatomy. Yet they frequently get “disappeared” on such illustrations. Worse, mentioning their absence is risky. Similarly, the discerning know that academia is not what it claims to be. However, joining in the pretense that it is pays off. ” 

Are there times to confront the academic equivalent of those anatomical illustrations, point to the blank crotch area and ask, “What the hell is going on here? Apparently there are. But when should one do that? Here is the answer. Only when you have more to lose if you keep pretending you don't notice the absence. 

This is a professionally dangerous maneuver. But pulling the sheet off these covert realities can produce a sobering effect on academic power holders when all else fails. At the very least, it causes them to stop and weigh potential costs and benefits before messing with you further. But remember, breaking the silence will forever change your status both with the power holders and your colleagues. For good or ill, neither will ever view you, or treat you, in the same way again.