Faculty and Administrators in Higher Education: Poles apart?

Faculty and Administrators in Higher Education: Poles apart?

Let us assume that one of the overall common denominators between faculty and administrators in higher education institutions is that they serve students. However, despite this seemingly common role they appear to be poles apart.

In an article published in the Chronicle, a faculty member who moved to administration describes that she felt how her world had completely changed, not only in terms of her new responsibilities but also with respect to the language use in her new administrative position.

The primary role of a tenure-track faculty member is three fold: teaching, research and professional service. Faculty positions are usually contracted for a nine-month period whereas administrators’ positions are usually twelve-month, five-day a week jobs with their focus on budgets, organizational processes and personnel.

Administrators’ responsibilities clearly range from managing a unit, interacting with employees and students to making decisions on the distribution of monies and budget lines. In many respects, administrators are faced with prioritizing on the basis of resources available. This process could have short, mid and long-term consequences for faculty, employees, staff and students.

The roles of administrators and faculty are clearly different and the divisions of labor are necessary. Thus their respective work is often invisible to the other and only occasionally intersects.

A faculty member who recently accepted an administrative position at our institution commented on how he had never realized the many assignments and duties that administrative employees are expected to perform. This extensive variety of assignments occur not only at the top administrative executive positions but also at the mid and lower level positions. He mentioned never having fully appreciated the scope and the intensity that administrators and staff members put into their work. Their work is critical to the functioning of the entire infrastructure of our campus: buildings, classrooms, student affairs, and technology. This person who has bridged two worlds also acknowledges an enormous shift on his calendar and schedule having been accustomed to the “flexibility” of teaching, holding office hours and researching from off-campus locations.

Faculty and administrators alike often make assumptions of the others’ job, underestimating the complexity and extent of the others’ work. I think both faculty and administrators are professional individuals whose charge is to diligently comply with their responsibilities.

My own experience as faculty and administrator at UNC and in other higher education institutions has opened my eyes to a better understanding of the others’ responsibilities. The majority of faculty and administrators I have worked with are competent professionals devoted to the values and goals of higher education and are committed to provide a high quality educational opportunities to all the students they serve.

My two days with President Obama('s Administration)

I know a lot of folks have already posted on Obama's new student loan repayment plan, so I want to approach the topic from more of a personal perspective.  On Friday, October 21st at about 5:30 PM, I was sitting at Old Chicago with some co-workers debriefing what we thought had been an extraordinarily tough week for our campus.  Mental health crises abounded and I had four suspension-level student conduct cases on my desk.  My supervisor got a cryptic phone call, and all of a sudden President Obama was going to speak on our campus on Wednesday, October 26.  Our entire University Life area kicked in to high gear--the Dean of Students, Student Life, and Community Standards and Wellness.

Some of my colleagues were contacted directly by the Secret Service, while others became instant White House Liaisons.  As for me, I ended up doing ticket distribution, crowd control, and press credential checks for the majority of the two days.  I had to attend a White House briefing on how to manage these areas, and I was surprised to find how human the White House staffers appeared most of the time.  Stressed out, sometimes friendly, sometimes rude, sometimes grounded, and sometimes superior, they worked every day from 4 AM onward.  Here are my White House credentials:

I also had the opportunity to stand about 40 feet away from the President during his remarks on reducing student loan debt and creating more affordable repayment plans, already blogged about by Amy and Holly.  A photo from my point of view during Obama's visit:

While being that close to the President was thrilling, it was nothing compared to the pride and joy I felt when I was able to witness my work as a student affairs professional pay off in a huge way.  Out of all the students at CU Denver, one of my student staff members, Peer Educator Mahala Greer, was chosen to introduce the President of the United States.  Mahala introducing the President behind the Presidential seal:

Chosen for her personal story and her ability to articulate a perspective that resonated with many other students, my heart overflowed when she stood up in front of a crowd of over 4000 attendees, national and local media, Michael Bennett, Michael Hancock, and John Hickenlooper, and, for lack of a better term, kicked some ass.  She also ended up on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.  It was a reminder to me of why we do this work, why we take the time to develop student leaders, and why we believe in Peer Education.  Obama's visit did so much more for me than introduce a loan repayment plan.  Though I had never lost it to begin with, his visit reinvigorated my passion for why I do the work that I do.

COF doesn’t circumvent TABOR

During my research for COF, I found several participants argued that because the principal purpose behind the COF policy was to circumvent Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).

As the funding crisis in Colorado’s higher education system emerged in the early part of this decade elected officials began to search for alternative ways to fund higher education. In 2004 the legislature enacted the College Opportunity Fund (COF). This Fund created a voucher system to replace some direct funding to public higher education institutions. The vouchers, referred to as stipends, were set at $2,400 per year per full-time student to be used to offset tuition. Vouchers were to be portable among Colorado’s public higher education institutions and some private institutions.

Why Has the COF Plan Not Fulfilled Expectations?

The WICHE report explains that vouchers were combined with service contract funding so as to protect the revenue and budgets of higher education institutions. Service contract funding undermines incentive effects of the voucher plan. DHE provides estimates of enrollments that then are used to determine voucher funding each year. When these projections underestimate the use of vouchers, the state covers any shortfall from fee-for-service fund. Money is redistributed from service contract funding to voucher funding so as to leave total state funding to that institution unchanged. Thus, enrollment growth is not actually funded by the state, and institutions have no incentive to increase enrollment. There is no incentive in this funding policy to induce institutions to compete for any students, let alone in-state students or underrepresented populations. WICHE found that even though the state designed performance contracts for each institution, there were no penalties or rewards for performance. There were no rewards for attracting more students, or for attracting in-state students, or for targeting underrepresented populations. There were no penalties if students failed to progress or graduate in a timely manner. The performance contracts became another bureaucratic requirement, without impacting decision making; the result was business as usual in higher education institutions. Universities also correctly anticipated that service contract combined with the voucher plan would leave their revenues and budgets unharmed. Community colleges that attracted more students did not receive the additional voucher money that was promised. Some universities that failed to attract the projected number of voucher students nonetheless received the voucher funding for those missing students. The amount of voucher revenue received by private higher education institutions was a little over $1 million, equal to a miniscule 0.3 percent of total voucher funds. It is not surprising voucher funding to private institutions has created little competition for public college and universities. Eligibility limitations on where vouchers can be cashed are too restricted. The legal monopoly held by public colleges and universities will not be broken by the small numbers of students and limited funding impacted by vouchers at two private universities. As long as these constraints are imposed we should not expect much incentive effect from vouchers through increased competition in the higher education system.

A New Stipend Plan

Funds currently allocated to higher education from the General Fund, and service contract funding, would be used to fund the stipend plan. Stipends would be extended to students attending all qualified postsecondary institutions, including for-profit as well as nonprofit institutions. The stipend plan would be phased in over five years to give higher education institutions time to adjust to the new system. A goal of the stipend plan is to create competition among all qualified postsecondary institutions. This stipend-based higher education system would create incentives for these institutions to deliver quality education at lower cost. Replacing the current system of direct state funding to higher education institutions with a stipend plan funding students and families will generate public support, and reverse the downward trend in state support for higher education. The impacts are certainly evident in current government subsidies to higher education, increased government regulation and intervention in higher education. As Friedman observed, many of the presumed benefits of higher education to a democratic society are difficult to measure, and controversial.  To the extent that college graduates capture the benefits of higher education in higher earnings, this represents a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to college graduates. If the state does subsidize higher education the funding should be in the form of student vouchers rather than direct state funding to colleges and universities. The vouchers should be extended to students attending all higher education institutions, private and public. A voucher system should create a more competitive higher education system in which institutions have an incentive to deliver quality education at a low cost.                                                                                                                                          Should Every Colorado Resident Student Be guaranteed a stipend?  A difficult public policy issue will emerge. Does the State further control costs by imposing a means test so that wealthy families are not eligible for a stipend, but lower income families are?  Does the State limit the number of credit hours that stipends will cover, or can a student enroll for many hours in addition to the minimum to earn a degree?

Two strong, opposing arguments present themselves:

1. Citizens already have paid the taxes used to fund stipends. To argue that some families who are eligible should receive smaller stipends in order to subsidize other students with higher stipends is an implicit tax. Stipends should be set at the same level for all students eligible for the stipends. The stipend plan should not be used to redistribute income from one Colorado family to another.                                                                                                                                            

2. Our nation is at risk now due to unsustainable entitlement spending. Stipends should be means-tested. Experience shows entitlements tend to grow over time, and are very difficult to cut during periods of budget pressure. Therefore, the legislature will lose even more control over the budget. Finally, some people choose never to pursue a college degree; universal stipends would redistribute income from these people to other people. For the time being, it is not necessary to resolve this debate in order to start improving Colorado’s stipend system.

Finally, I recommended that student who are out of Colorado state they can be eligible for COF, but under conditional acceptance. First, he/she should have a high GPA. Second, he/she should study in STEM which is required in marketplace. Third, he should work after his graduation in Colorado State at least 5 years.

Also, COF should find and set auto tracking system to reduce the cost of administration processes.

A More Humane Approach to Repaying Student Loans

As we all know Obama has pledged to assist students with student loan debt in his last speech here in Denver. He pledged to doing this by,

1. Lowering the repayment cap to 10% of one’s income from a current 15%

2. Reducing interest by allowing consolidation. Borrowers can save up to .5%

3. Forgiving federal loans after 20 years compared to 25

Although I think this is a good start in helping the enormous problem of student loan debt, it is not nearly enough in my opinion. With an average student debt of 27k, an interest reduction of .5% will be saving students less than $8.00 a month. In addition, only a percentage of borrowers will be eligible to take advantage of these benefits. So what to do now? Well as some suggest, simply forgive all student loans to date. Although I would love to see this happen for personal reasons, it may be a bit unrealistic. While reading the Chronicle, I came across another option, Income Based Loans. Other countries including Australia and Britain have shown success with this form of loan repayment.

What exactly is an income – contingent loan system? Well right now most students repay their loans on a fixed schedule. With a high percentage of loans going into default, this is clearly not working. Graduates are less likely to make a decent salary early on compared to later on in their careers. With an income - contingent system, loans are repaid based on one’s salary. If one earns a raise, their monthly payments go up. However if one loses their job and their income falls below a certain amount, payments stop. After a certain period of time loans are forgiven.

In this proposed system the term “default” is essentially eliminated. Payments are directly taken out of a person’s paycheck. Professionals who choose to go into lower paying fields such as social work won’t have to worry about being able to make their payments on time. It is true that taxpayers will bare the burden of loans that are partially forgiven. However this is already happening with an increase in loan defaults. The primary reason this concept has not been put into place to date is administrative complications. Until last year, private banks acted as lenders for student loans creating a bureaucratic nightmare for the government. Now that this system has changed and the lender is the US Department of Education acts as the lender for federal loans, an income – contingent system is more realistic.

To me, financial aid is a complicated matter. I have tried to understand the process but still have plenty to learn. According to what I have read, income based repayment seems like a great option for the increasing number of students accruing a large amount of debt. Despite the fact that is does not get to the major problem of rising costs in higher education, it may make it easier for borrowers to actually start a life after graduation.

Additional funding available for the taking

The financial situation of higher education in the state of Colorado appears to be one of the worst in the country. This is even easier to believe if you live and attend school in the state. However, there are some answers to the state’s money woes for education. It is simply a question as to whether or not voters and legislators choose to take advantage of the options put in front of them.

The first option is the well-publicized Proposition 103. Through this measure, income and sales tax would be raised miniscule amounts. However, over the next five years an additional $3.9 billion would be added to the general education fund for the state of Colorado. After this five year period tax rates would return to current levels.

The main benefit with Proposition 103 is that it allows a five-year period for legislators, citizens, and education administrators to work on a long-term solution that addresses the dire funding situation that education is experiencing. One of the big arguments is that tax rates will be increased in an economic time in which individuals are already struggling. However, tax rates are actually being returned to higher rates that were in place in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, through which the state and its citizens prospered. The jobs that vanished with the start of this recession are not the jobs that will return when the economy recovers. New jobs that require specific skills and advanced training will surface. Additional money for education will ensure that the state of Colorado is able to produce individuals that are qualified to accept these jobs.

A second option to increase funding was introduced in mid-October by Colorado’s Third District Congressman Scott Tipton. The bill, The Education and Energy Act of 2011, would dedicate 33 percent of revenues produced by new oil and gas drilling to fund education. States that choose to develop domestic mineral resources on federal lands would be the beneficiaries of this bill. Additionally, 17 percent of new revenues from energy development would be distributed to all states.

This bill could bring about positive change on various levels. First, it includes the obvious benefits of applying revenues directly to an education fund. Just as importantly, the bill comes about in a time when we are desperately attempting to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and increase our efforts to find energy solutions at home. This bill definitely addresses each of these issues.

Each of the scenarios listed above describe attempts to positively affect the higher education funding crisis. While Proposition 103 and The Education and Energy Act of 2011 are not perfect or long term solutions to our problems, they do offer immediate funds that would buy time to work toward a more permanent resolution. I will definitely support both proposals, as it is necessary to properly fund education to continue to increase education levels in this state and country. The positives with either proposal outweigh possible negatives.

Sexual Harassment or Limiting Academic Freedom at University of Denver?

Recently, Mr. Gilbert, an instructor at the University of Denver (DU) was put on 101 days of administrative leave while the Dean and Provost determined whether the instructor had violated University of Denver Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harassment Policy. While the details of what the instructor had done were not released, the recent Chronicle article did reveal that two students had reported issues against the instructor, but did so anonymously. The students reported that the instructor had done the following things, of which Mr. Gilbert addressed:

• Accusation: Mr. Gilbert made statements about masturbation during a class called, "The Domestic and International Consequences of the Drug War."

o Mr. Gilbert’s response was that “he makes reference to changing public attitudes toward masturbation in discussing connections between efforts in the early 1900s to restrict drug use and that period's taboos against various sexual behaviors widely regarded as sinful.”

• Accusation: Mr. Gilbert used profanity during class and put his hands improperly on the backs of female students.

o Mr. Gilbert said he did touch students, but only in a platonic/non-sexual way.

• Accusation: Mr. Gilbert brought a dildo to class, which was not necessary for the course.

o Mr. Gilbert responded that he does bring an art-deco dildo to class in order to explain attitudes toward masturbation from a gender perspective and masculine self-control in the late 19th century and discuss masculine control of the 1900’s.

• Accusation: Mr. Gilbert was trying to play the role of matchmaker with his students and he gave some students condoms while wishing them luck on their dates.

o Mr. Gilbert does admit to playing matchmaker, but denies giving students condoms.

The Dean of Josef Korbel School of International Studies, Christopher Hill, had been in his administrator role for approximately a year before this issue arose. Prior to working at DU, Mr. Hill had served as U.S. ambassador in Iraq. Mr. Hill was supported in his decision to remove Mr. Gilbert from the classroom by DU’s provost, Gregg Kvistad. Mr. Kvistad made one correction to Mr. Hill’s corrective action, which had originally required Mr. Gilbert to attend sensitivity training. Mr. Kvistad instead required the instructor to attend the university's Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity to "discuss what creating a sexual harassment hostile environment entails and how you must avoid that."

Issues with Procedures Take by the University

Many faculty and others argue that the Mr. Gilbert was not treated correctly in this situation and there is a much bigger issue at large, academic freedom. A fellow professor and president of the University of Denver chapter of the American Association of University Professors, Mr. Saitta, stated that the overall issue with this case is that if an instructor offends even one student, the faculty member is subject to be removed from her/his class. Others argue that the instructor is being treated this way because of his age, 75, and that the university was clearly looking for reasons to remove the faculty member from the institution.

Others argue that this case is another example of administrators being too far removed from the classroom and making arbitrary decisions. Mr. Kvistad had never been a faculty member prior to his job as the Dean, which may be why he does not understand academic freedom. Mr. Gilbert requested a review committee in an effort to challenge actions taken by the administrators. A 9 to 1 vote by the review committee (made up of faculty only) found in favor of Mr. Gilbert, but the Provost rejected the findings of the review committee. The review committee expressed further concerns that the university did not have a clear process for overseeing such accusations and without these clear policies, faculty are at risk of having their careers ruined and or names tarnished.

Administrator Obligations

While I do see arguments against the universities procedures and what occurred with this particular incident, I do not believe all sides of the argument were accurately discussed in the Chronicle. Administrators, as well as Human Resources, are bound to protect students and staff members against sexual harassment. Issues surrounding Title IX are becoming more prevalent at colleges and administrators are obligated to invest accusations accordingly.

While I do believe DU needs a clearer policy on how to handle future incidents like the one discussed in this article, I also believe the administrators must act when accusations of sexual harassment are made. The faculty member should not be touching students on the shoulder/back and he should not be playing matchmaker in the classroom. I do think this instructor set himself up for some of these issues. On the other hand, DU allowed the faculty member to be on administrative leave for 101 days, which may have unnecessarily damaged the instructor’s reputation. The review committee and other faculty members have expressed concerns around academic freedom, which is an issue that cannot not be taken lightly. I have sat in several courses in which we discussed uncomfortable topics, but it does not mean these issues should be ignored. Overall, I do think this instructor should have been investigated, but the length of time the instructor was out on administrative leave and the unclear policy of the university in dealing with situations like this one need to be addressed.

STEM - Leading the Way... The Only Way?

I'm admittedly cheating by using a guest commentary written in Colorado by the president of Colorado College to open up a discussion fueled by comments from the Governor of Florida. And, actually I'd like to further justify taking up space in the Higher Education in Colorado blog by noting that our own Michael Weddington posted a comment to the commentary written by the president of Colorado College!

So, without further rationalization - my blog post. On October 24, 2011 Dr. Jill Tiefenthaler, President of Colorado College, contributed a guest commentary to the Denver Post titled In Defense of Liberal Arts Education. She was responding to comments made by Florida Governor Rick Scott about not wanting to pay for students to get a liberal arts education but instead contributing to students pursuing degrees in STEM (science, technolgy, engineering and math). In his comments Governor Scott states, “We’re spending a lot of money on education, and when you look at the results, it’s not great,” the governor told a luncheon crowd of the Northwest Business Association in Tallahassee. “Do you want to use your tax money to educate more people who can’t get jobs in anthropology? I don’t." 


Dr. Tiefenthaler, the President of Colorado College - Colorado's only private liberal arts college then posted a guest editorial in the Denver Post. She provides additional quotes from Governor Scott around his desire to increase the number of kids pursuing STEM fields as a means to create more jobs for Florida; "I want to spend our money getting people science, technology, engineering and math degrees. That's what our kids need to focus all of their time and attention on: Those type of degrees that when they get out of school, they can get a job." Dr. Tiefenthaler makes the argument that the kinds of skills students studying in the liberal arts gain are the kinds of skills employers are looking for - critical thinking skills, reading, sorting through and analyzing vast amounts of informtation to name a few.

While I did suggest that I made a bit of a stretch in posting in the Higher Education in Colorado blog I believe this issue has a great deal of relevance in our own state. Consider the number of charter schools that are sprouting up in Colorado that have at their core a focus on STEM or the number of organizations focused on STEM issues. Denver School of Science and Technology with 5 different campuses; the Colorado STEM Alliance with support from Metro State College and the Community College of Denver to name a couple.

The issue doesn't have to be STEM against Liberal Arts or education against jobs. I believe there is a place for both in the discussion. What I find concerning about the governors remarks is the narrowing of what is a viable and "good" pathway to a job. And as we narrow that pathway we also narrow the resources available to other pathways as well as the people who can participate. I do understand the natural tendancy to want to narrow during tough economic times - there is only so much money and only so many places it can go. Yet, I feel strongly that it is precisely at this time in higher education when we must not be narrowing our definitions of the pathways to success but expanding them. And, while STEM fields are important and are growing the richness of our communities does not come from everyone doing the same thing but from diverse people engaged in diverse work.

To close out this blog post I find myself wearing my parental hat and feeling like if my daughter should enjoy math and science that I would encourage her in those areas - yet should she enjoy art and music I wold encourage her in those areas as well. And perhaps the bigger point is she can enjoy and pursue them all and that is the beauty of a liberal arts education.

Sexual Harassment at DU? Or Maybe not...

In this week’s Chronicle, Colorado made the news with a story on the border line of scandal. Provost Upholds U. of Denver’s Handling of Professor Who Discussed Sex in Class reports the debate around Arthur N. Gilbert, the 75-year-old associate professor of international studies who was put on administrative leave after a couple of students reported him for sexual assault. The article is quite long but for the purpose of this blog, an attempt at summarization:

• Gilbert is well-liked by students on campus
• He is under question for sexual harassment for a number of items including talking about masturbating in class, touching students shoulders and trying to play “matchmaker” for his students
• All of the complaints about him were anonymous
• The two major issues are if he committed sexual harassment and how his case has been handled
• He was originally suspended by the Human Resources Department with no faculty board review
• Gilbert was put on leave for 101 days and returned to work this fall to teach graduate classes only

Issue 1: Gilbert was suspended by HR without the review of a faculty board

The only item I took issue with in this article was the faculty review committee stating, "We believe concerns about teaching method and faculty classroom behavior, along with other matters related to teaching, should be addressed by the faculty, not an administrative unit.” While I do believe that a faculty board should be involved in situations like this, I believe that this quote belittles the administrative side of higher education. I am unfamiliar with varying policies at different institutions but do believe that an Human Resources office as well as a faculty board should be involved in cases like this.

Issue 2: Whether or not Gilbert is guilty of sexual harassment

In the short bullet summary above, it may seem that Gilbert is guilty. I was disgusted as I began reading the article. However, after reading the story in its entirety as well as the included comments (some of which are obviously from a colleague of Gilbert), I struggle to believe that Gilbert is as guilty as they are portraying him to be. While I do not believe it is a professor’s job to play “matchmaker,” I am not sure I see the sexual harassment on this topic. I do not believe that a faculty member should be touching a student in the classroom setting as that probably does breach sexual harassment if it isn’t quite clearly considered harassment. So those two items I can sort of give the student benefit of the doubt as there seems to be a heavy gray area.

The article states that in a lesson titled "The Domestic and International Consequences of the Drug War” Gilbert references the “changing public attitudes toward masturbation in discussing connections between efforts in the early 1900s to restrict drug use and that period's taboos against various sexual behaviors widely regarded as sinful.” I have to defend Gilbert on this one. I don’t believe that in this context the topic of masturbation comes close to sexual harassment. If a student isn’t mature enough to handle the course content, then perhaps they should not be in that class, or maybe even in a college setting.

There are huge implications that this situation could have on higher education for both issues. Who is ultimately the decision-maker when it comes to faculty behavior issues? Who on campus should be involved and what bearing does that have on faculty? Where is the line when it comes to course content? What fears do faculty members face when planning lectures? Being mentors? Getting involved in student’s lives?

With the slew of topics this article (and its comments) covered, it will be interesting to see what may happen in similar cases in the future.