http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/article_a7d2e518-bf6f-11de-a314-001cc4c03286.html

Please don’t infer that I’m advocating sacking a bunch of people. I’m not. But it’s a question that I think should be asked. In the private sector (i.e. real world), if a unit is having problems, you generally look to have someone come in a try to fix it before throwing more money into management.

But rather than restructure the entire Graduate School into two units, could they try modifying the existing Graduate School structure? To start, perhaps some changes in leadership are needed? If there were so many problems, then why did no one lose their job? Where’s the accountability here?

Some re-alignment of the leadership of the Graduate School, at the highest levels, might accomplish a lot. Changing the duties of the Associate Deans might be helpful too.

Wouldn’t this be easier? And wouldn’t it show that the UW is acting responsibly, with accountability, rather than growing the administrative layers more and more?

Just a thought. I don’t really have an axe to grind here.

I want to draw particular attention to the phrase I have highlighted above and ask the reader to keep this in mind.

I write to share a comment made by a faculty member at a department meeting I attended where the faculty discussed the proposed restructuring plan. The faculty member noted that this trend of having an ‘advocate’ in Washington to ‘establish a greater presence’ etc. comes dangerously close to realizing a process where some research or research areas are deemed worthy of funding, are recognized as posing “legitimate” questions, while others lack this “quality”; the judgment then rests not on the answers and insights research would provide of our world, but would reflect what was politically acceptable to support .

It seems quite clear to me that this proposed “strategy” element would affect what falls within the realm of academic inquiry because those troublesome and inconvenient questions about our world would likely be under-researched at best and un-researched at worst. Despite the Chancellor’s claim to the contrary that “it is not the job of the administration to decide what faculty will pursue in research and scholarship”, I think pursuing an organizational structure and policy that relies on such an “advocate” in Washington WOULD ABSOLUTELY dictate the research agenda of universities and the researchers who work in them. How could it not?

The heads controlled pay raises and a lot of other things. The faculty tended to be afraid of the unilateral discretion of the heads, and the heads in turn probably felt the same way about the deans. In short, the atmosphere was tense, and people who had complaints about the way things were being run kept their complaints to themselves or confided them only to trusted friends. Faculty meetings were an odd mix of run-of-the-mill business and subliminal politicking. Secret alliances were common.

When I had the chance to move to UW-Madison, I saw it first and foremost as a chance to escape that oppressive top-down environment. Actually starting here felt like a breath of fresh air. My new colleagues were egalitarian and collegial, and decisions were (and still are) made largely by consensus. I felt empowered to do useful things with and for the department without worrying about running afoul of someone higher up. I noticed that nobody bitched about the chair, because, after all, they elected him.

For all these reasons, I quickly came to feel very loyal to UW-Madison and its unabashed embrace of shared governance. I also noticed that UW-Madison had attracted a lot of other people with the same values as mine and that these tended to be creative, energetic scholars and researchers. I saw, and still see, a correlation.

If there’s a single factor in the present situation that most explains my gut reaction, it’s my perception that the provost is pursuing exactly the kind of unilateral, top-down leadership I thought I had escaped.

I had a hallway conversation recently with a colleague who is one of the most visible and productive researchers and teachers in our field. He, too, is extremely concerned about what’s happening. He said something like this: “If they succeed in taking away what we have had here, I’m not really sure I would want to work here anymore.” I understood what he meant.