@vu72 As a long-time tenured professor and one who has served on numerous hiring, promotion, and tenure granting committees, I sympathize with the intentions of the new law, especially in the current academic atmosphere.
The details of the bill are separated into two distinctive sections: the hiring or pre-tenure stage and the post-tenure stage. I can see the first part passing muster because there already are many ways in which political considerations and in-class practices impact hiring and granting or denying tenure. Unfortunately, the reality is that professors are subjected to political litmus tests from the application requirements through to the peer tenure review process. The post-tenure stage would be more difficult to police and enforce since tenure naturally carries greater freedom from exterior restrictions and influences.
I feel like one would have a difficult time attempting to prove that they were fired because of political beliefs, and even then most people I know would prefer to keep their political affiliations private. I cannot speak for everyone, but I feel like you would have a breach of privacy issue before an issue of being fired because you like red over blue.
I feel like one would have a difficult time attempting to prove that they were fired because of political beliefs, and even then most people I know would prefer to keep their political affiliations private. I cannot speak for everyone, but I feel like you would have a breach of privacy issue before an issue of being fired because you like red over blue.
It happens all the time. To begin, at many universities, including VU, applicants for teaching positions are required to provide a DEI statement in which they express support and offer evidence of activity advocating DEI policies inside the classroom or outside through social justice and political actions. If a candidate cannot or does not include such a statement, the application is discarded.
I was on a hiring panel where a good friend and one of the most respected professors at VU actually warned committee members that he thought one of the interviewed candidates "might be a Republican." I can't imagine the predicament of someone undergoing the promotion or tenure process who has openly acknowledged voting for Trump. Also, remember that being denied tenure is the equivalent of being fired.
That is absolutely absurd that someone has to advocate through prior actions, in regards to DEI. I fully get and understand that Professors need to be on the lookout for discrimination that might occur in their classrooms, but advocating is a completely different beast. In my role, I am on board with our enterprise DEI objectives, to make sure that our hiring is representative of the talent communities and locations that we hire, as well as how it impacts our end product in providing a more diverse selection of channels for folks to listen, but that doesn't mean I need to be out there advocating in my personal time.
Here is an example of DEI expectations from academic job applicants in required diversity statements by colleges as outlined by the University of Pennsylvania:
DEI is another nail in the coffin of what used to be a great academic system. As with many other historical endeavors it started on a glorious path of good intentions and slowly and steadily steered toward intellectual Hell. I myself am guilty for not seeing the writing on the wall decades ago.
And then came the revelation. I found myself one day thinking: this person was pushed back on the candidate lists for the job because of a certain biological organ. And from that moment I committed to never be in a hiring committee ever again (not that will there be a need for one anytime soon, the way things go here)
Very interesting story from The Torch on cost cutting and future campus changes:
https://www.valpotorch.com/news/article_391fcf90-0920-11ef-8323-53edda1cf043.html
It's pushing my nostalgia buttons to read that Lankenau, Scheele, and Meier Halls will be demolished. I had more classes in Meier than any other VU building.
Very Interesting article. Should boost the schools reputation if successfully applied.
The University files petition with the court to move forward on the art sale:
The University files petition with the court to move forward on the art sale:
The administration hits another low point. First, it attacks Brauer, a beloved university figure, for his actions that previously had been praised for decades by the university, so much so that the museum is named after him: "The university claims in its petition that the O’Keeffe and Hassam paintings don’t fit with the collection as established by Sloan and that Richard Brauer knew as much when he authorized the purchase of the O’Keeffe in 1962." Second, it finally admits those objecting to the sale were right about the conditions for sale, but the object now is to circumvent those stipulations through legal loopholes: "The petition seeks to modify the trust established by the late Percy H. Sloan, which provided the paintings or the funding for them, to allow for the sale. Under that trust, the paintings could only be sold if the funds were reinvested into the museum’s collection."
The petition also dishonestly states economic facts by falsely suggesting the artworks are too expensive to maintain and ignoring that the Friends of Art would happily support their retention: "the cost to renovate the museum to securely store the paintings would cost $50,000 to $100,000, with museum security guards and front desk staff costing $150,000 in salaries annually." By this false logic the university would need to shut down the museum altogether because the remaining artworks also have a multi-million dollar value. They would also have to close non-revenue sports teams as too costly.
On top of this, the administration takes such an action at a time prospective students are still deciding on a college, and it releases into the public media again negative issues about "declining enrollment" and a budget "deficit." This is definitely not the way to improve public relations.
If the sale of art was just to make a few bucks, I would be opposed, however, the art is being sold to fund much needed renovations to campus housing. Do I agree with how the school is handling the sale, no, I don't understand why they need to go through these measures to sell when just saying "Hey, we need to improve the school, can we sell some art?" Would most likely work just fine to alums. I would also be upset if the entire museum was being 86'ed, but this is simply not the case as far as I know. I think the school can afford to let a few art pieces go if it means the on campus experience would be improved.
If the sale of art was just to make a few bucks, I would be opposed, however, the art is being sold to fund much needed renovations to campus housing. Do I agree with how the school is handling the sale, no, I don't understand why they need to go through these measures to sell when just saying "Hey, we need to improve the school, can we sell some art?" Would most likely work just fine to alums. I would also be upset if the entire museum was being 86'ed, but this is simply not the case as far as I know. I think the school can afford to let a few art pieces go if it means the on campus experience would be improved.
The problem is that the alumni and friends of the Art Museum didn't say "fine" when the idea of selling for much needed dorm improvements came up. Instead there was a hue and cry from those folks including suing the University over what they perceived to be a violation of the intent of the original Trust established to purchase and protect art pieces.
As for the museum being 86'ed, there are over 5000 pieces in the collection.
Well then there are over 5000 art pieces still being protected and preserved. I don't understand how you can formulate an argument about protecting these pieces when their sale is going to go towards building better accommodations for students. The school is an institution of higher learning first not an art museum.
