Once Upon a Time: A Tale of Faculty Bullying

In light of the recent faculty satisfaction survey and the lack of an accompanying staff satisfaction survey, I wanted to paint a picture of some of the things that staff experience while working here at UNCG. It is unfortunate, but bullying is not confined to the upper administration and if we are looking to recreate UNCG as a positive working environment we can neither assume inherent and homogenous benevolence on the part of one part of our community nor complete and unanimous wrong doing on another.

Too many people assumed that by removing Linda Brady, all that had gone wrong at UNCG would disappear. However, there has still been absolutely no acknowledgement by either those who have managed to cling to power or by those who have come to assume it of the wrongs that were done. The absence of any such profession of truth has left some of these bullies with the feeling that their particular brand of abuse is sanctioned and that they enjoy absolute immunity to continue unchecked.

Let me tell you a story:

Once upon a time, in a department not far away there was an administrative assistant named Cordelia*. Cordelia had graciously served the department and was a dedicated and hard working member of the community known as Uncglandia. She made phone calls, scheduled appointments, supervised a band of student workers, and generally made herself most useful. She was pleasant and polite and her value was obvious to all. Well, to nearly all...

You see, in this otherwise idyllic department in Uncglandia there was a creature who could only raise herself up by pushing others down. On the outside, this creature looked very much like any one else, but all those who had come into contact with her over the years had found themselves in a desperate struggle to maintain their sanity in the face of her unpredictable and irrational assaults. Unfortunately, this creature had imbibed of the potion known as 'tenure' and it had caused her become nearly invincible and to further swell with pride.

Innocent Cordelia had come to this department unsuspecting of the nature of this creature. Many of those who had been given this same potion had used its protective power to fight valiantly, to explore bravely, or to create beauty. And so, Cordelia was surprised to find herself the object of its wrath. She began to be ever more fearful as the slightest wind could blow the creature in to breathe fire down her throat, leaving her in tears and the recipient of sympathy from kind, but equally powerless, graduate students.

Whenever Cordelia tried to answer the creature's questions or respond to its baseless accusations, the creature put out her hand and silenced her with a gesture born of her power. The vile words and unreasonable demands could be heard echoing through the hallways, infecting everyone with their poison. It was clear that no matter where this creature resided, it would bring naught but terror, trial, and confusion.

One day, after a particularly bad bout of burning had been visited on Cordelia, a young and noble graduate student dared to comfort Cordelia in her sorrow.

"Is there nothing that can be done to stop these outrages? This abuse of your goodness surely cannot go unchecked!" The graduate student declared.

"Alas," sighed Cordelia, "I believe I must resign myself to my lot as the creature has imbibed from the fountain of tenure. Sadly, there is nothing to be done except for me to contemplate my escape to somewhere more peaceful."

Turning away, she remembered all of the others who had been lost in this same way. Uncglandia was growing weaker as vibrant and vital members of its community were driven to flee from the onslaught of this creature and others like her. Some had appealed to the grand high Vice Chancellor's for help but it had been discovered that they were nothing if not the very source of the corruption in the land. They sanctioned evil actions and punished those who dared cry out and they remained afoot, despite the mysterious disappearances that had troubled their ranks.

I ask you, dear reader, what is to be done? Is Cordelia to be allowed to suffer? Is there no power that can rise and speak the magic incantation that will either banish or cure these terrible creatures?

To be continued...

-----
*names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Officially Discovering What We Already Knew

There's nothing like a blinding flash of the obvious.

Last year, UNCG administered a survey known as the COACHE survey in order to make an effort to measure faculty satisfaction. Just on the off chance that outbursts, protests, letters, the AAUP survey, position statements, and general conversation didn't REALLY represent what faculty were feeling.
If there's one thing I always say about the faculty is that they are uncommunicative; it's just so hard to get them to really open up and talk...

In any case, Provost Dunn created a PowerPoint that summarizes the findings from this survey. Here are the absolutely unsurprising results:

It turns out, faculty are generally satisfied with each other and their departmental leaders (although that falls off a bit at full professor - probably not difficult to understand why that might be). Faculty are generally satisfied with tenure and promotion policies and procedures.

This next one, and this is the doozy, so let me say it clearly: FACULTY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY DISSATISFIED WITH SENION LEADERSHIP AT UNCG.

I'll give you a moment to get over your lack of surprise.

So, Brady is gone, although threatens to return to the classroom to bring her trademark wit, warmth, and wisdom. Imogene Cathey is gone, Paul Mason is gone, Edna Chun is gone, etc. etc. However, there are still plenty of sharks left over and it seems to me like it might be time to take a real long, hard look at them.

I'd say it's probably high time that anybody in executive administration didn't just get to continue to coast. The default assumption shouldn't be that they are doing fine. Instead, they should have to prove themselves, reapply for their position, demonstrate that their overwhelming failure to gain the confidence of the entire faculty isn't just something that can be brushed off as if unimportant.

And it would be difficult to imagine that a staff satisfaction survey (which was never administered) would show anything except for another section of our community that finds senior leadership to have performed well below expectations.

If an academic department, or heaven forbid a center, were to receive this kind of feedback, the entire area would be under review with the threat of closure/dismissal/defunding - why should senior leadership get a pass? That's the fat at the university and yet we act as if they are indispensable and absolutely immune.

If Gilliam wants to start from anywhere but in a hole, he's going to have to clean up this mess that was left behind before him. The message is clear.

Now, I'm just going to wait for the survey to determine if it's a nice day outside, so I can have my fill of finding out what I already know.

Dear Chancellor Gilliam

We have high hopes for you.

That's what I'm hearing from people all over campus. Remember what we have been through, remember to be one of us, remember to listen and to speak frankly, remember to seek wise counsel and heartfelt advice, and remember that disagreement doesn't equal enmity.

We are ready for a new era, but we still haven't put the past behind us and that will be your very first task. We can't just let it drop into the depths of our memories to fester; truth and reconciliation can move us all forward. It's the best way for you to understand where we have been and where we would like to go.

Brady was only one person, part of a structure, and that structure needs to be removed, cleared out and redesigned. We are not afraid of hard work, of careful study, of deep communication. I hope that you can be brave, courageous enough to lead us through this because the other side is a better place.

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

Of Blogs and Truths and Other Things

When I read my messages this morning, someone had sent me an entertaining suggestion for the best route to the truth. They are of the opinion that the UNCG police department either doesn't have the guns I wrote about yesterday and/or that it is not so out of the ordinary if they do since we are post-Columbine, post-VA Tech. In either case, they suggested that my blog post wasn't accurate and that I had been lax because:

"You could have asked the department to get the (updated) facts. "

While I am deeply appreciative of their efforts to get me the facts, something I am always trying to have a handle on, they have hit on exactly the problem. Asking questions here does not get you answers. I have spent years asking questions and the difficult is that I NEVER get answers. There are so many incidences where simple facts could smooth out any number of apparently gordian knots and yet, information is guarded as if it is a dangerous commodity, not to be trusted in the hands of the little people. 

The person who wrote was a graduate of UNCG and, I have to admit, an excellent writer. They quote (from a source I could not identify) that the six weapons in question were M-16 rifles that were given to them for free as part of the Law Enforcement Support Services and that they don't have them anymore:

"The 'found that the surplus weapons did not meet' their 'needs because of their overall length and began phasing them out for more suitable ones. Those six weapons were transferred to another North Carolina law enforcement agency and are no longer in' their 'possession.'"

If that is a statement made by someone on the UNCG police to a concerned citizen, then they are certainly not using the same spokesperson as the rest of the university, because even the simplest question gets a resounding 'no comment' slapped on it here. 

However, I'm still confused because the rebuttal states that the weapons were free whereas the documents obtained by the Marshall Project show a cost of just under $3,000. 

I am glad to hear they don't have them any more...if that's actually the case. I don't know a lot about guns and the response references M-16 rifles while the information from the pentagon references a 5.56 millimeter rifle - those might be exactly the same thing for all I know since the M-16 shoots 5.56 mm ammunition and holds 30 rounds as in the pentagon description. 

The UNCG police department has administration and it has staff, just like any other organization. At its helm has been a chief perfectly willing to arrest UNCG employees for failing to be as sneaky as those they worked for. I don't think a little extra inspection of their other decisions and processes is unwarranted.

And for those of you still hung up on my failure to be a journalist, your corrections and information are always welcome, but remember: this is a blog. 

Feel free to start your own.

Hope Springs Eternal

We at UNCG have had very high hopes for our Provost (and current acting Chancellor) Dana Dunn and for Charlie Maimone, the Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs.

There have been a series of "unfortunate" events...

Other than Dunn’s spate of hysterics at the last faculty meeting in which she apparently mistook me for a character from Lemony Snicket, she generally seems to be much more reasonable than the cabal of cronies with which we have been burdened for the last seven years. People on campus still seem genuinely hopeful that she represents a kinder, gentler administration and I hope they are right.

The same sort of hopefulness was floating in the air in regards to Charlie Maimone (despite the unfortunate possibilities present when rhyming his name with “My Money”). His first strike was a vote for a totally closed search, in direct contrast to the hybrid model for which the faculty senate had unanimously voted. However, he quickly fell of the radar again amid the fireworks being set in the rest of the executive administration.

Only now, with Edna Chun’s summary dismissal and her complaint is his name rising to the surface again.

The jury is out. Chun says he created a hostile work environment and labels him as “instrumental” in the firings of Carpen, Wilson, & English (the UNCG3). Now, that’s a new twist in the plot, isn’t it?

Is this a woman desperately clawing at others as she falls from grace? Or is there something more here that needs attention?

Shockingly, Maimone has not responded to the allegations (probably he has received coaching from UNCG’s spokesperson extraordinaire Joe“no comment” Gallehugh.)

In the same allegations, Paul Mason continues to look like the bull in the china shop that everybody already knew he was, but now somebody has actually said it out loud (or in print, which is as loud as we need).  This is the first time that anybody in the upper administration at UNCG has admitted that there might have just been even the tiniest bit of wrongdoing on Mason’s part.

Those left standing in upper admin and on the board of trustees at UNCG have been repeatedly told that there needs to be some truthtelling in order for there to be reconciliation. Generally, the response has been to clamp down completely (for example, to date, the letter that faculty member Hannah Mendoza wrote to the BoT has gone unanswered).

It looks like the truth is going to come out no matter what. The only question remaining is: how badly do they want to be part of the reconciliation?

The first step to forgiveness is admitting that you have a problem.

We’re all ears.

Defining Data at UNCG or Looking for a Single Version of the Truth

First, I have to admit that the title is not mine. I have nicked it from a capstone project presentation created by Sherri MacCheyne (whose name may ring a bell).

You may remember Sherri for a variety of things, but the one relevant here is her selection to be a member of the 2015 class of the UNCG Leadership Institute. Setting aside the idea held by some that she should not have been included given her role in the UNCG3 scandal, the capstone project she created has been uploaded as a youtube video.

Ironically, the video (whose artistic merits I will not address here…as evidence of my compassionate character) begins by stating that a university has many versions of the truth, all of which are dependent upon a specific definition’s use. For example, asking the registrar’s office how many full time students are enrolled versus asking the financial aid office may yield different numbers. The narrator states:

“So you can see why it might be a little difficult to understand, to the outside world why these numbers are different and this could cause and this could cause the university to be viewed as either lying or not knowing what they are talking about. And this is a real problem.”

I heartily concur.

When the university is perceived by the public as either incompetent or deliberately misleading, we have a serious and profound problem on our hands, regardless of whether or not we believe those perceptions are accurate.

MacCheyne proposed as part of her project to make a list of these kinds of terms and create a single definition for them that could be used to communicate across the university so that we were all working with the same understanding.

Excellent!

So, for example:

My definition of a hostile work environment is one in which my boss deliberately attempts to intimidate me, yells at me, belittles me in front of others, makes me cry, and generally makes me feel worthless.

Edna Chun apparently defines a hostile work environment as only being one in which a white supervisor deliberately attempts to intimidate me, yells at me, belittles me in front of others, makes me cry, and generally makes me feel worthless only and specifically because of my minority status (ie not just because the supervisor is an asshole) AND I have filed an official complaint.

This might lead Edna Chun to answer the question: “Was there any evidence of a hostile work environment?” by saying, “No.” Whereas, I might have said, “Yes.” Thus leading people to believe two very different versions of the truth exist side by side. Sure a bit of clarification such as Chun stating that there were no “official complaints” or that the only ones who complained were white people and so it was not necessary to protect them might have made all the difference.

So you can see why working from a single definition might be extremely helpful both to those employed at the university and for those in whose eyes we hope to maintain a positive image.

You could almost say, “egregiously” so.

Almost.