ACTA's Must-Reads
« Celebrating diversity at ASU | Main | Northern Kentucky rethinks speech »
Accountability in the classroom
One of the most knotty issues in higher education today centers on how to balance the competing prerogatives of professors' academic freedom to teach as they see fit and students' right to learn. Studies documenting the overwhelmingly left-of-center political affiliations of faculties have suggested a corresponding problem with politicized classrooms, but have not proven it. Lawsuits in Missouri, Washington, and New York have laid out the kinds of problems that arise when professors cross the pedagogical line, but don't themselves document the extent of the problem. Studies by ACTA show that students find their educational experiences to be routinely marred by professors who don't keep their politics out of the classroom, and that even course descriptions--which function as both advertisements to attract students to courses and provisional contracts with those students--frequently reveal a tendentiousness that is incompatible with intellectual good faith.
But what happens in classrooms themselves has not been widely or consistently documented. There are good reasons for this, some having to do with academic freedom, and some having to do with administrative complexity. But the end result is that students tend to be left unprotected and without recourse when their professors overstep.
In a pathbreaking move, CUNY is working to change that. Robin Wilson of The Chronicle of Higher Education has the details:
Trustees of the City University of New York have established a new procedure to handle student complaints alleging faculty misconduct in the classroom and in other university-related settings. The procedure, which CUNY's faculty union opposes, covers student complaints about professors' "incompetent or inefficient service, neglect of duty, physical or mental incapacity, and conduct unbecoming a member of the staff."Students must file complaints within 30 days of an alleged incident. If the complaint cannot be resolved informally, the procedure provides for an investigation by a department chair or other senior faculty member or administrator. If a professor is found guilty of misconduct, a letter can be placed in his or her personnel file, or the university may decide to pursue disciplinary action.
The policy says university officials respect professors' academic freedom and don't want to interfere with that "as it relates to the content or style of teaching activities." But the policy adds: "At the same time, the university recognizes its responsibility to provide students with a procedure for addressing complaints about faculty treatment of students that are not protected by academic freedom and are not covered by other procedures."
Noting that ACTA's work has helped create the conditions that make such a policy possible, Wilson goes on to describe the debate that has surrounded CUNY's new procedure. In a five-hour hearing held Monday, Wilson notes, "students generally testified in support of the new procedure and faculty members testified against it." Faculty worried that such a policy would have a "chilling" effect, and would interfere with professors' ability to hold meaningful classroom discussion. Students countered that they need a procedure for filing complaints against teachers who disrespect students or who don't foster a classroom environment that welcomes opposing views.
The result was a revised policy that stressed the importance of preserving teachers' academic freedom and that outlined examples of the kinds of behaviors that would constitute grounds for complaint.
Debate about the policy continues at InsideHigherEd, where commenters register skepticism about the need for such a policy and about the ways in which it might be misused.
Posted by acta online on February 01, 2007 at February 1, 2007 10:11 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/283
Comments
Oh, great, more encouragement for the students to whine about such things as "inefficient service". With the possibility of a letter of reprimand or disciplinary action. As if there isn't enough incentive already for the professors to suck up to the students. More grade inflation, anybody? Perhaps the professors should be required to wear dunce caps?
Posted by: Mike at February 1, 2007 02:52 PM
THAT'S WHY THERE IS THE S.A.T., G.R.E., M.C.A.T., ET AL.
Thank (supreme being) there are standardized tests. Those fourth-tier minds, facing that test, wind up scoring in the 30th percentile. Proof's in the pudding -- a wrong answer in math or spelling is STILL a wrong answer.
Posted by: B.D. at February 1, 2007 09:29 PM
B.D. Fourth-tier minds? What pray tell are you talking about? What is the relation to the article?
Posted by: Mike at February 1, 2007 10:33 PM
"Oh, great, more encouragement for the students to whine about such things as "inefficient service".
You must have personal information about CUNY that the rest of us lack: How do you know that the students are "whining?" Over the past decades, I have known many people who frequently cancel class, take months -- quite literally -- to look at papers, fail to hold office hours, and refuse to answer student phone and email inquiries until cornered in class. Would you argue that students have no right to state their opinion that such conduct is wholly unprofessional and improper? Maybe that is why CUNY has instituted the new process: It may well be that it is having the problems that I describe. What evidence do you have that the students here are simply "whining?"
Posted by: Federal Dog at February 2, 2007 07:01 AM
Dog: How do I know students whine? Because I've taught literally thousands of them. Especially in the lower-level courses, maybe a third of them do little else, until they get their C or D or F and find out they're not going to be doctors or patent attorneys or whatever.
Is your experience as a professor different?
What you do describe does not go on in my department. If it's really that bad for you, I'd recommend looking for a better place.
As for:
"investigation by a department chair or other senior faculty member or administrator"
can that not already be done informally? That is certainly how it's done where I teach (not CUNY).
But here, the department head doesn't put out an advertisement saying "Come complain to me whenever the professor does something not to your liking."
Posted by: Mike at February 2, 2007 11:52 AM
FOURTH-TIER QUESTION
Fourth-tier mind -- student who graduates from lower-tier program with 3.5/4.0, then wonders why she/he only scores 920 on GRE. (Hint: it is due to the worthless crap she/he was taught!)
Thank God for standardized tests. Grades are no longer an effective measure of ability.
Posted by: B.D. at February 2, 2007 11:58 AM
Yes, yes: I know that kids whine. I am asking how you know that the process was instituted because of mere whining, as opposed to problems that legitimately necessitate administrative intervention.
BTW, I have witnessed the conduct described above in different departments at three different universities over the course of decades, not in one place. That WOULD be a hell of a department.
Posted by: Federal Dog at February 2, 2007 04:15 PM
How do I know about CUNY? I don't, I've never been inside the place. Maybe it's a dump, as some people say. Maybe it's as bad as the article implies it might be. It's not like that where I'm at. It just sounds fishy to me, that's all. It sounds like another way to water down standards until there's nothing left.
Maybe the trustees at CUNY know more than I do. I wonder, though, how much time they spend in a classroom.
Posted by: Mike at February 2, 2007 05:07 PM