Response to “More Thoughts from the Cellblock”

We have seen an erosion in class offerings on both campuses. Why? Enrollment is down.

In terms of credits, enrollment is down 3% compared to last Spring. The number of students has declined more significantly but they are (on average) taking more credits. Enrollment at almost every other MSNCU institutions has decreased

It could be due to simple mismanagement in the class scheduling process by a grossly inexperienced [interim] dean.

I (and the other Department Chairs) have worked directly with Dr. Wruck on course schedules. He's been doing an exemplary job.

It could be part of a bigger agenda to erode the liberal arts at SCC to shape us into a business training center.

This suggestion reflects a “Charting the Future” conspiracy theory for which there's no evidence whatseover.

We also have seen faculty who were granted tenure having their tenure revoked willy-nilly and being told they are back on probation.

This hasn't happened—it can't happen under the contract. Once an unlimited faculty member is off probation his or her “tenure” (which is an inaccurate term) cannot be revoked.

Why? The doom and gloomer in me says this is a tool to cut faculty ranks even further. And where is our so-called union when this is going on?

No LAS faculty have been laid off since Dr. Parker became President; to the contrary, three FTU faculty are being hired this academic year. The union has, in fact, pushed back against credit reductions for temporary faculty.

Think about it this way: if we offer classes, we might get more students to enroll! Do I want my children to attend a college that does not support liberal arts and where those offerings are slim?

The LAS offerings are hardly “slim.” In the past we've offered too many classes, including courses in disciplines which are not taught by FTU faculty. As a consequence, enrollment in many classes (including some of mine) have been unsustainably low. I agree that we should offer a variety of different courses which appeal to student interests—which is exactly what we're doing. I spent several hours with our Dean and Department Chairs today making sure we have a balanced schedule which covers all the MNTC goal areas.

The biggest problem I see with diversity at SCC is this: diversity is more than skin color and gender! We also cannot be fallacious in assuming that one’s skin color denotes experience and knowledge regarding diversity ... What of diversity relating to religion, sexual preference, or other ways that humans are inherently different from each other? … [W]e need to look at diversity as being one component of many. We cannot and should not be hiring people based solely upon their meeting a diverse status.

Do you have evidence that we've done this, or are you making assumptions based on incomplete information?

What of diversity of thought? Academic freedom has been assaulted through attacks on faculty. We were all warned that any email critical or questioning of the administration would be construed as a violation of MNSCU computer rules and regulations, with consequences.

I was warned about sending critical emails, and our state union rep informed Diann that the administration's position is correct. Academic freedom refers to what's said and taught in the classroom, not what's communicated using the state e-mail system.

I would argue that it is patently unethical to violate state laws at your whim. To spend gross amounts of the college’s limited money recklessly and without regard for the long term health of the environment.

Do you have evidence that state laws have been violated? MNSCU has audited SCC's budget and apparently disagrees. It's common for college presidents to receive generous relocation expenses. If you disagree with with this policy (as I do), your issue is with the Chancellor rather than Dr. Parker.

And now, Jay, it is your turn. In my opinion, it is unethical to be the leader of the union when so much of your time is spent politicking for the administration and defending their practices in our meetings. Step down, as you have lost any power you had and you are running the union into extinction.

Jay does not spend his time “politicking” for the administration. He has a good working relationship with Dr. Parker, mostly because she's been far more reasonable in accomodating faculty requests than the previous administration. If you want Jay to step down, you should step up by calling for his removal and running for the office yourself. If the majority of the faculty share your opinion (as you've repeatedly implied), why not pursue this course of action?

Other union leadership is as bad; choosing to maintain your friendly status with administrators rather than doing your job and confronting them is highly unethical. Either be a grievance rep or step down and be Anade’s buddy. You cannot have it both ways.

Have you been present at the numerous meetings Diann has had with faculty and/or members of the administration? I assume not, because they're confidential. Therefore you don't know what you're talking about and are basing your opinion on prejudicial assumptions.

I suppose some, such as Kurt, will espouse that I am unethical by blindly writing.

For once, we agree.

[Kurt's] attacks upon others speaking in dissent of Annette Parker and her cronies is, I feel unethical to the highest degree. Kurt went from being the voice of the people, speaking up when others dared not, to being a supporter of the administration. Why? He realized that tenure would not protect him. Free speech was stifled and a livelihood threatened, and he responded accordingly.

I deeply resent your characterization of my actions and motivations. I've changed my mind because I realized that the attacks on our union representatives and the administration were unfounded and counterproductive. However, I am not an uncritical supporter of the administration (nor is Jay or Diann). I still believe that there are problems at SCC which need to be addressed. In my view, they can only be addressed if the faculty are unified and act through the union. The situation is made far worse by wild accusations, rumor mongering, uncharitable assumptions and personal attacks.

The problem is that now he speaks out against those who now dare to write what he once wrote. Maybe we should pity him. He rails against those who rail against the system.

I appreciate the offer, but I don't need your pity. I'm criticizing the “radical fringe” because I think you're wrong and your tactics are harming the college—not because I'm afraid for my job. I'm “railing against” what I regard as irresponsible and inaccurate claims. My perspective has changed, but not my values or my ultimate goal. Unlike you, I've always been open and honest in arguing for my positions instead of remaining anonymous, even when I was highly critical of the administration. I encourage you to stand behind your bold claims and provide the evidence to back them up. Do your duty to your school.