I have been thinking about Professors Rushing and Whittle's recent
unhappiness with, respectively,  faculty governance that  ignores the
committee system, and how our deliberations are too parliamentary.  I agree
with the latter in that most cases an informal approach is more efficient,
but it presupposes trust and respect based on experience.  When critical and
controversial issues are at stake, informed trust and guarded  skepticism
are required, especially when the issues are not clear.

For example, the recent discourse between Professors Hiestand and Dumas on
the idea of a lottery to enhance state revenue raises issues and
interpretations that cannot but help us in making an informed decision.
Their open debate was very useful, allowing us to see different ways of
thinking. This year at UTC we have seen both the budget process and
facilities management open to the community, and our past budget problems
have been addressed in a frank and open manner by the Chancellor.  These are
all welcome developments.

I think that part of our problem in dealing with SOT (sort of tenure) is a
certain lack of openness in the process.  Yes, input was requested, but
little public discourse ensued to explore the issues.  Apparently some ideas
were tested with Knoxville, but we still do not know which ones were
rejected.  Unlike the lottery issue, we struggle to understand and form an
opinion without benefit of debate. Instead of an exchange of ideas, we have
an exchange of parliamentary tactics as if we were playing chess, instead of
considering what constitutes the very life of a university, the free
exchange of ideas.

I was reminded of this in the latest Foreign Affairs (78:2), where a piece
by Berman and McNamara attacks the power and independence of the new
European Central Bank. They conclude that ".…democracy as a system has
consistently beaten its competitors - not despite having decision-makers
accountable to their publics, but largely because of it. Openness and
democratic control sometimes produce mistakes and embarrassment, but on
balance they also produce moderation, success, and - most important -
legitimacy."

Legitimacy is important if we want to maintain even the fiction of  "shared
governance" in the UT system.  Is it any wonder that we are not happy with
the Trustee mandate or the implementation process?  What real choices do we
have?
Perhaps more than the new rules themselves, our greatest loss is the sense
of control over our own destiny.  A recent study, not yet published
(available at [log in to unmask]), suggests that "subjective well-being"
is effected more by democratic institutions than even income - although we
have seen little improvement in that.

Bruno Frey and Alois Sturzer surveyed 6,000 Swiss, who live in 26 cantons
with varying degrees of citizen participation, asking them "How satisfied
are you with your life as a whole these days?" They compared  the response
with both conventional economic and demographic information, and then with
"direct democracy" data.

Traditionally, such happiness surveys show higher scores for those employed,
earning high income, married,  couples without children, well-educated,
female, white, self-employed, over-thirty, and retired.  But only in federal
Switzerland is it possible to isolate the effect of democracy because
cross-country comparisons of political institutions also contain many other
variables. 

The above variables were important in the Swiss study, especially
unemployment, but income effect was small and statistically weak. But the
impact of democracy (each canton was ranked) was strong, far more important
than other factors. And it wasn't the outcome that improved morale, it was
participation in the process.

Here in Tennessee UT faculty thought they had a role in the university
system, but the way the Trustee mandate was presented and the confined
limits of implementation put paid to the concept of shared governance.  No
wonder we are not as happy as the Swiss.

Richard Rice
History                           Please scroll down…


















This is a Raven test!

Recently it has been said that Raven is not a good forum for debate or
sharing information. I am curious about that, and  I think it would be
useful if we all found out more.  Therefore, I am conducting the following
simple test using the message above and its timing as the ideal test of the
system. My survey is based 
on the following assumptions:

1. Everyone is probably tired of the SOT debate, so the trash urge will be
strong.
2. Some of you are tired of another message from Richard Rice.
3. Being finals week, most faculty will be on campus, but pressed for time.
4. The message is rather long.

Here is how it will work: If you read this far in spite of the above
disincentives, please hit the reply key and simply write "read message"
(other comments are welcome) and I will put your name into a drawing
(incentive will be $50 out of my pocket, although maybe institutional
research will compensate me…in my dreams.  At least it will be a research
deduction). I will announce the total number of responses and the prize
winner (via Raven, of course) on Wednesday,  May 12th, but you must reply by
5:00 P.M. on May 5th (I am posting this just before 8:00 A.M. on May 3rd, so
that is three working days, a reasonable time for faculty grading exams and
staff to get around to their Email). 

To be a real test of Raven, *please do not tell anyone else*, even those who
work in your area (this is *not* a test of the grapevine).  Mum's the word.
If you happen to see me on campus, I know nothing. Do not even ask a friend
if they have read my message above. Remember, if you tell people to respond
who have not happened across the survey by reading on Raven this far, your
chances of winning the $50 are less and it will comprise this experiment. 

I hope you will cooperate so we can all find out something useful about this
system of campus communication.  If anyone spills the beans, I will withdraw
my prize offer, and we all will probably find out who is the spoil-sport.
 
I include staff in the survey and the drawing, because they are equally
essential (although poorly paid) to the working of the university, and their
knowledge of campus issues and their morale is just as important - maybe
more so - than that of the faculty.  Thanks in advance for your participation.

 Richard Rice (again)