I am sure Tony has posted this himself, but it is worth linking to here.
Here is today's story
Interestingly enough, the newspaper didn't get a hold of anyone in the UW adminstration, even though they promise more details than the blogosphere. It almost looks like they didn't directly talk to Tony about this.
They interview Gordon Hintz and Burk Tower. They both said they had discussed with their supervisory types. Somehow, the Provost's warning isn't relevant if they have talked with less important administrators.
It appears that there is nothing to dispute Palmeri's claim that he was singled out by the administration, for some unknown reason. Perhaps the administration will explain themselves, but I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think the Northwestern article cleared up a lot and made a good point that the Tower, Hintz, and Palmeri circumstances are different. The letter Tony received dealt with a University policy and was intended to apply to his teaching load this fall semester, if he were to run. Hintz works under a different part-time contract and isn't teaching in the fall and Tower is running for a part-time office. It makes sense to me. I am not sure what Tony is getting all third person about.
So why did Tony receive anything?
My guess is that the university administration is overly sensitive about about the actions of faculty in front of this legislature - where one example can be held up as a reason to punish the entire system. Remember when the Northwestern took a cheapshot at Tony by suggesting he does not have the time to teach and do all that he does? Even through they were wrong, it is the kind of thing an asshole like GOP Sen. Ted Kanavas would use against the UW system in the future.
Dear Anonymous,
Here is what I am getting "all third person about." Part of the System policy specifically hightlighted to me by Provost Earns is this:
3. "If a staff member chooses to enter a primary campaign, he or she, in consultation with the appropriate department chairman and dean, or director, should determine whether or not this activity will impair or encroach on performance of university duties. If it is determined that the activity will have an adverse effect, a reduced-time appointment should be arranged for the period of the primary campaign."
The only person to whom that paragraph applies at the moment is professor Burk Tower.
Part-time instructors seeking political office are expected to be familiar with the rules also; indeed Mr. Hintz seems to acknowledge as much by claiming that he had a conversation with his chair about the matter. But the fact is that Gordon has been a declared candidate since 2004 and received no letter from the administration, Burk IS a candidate and received no letter from the administration, while I am NOT a candidate and DID receive a letter.
Here it is in first person: I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that we should all play by the same rules, a sentiment that Provost Earns in a private email said that he shares.
Tony, you just don't seem to get it. Hintz has been PART TIME the entire time he has been on payroll at UWO, so any thing that he chooses to do during the half of his time he's not expected to be doing UWO related things is not their concern. He DID talk to his supervisor to make sure that he didn't have to worry.
For the record, no one should ever have the right to "go third person." It's a horribly pompous, pretentious, and annoying thing to have to do, and my respect for anyone who feels that they need to put themselves on that sort of level completely disapears.
That being said, good luck with whatever you do--Just please, stay off your high horse.
All of the anonymouses here don't get it.
The administration is sending a signal to Tony that they are going to (overly?) strictly enforce the rules if he chooses to get involved in the next campaign.
The preemptive letter sending by the provost makes it clear that they are unhappy with Tony's political activism.
Even if the situation didn't apply to other employees (which it clearly does), the Northwestern's story demonstrates its happiness with seeing Tony criticized. Just like "news" stories that "demonstrate" that closed meetings are legal, this story was meant to get the word out that Tony is somehow on the verge of violating university rules.(And Stew is glad to make sure everyone knows.)
Maybe Tony or his campaigners have violated the rules in the past and they no longer want to put up with it? If you search hard enough, it is amazing what you can find left on University servers.
You can make up whatever justifications you want for the administration, but they are not openly making any claims.
We can only guess at the motivation for singling Tony out--I tend to believe the worst when it comes to administrative types!
Aren't most "administrative types" former professors? So, should we believe the worst about professors as well? They just didn't get promoted yet.
Touche! It is true that administrators are usually (though not always) professors. However, choosing to join the administrative side of the academy is not a promotion, but a radical change of venue.
Once you become an administrator, you no longer have contact with students, you no longer teach, and do very little research. You also are forced to make decisions about budgets, public relations, etc.
Administrators face an entirely different world of problems than I do. Often, their interpretations run directly contrary to those of us regular faculty members.
In this current atmosphere of budget cuts and viscious Christianist attacks emanating from Madison, administrators may make choices (like trying to discourage Palmeri from running) that are expedient, but not good for the university in the long run.
It is difficult to maintain your principles under constant attack, especially for those who chose to leave traditional faculty life for shuffling papers.
Yes, the real world is a tough place. Something that it is about time for Palmeri to learn.
Post a Comment