It’s thoroughly disgusting when a University fires someone who has worked for them for more than 35 years. Their ‘crime’? Getting sick as a result of being abused at work. Despicable! (note: I am NOT talking about Mount Royal).

What will be done about it? Probably NOTHING. This is not new for this institution.

I quit a job there that I loved because the place is no longer safe for someone who is not willing to

1. lie
2. look the other way
3. be abused
4. admire the Emperor’s suit

I am teaching a course there this term as a favour. I really like the course. The students look like they will be interesting, and fun. The PLACE still makes me sick. Literally.

Why do they continue to do what they do? Because people let them. It REALLY is as simple as that.

Stanley Fish is really hit and miss for me: sometimes I agree with him, and other times really, really not. This is one of those times I agree:

I’ve always told people that they should assume that anything they put on the web should be considered public, whether it is on a public site or not. If you don’t want the information known, then don’t put it out there.

Thanks to modern data mining techniques, we can now predict whether or not you are gay by looking at your friends on Facebook.

That’s kind of interesting, though personally, I don’t really care if someone is gay or not. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) affect their ability to be a decent person.

On the other hand, I am FAR more interested in finding out whether they are honest or not;  loyal or not; bullies or not. THAT would be useful. I wonder if looking at someone’s FB friends can tell us that?

I have now lost track of how many people I *thought* were my friends, who have let me down by not standing up for honesty and integrity and for treating people decently and fairly. They always have an excuse, but the truth is, it is easier to lie than to be honest, and it is easier to be indifferent than decent. Cowardly, but definitely easier.

One thing I have learned is that people who defend someone who is dishonest or mean are a bad risk.

A righteous man is cautious in friendship, but the way of the wicked leads them astray. – Proverbs 12:26

At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy.

By now almost everyone online is familiar with the wonderful story of Susan Doyle.

There are many interesting dimensions to this story, like the one discussed by Henry Jenkins having to do with how quickly the world came to know about her (in How Susan Spread and What It Means). Like most people I’m sure, I too am happy for her current good fortune. It always makes me happy when something nice happens to someone – all the sweeter if they appear to be decent, deserving people. And there’s the rub, isn’t it?  We (i.e. the great unwashed) were very quick to pass judgment on this lady and then changed our judgements when we discovered she really could sing.

Well, here’s an article that offers another way to think about it: What if Susan Boyle Couldn’t Sing? by Dennis Polumbo

How would the story be different if her voice had been unremarkable, or even ‘worse’ (interesting how that seems an appropriate adjective) flat or scratchy or off?

What does this say about us? It makes me ashamed. I was caught up in the hubub too. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being happy for her. The problem lies in how we judged her beforehand, AND with the fact that somehow it was OK to do that.

Think about it.

Richly deserved: http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/05/university-of-calgary-in-alberta-canada.html

AND:

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/05/university-of-calgary-in-alberta-canada_21.html

One learns more from a good scholar in a rage than from a score of lucid and laborious drudges. - Rudyard Kipling

The University of Calgary says it cares about its students.

Let’s see,

“The U of C is pursuing the biggest single capital expansion in its history. Fuelled by Alberta’s nation-leading economic growth, the university has embarked upon a $1.5-billion plan to add capacity for 7,000 more students and a host of new teaching and research activities.”

From the U of Calgary website:

“Leading-edge teaching methods and technologies

A student-centred approach

The U of C’s high-quality undergraduate education is characterized by the synthesis of research, teaching and learning. We enhance our students’ experience by enabling them to take an inquiry-based approach through experiential learning — literally learning through experience. This leads to greater critical thinking skills, increased exposure to research methods, greater access to leading edge scholars, and it creates a more engaging, motivating learning environment for our students.” from http://www.ucalgary.ca/about

Sounds great, huh?

Say, have you EVER heard of a university that claims to be anything other than the bestest and most caringest?

And yet, instructors like Dr. Allison Dube don’t get paid enough to make ends meet, let alone prepare for retirement. Dr. Dube, one of the best teachers on campus, has won the Student’s Union Teaching Award THREE times in the last three years (which may be a first for anyone on campus, ever.). He is a Political Science sessional instructor who holds a PhD from the London School of Economics, and yet the university has steadfastly refused to recognize his value to the institution.

Hmmmm… what was that about “high-quality undergraduate education”? As someone who knows first hand what happens to faculty who try to stand up for students I would most strenuously advise people to NOT believe everything they read. This same institution that claims to espouse a student-centered approach criticized and then penalized me for such things as:

• allowing students to prove their competence through means other than high-stakes exams
• giving students choices about the assignments they did or flexible deadlines
• encouraging students to share, help each other and build a community of learners
• using performance-based assessments
• treating my students as individuals
  

Talk is cheap. So is webpage real estate – it is easy to post statements that people want to hear. Remember that just because they say it doesn’t make it true.

Here’s a way to get a feel for what the university is really about. Take a walk around campus sometime – do you see happy people? Excited students? A lively community? How many faculty offices do you pass where the people inside smile rather than scowl at you as you pass? For that matter, how many faculty keep their doors open? Are administrative staff friendly? How do they react when an error is pointed out? When was the last time you recall someone taking responsibility for something that is wrong and trying to fix it (instead of saying, “Too Bad, So sad.”, or trying to blame someone else)?

Although it is not new, I came across this today.
Corrosive Leadership (Or Bullying by Another Name): A Corollary of the Corporatised Academy?
by Margaret Thornton

The literature reveals that the incidence of bullying is increasing in corporate workplaces everywhere. While the data is scant, it suggests that bullying in universities is also on the increase. Interviews with Australian academics support this finding. It is argued that the trend has to be understood in light of the pathology of corporatisation, which is designed to make academics do more with less. The focus on productivity parallels the harassment to which workers in the private sector may be subjected in the hope that they will work harder and maximise profits. Avenues of redress are considered which show that dignitary harms remain inchoate as legal harms. While common law and anti-discrimination legislation regimes may occasionally offer a remedy to targeted individuals, it is averred that these avenues are incapable of addressing the causative political factors that induce corrosive leadership.

There were a few things that particularly resonated with me – sadly, I have first hand experience. It took them five years, but I finally had to leave a job I LOVED to save myself. From what I hear, if anything, the place I left is getting worse. Read the rest of this entry »

[My name is Katrin. And I am a scientist. ]

Note:  no disrespect is meant to any of the real 12-step programs.

1.        We admitted we were powerless over science—that our lives had become uncorrelated.

2.        Came to believe that an authority better published than ourselves could restore us to our senses.

3.        Made a decision to turn our data and our labs over to the care of professors emeriti /as we understood them/.

4.        Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our notes.

5.        Admitted to social constructivists, to ourselves, and to principal investigators of related projects the exact nature of our data.

6.        Were entirely ready to have journal referees remove all these defects of our submitted papers.

7.        Humbly asked those better funded than us to remove our shortcomings.

8.        Made a list of all persons we had corrected, and became willing to cite them in all our papers.

9.        Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure their annual reports.

10.    Continued to take personal inventory and when we were found out promptly corrected it.

11.    Sought through analysis and verification to improve our conscious contact with /real data/, asking only for validity in our sample and the power to publish it.

12.  Having had a rude awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to department heads and granting agencies, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

This time from Stephen Pinker:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/469317,CST-CONT-danger15.article

In defense of dangerous ideas

In every age, taboo questions raise our blood pressure and threaten moral panic. But we cannot be afraid to answer them.