<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#606420;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#606420">
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Dear colleagues:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>So okay, my self-imposed moratorium on writing emails (made last week)
didn’t last long (!), but in light of John’s comments and given
that I’m the one who placed the motion in question on the agenda of
Monday’s meeting, I feel I have to respond.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I actually share some of John’s concerns about the proposed
change in chair selection, for reasons similar to, if not identical with, the
ones he puts forth. I don’t claim (and never did) that the change will
usher in a utopian reign or prove to be a panacea for all our current ills
– and I’m even willing to concede the possibility that certain
unfortunate consequences might result from it. Nevertheless, given the
events of the past months, it seems clear to me that taking the selection of
department chair into our own hands is the lesser (BY FAR!) of two evils, and a
necessary course of action if we ever want to be able to look at ourselves in
the mirror again without cringing with embarrassment.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>My motion was deliberately couched in the broadest terms, to avoid prejudging
the specific procedures we might want to adopt as a way of choosing the
chair. In fact, there is nothing in my motion that would prevent
implementation of John’s preferred method of regular rotation of senior
faculty (which I happen to agree with in principle). The nightmarish
spectre John evokes, of a tumultuous election with competing slates of
candidates giving demagogic campaign speeches and promising three SUVs in every
garage to those willing to vote for them, strikes me as the mother of all reductio(s)
ad absurdum. Need I point out that it bears no resemblance whatever to what
actually happens in those departments that choose their own chairs?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>It frankly boggles my mind how quickly we are willing to forgive and
forget inept and/or outrageous behavior on the part of administrators (not only
Martin’s, but Jury’s as well) and how little it takes for us to be
appeased by the scraps they eventually deign to throw at us. Yes, hip hip
hooray, Martin finally did choose an interim chair – two months after the
decision should have been made and after he had (illegally) placed the
department in de facto receivership (under himself) and created an incredible
amount of confusion and uncertainty. And for that we’re supposed to
feel grateful and relieved – not to mention confident that from hereon in
he will make good decisions in a competent and timely fashion???!!!
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Even apart from the unconscionable length of time it took Martin to
choose an interim (or even an acting!) chair, there is also the little matter
of the method he used to make his decision. Apparently Martin thinks the
way to go about such a task is to call into his office the 2 or 3 people he
views as synonymous with “the department” and try to strong-arm
each in turn to accept the position on his terms. He clearly sees no need
to consult with or invite input from other faculty members – particularly
(I can’t help but notice) if they don’t happen to have a
penis. Perhaps he thinks the rest of us are on the janitorial staff and
teach courses to supplement our salary? Those completely ignored and kept
out of the loop consist not only of “lowly” assistant professors
but also very senior people, including the exceedingly tiny number of women
full professors – yours truly, to cite just one example. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Now I hasten to reassure everyone that I not only have absolutely no
interest in becoming chair but I wouldn’t accept the position under any
circumstances or for any amount of money. Frankly I wouldn’t want
to be a member of a department that was headed by me (was it W.C. Fields or
Groucho Marx who declared that he wouldn’t want to belong to any club
that accepted him as a member?). That being said, I find it outrageous
that we have in effect reverted to a governance system which is a pitiful
parody of the backroom, cigar-smoking, old boy’s practices of
decision-making along the lines of Tammany Hall pols. My problem with
this system has nothing to do with the specific tiny handful of people
considered by Martin to be “the department” – you’ll no
doubt recall that I myself proposed a co-chairship of Emory and Steve, and
later enthusiastically supported Steve’s candidacy for interim
chair. Rather, the problem is with an intolerably authoritarian, sexist,
and bureaucratic mindset which arbitrarily decides who does and doesn’t
“count” in the department and which embraces a concept of faculty
“representation” that seems (to put the most generous construction
on it) a throwback to czarist <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
That anyone can see this mindset and its resulting practices as at heart ‘democratic’
leaves me absolutely speechless. But hey, in a world in which military
occupation equals liberation and torture equals anti-terrorism, I guess all
words have a pretty wide latitude of meaning ….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On a more conciliatory note: Given that John obviously feels
strongly about this issue and would in effect be disenfranchised if it were
voted on at Monday’s meeting – and given also that all of us would
no doubt benefit from having a little more time to consider the matter and
weigh alternative methods of choosing a chair – I want to substitute the
following motion for the one I offered last week: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>THAT the motion to have the English Department choose its own chair
rather than cede that power to the (interim/acting/ersatz/fill-in-the-blank)
dean be postponed for discussion and voting on until the March department
meeting; and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>THAT in the meantime the interim chair constitute an ad hoc committee
to look into the way other departments choose their chair and to either
recommend a specific method or propose several alternative methods by which the
English Department might henceforth select its chair. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Slainte, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Carole<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> John Briggs
[mailto:jcbriggs@ucr.edu] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, February 04, 2005
5:01 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Christine Deviny;
Steven.Axelrod@ucr.edu; DrBredbeck@aol.com; Gregory.Bredbeck@ucr.edu;
John.Briggs@ucr.edu; joseph.childers@ucr.edu; andrea.denny-brown@ucr.edu;
kimberly.devlin@ucr.edu; jennifer.doyle@ucr.edu; Emory.Elliott@ucr.edu; cfabs@mindspring.com;
carole.fabricant@ucr.edu; John.Ganim@ucr.edu; George.Haggerty@ucr.edu;
GEHaggerty@aol.com; Katherine.Kinney@ucr.edu; josh.kun@ucr.edu;
joshkun@aol.com; Tiffany.Lopez@ucr.edu; Toby.Miller@ucr.edu;
Vorris.Nunley@ucr.edu; Michelle.Raheja@ucr.edu; proy@ucr.edu@webmail.ucr.edu;
Stanley.Stewart@ucr.edu; James.Tobias@ucr.edu; Caroleanne.tyler@ucr.edu;
Deborah.Willis@ucr.edu; Traise.Yamamoto@ucr.edu; Susan.Zieger@ucr.edu;
englecturers@lists.ucr.edu<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Voting for Chair</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Colleagues:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
Since I will be at a meeting at UCSB on Monday, I'm
taking this opportunity to register an opinion about the proposal to elect the
departmental chair. I'm against the motion, not only because I think it
is a reaction to a personality (the interim dean's) rather than a response to a
systemic problem, but also because it would introduce a series of new problems
without giving us greater benefits than the system of consultation, rotation,
and appointment that has served us for more than a generation.<br>
<br>
I agree with those who believe that the chairmanship
should not become a prize that subtly transforms well-meaning faculty members
into competing candidates and their colleagues into supporters and
rivals. There are higher though unglamorous principles at stake in the
selection of the chair, and they are at their heart democratic. There is
especially the unglamorous notion that there is a fairly regular rotation of
the most senior members of the department (at least those who are most
available and who have not disqualified themselves) into and out of the job,
and the tempering notion -- served by the principle of rotation -- that the
work is <i><span style='font-style:italic'>necessary</span></i> rather than <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>desirable, </span></i>something to take on rather
than to aspire toward. I don't believe a chair has served two
regular terms in the entire history of the Department. The only associate
to serve in the last thirty years has been Milton Miller, who was at that time
approaching retirement.<br>
<br>
In my twenty-five years on campus and my experience
with the selection of seven chairs, I have been impressed with how the choices
have always reflected a tacit consensus within the Department. There has
never been a sense that a selection has set us on a particular road -- on a path
that an election, with its inevitable roster of winners and losers, had forced
the Department to choose instead of another. <br>
<br>
Our current interim dean has committed a terrible
error in holding us in limbo, perhaps not even understanding that he was doing
so. But now he has finally appointed an interim chair, and will, if he
knows anything at all about his job, appoint one for a longer term beginning in
July. I think it would be wrong to indirectly institutionalize his grave
administrative mistake with an election process that would introduce new and
unnecessary uncertainties into our departmental life and our relations with the
college office. <br>
<br>
John Briggs<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>