brick
"But the Dwarf answered: 'No;
something human is dearer to me
than the wealth of all the world.'
—Epigraph to Youth (from
Grimm's Tales).
It is heartening to see attd talk with so many students and faculty and
staff members who are actively beginning to challenge UNCC's dictatorial
Administration. The faculty response, in particular, in the struggle to
reverse the decision of the Administration not to re-new the contract of
Dr. Leonard Jordan is a long-awaited step toward joint student-faculty
action.
A great many inequities of the past are coming to light for the first
time, and we are sorry the Journal has not adequately been reporting and
commenting on these matters previously. If we were given enough funds
by Student Government to print the pages, we could give you a 12 or
16-page issue every week — and with the increase in information, we feel
you could better understand and challenge UNCC's problems. But, that's
another story.
We feel the Administration has grossly degraded the very principals of
truth and the open pursuit of knowledge in its thus-far unexplained and
suspect dismissal of Dr. Jordan and the other nine faculty members. The
lowly members of our Community are the ones most subject to
unanswered pleas for why. Just because the University Code does not
require reasons for dismissal is no judicious reason for the Administration
to hide behind a "loop-hole" device. They have refused to even tell Dr.
Jordan why his contract will not be re-newed.
A faculty member — tenured or not — deserves the honesty of an
Administration in revealing the reasona for dismissal. Logically, how can a
faculty member ever know what was disapproved about his service to the
University? How can he reasonably appeal his case when he doesn't know
the grounds for the case at all? Circumventing the truth by alluding to
"immaturity" without defining what such "immaturity" may involve is pure
deceit and deception.
The conclusions we draw from this silence are obvious. 1) The
Administration's reasons are so poor that they can not stand public
scrutiny or debate: 2) Revealing the reasons would show what type of
activities and actions the Administration does not allow (they prefer to
keep these in their "heads"); and 3) The Administration attempts to infer
that the reasons are "damaging" to the faculty member, i.e., so terrible
that they are doing him a service by not revealing them. The inferred
"terrible actions" are kept secret to further speculation on how bad they
are, to frighten other faculty members by not allowing them knowledge of
the unknown "forbidden sins."
Such tactics and thinking are unfit for high officials of a public
University. They call into question the ethics and principals of those who
engage in such secret actions.
There is more. Political intrigue and behind-the-back manipulation at
UNCC is the rule for the Administration of UNCC. There is more of this
type of underground "pressure" than a University in supposed public
service can tolerate. An amazing story of "quiet" actions has come to light
and we share it with you in the hopes that public disclosure will further
create the University's collective desire to change itself before it is too
late.
Re: the case of the "private conference." Suppose an Instructor or
untenured professor speaks out against an action by the Administration. He
may do it privately to colleagues or by writing the Journal or by writing
the Charlotte Observer.
What does UNCC's Administration do about such actions? The Insturctor
is called by Vice Chancellor McEniry to his office and promptly told that
such criticism is not allowed. The Insturctor's future job with UNCC is
placed on the line: any more such actions and out-out he goes.
What better example of blatant repression by the Administration do you
ne. ' ’ There is evndence that this type of "warning" is usually delivered
by McEniry, a sort of Big Brother disciplinarian, self-appointed to keep
thi' IS at UNCC under control.
e Administration at UNCC are very smart and very secretive and very
wei -voiced in what is evidence, what is legally damaging, what is liable to
get them in trouble. They take caution to deal "orally" in matters that
could be construed as deceitful and deceptive. They never permit
themselves to put in writing what we could use in court or open public
disclosure. We have seen "private" memorandums between members of the
Administration and only rarely do they express anything less than total
concern, sympathy with great causes, and flowing terms that wrap
themselves in glory and great honor. They maintain in public a
sympathetic point-of-view while privately are the very forces you must
struggle against.
Re: the case of the fabulous extortion move. It is now being reported
to the Journal from faculty members who have asked to remain
anonymous (for obvious reasons) the details of activities which may be
defined as intimidating threats, i.e., extortion. The procedure proceeds
something like this in one case: a faculty member is dismissed (contract
not re-newed) and he is cautiously advised not ti dispute the action or
appeal it or raise a big issue over it.
pages of opinion
UNCC
Opinions of the Journal are
expressed on its editorial pages,
page 6-8. All unsigned editorials
are the majority opinion of the
Editorial Board. Letters and
columns represent only the
opinions of the individual
writers. Opposing editorial
viewpoints may be printed by
contacting the Editor.
The reason? The department chairman or other Administration official
advises the faculty member that recommendations from the department will
be withheld or unfavorable if he fights his dismissal. If he is quiet and
passive, the recommendations are assured to be glowing.
We cannot know who many faculty members have left UNCC quietly
under such pressure. We suspect that Bill Bigelow was somewhat quieter in
his departure from UNCC than the persontiiity of the man would indicate.
It is a strange irony that Bigelow was not good enough for UNCC but
now is employed by Davidson College. No, it is not true that we have
higher standards than Davidson. It is our opinion that we have less
academic and personal freedom for our faculty members at UNCC than
any other University of comparable size. It is debatable whether Bob Jones
University is less repressive than UNCC since most faculty there willingly
submit to the oppressive will.
It is not difficult to understand how faculty members could fall prey to
such pressures. After all, they do need a job for their families, and poor
recommendations may be tantamount to academic suicide for a college
professor.
Such practices may be common in the business world but are critically
destructive at an academic institution. Yet, these practices exist today at
UNCC. And it is both the faculty and students who are suffering. It is up
to both of us to protest such unethical and intimidating tactics. It is up
to us to insure that such pressure never be brought to bear upon faculty
members of UNCC again.
There is a process, called co-optation, whereby the Administration takes
the strongest and most capable faculty artd offers them positions of power
and authority. Often these positions are offered with raises in rank and
pay; most often, however, along with the position goes the unwritten
admission that they will cooperate with the Administration's decisions.
The Administration is grateful for their suppxart and give priority to
their programs, buildings, funds, etc. It 's a neatly-packaged example of
"back-scratching" and the obvious question is: "So what?"
With a few exceptions at UNCC, (ne college deans and department
chairmen are pawns of the Administration. Watch them close the door
when a phone call comes from McEniry. A whoie group on this campus
jump, when their chain is pulled. This is perhaps one of the saddest losses
of all.
These faculty members no longer remain independent, creative,
free-thinking individuals. No nnatter how much they try to convince
themselves of their "freedom," it simply isn't there. Faculty members can
look to their deans and chairmen and count on one hand the number of
times that they went against the Administration on anything and won.
There is a difference between the "smokescreen" effort and a sincere
struggle for what they believe in. It is sad that UNCC has degenerated to
such weak individuals in leadership. One of the problems is McEniry's
power to appoint chairmen and deans — and make no mistake, it is
McEniry and not Dr. Colvard who makes the appointments, regardless of
whose name is on the letter.
The faculty themselves should choose their leaders. A selected leader
would then truly represent them and not be indebted to the
Administration for their position or rank. But, as the way it is now, you
cannot help but wonder what became of the present chairman and deans'
spirit, their human integrity, their self-desire to strike out freely as
individuals with a mind and ideas of their own.
It can be argued that compromise is necessary here; that no change, no
improvements would be possible without such willful servitude by faculty
in appointed positions. If compromise is necessary, then we are still further
away from the goals this institution should represent. The ideas in a
department or college should survive on their own merits — not because
they get "favored" support or fit in with the preconceived acceptable
limits set by the Administration. The free spirit of competition and debate
over various ideas and possibilities will provide UNCC with forward impetus
and growth.
page six/the journal/ftbruary 7, 1972