>onse to
i spouses"
response to the article "Hiring of
the editorial, the Guilfordian feels
i given letters is both justifiable and
! accompanying letters and the
are printed in their entirety.
!
i
don of the A.A.U.P.
to practice their profession. In addition, they are contrary to the
best interests of the institution which is deprived of qualified
faculty members on the basis of an inappropriate criterion, and of
the community which is denied a sufficient utilization of its
resources.
The Association recognizes the propriety of institutional
regulations which would set reasonable restrictions on an
individual's capacity to function as judge or advocate in specific
situations involving members of his or her immediate family.
Faculty members should neither initiate nor participate in
institutional decisions involving a direct benefit (initial appoint
ment, retention, promotion, salary, leave of absence, etc.) to
members of their immediate families.
The Association does not believe, however, that the proscription
of the opportunity of members of an immediate family to serve as
colleagues is a sound method of avoiding the occasional abuses
resulting from nepotism. Inasmuch as they constitute a continuing
abuse to a significant number of individual members of the
profession and to the profession as a body, the Association urges
the discontinuance of these policies and practices, and the
rescinding of laws and institutional regulations which perpetuate
them.
es serious problem
•les P. McDowell
• Professor of the
tration of Justice
authority as to the motives behind their being hired. Second, he is
in error when he claims that faculty hiring is objective. I am aware
of at least two cases in which prospective faculty members said
they would not accept employment unless their respective spouses
were hired (which was done). In my opinion, Cuilford struck a poor
bargain in both cases. I believe Mr. Rogers is honest and sincere in
his opinions and that he means well; in fact, as he gains experience
as an administrator I expect his policies to reflect his high ideals.
One might well argue that Guilford is an
unhappy place because of the pervasiveness
of its nepotism - rather than to argue that it is
as happy as it is because of it.
Just what is wrong with nepotism? I believe it is undesirable for a
number of reasons. First, it stifles diversity of perspective. In
hiring faculty and staff we have the opportunity to bring in people
with widely varying backgrounds and diversity of outlook. By hiring
relatives (or others who have especially close relationships with
faculty) we diminish this diversity and in the process attack what
ought to be one of the strengths of an academic institution.
Second, the hiring of relatives tends to create power alliances
which are not wholesome for the college. Nepotism is synergistic in
that it allows for the distribution of power within that college in a
way that could not occur if each employee were a single unit within
the institution. It creates opportunities for collusion which place
other members of the faculty at a clear disadvantage. It places
some faculty members in the position of having to be less than fair
and objective when it comes to making decisions on such things as
tenure, study leave, and promotion for the simple reason that to
vote against one member of a pair may be difficult when one must
deal with that person's spouse as a colleague.
"77ie fact that the comments favorable to a
policy of hiring spouses came almost entirely
from individuals with spouses who have been
hired leads to an impression that they are the
only ones who support such a policy. A
broader sampling of opinion was certainly
needed.
Third, it keeps the college from attracting and keeping faculty
who are in fact the best qualified and reduces the economic benefits
of employment to a zero-sum game in which faculty must compete
against one another in ways which clearly invite abuse. It is covert,
discriminatory, and ultimately unjust -- all of which, I believe, run
counter to Guilford's oft touted "Quaker ethic."
Fourth, nepotism is not a legitimate support system for the
college community as a whole, nor is it an appropriate kind of
institutional commitment to marriages or other intimate associa
tions; even if it were, it would be more than offset by the harm it
works in other areas. To the contrary, nepotism can (and has been)
a device which ensures the social and professional isolation of some
members of the college community. Furthermore, it contributes to
the college's already considerable internal strife. One might well
argue that Guilford is an unhappy place because of the
pervasiveness of its nepotism -- rather than to argue that it is as
happy as it is because of it!
Finally, I am disturbed to see nepotism justified on the basis of
quasi-religious grounds for I am reminded of thefact that the term
actually refers to the practice on the part of ecclesiastics of showing
special favor to nephews or other relatives in conferring offices. If
Guilford is to be a college it must adhere to the best values of an
academic institution and be very careful lest it loose sight of the
distinction between religion and administration. Indeed, perhaps
we ought to remind ourselves of the difference in the missions of
Guilford College (an academic institution), Friend's Homes (a
retirement community), and the Society of Friends (a religion) and
place each in its proper perspective -- if possible.
Last spring I noted with chagrin that as former President Hobbs
delivered his swan-song at commencement, the chimes struck
eleven. The college is entering into a difficult era and its survival
cannot be taken for granted. Perhaps the college can start this
decade by recognizing that it is a poor banquet indeed which is
prepared for the benefit of the chefs!
Endeavor applauded,
results bemoaned
I'd like to make several points with regard to the article and
editorial in the Feb 17 issue that addressed the matter of "spouse
hiring". First, I am pleased to see the Cuilfordian tackling
substantive and controversial issues, as it has a number of times
this academic year. Second, I am aware that approaching such
issues carries with it a serious and weighty responsibility to be
correct, precise, and thoughtful. I therefore heartily applaud the
endeavor but simultaneously bemoan some of the results. Let me
indicate a few specific examples of what I regard as reasons for
lament.
(1). Acknowledging the views of any individual who declines to be
identified is a practice that can only encourage an atmosphere of
irresponsibility and non-accountability (the comments of the
unidentified individual should be considered suspect not only
because he/she refused to lay claim to the comments but also
because of the reference to "block voting". Very few faculty or
administrative decisions at the College are made on the basis of a
vote; we employ consensus);
(2). While much of Mark Curley's article clearly differentiated
between the hiring of spouses and the practice of nepotism, the two
became muddled and nearly synonymous toward the close of his
article and in the editorial;
(3). Jim Shields asserted that "there is an unusually high
proportion of couples on the college staff" but gave no evidence to
support such an assertion (for all I know, 14 married couples on the
faculty and within the administration represents an unusually low
proportion or is typical of colleges our size);
(4). While Jim recognized that there are a multitude of possible
sources for conflicts of interest, the net effect of the article and
editorial is to imply that the presence of spouses is the primary (or
even sole) source;
(5). The fact that the comments favorable to a policy of hiring
spouses came almost entirely from individuals with spouses who
have been hired leads to an impression that they are the only ones
who support such a policy. A broader sampling of opinions was
certainly needed.
Sincerely,
Jackie Ludel
Guilfordian, February 24, 1981,
Page 5