Open Letter to COLA Dean Regarding Anticipated Lecturer Non-Renewals
January 25, 2018
Dear Dean Bostic,
The recently announced cuts of Lecturer faculty were dramatic and unanticipated. Many of us across the University have questions about this decision, and we write to you now to ask you to provide more information to the community about these cuts.
In particular, we request the Deans’ office address:
· The College financial situation. We call on you to provide specific details about the COLA finances. Detailed financial reports for the college would allow for the transparency needed to understand the context of recent cuts to the teaching faculty.
· An articulated plan for how the more than 100 sections of courses taught by the non-renewed faculty members will be covered. We request you address the following questions: Will COLA be reducing the number of classes? Will upper-level classes be eliminated? Will faculty teaching those upper-level classes be moved into lower-level courses? Is the intention to renegotiate faculty workloads or to hire more faculty? Cuts to teaching faculty compromise programs, as well as students’ experiences and opportunities; therefore, your plan here is a matter of concern for all community stakeholders.
· The otherwise unannounced and unexplained new requirement for Lecturer Faculty to possess the terminal degree of a PhD. Your January 19 email stated that the affected faculty “were not renewed as the result of a desire to enhance program strength by ensuring that faculty members have the highest terminal degree in their field.” We request explanation for why this criterion is cited now, when it has never been a factor of the hiring, review or renewal of these faculty. As you are aware, many of these faculty members were repeatedly reappointed on the basis of their teaching experience and performance in the classroom. In addition, these lecturers have been reviewed by your office as meeting or exceeding your expectations annually. Further, seven of the affected faculty had been promoted to the ranks of Senior or Principal Lecturer, and their degrees did not play a role in these promotion decisions. How does your own recent assessment and promotion of these teachers connect with the notion that they are suddenly unqualified? We request explanation for the logic and soundness of this new criterion.
These are among the many questions raised by the recent cuts of Lecturer Faculty. We call on you to provide answers.
Sincerely,
UNHLU-AAUP Executive Committee
Dear Dean Bostic,
The recently announced cuts of Lecturer faculty were dramatic and unanticipated. Many of us across the University have questions about this decision, and we write to you now to ask you to provide more information to the community about these cuts.
In particular, we request the Deans’ office address:
· The College financial situation. We call on you to provide specific details about the COLA finances. Detailed financial reports for the college would allow for the transparency needed to understand the context of recent cuts to the teaching faculty.
· An articulated plan for how the more than 100 sections of courses taught by the non-renewed faculty members will be covered. We request you address the following questions: Will COLA be reducing the number of classes? Will upper-level classes be eliminated? Will faculty teaching those upper-level classes be moved into lower-level courses? Is the intention to renegotiate faculty workloads or to hire more faculty? Cuts to teaching faculty compromise programs, as well as students’ experiences and opportunities; therefore, your plan here is a matter of concern for all community stakeholders.
· The otherwise unannounced and unexplained new requirement for Lecturer Faculty to possess the terminal degree of a PhD. Your January 19 email stated that the affected faculty “were not renewed as the result of a desire to enhance program strength by ensuring that faculty members have the highest terminal degree in their field.” We request explanation for why this criterion is cited now, when it has never been a factor of the hiring, review or renewal of these faculty. As you are aware, many of these faculty members were repeatedly reappointed on the basis of their teaching experience and performance in the classroom. In addition, these lecturers have been reviewed by your office as meeting or exceeding your expectations annually. Further, seven of the affected faculty had been promoted to the ranks of Senior or Principal Lecturer, and their degrees did not play a role in these promotion decisions. How does your own recent assessment and promotion of these teachers connect with the notion that they are suddenly unqualified? We request explanation for the logic and soundness of this new criterion.
These are among the many questions raised by the recent cuts of Lecturer Faculty. We call on you to provide answers.
Sincerely,
UNHLU-AAUP Executive Committee