|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From The Faculty Chair
[Editor's note: On June 15, Professor Steven R. Lerman, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, will begin his 2-year term as faculty chair.]
Dear Steve:
Since this is my last report as faculty chair, I thought I would write to let you know that I and, I’m sure, the rest of the faculty are looking forward to your "reign." Your interests and skills in computing and in its role in education will stand us in good stead as we move ahead. I also want to take this opportunity to indicate some of the issues we have been working on that will continue into your term.
There are things left over from the Task Force that need continued attention. One relates to faculty governance. The Task Force recommended a new look at the structure of faculty governance and its relation to the administrative departments that implement educational policy. The need for rethinking these links has been commented on by the Nominations Committee and probably will be taken up by the Committee on Faculty Administration next year. I think the links to ODSUE need careful thought. The faculty committees must work together with ODSUE and it is not clear that our current structure is optimal for the most effective collaboration on educational innovation. And we also need closer links to the upper administration. There were a few constructive meetings between the chair of CUP and the Dean’s Committee this past year. It might be well to continue these connections in order to link the effort of CUP directly to the provost, the chancellor, and the deans.
There is the continuous and vexing problem of exam policy and end-of-term regulations. These are regulations the faculty themselves make and therefore must abide by. The Sadoway Committee has laid out the principles that should govern these regulations, and their recommendations will be discussed by the faculty this spring. Next year, there will be continued discussion with department heads and within departments until there is convergence on specific regulations. When these are voted by the faculty, it assumes a responsibility to abide by them, so that students will no longer be faced with excessive pressure from violations that hinder their ability to learn. Concern has been expressed this year that the short reading period contributes to the difficulties, so a review of the calendar may become important. And even though the students decided against an honors system for the moment, that too could help ease evening exam and end of year pressure.
As to the report on Women in Science, I think we have all been surprised by the outpouring of response to its publication, and MIT has received some extraordinarily positive publicity because of it (never mind making Bob Birgeneau a hero!). But with this success comes a serious obligation to continue and extend this effort. For if we don’t increase the numbers at all levels and ensure a supportive environment for those who are here, we could find ourselves seriously embarrassed.
In particular, we need to move in four directions: First, there needs to be continuing monitoring of the status of women faculty in the School of Science. Without such vigilance, the same dynamics that created the original situation will come into play again. Second, we need to extend this effort to the other schools at MIT. Third, we need to worry about the pipeline and why undergraduates don’t go on to graduate school, and why those who do don’t go into academia. Fourth, and critically important, we need to extend this effort to minority faculty: we need to understand why we have so few and put more creative energy into recruiting, and we must ensure that their experience at MIT is a constructive one. One other point: the MIT study has been held up as a model not only to other universities but to other kinds of institutions as well. Is there some way we can be helpful in this process of dissemination?
Finally, let me end with a personal concern about the quality of faculty life and the difficulty of combining it with children and family life or with serious community involvement, whether at MIT itself or outside. Some progress has been made on some fronts: there is planning for more childcare facilities, including infant care; the Council on Family and Work is being rejuvenated; and it looks as if we will be able to offer our junior faculty one semester of professional leave to ease the pre-tenure years. But I would like to suggest, also, the possibility of half-time tenure appointments for what I call FMLA reasons. The Family and Medical Leave Act legislates leave for reasons of caring for a child, a spouse, or other needy dependent. I think we should provide tenured faculty the possibility of a half-time appointment (for up to 5 years) for such purposes. This would not allow faculty to spend half their time consulting, or on an outside business, which would seriously compromise their commitment to MIT. Faculty who take this option for FMLA reasons, in contrast, are likely to increase their commitment to MIT, and to have stronger motivation and more energy when they return to full-time status than they would have had if they had continued to deal with these multiple demands without some relief.
There’s lots more, Steve, but I’ll stop for now. I hope you will enjoy your term as chair. I have only one serious piece of advice: don’t eat the desserts!
Yours, Lotte
|
|
|
|
|
|
|