I need help preparing for a contentious work meeting.
March 11, 2019 2:49 PM Subscribe
I will be participating in a work meeting soon that I am dreading. Please help me not get derailed from the points I actually want to make by a colleague who is already complaining about censorship.
I have a colleague who has put forward a controversial proposal without proper consultation beforehand. When this was discovered (we have a very rigid structure for putting forward these proposals, so it was bound to come out), several people complained about it and one person took it upon themselves to organize a consultation meeting because there have been many questions about the proposal.
The colleague who put the proposal forward, Z, has already responded to some initial critiques of the proposal as an example of attempted censorship. I work in academia so the concept of academic freedom is very important. I am not pro censorship, and I have no intention of attempting to shut down the proposal or "censoring" it or anything like that. However, I am of the belief that consultation is very necessary and it did not happen. I also have concerns that the proposal has been developed within a very white, middle class cis male framework, with very little attention to diverse POV. The subject of the proposal, on the other hand, is something that very much affects women, people of colour, and trans folks.
Z is a white, middle aged cis man. He thinks of himself as a sensitive creative type and is polite to people's faces, but behind their backs (I've heard him do this) will dismiss what he sees as "political correctness" (he is a fan of Jordan Peterson). I push back when I hear him do it but he is politely dismissive to me too.
I am already dreading this meeting. What I am worried about is that Z will be defensive immediately (he has sent out a couple of emails already that are quite defensive) and that he will derail the conversation into an "I'm being censored" argument. I, however, think it's more important to talk about a) the lack of consultation and b) lack of consideration for diverse POV.
So to sum up: what is the most effective way to help keep the meeting from being derailed out of the gate into an argument about censorship and academic freedom? And how do I bring up my concerns about being inclusive of diverse viewpoints without getting it shouted down as "political correctness"? Strategies, specific wording, all are welcome.
I have a colleague who has put forward a controversial proposal without proper consultation beforehand. When this was discovered (we have a very rigid structure for putting forward these proposals, so it was bound to come out), several people complained about it and one person took it upon themselves to organize a consultation meeting because there have been many questions about the proposal.
The colleague who put the proposal forward, Z, has already responded to some initial critiques of the proposal as an example of attempted censorship. I work in academia so the concept of academic freedom is very important. I am not pro censorship, and I have no intention of attempting to shut down the proposal or "censoring" it or anything like that. However, I am of the belief that consultation is very necessary and it did not happen. I also have concerns that the proposal has been developed within a very white, middle class cis male framework, with very little attention to diverse POV. The subject of the proposal, on the other hand, is something that very much affects women, people of colour, and trans folks.
Z is a white, middle aged cis man. He thinks of himself as a sensitive creative type and is polite to people's faces, but behind their backs (I've heard him do this) will dismiss what he sees as "political correctness" (he is a fan of Jordan Peterson). I push back when I hear him do it but he is politely dismissive to me too.
I am already dreading this meeting. What I am worried about is that Z will be defensive immediately (he has sent out a couple of emails already that are quite defensive) and that he will derail the conversation into an "I'm being censored" argument. I, however, think it's more important to talk about a) the lack of consultation and b) lack of consideration for diverse POV.
So to sum up: what is the most effective way to help keep the meeting from being derailed out of the gate into an argument about censorship and academic freedom? And how do I bring up my concerns about being inclusive of diverse viewpoints without getting it shouted down as "political correctness"? Strategies, specific wording, all are welcome.
Whatever the answers in this thread, take this thread and discuss the answers with the person who will be chairing the meeting. Since you're not chairing the meeting, you don't have primary control over how the meeting will go.
posted by JimN2TAW at 3:19 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by JimN2TAW at 3:19 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yeah, pointing out that they didn't talk to enough people in advance is kind of the opposite of censorship? It's asking for more, not less.
posted by suelac at 3:20 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by suelac at 3:20 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Oh boy. First of all, academic freedom is usually about faculty members being able to research and pursue scholarship in all areas. It doesn't mean that people can't have opinions about your research project or never criticize you. It might be helpful to know what kind of proposal this is. Is it for his own research project? Or is it for something that would involve other people, too?
My best suggestion for this is to talk to other folks who will be at the meeting in advance. It sounds like several of you have major concerns about this project, and the more you all talk to each other about your concerns, the more you can be on the same page. It also takes pressure off of you to be the only person raising certain concerns.
I knew someone who used to write blog posts about her work place in higher ed, and people would get mad at things she said. Someone higher up suggested she be a bit more thoughtful about what she said about her colleagues in a public blog. She complained to her union about academic freedom. The union said, yeah, you can say what you want, but be a bit more politic about it, and maybe run your blog posts past a few colleagues before you hit publish. So, academic freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
I would try not to get caught up in discussions of academic freedom and censorship, as those are both strawmen, I think. Rather, you could couch your response as insuring the most success. The more people whose ideas are incorporated early on, the more likely it will be to be successful in the long run.
In terms of political correctness: you can couch it in terms like, "Well, if our students learn about this project, they might have concerns about x, y, and z."
The other thing to consider is this: what is your goal? Do you think he might actually change the project? Are you wanting to be on the record that you oppose the project? Do you want to stop it? Get an idea of your goals for what can happen realistically, and work back from there. If you can't stop it, I would maybe write out a sentence or two in advance to gather your thoughts and be prepared to share that thought but not much more.
posted by bluedaisy at 3:22 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
My best suggestion for this is to talk to other folks who will be at the meeting in advance. It sounds like several of you have major concerns about this project, and the more you all talk to each other about your concerns, the more you can be on the same page. It also takes pressure off of you to be the only person raising certain concerns.
I knew someone who used to write blog posts about her work place in higher ed, and people would get mad at things she said. Someone higher up suggested she be a bit more thoughtful about what she said about her colleagues in a public blog. She complained to her union about academic freedom. The union said, yeah, you can say what you want, but be a bit more politic about it, and maybe run your blog posts past a few colleagues before you hit publish. So, academic freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
I would try not to get caught up in discussions of academic freedom and censorship, as those are both strawmen, I think. Rather, you could couch your response as insuring the most success. The more people whose ideas are incorporated early on, the more likely it will be to be successful in the long run.
In terms of political correctness: you can couch it in terms like, "Well, if our students learn about this project, they might have concerns about x, y, and z."
The other thing to consider is this: what is your goal? Do you think he might actually change the project? Are you wanting to be on the record that you oppose the project? Do you want to stop it? Get an idea of your goals for what can happen realistically, and work back from there. If you can't stop it, I would maybe write out a sentence or two in advance to gather your thoughts and be prepared to share that thought but not much more.
posted by bluedaisy at 3:22 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Focus on the process. "Z, this isn't about censorship, you are welcome to put forward any proposal you like, so long as it follows process. This process is important because it reduces the amount of work, notifies all relevant stakeholders, reduces our risk and potential costs, and ensure we complete due diligence.
Everyone is expected to follow this process, without exception. This also ensures fairness and transparency. Do you wish to submit your proposal through this process, and do you have any questions about it? I have brought along some previously completed examples of changes that followed the process, you might wish to use them as some inspiration."
If you want to touch on the diversity issues: "Our organisational values are committed to diversity and making sure that everyone has a voice. This is something that's built into our process - but when it's not followed it, there can be breakdowns in aligning to our values. This has happened with the current proposal we're talking about today. It's very important to [the university or whatever] that these values are always taken into account. This is why we cannot proceed any further with this proposal right now."
posted by smoke at 3:24 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
Everyone is expected to follow this process, without exception. This also ensures fairness and transparency. Do you wish to submit your proposal through this process, and do you have any questions about it? I have brought along some previously completed examples of changes that followed the process, you might wish to use them as some inspiration."
If you want to touch on the diversity issues: "Our organisational values are committed to diversity and making sure that everyone has a voice. This is something that's built into our process - but when it's not followed it, there can be breakdowns in aligning to our values. This has happened with the current proposal we're talking about today. It's very important to [the university or whatever] that these values are always taken into account. This is why we cannot proceed any further with this proposal right now."
posted by smoke at 3:24 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
Faculty meetings and procedures are so different from other meetings and procedures. In my experience there is often a lot of behind the scenes organizing to shut down proposals like this. Find your allies quietly and plan out your response. In my experience, you'll need to get 2 or 3 powerful people on board by any means necessary and they'll spread their power. Do nothing via email.
Your response can focus on the fact that the proposal (not Z) hasn't gone through the process. If you want to mention that there may be more stakeholders than the current proposal is considering, go ahead, but focus on the process not being followed.
Don't email Z, assume it is going to be brought to the entire faculty and figure out how you can stop it from coming to a vote without a committee doing a full review.
My suggestion - With this proposal not having gone through the normal process, there needs to be a steering committee and/or the appropriate standing committee needs to make a report for the rest of the faculty. (Like if this is a new grad course, the grad committee needs to review it and make a report.)
posted by k8t at 3:28 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
Your response can focus on the fact that the proposal (not Z) hasn't gone through the process. If you want to mention that there may be more stakeholders than the current proposal is considering, go ahead, but focus on the process not being followed.
Don't email Z, assume it is going to be brought to the entire faculty and figure out how you can stop it from coming to a vote without a committee doing a full review.
My suggestion - With this proposal not having gone through the normal process, there needs to be a steering committee and/or the appropriate standing committee needs to make a report for the rest of the faculty. (Like if this is a new grad course, the grad committee needs to review it and make a report.)
posted by k8t at 3:28 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
Best answer: I'm not in academia and so I don't really understand two things here.
One is, if the colleague didn't follow the proper consultation process and that is clear, why is the proposal on the table at all? Shouldn't there be no meetings until the consultation process has happened?
Assuming that "proper consultation process" is actually unclear, then I think you need to focus some meeting, maybe not this meeting, on what a proper consultation process is and when it should occur, with timelines for sending this proposal back through that process. I would maybe start with an acknowledgement that it's been unclear in the past but that this situation highlights the need for the process. And then I wouldn't look at this particular proposal at all but rather outline what a good consultation process looks like, who is consulted, how the feedback is recorded, and what is done with the feedback before moving to the proposal stage. Then at the end, you establish that this particular proposal will be the first for that process. It's a bit backwards but it sounds like his MO was backwards anyway.
If you don't have any of that and this is actually a meeting to discuss that this proposal is just lousy then I do have suggestions because I have had to have meetings like that, although usually they've been more private.
The way that I've seen it successfully framed is to acknowledge that for whatever reason this discussion is coming late in the proposal process and that will mean that it's possible the discussion will feel more fraught, and to thank everyone in advance for their good will and patience and commitment to academic and institutional excellence. And then to lay out very clearly what criteria you would like the discussion to centre around in order to make this proposal better. Criteria could include upholding institutional values of inclusion and diversity, or academic values of [I am not an academic but I am guessing breadth of knowledge or similar]. The idea is to move from censoring/denying to evaluating/improving.
In that case I think you would say, to the censorship charge, that you are not censoring the proposal, you would like to evaluate it against the criteria for a good proposal for [whatever it is proposing.]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
One is, if the colleague didn't follow the proper consultation process and that is clear, why is the proposal on the table at all? Shouldn't there be no meetings until the consultation process has happened?
Assuming that "proper consultation process" is actually unclear, then I think you need to focus some meeting, maybe not this meeting, on what a proper consultation process is and when it should occur, with timelines for sending this proposal back through that process. I would maybe start with an acknowledgement that it's been unclear in the past but that this situation highlights the need for the process. And then I wouldn't look at this particular proposal at all but rather outline what a good consultation process looks like, who is consulted, how the feedback is recorded, and what is done with the feedback before moving to the proposal stage. Then at the end, you establish that this particular proposal will be the first for that process. It's a bit backwards but it sounds like his MO was backwards anyway.
If you don't have any of that and this is actually a meeting to discuss that this proposal is just lousy then I do have suggestions because I have had to have meetings like that, although usually they've been more private.
The way that I've seen it successfully framed is to acknowledge that for whatever reason this discussion is coming late in the proposal process and that will mean that it's possible the discussion will feel more fraught, and to thank everyone in advance for their good will and patience and commitment to academic and institutional excellence. And then to lay out very clearly what criteria you would like the discussion to centre around in order to make this proposal better. Criteria could include upholding institutional values of inclusion and diversity, or academic values of [I am not an academic but I am guessing breadth of knowledge or similar]. The idea is to move from censoring/denying to evaluating/improving.
In that case I think you would say, to the censorship charge, that you are not censoring the proposal, you would like to evaluate it against the criteria for a good proposal for [whatever it is proposing.]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: So I think in my efforts to obscure the specifics, I may have left out some important details.
I am not a regular member of this department, but I do teach the occasional course for them (and am doing so currently) and so I have been specifically invited. I also have a background in gender studies. So...I have a stake in this, but I'm not a regular member of the department, so I want to tread lightly and respect that, while at the same time not remaining silent about some of the very real problems I see with the way this course has been developed.
It's true, I am not chairing the meeting. The person who called the meeting (a member of a Lower Level Committee and a department member in Z's department) will be chairing it, but when I spoke to them today, they expressed a desire to use a very light hand in chairing. They said they wanted to hear from all the department members what they have to say and just give people a chance to air their opinions. I have expressed my concerns to this person about the possible derailing and they have made a note of this. I am a little worried because I think this meeting will call for a strong chair.
This is a proposal for a new course. All new courses have to go through a number of different levels of committees (3 different levels and about 7 different committees) before being brought to the highest level committee that has faculty, staff, admin and students. However, well before it gets submitted to Committee #1, the very first thing a faculty proponent is supposed to do is consult with their entire department about the new course. The course arrived at Committee #1, Z was asked if he had consulted with his department, and he said yes. They took him at his word (as is appropriate). There was a lot of feedback at LLC#1, and many suggested changes, and then it went to the other Lower Level Committees (LLCs). This is where the truth came out--these other LLCs have Z's department members serving as reps, but this was the first time they had seen the proposal, so clearly when Z told Committee #1 he had consulted with his department, that wasn't true. That is why this department meeting is happening now. I honestly have no idea if the department could prevent the proposal from going forward to the next stage, but I suppose it could.
Z has already been informed by Committee #1 and his department colleagues that he did not do enough consultation, and his response to that was to go to our dean and complain that his colleagues were putting up roadblocks in front of this course because they don't like the subject matter. Our dean will not be part of this meeting and I am not sure what their response was to Z.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 4:31 PM on March 11, 2019
I am not a regular member of this department, but I do teach the occasional course for them (and am doing so currently) and so I have been specifically invited. I also have a background in gender studies. So...I have a stake in this, but I'm not a regular member of the department, so I want to tread lightly and respect that, while at the same time not remaining silent about some of the very real problems I see with the way this course has been developed.
It's true, I am not chairing the meeting. The person who called the meeting (a member of a Lower Level Committee and a department member in Z's department) will be chairing it, but when I spoke to them today, they expressed a desire to use a very light hand in chairing. They said they wanted to hear from all the department members what they have to say and just give people a chance to air their opinions. I have expressed my concerns to this person about the possible derailing and they have made a note of this. I am a little worried because I think this meeting will call for a strong chair.
This is a proposal for a new course. All new courses have to go through a number of different levels of committees (3 different levels and about 7 different committees) before being brought to the highest level committee that has faculty, staff, admin and students. However, well before it gets submitted to Committee #1, the very first thing a faculty proponent is supposed to do is consult with their entire department about the new course. The course arrived at Committee #1, Z was asked if he had consulted with his department, and he said yes. They took him at his word (as is appropriate). There was a lot of feedback at LLC#1, and many suggested changes, and then it went to the other Lower Level Committees (LLCs). This is where the truth came out--these other LLCs have Z's department members serving as reps, but this was the first time they had seen the proposal, so clearly when Z told Committee #1 he had consulted with his department, that wasn't true. That is why this department meeting is happening now. I honestly have no idea if the department could prevent the proposal from going forward to the next stage, but I suppose it could.
Z has already been informed by Committee #1 and his department colleagues that he did not do enough consultation, and his response to that was to go to our dean and complain that his colleagues were putting up roadblocks in front of this course because they don't like the subject matter. Our dean will not be part of this meeting and I am not sure what their response was to Z.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 4:31 PM on March 11, 2019
I work in academia but am not regular departmental faculty.
IME *nothing* ticks off faculty more than not being included in initial conversations like creating a new course offering. I am part of a much smaller interdisciplinary project and we have held several forums and focus group sessions that have been very lightly attended... primarily so we can head off any accusations of not consulting enough stakeholders.
From what you've said, I can't imagine faculty responding to this proposal in any way favorably. If he's bypassed the lower level committees he was supposed to go through, it would be really be surprising for them to listen to his "censorship" nonsense. He didn't follow process. The end.
I know this is not your regular venue so your position is a little precarious, but I read the chair's decision to run the meeting with "a light hand" as indicating that the faculty members are prepared to shut him down without much direction. You shouldn't have to do much. (Obviously just my .02).
posted by pantarei70 at 4:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
IME *nothing* ticks off faculty more than not being included in initial conversations like creating a new course offering. I am part of a much smaller interdisciplinary project and we have held several forums and focus group sessions that have been very lightly attended... primarily so we can head off any accusations of not consulting enough stakeholders.
From what you've said, I can't imagine faculty responding to this proposal in any way favorably. If he's bypassed the lower level committees he was supposed to go through, it would be really be surprising for them to listen to his "censorship" nonsense. He didn't follow process. The end.
I know this is not your regular venue so your position is a little precarious, but I read the chair's decision to run the meeting with "a light hand" as indicating that the faculty members are prepared to shut him down without much direction. You shouldn't have to do much. (Obviously just my .02).
posted by pantarei70 at 4:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
Ah! So faculty governance is at play here! This isn't really about academic freedom then, but it's a curricular issue for the entire unit and school. If he talks about academic freedom, I think it's appropriate to cite faculty governance as the process. I mean, the dude lied. He's knows he's not just supposed to be able to teach anything he wants without consulting with colleagues.
I might make quiet, behind-the-scenes inquiries as to the next step if it does go through. Sometimes these things can be stopped at another level.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
I might make quiet, behind-the-scenes inquiries as to the next step if it does go through. Sometimes these things can be stopped at another level.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you everyone for your suggestions and cautions. So far I have sent nothing by email. I appreciate all the reminders to focus on process, and to emphasize that process was not followed. As bluedaisy said...he did lie about consultation!
I should clarify, the person who called the meeting and will be chairing it is not the chair of the department but rather a peer who has no individual ability to shut anything down by themselves. They are a rep on one of the low level committees that received the proposal and when they realized they hadn't seen it before, started asking around and it turned out most others had not seen it either.
There have been three emails sent to the invitees by Z and his two allies (also straight Jordan Peterson-reading white cis men) in the department demanding to know "what this is all about" even though it was pretty clear in the original email that invited us all. I'm already getting a knot in my stomach. I ALSO forgot to mention Z is the department head--he has no supervisory powers but he does have access to info that he chooses to share with certain people and not with others. I have no doubt he did consult with his two allies, but the rest of us were in the dark and "running it past your two friends" does not exactly count as consultation.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 5:28 PM on March 11, 2019
I should clarify, the person who called the meeting and will be chairing it is not the chair of the department but rather a peer who has no individual ability to shut anything down by themselves. They are a rep on one of the low level committees that received the proposal and when they realized they hadn't seen it before, started asking around and it turned out most others had not seen it either.
There have been three emails sent to the invitees by Z and his two allies (also straight Jordan Peterson-reading white cis men) in the department demanding to know "what this is all about" even though it was pretty clear in the original email that invited us all. I'm already getting a knot in my stomach. I ALSO forgot to mention Z is the department head--he has no supervisory powers but he does have access to info that he chooses to share with certain people and not with others. I have no doubt he did consult with his two allies, but the rest of us were in the dark and "running it past your two friends" does not exactly count as consultation.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 5:28 PM on March 11, 2019
As a person who has to attend the occasional "okay, who fucked up?" type meeting (sometimes it was me!), I do think someone (the chair) needs to bring a high-level agenda listing the actual goals of the meeting. Bring it on paper, write it on the whiteboard, go back to it every time the discussion threatens to wander off.
If there's a process that's supposed to be followed, and some steps were not, and those steps need to be performed, reviewing them and setting any necessary next actions/due dates should be the main body of the agenda. There's no point, when someone wants to be combative rather than learn, doing much postmortem or figuring out whyyyyy they did what they did. We all know: because they wanted to and thought they would get away with it. Treat this meeting as a dull administrative discussion to correct missed steps in the process, not a fight.
And do whatever prep you need to that will suppress your urge to take the bait. Practice a couple of mild pleasant phrases to direct everyone back to the agenda.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:38 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
If there's a process that's supposed to be followed, and some steps were not, and those steps need to be performed, reviewing them and setting any necessary next actions/due dates should be the main body of the agenda. There's no point, when someone wants to be combative rather than learn, doing much postmortem or figuring out whyyyyy they did what they did. We all know: because they wanted to and thought they would get away with it. Treat this meeting as a dull administrative discussion to correct missed steps in the process, not a fight.
And do whatever prep you need to that will suppress your urge to take the bait. Practice a couple of mild pleasant phrases to direct everyone back to the agenda.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:38 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
ALSO forgot to mention Z is the department head
Honestly, I would advise anyone who isn't tenured to keep their mouth completely shut to the best of their abilities in this situation...if you are, that's another story (but I'm tenuously guessing not from the prior post on this account). It sounds to me like the person who is chairing this meeting has called anyone into the room who might be willing to voice a complaint about this situation, and I would try to just let that proceed.
posted by advil at 6:06 PM on March 11, 2019 [13 favorites]
Honestly, I would advise anyone who isn't tenured to keep their mouth completely shut to the best of their abilities in this situation...if you are, that's another story (but I'm tenuously guessing not from the prior post on this account). It sounds to me like the person who is chairing this meeting has called anyone into the room who might be willing to voice a complaint about this situation, and I would try to just let that proceed.
posted by advil at 6:06 PM on March 11, 2019 [13 favorites]
Can you do as legislators do and have some informal chats with other people who will be at the meeting/can be at the meeting/should be at the meeting before the meeting, to get a sense of who has the same concerns as you (both about the proposal and about the possibility of the meeting going south) before the meeting? Someones just knowing you're not alone in your concerns helps you express them better--it also makes sure that people who agree with you know they are not alone, thereby giving them confidence to speak up as well.
You do have to be diplomatic and informal. Poking your head in someone's office to see if they'll be at the meeting and then voicing a mild version of your concern and seeking agreement is also scary. But it can be helpful.
posted by crush at 7:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
You do have to be diplomatic and informal. Poking your head in someone's office to see if they'll be at the meeting and then voicing a mild version of your concern and seeking agreement is also scary. But it can be helpful.
posted by crush at 7:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
If you do choose to speak, 'solution not problem' seems to help in my (unrelated) field of work. The issue is not 'this proposal is going nowhere without consultations' or 'we are here to stop this'; instead it's 'we can help you make your idea more attractive', and in truth that's exactly what you're proposing to say, so try and say it like that. Be kind; maybe they are determined to explain something immoral or unjustified, and if they start trying to explain that you probably have to be quiet and let them dig a hole, but otherwise, if they're amenable, you can actually assist them in making the proposal better. Leave them to choose if they wish to do so.
You don't necessarily have to be the one setting a high bar if you can phrase it as constructive, and one way of viewing this is that the problem isn't actually the proposal itself so much as the fact that the proposal would be more defensible and compelling if there was more research behind it, if I'm understanding what you're saying. They can also research more widely and still choose to write the proposal as is, but the evidence presumably wouldn't support it at that point.
The purpose of multiple levels of committee in any organisation is that you save the time of people in latter parts of the process by ensuring that the basics have been covered; if they haven't then they'll just turn around and ask for that, as they in fact have just done, so keep in mind as you talk that you're trying to help him have an easier ride.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 9:32 PM on March 11, 2019
You don't necessarily have to be the one setting a high bar if you can phrase it as constructive, and one way of viewing this is that the problem isn't actually the proposal itself so much as the fact that the proposal would be more defensible and compelling if there was more research behind it, if I'm understanding what you're saying. They can also research more widely and still choose to write the proposal as is, but the evidence presumably wouldn't support it at that point.
The purpose of multiple levels of committee in any organisation is that you save the time of people in latter parts of the process by ensuring that the basics have been covered; if they haven't then they'll just turn around and ask for that, as they in fact have just done, so keep in mind as you talk that you're trying to help him have an easier ride.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 9:32 PM on March 11, 2019
Coming from a university staff perspective, I agree with advil that the main points of disagreement should come from tenured faculty in the meeting to avoid blowback. Also, as much as the insular politics of a university can be problematic, they are also designed for this kind of situation. Before the meeting, non-tenured faculty should be talking to the tenured faculty who want to go to bat on this to make sure that they are aware of the range of concerns. It's awkward to be there when it happens, but the one tenured faculty who absolutely won't back down in the meeting is going to be much more effective than 10 polite points of disagreement that the person can steamroll.
If you don't know how your contribution can be most helpful in this meeting, ask the person who called the meeting if you could chat with them for a minute to get a better feeling of what their expectations are for your role in this. Are you expected to bring in a long list of the potential problems? Are you there to be the subject expert backup as someone else elucidates why this course is problematic? Are you there to offer solutions for expanding the scope of the course? Is it helpful to be linking potential concerns to the mission statement of the institution/related recent issues at the institution/enrollment and recruiting challenges?
Also--and this is purely conjecture--I think it's very possible that the person who called this meeting knows someone in one of the other committees and just needs a "there were some serious concerns raised in this meeting I had called as a purely neutral endeavor" to slow the roll on the approvals.
posted by past unusual at 6:44 AM on March 12, 2019 [5 favorites]
If you don't know how your contribution can be most helpful in this meeting, ask the person who called the meeting if you could chat with them for a minute to get a better feeling of what their expectations are for your role in this. Are you expected to bring in a long list of the potential problems? Are you there to be the subject expert backup as someone else elucidates why this course is problematic? Are you there to offer solutions for expanding the scope of the course? Is it helpful to be linking potential concerns to the mission statement of the institution/related recent issues at the institution/enrollment and recruiting challenges?
Also--and this is purely conjecture--I think it's very possible that the person who called this meeting knows someone in one of the other committees and just needs a "there were some serious concerns raised in this meeting I had called as a purely neutral endeavor" to slow the roll on the approvals.
posted by past unusual at 6:44 AM on March 12, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yes, totally speak with the person who called the meeting. You could even tell that person exactly what your concerns about the course are and ask if these are things you should bring up in the meeting. Out of deference to people who are actually in the department, you want to go in with some idea of their plan.
It sounds an awful lot like, in this guy's mind, the meeting is going to stand in for "proper consultation," and if he can get through it without anyone telling him an absolute no, he's going to proceed as if his proposal has been approved at that initial level. Someone from outside of the department making objections? He'll shrug it off. It sounds like he has been fairly successful up to this point in writing off any disagreement as politically motivated. So don't set yourself up as his target here; it's just going to make things easier for him.
posted by BibiRose at 7:22 AM on March 12, 2019
It sounds an awful lot like, in this guy's mind, the meeting is going to stand in for "proper consultation," and if he can get through it without anyone telling him an absolute no, he's going to proceed as if his proposal has been approved at that initial level. Someone from outside of the department making objections? He'll shrug it off. It sounds like he has been fairly successful up to this point in writing off any disagreement as politically motivated. So don't set yourself up as his target here; it's just going to make things easier for him.
posted by BibiRose at 7:22 AM on March 12, 2019
Best answer: Assuming you're tenured (if not, tone way the fuck down), here are two things I'd put on repeat in my head, in preparation to repeat at the meeting:
1. In my opinion, the course as proposed is truly, sorely lacking in its treatment and attention to diverse points of view, like women, POC, trans people. I could not advise the LLC to approve it without these things.
2. We offer courses and curriculum as a part of our educational mission. Courses aren't offered as a platform for our speech or opinions, they are offered as instruction, to cover a breadth of knowledge. Censorship is not an issue here, we as instructors should put the educational mission before our need to be heard. There are other venues for individual voices.
The one word I'm very carefully not using is the pronoun you. Do -not- engage with whether this person has done a wrong thing or made a bad course; engage with the course. Do -not- engage with whether this person feels censored or heard; engage with the mission.
I'd guess you've been invited to the meeting to be a voice for #1 (and no one wants to touch #2, bad pun intended). Represent. Stick with these two points. Repeat them. Don't focus on an outcome, don't focus on him for sure, just make these points.
posted by Dashy at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
1. In my opinion, the course as proposed is truly, sorely lacking in its treatment and attention to diverse points of view, like women, POC, trans people. I could not advise the LLC to approve it without these things.
2. We offer courses and curriculum as a part of our educational mission. Courses aren't offered as a platform for our speech or opinions, they are offered as instruction, to cover a breadth of knowledge. Censorship is not an issue here, we as instructors should put the educational mission before our need to be heard. There are other venues for individual voices.
The one word I'm very carefully not using is the pronoun you. Do -not- engage with whether this person has done a wrong thing or made a bad course; engage with the course. Do -not- engage with whether this person feels censored or heard; engage with the mission.
I'd guess you've been invited to the meeting to be a voice for #1 (and no one wants to touch #2, bad pun intended). Represent. Stick with these two points. Repeat them. Don't focus on an outcome, don't focus on him for sure, just make these points.
posted by Dashy at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
I am not an expert in academic politics, but in any meeting where someone is likely to derail, I keep to a few scripted responses to bring it back on track:
"Thank you for your perspective on [censorship]."
"I appreciate your bringing up concerns about [censorship]."
"Your perspective on [censorship] is valuable and I appreciate your sharing it."
"I would love to hear more about your thoughts on [censorship], but it is also true that we have goals we need to meet for this meeting, and limited time. Can you please share those thoughts to me in writing, after our meeting, so that I can give them careful consideration?"
posted by juniperesque at 12:48 PM on March 12, 2019
"Thank you for your perspective on [censorship]."
"I appreciate your bringing up concerns about [censorship]."
"Your perspective on [censorship] is valuable and I appreciate your sharing it."
"I would love to hear more about your thoughts on [censorship], but it is also true that we have goals we need to meet for this meeting, and limited time. Can you please share those thoughts to me in writing, after our meeting, so that I can give them careful consideration?"
posted by juniperesque at 12:48 PM on March 12, 2019
Best answer: Would it be at all possible to structure the meeting differently? I have no idea what these meetings look like usually, but if the chair wants to hear the opinions from everyone, that sounds like something that often doesn't happen (i.e. we hear a lot from 2-3 people and very little from everyone else). What about giving each person n uninterrupted minutes to air their thoughts about the topic at the beginning. At least this would give you (and others) the chance to say your piece without interruption and derailing. I love the Designing Productive Meetings and Events manual, though that whole process would probably be too new/unusual to introduce like this.
posted by hannahelastic at 1:58 PM on March 12, 2019
posted by hannahelastic at 1:58 PM on March 12, 2019
If he talks about "academic freedom" and "censorship," then it's entirely appropriate for you (or a relevant stakeholder) to point out that he lied about having gone thru the initial vetting committees. And the fact that he did so, and was caught at it, renders any complaint about bias or censorship irrelevant.
posted by Gelatin at 10:00 AM on March 13, 2019
posted by Gelatin at 10:00 AM on March 13, 2019
Response by poster: Thank you for all the helpful suggestions. Although I felt quite ill headed in to the meeting, it turned out okay. I did have an extensive conversation with the person who had called the meeting ahead of time, and we were on the same page; they had also spoken to a couple of the other people attending who had the same concerns.
I am tenured, and have no concerns at all about speaking up--in fact I feel it's my duty to do so because there are others in more precarious positions for whom it might be risky. It is also easier for me to speak up because I'm not a permanent member of the department and I frankly am not very concerned about retaliation from Z, whereas he probably could make life miserable for someone who was actually in his department.
What worked in the meeting was remembering to keep it focused on the process. Right at the beginning of the meeting, I asked Z to describe the consultation process he had undertaken for the proposal, and it became clear that although he continued to try to claim he'd consulted with the department--he hadn't. I pointed out how other departments do this type of consultation and recommended he follow the same procedure. He agreed. I did couch it in terms of "it's valuable to get lots of ideas to make your proposal better."
We then discussed the course and it went surprisingly well! No one is mad that the course has been created--it's just that more explicit attention needs to be paid to diversity and representation. There was a little bit of "I have the academic freedom to propose this course" but to a person, everyone there was like, look dude, we have no problem with the idea of offering the course, you just need to add some things so it is more diverse and acknowledges the need for applying (for example) feminist critical theory.
Several of us took turns saying "This isn't about censorship. This isn't about political correctness" and the repetition of the message, from various people, seemed to work.
I still don't trust Z any further than I could throw him, but it looks like he has been forced into following a real consultation process from this point forward, and that now there will be people holding him accountable.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
I am tenured, and have no concerns at all about speaking up--in fact I feel it's my duty to do so because there are others in more precarious positions for whom it might be risky. It is also easier for me to speak up because I'm not a permanent member of the department and I frankly am not very concerned about retaliation from Z, whereas he probably could make life miserable for someone who was actually in his department.
What worked in the meeting was remembering to keep it focused on the process. Right at the beginning of the meeting, I asked Z to describe the consultation process he had undertaken for the proposal, and it became clear that although he continued to try to claim he'd consulted with the department--he hadn't. I pointed out how other departments do this type of consultation and recommended he follow the same procedure. He agreed. I did couch it in terms of "it's valuable to get lots of ideas to make your proposal better."
We then discussed the course and it went surprisingly well! No one is mad that the course has been created--it's just that more explicit attention needs to be paid to diversity and representation. There was a little bit of "I have the academic freedom to propose this course" but to a person, everyone there was like, look dude, we have no problem with the idea of offering the course, you just need to add some things so it is more diverse and acknowledges the need for applying (for example) feminist critical theory.
Several of us took turns saying "This isn't about censorship. This isn't about political correctness" and the repetition of the message, from various people, seemed to work.
I still don't trust Z any further than I could throw him, but it looks like he has been forced into following a real consultation process from this point forward, and that now there will be people holding him accountable.
posted by Secret Sockdentity at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by MountainDaisy at 3:16 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]