Bierfaristo Blog

Yesterday, several of us who teach the Writing in Biology course got together to talk about what works, what doesn't, and what we're planning to do next semester. I've been largely pleased with the structure I've used for the class, but there are a few things I'm planning to try next time.

One of the primary goals of my class is for students to decide to work on something that they think actually matters. The vast majority of students come into my classes seeing a class as an obstacle to get over and make most of their calculations about the class based on minimizing their effort. I begin the class at the center and try to progressively pull myself out of the center and leave a vacuum that the students need to fill themselves. Some students find this very uncomfortable, but I've gotten pretty good at managing this transition and I'm relatively pleased with the outcome of the class. Students tell me, in their comments and reflective essays, that trying to figure out something worth doing, was a new and important experience that will transform how they approach other classes.

I've gone back and forth in giving latitude in creating projects. I think, on the whole, projects are better when I constrain the topic to some extent. That doesn't necessarily mean that students learn more, however. It may be that the experience of doing a crappy project (when you could have done something good) might be just what students need to learn. That was very clear to me from one student's reflective essay this year, who referred to another student's thoughtful project as a model for what she should have done because she hadn't really put any thought into hers. Yes!

I try to let the curriculum emerge from the students' writing, but there are a variety of problems that I know are going to be there. Rather than waiting for them to emerge, I think I'm going to design some in-class activities to try to confront them head on.

Creative Writing Students often aim for flowery language and choose different adjectives to mean the same thing: dirty, filthy, unclean, unsanitary, etc. In English class, we're told not to keep using the same adjective, but in science you want to have consistency in the terms you select or define. It's OK to pick one and keep using it

Folk Measures Students have a tendency to use vague adjectives, especially when precise (or at least estimated) measures would be more appropriate. Don't tell me the pond was "large" or there were "pretty many" ducks on it. Write instead, "The pond was 5 hectares and at 4pm on June 1 there were 38 ducks."

Judgments and Anthropomorphisms Students often use language that implies moral judgments or opinions. One example I see regularly is "global warming is harming the earth". You could say, "global warming will have many effects on the earth's biota" or even "global warming will cause mass extinctions", but to speak about the earth having interests is not appropriate. I would also discourage some of the adjectives above (e.g. "filthy") for carrying moral overtones. Finally, avoid making judgments about your own work: don't say "the methods were bad" but instead maybe something like "the methods did not produce usable data".

Be comprehensive, complete, and specific You can't just pick a few results to discuss "for example". You need to tell all of the results -- and preferably do it in a systematic way.

I'm still not sure what form the classroom exercises will take -- maybe examples that groups of students will have to fix? Maybe something like 'clicker questions'? I don't know yet.

I've been really enjoying the summertime pace of the campus. I finally have blocks of time again! During the semester, I rarely have blocks of time larger than 20 minutes without interruption, which makes working on significant writing or code nearly impossible. It's nice to be able to dig into significant problems and work on them.

Over the past few days, I've put in 15-20 hours getting the "Pipeline" working. A new faculty member in Biology arrived wanting to set up a software system to manage genomic sequence data. It's a sometime odd and eclectic system that seems like it was programmed by someone rather like me: a relative novice programmer more interested in functionality than elegance. You can see how the style of the code evolved over time as the developers changed and learned more about programming. There are some seriously weird things about system: I found 3 different functions in different parts of the code called "run_phd2fasta" and how many daemons have you seen written in PHP? I'm optimistic that we've finally resolved all of the serious bugs and will have a working system Real Soon now.

Meetings go forward on the campus response to the reorganization. Yesterday, I was part of a group that met with the chancellor. He began the meeting by saying he didn't have anything to say -- and then spoke for 45 minutes. It's been interesting to try to triangulate in on what's happening based on the perspectives of the different players involved. Tomorrow, the Faculty Senate executive committee will meet to continue moving the issue forward.

Today, the MSP board met to bring everyone up-to-date. At the same time all this is going on, we continue to negotiate next year's contract. The meeting today was encouraging that both sides are close to resolving the outstanding issues. There are several parts of the new contract that I'm particularly interested in. Unfortunately, it looks like we're being strong-armed into accepting a one-year contract, but if the contract is signed and funded on-time, it will be a first since I came to UMass.

After the stress of the end of semester, the crises at UMass, and the fiasco with the car breaking down last week, I enjoyed a quiet weekend at home with the family. I got a new cell phone, a Motorola RAZR. It took some effort, but I think I've made the calendar syncing work (although you have to use a cable, rather than Bluetooth, because Verizon believes they can make more money selling people broken firmware and having them do stupid things, like email their photos to themselves through the cell network, rather than just download them. Crazy.) I'm hoping to not have to carry around a palm pilot anymore, since you can't get one that uses Graffiti anymore. I really liked my palm pilot. One thing I did over the weekend was to set up special ringtones for some people. For Alisa, I have the Imperial March (ie, Darth Vader's theme). For Lucy, When the Saints Go Marching In. For Philip, I found a midi file of the theme from StarCraft. Even Alisa said that was cool when she heard it.

I got a request from Kalle Kniivil

A Boston Herald editorial this week claimed that faculty are merely whining about process. Process, however, just means following the rules -- in this case, a principle called "joint effort" -- formally adopted by the UMass Board of Trustees. We all depend on "process" for everything from ensuring fair treatment when we get a parking ticket to defending our fundamental freedoms like habeas corpus or freedom of speech. Replace "process" with, say, "freedom of speech" in the statement from the Herald and you get something like: "this reflexive whine-fest among some journalists is all about freedom of speech". Most journalists would argue that freedom of speech is a big deal. For faculty, the idea that the University is governed by the principle of joint effort is also a big deal.

The recent events highlight an important difference between academia and top-down models of governance, like business and our current national government. Business employees are not surprised if they are not consulted when there is a shakeup in management and might wonder why the faculty are upset. In our national government, it has become clear that the voices of the constituents mean little, when people like Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales hang onto their posts long after the public has made its opinion known. So the public may be excused if they fail to see what's happening at the University as anything out-of-the-ordinary.

Academia is intentionally organized differently than business and government. Scholarship, to be free to pursue the truth, needs to be protected from the vagaries of momentary economic or political influence. Professors pass through an arduous process to receive a doctorate and tenure. Academia does not generally offer competitive salaries as reward for this dedication, but instead provides academic freedom, tenure, and the right to joint effort in the governance of the institution.

In Massachusetts, the principle of joint effort is outlined in the Wellman Document, originally adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1973. The primary responsibility for "academic matters and faculty status" rests with the faculty. The Board of Trustees, "while retaining its ultimate legal authority in governing the University, recognizes that the faculty, the students, and other groups within the University have the right, the responsibility, and the privilege of advising on policies affecting the University. The Board will ensure these rights, responsibilities, and privileges through the various governing bodies

On Tuesday, Max read excerpts from a letter from Wilson at the MSP Open Meeting. The letter indicated that that the governance proposal "should also be taken off the table" and "should only be brought up again if the initiative should come out of campus-based constituencies." This sounded great and, when asked about it by the press, I was quoted as saying, "What he's saying sounds good, but we don't know what that actually means until we see if the actions match. So, I think it's too early to know what the outcome will be." Today, we know.

The Globe has an article where Wilson and Tocco are reported saying "in separate interviews that they have no plans whatsoever to change their proposal. The only difference, they said, is their intention to drop the phrase "one university" in talking about their proposed overhaul." Really? What a surprise.

There was an open meeting of the MSP yesterday where there was a frank discussion of the faculty's perceptions regarding the unfolding events at the University and how to move forward productively. The meeting was attended by 60 to 80 faculty and there was a lively debate and exchange of views.

There was an update about on-going activity. Letters are being drafted to the governor from the joint MSP and Faculty Senate leadership to Governor Patrick to ask for a meeting to discuss the need for a truly independent commission and to ask that the Governor not accept the resignation of John Armstrong. Armstrong has been a strong advocate for higher education and the Amherst campus.

Much of the discussion focused on the need to communicate our interest in exploring a vision for what's best for higher education in the state. We don't want to get caught up in debates about particular people, nor do we want to either demonize or beatify anyone. This is not a battle or a choice between Lombardi or Wilson, but a process of advocating for all of higher ed and for greater accountability and openness.

There was serious concern about the current operation of the Board of Trustees. We need to look carefully at how future Trustees are selected. Trustees should be: (1) individuals of profound, national distinction; (2) have deep, scholarly understanding of public higher education; (3) should be UMass alumni as much as possible; and (4) represent the entire state, not just provincial appointments.

My suggestion was that the Faculty Senate immediately establish a set of ad_hoc committees to begin exploring governance structures and implications for the higher ed system and the Amherst campus. Reports from these committees could be useful to communicate with the commission that we hope the Governor will establish.

Finally, we need open and accountable leadership at every level of the higher ed system. We need openness and accountability not only at the Trustee level, but for the President, Chancellor, Provost and for the deans and chairs as well. The University will be a much stronger system if we can get the substantive debate about what's best for higher education out of the backroom and into the boardroom, where it belongs.

UMass Boston is poised to vote no confidence on the process that led to the One University plan. I was interested to see this absolutely false statement in the article, however:

While the past week has been "one of turmoil," he said, many faculty members have grown more receptive to the proposal after learning more details in recent days. "The waters have substantially calmed," Connolly said.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the faculty are becoming increasingly united and activated by the events as they unfold. This statement is clearly an attempt by the President's Office to spin the media regarding the facts on the ground. they're trying to paint what's happened as a momentary concern that grew out of faculty being unfamiliar
with the plan. I believe that the true concern is about the process by which such a plan is developed and implemented and those concerns still stand.

Over the past day, I've been reflecting on the Andrew Card experience. On the one hand, I feel gratified that this was a profound expression of democracy: here were people free to express their revulsion at someone who was at the center of the [expletive deleted] Bush administration. At the same time, I can't help feeling that this is exactly the experience that those in Bush administration seem to relish: a chance to tweak the nose of the People and use Their institutions to empower and enrich themselves. Card still got his degree and, I expect, that he and his buds are laughing at all these "little people" and their impotent rage. Still, I believe the experience of pulling off the organization for this protest will be an important formative experience for many of the students -- and faculty -- on the campus. Too long, we've been willing to leave governance for someone else. It's clear that we -- all of us -- need to stand up, roll up our sleeves, and do the hard work necessary to bring these usurpers down.

On a lighter note, Alisa was looking at the picture of the platform in the paper, when the protest was going on and noticed a woman standing to the right of Card with her hands raised in an odd gesture. She looked at me and I explained, "Oh, yes... That was the sign-language interpreter for the hearing impaired." We wondered what she might have been saying to the hearing impaired in the audience or if she could even hear what was being said on the platform -- certainly no-one else could. Maybe she was saying, "Everyone is screaming -- I can't hear anything." Or maybe she was chanting along with the protesters "Honor Grads! Shame on Card!" One can always hope.

The graduate graduation ceremony came off about as well as I could have hoped. There was a lively group of demonstrators at the approach to the Mullins Center handing out stickers with a "no card" symbol and yellow 11x17 flyers that explained why people were protesting Andrew Card and unfolded to make a sign that said "HONOR GRADS" and "DIS CARD". The majority of the faculty had a sticker, a sign or both.

The ceremony was lovely and unremarkable except for three events. The first was when Chancellor Lombardi stood up to speak. He received an immediate, enthusiastic, and sustained standing ovation from the faculty and students. The second was the contrast when Presichancellor Wilson came to the microphone. The faculty were silent. There were a few boos and catcalls from the students and audience, but the faculty were simply silent. Wilson seemed very unnerved and stumbled over his words several times. As I've noted in the past, the Chancellor always speaks about the students and what they bring to the campus, whereas Wilson talks about the campus and how lucky students should feel that they got to come here. The silence was really deafening, broken only when Wilson mentioned Craig Mello's Nobel Prize.

The last remarkable event was when Andrew Card was announced. The first honorary degree candidate was met with polite and enthusiastic applause. When the provost mentioned Card, the entire audience took to their feet and erupted with chanting, noisemakers, and holding up the yellow signs. It was remarkable. The platform party carried ahead with the ceremony -- they tried to turn the volume up, but the audience got louder and louder until Card took his seat. Then the signs came down, the student stood up, and we had a lovely ceremony. I got a few pictures that I'll try to get posted soon.

Trying to manage the response to the crisis at UMass has been hard. I really feel like we have a tiger by the tail. Or maybe two: we have both the problem (Wilson et al) and then our 'herd of cats' that we're trying to keep moving in the same direction.

The biggest challenge in keeping our people on-message, is understanding what our common goals are and getting buy-in on those goals. I see the leadership group focused on moving forward and trying to pick a path among the landmines. But many faculty are focused almost entirely on getting Lombardi to come back. It's not realistic to expect them not to push for that, but it limits our ability to craft a message that gives them the flexibility to express that without compromising the overall message.

Looking at the globe article, I have remind myself that the media can always be counted on to get it wrong. We were very careful NOT to take a no-confidence vote in the president or trustees themselves. We limited our statement to the actions, because we believe that our current best path is to move forward with them. But the Globe reported it as "what amounted to a no-confidence vote" and the AP just says "a vote of no confidence". So much for the nuanced distinction we were so careful to make. So when you see things reported in the press, you can't jump to conclusions about what was actually said.