Congratulations !
You have been awarded points.
Thank you for !
- Story Listed as: Fiction For Adults
- Theme: Drama / Human Interest
- Subject: Adventure
- Published: 09/15/2021
THE DEANS’ DILEMMAS
Born 1947, M, from Zurich, SwitzerlandThe Deans of the various Faculties at a well-know University, were having their monthly meeting with the University President and Vice Presidents. There were several fundamental issues of policy that they needed to discuss.
Universities today have quite varied internal structures - some having Groups, Institutes, Departments, Divisions, Schools and Faculties – in increasing size order. We are at the Faculty level where all of the smaller groupings are included.
President: ‘I call the meeting to order and remind you that we have an agreed agenda to follow. Any items that come up and are not on the agenda will need to be inserted into future meetings. All Agreed?’
Dean of Medicine: ‘We have the case of Prof C who has been accused by his students of working them until they drop. They must produce ground-breaking research 24/7 and publish only in the prominent scientific journals. This in his opinion is the only way to win prestige and keep the funding monies rolling in!’
Dean of Medicine: ‘We had hoped to sort out the matter within the Faculty but that failed, because it would have been the job of the Department Chairman to discuss the matter with the offender. However the Department Chairman is Prof C’s wife, and you can imagine that she did not want to influence their personal relationship with work related matters!’
Dean of Medicine: ‘So we set up a group of Professors in the Medicine Faculty to investigate the matter by interviewing students and support staff. Indeed the accusations were seemingly all true and we have a crisis on our hands because the matter has been leaked to the press. Leaked by one of our colleagues who said he was fed up of everything being hidden under the carpet! It is unfortunate that we could not solve the matter internally!’
Dean of Law: ‘Why are we hiding items here? I seem to remember that by wiping scandals under the carpet we could pretend like ostriches that they never existed. However, today’s message here is one of transparency not of further opaqueness!’
President: ‘Yes, today’s message is thankfully different from the days of the Faculty ostriches. We are openly accountable to the public even if we are a private University!’
Dean of Languages: ‘I know it is not on today’s agenda but I have a fundamental question about why is it in Medicine, one of the oldest University Faculties, the chasing after fame and glory the only way to win prestige and keep the funding monies rolling in!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘I also have a general question about why scholars are being turned into investment bankers. As you might remember the Humanities is not a money-winning subject and we focus entirely on scholarly business. Are you trying to say that you would have preferred to sweep the whole business of which subjects are worthwhile, under the carpet, rather than deal with the reasons behind the working excesses!’
VP Finance: ‘We should not forget that our whole university only runs because we have large sums coming in from the research funding agencies, and from donors and sponsors. We must keep this money flowing to survive!’
Dean of Languages: ‘But you VP Finance have gotten us all into the situation of mice running on the wheel, or Sisyphus pushing the stone up the mountain. You have converted parts of our scholarly institutions into get-rich-quick research factories!’
Dean of Law: ‘I ask the same questions as did the Dean of Languages – because Law is a practice of inherited traditions, and the judges are the ones who try to keep our societies from falling apart!’
VP Finance: ‘But the Law Faculty is one of our best-sponsored faculties. Many successful lawyers contribute to our budget!’
Dean of Law: ‘Many successful lawyers contribute to OUR Faculty budget. You VP Finance have changed the regulations so that all monies flow your way, despite the fact that it was labeled as Personal Sponsoring and intended for OUR Faculty!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘I know it is not on the agenda for today but I ask that at the next meeting we discuss how money earmarked for specific Faculty tasks, ends up being managed by accounts in the Central Administration who play at being investment bankers!’
Dean of Law: ‘On a more general note I think we need to discuss how we deal with the problem that some areas are heavily funded by agencies, sponsors and donors, whereas others find it hard to attract money. If I understand VP Finance he would like us to support only well-funded areas. This would mean that studies like Classics, Languages, Philosophy would all have to be abandoned because they ‘do not pay’. We as Deans must decide on procedures whereby we support the traditional fields that started Universities in the first place!’
Dean of Languages: ‘Hear, hear to all of that! May our future grow from the past!’
President: ‘So where do we stand in the matter of Prof C?’
VP Human Resources (formerly Personnel Department): ‘We cannot prevent scandals being released to the outside world even if they do us incredible reputation damage. We must devise a procedure whereby scandalous items are not shovelled under the carpet, as they are elsewhere in publicly funded life. Even though we are a private University with considerable private resources, we still rely upon the public purse through funding agencies for ‘Education’, and ‘Research’!’
Current VP Research: ‘We should also not forget that we are not alone in the funding world. Public Universities were started to give the whole population a chance at Higher Education – not just for the privileged families who flock to us. It is a little pointless if we engage in a battle to death against all other Universities in the matter of raising the highest budget for our VP Finance!’
VP Human Resources: ‘Back to the original question! We must find a way of finding an Ombudsman/woman who can actively organise investigations, especially when family members are also involved. I realise that to attract a particular person to our University, then a job must be found for the partner, but we should carefully avoid that they are in the same Department!’
VP Human Resources: ‘With regards to Prof C, this colleague has already been fed to the lions of the press. We must find a way to correctly remunerate him, so that his lawyers do not further tear us apart!’
President: ‘I ask the Dean of Medicine to be sure that no mobbing has taken place! Either of groups of students or Faculty against Prof. C, or the other way with colleagues and ambitious students supporting Prof. C to mob others. Mobbing is very high potential scandal material and the Government is working hard to stop this ruthless hunting of the needy by the greedy!’
President: ‘Thank you all. Can we pass on to the next item, which is about Prof. P!’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof P is much respected, much sought after instructor by incoming students, has had a professional solo and accompaniment career with several well regarded recordings.’
Dean of Music: ‘The problem has been started by Prof. X during the time that he was Acting Dean of Music. Now there is an application from Prof. X to terminate the contract of Prof. P!’
President: ‘What problem can there be with such an accomplished Faculty Member as Prof. P? Furthermore Prof. P is tenured and can only be fired for crimes against the Nation or the University, whichever is greater!’
Dean of Music: ‘Well during the time of early COVID, we all followed the University’s guidance on distancing, masking, limited meetings. We conducted all recital and examination via our Internet communication platform - I believe it is called ‘ZOOMER’. Prof. P was a full and valuable contributor to all of these events, albeit remotely via Internet.’
President: ‘What problem can there be with such a responsible Faculty Member as Prof. P?’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof. X was hoping to increase income by rushing to open the conservatory for public concerts despite COVID restrictions, where the main donors could hear the wonderful playing of Faculty Members and selected students!’
President: ‘What, you mean opening our doors to airborne diseases? Even now we are following the University’s rules by holding this meeting via ZOOMER on the Internet!’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof. X called me this morning proudly stating that in the Government the Premier has dropped all COVID bans. There is no limit now to events. Thousands are streaming to the pubs and dance halls where they can freely sweat and aerosol over their fellow party lions! The Premier himself is hiding in the Bunker claiming need to isolate after talking with some infected COVIDists – who refuse to get vaccinated because they think the Government is trying to take away their freedom!’
Current VP Research: ‘We should not forget that new COVID cases are at least 50,000 per day, and that the hospitals are staffed by demoralised care teams, who are barely able to cope with the rising number of deaths. The behaviour of the Premier is totally irresponsible, Furthermore he no longer attends meetings himself but sends along representatives – loyal servants prepared to die for their master!’
Dean of Music: ‘Several of our prominent donors have called me saying they do not find public concerts to be safe in these times of rising COVID. Especially when the business clowns are sending their workers back to the factories as they lounge around isolated on their country estates. Our donors encourage that the concerts should be via Internet via ZOOMER, as they would not attend in person anyway until the COVID Crisis is much improved. The multi-ZOOMER may be a difficult task for the software experts but can be coordinated – as I understand from our Computer Scientists!’
Dean of Computer Sciences: ‘We have just lodged patents for ten-thousand plus ZOOMER, and of course the whole world will want to buy it and the monies will roll in!’
VP Big Investment: ‘That is wonderful news, your sector is much respected by my Office for the way in which it fills the coffers!’
Current VP Research: ‘Good God Men, the world is in crisis and all you can do is yammer about money and profit! The whole system of our University is threatened and your Offices cannot realise anything less than greed!’
President: ‘While I understand the need that we have to finance all that we attempt to achieve, I feel that we must find a way to go forwards even when our budgets will become much reduced from the results of COVID!’
President: ‘I suggest that the Dean of Music talk again with Prof. X reminding him that the University still maintains COVID restriction, despite the playboy tactics of the Premier. If Prof. P wishes on his own to take early retirement we should be most generous to thank him for all of his years of excellent service. This can go down in the protocol of the Meeting as another example where greed to donations has been given more weight than respect for the regulations and the individual!’
President: ‘I ask the Dean of Music to be sure that no mobbing has taken place in this case either! Either of groups of students or Faculty against Prof. P, or the other way with colleagues and ambitious students supporting Prof. P to mob others!’
President: ‘I understand the next item concerns Prof. B, over to the Dean of Science!’
Dean of Science: ‘The case of Prof. B has a long history and is one of several similar cases that have long been swept under many carpets. The first case of mobbing came up about thirty years ago when his colleague Prof. E, argued that Prof. B was not doing what he was appointed to do! Prof. E argued that he had supported the application of Prof. B, because he was supposed to do exactly what Prof. E’s friends from the Academy thought was top priority research! It turned out that Prof. B was not convinced by the wished-for research directions of Prof. E and the Academicians, and indeed wrote several papers contesting the suppositions that were made. These papers attracted a lot of attention, and now this work of Prof. B is regarded as fundamental as a paradigm change!’
Dean of Science: ‘I have asked the Former VP Research to join us here from his retirement, because he has been aware of the case surrounding Prof. B for many years!’
Former VP Research: ‘I think I should mention that Prof. E was one of the old–style Professors where they were set up as heads of kingdoms. I know that Prof. B was strongly supported by the President at the time of his appointment because he had been trained in the ‘new-school’. There an open structure was favoured – where colleagues talked to each other and to the students of other colleagues - and generally promoted open discussion study in the style of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Whereas in the Prof. E School it was forbidden to talk to other groups about your work, and it was impossible for a new Faculty Member to talk to the students of the older colleague! Prof. E and others of his generation that supported him - mostly out of fear rather than conviction, believed that you were appointed to teach one view for the rest of your career – the view of your own teacher! Whereas we have long claimed that once a colleague joins the Faculty he can change his teaching and research directions, as s/he thinks fit! S/he may be expected to maintain teaching in certain fields to keep the curriculum balanced but this work can also be shared with the Prof. Es.’
Dean Of Humanities: ‘Whatever happened to those new schools where open discussion was favoured in the Sciences and Medicine as well as in the Classics and Languages?’
Dean Of Languages: ‘As we have heard discussed today, the open schools were swallowed by the money grabbers. Don’t forget the Financial Administration in this University has grown in the last ten years disproportionately ahead of any Faculty appointments!’
Dean Of Law: ‘Well we should alert our VP for Finance, VP for Investment, VP for Big Deals, VP for Bigger Deals, VP for Biggest Deals, VP for Money Manipulation, that the halcyon days of apparently endless resources are likely coming to a quick end, as COVID takes its toll! We are faced with having to pay hundreds of Money Monkeys when the financial supplies are drying up. Perhaps the VPs for Money Making should make contingency plans for the next big financial collapse!’
President : ‘Can we please return to the items on today’s agenda. More on Prof. B please!’
Former VP Research:’ I sent a few of my team to investigate the rumours. They found that Prof. B, gave excellent lectures, listened to students, took extra responsibility for administration so that younger colleagues could spend more time at research. In short Prof. B was a well respected colleague, who took part is his Departmental affairs and not hiding in a corner under the excuse of being a hermitised scholar!’
Current VP Research: ‘Needless to say this saga has continued over to the present where colleagues and former students of Prof. E, do their best to undermine the work of Prof. B, despite the fact that the rest of the world seems to appreciate it!’
Current VP Research: ‘We could note here that Prof. B has by far the largest Citations Index of his Department. For information to colleagues in Classical Departments without similar bibliographical evaluations, the ‘Citation Index’ supposedly represents the impact of a paper upon the field as reflected by the numbers of times the work is cited by other workers. Furthermore this index is one of the prime indices for the world ranking of University Departments. Simply said, the high ranking of Prof. B’s Department at the International level has quite something to do with Prof. B’s citation index. Even shorter said, colleagues and former students of Prof. E have profited immensely from the work of Prof. B!’
Current VP Research: ‘The situation worsened about ten years ago when there were cries that Prof. B was a ‘Scharlatan”. This happens often in Academia and is regarded by the Accusers/Insulters as the worst insult that they can throw at the back of their colleague – rather like accusing citizens of belonging to the OTHER Political Party. The Accuser is often joined by third-rate academics – who are hoping that by jointly accusing the ‘Scharlatan’, they will deflect attention from themselves!’
Current VP Research: ‘The Insulters accused Prof. B of only ever writing Review Papers, whereas ‘real scientists’ obtain ‘facts’ with the most up-to-date facilities available – to be read by specialist-only readers. I understand that Prof. B sponsored the work of younger Faculty members in his team, and encouraged them to publish their work on their own – without the holy name of the great Professor at the end of the list, like a trademark!‘
Former VP Research: ‘Perhaps we had ‘green-eyed monsters of envy’ at work here?’
Former VP Research: ‘Just a final word about Review Papers. Many colleagues believe that science advances through review papers = because they give an overview of where the field has been going, and where it might go next. The detailed research searching facts gives the detailed under-view upon which to hang the greater pictures. Obviously we need both views to advance forward, and neither side should assume that they are ‘better’!’
President: ‘Now that Prof. B has retired, one might argue that the situation is closed, but mobbing is still going on to this day - as we have heard from the other two cases on today’s agenda! One thing that is passed on from President to President is a piece of advice, for cases of complaints, accusations and mobbing - “Don’t just look at where the words are going, look where they are coming from!”
President: ‘At an informal meeting among several University Presidents, we talked about tenure. Some younger colleagues do not see why older colleagues should have jobs for life, especially when the ‘aged’ are past their prime. The same young ones seem to forget that they will age too, and will likely be just like the older colleagues that they are now complaining about. They forget that University Faculty Members are actually like government employees, the clergy, the judiciary, the military, civil servants - who all have jobs for life, or are on long-term renewable contracts. The purpose of ‘permanent employees’ is to ensure that the system functions and incorporates all useful new suggestions!’
President: ‘Usually the younger aggressive colleagues do not carry the full responsibility of Professorial Office, while they are still trying to prove themselves. If we start firing our older Academic Faculty, who have the experience and wisdom, then the aggressive younger Faculty are not actually yet qualified to take over these tasks!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘Did you talk about the other side of tenure which is a protection for scholars, who are often demeaned by younger colleagues, and usually all behind the victim’s back?’
President: ‘Yes, and we decided that such actions constitute mobbing. We should not only confront such aggressive behaviour, but try to find out why it happens!’
Dean of Law: ‘There have been cases where one Faculty Member tried to scandalise another colleague to get her dismissed from tenure. We found out that the aggressive colleague wanted to replace the mobbed colleague with one of her own students!’
President: ‘I also ask you all to give thought to the next meeting where we should begin to draft guidelines about where Scholarship is more important than Money and Profit!’
President: ‘I thank you all for joining in today with ‘ZOOMER’ and wish you all good health, balanced thinking, and not too many worries about finances – after all, we have enough ’Money Monkeys’ who should worry for us!’
THE DEANS’ DILEMMAS(Alan Bruce)
The Deans of the various Faculties at a well-know University, were having their monthly meeting with the University President and Vice Presidents. There were several fundamental issues of policy that they needed to discuss.
Universities today have quite varied internal structures - some having Groups, Institutes, Departments, Divisions, Schools and Faculties – in increasing size order. We are at the Faculty level where all of the smaller groupings are included.
President: ‘I call the meeting to order and remind you that we have an agreed agenda to follow. Any items that come up and are not on the agenda will need to be inserted into future meetings. All Agreed?’
Dean of Medicine: ‘We have the case of Prof C who has been accused by his students of working them until they drop. They must produce ground-breaking research 24/7 and publish only in the prominent scientific journals. This in his opinion is the only way to win prestige and keep the funding monies rolling in!’
Dean of Medicine: ‘We had hoped to sort out the matter within the Faculty but that failed, because it would have been the job of the Department Chairman to discuss the matter with the offender. However the Department Chairman is Prof C’s wife, and you can imagine that she did not want to influence their personal relationship with work related matters!’
Dean of Medicine: ‘So we set up a group of Professors in the Medicine Faculty to investigate the matter by interviewing students and support staff. Indeed the accusations were seemingly all true and we have a crisis on our hands because the matter has been leaked to the press. Leaked by one of our colleagues who said he was fed up of everything being hidden under the carpet! It is unfortunate that we could not solve the matter internally!’
Dean of Law: ‘Why are we hiding items here? I seem to remember that by wiping scandals under the carpet we could pretend like ostriches that they never existed. However, today’s message here is one of transparency not of further opaqueness!’
President: ‘Yes, today’s message is thankfully different from the days of the Faculty ostriches. We are openly accountable to the public even if we are a private University!’
Dean of Languages: ‘I know it is not on today’s agenda but I have a fundamental question about why is it in Medicine, one of the oldest University Faculties, the chasing after fame and glory the only way to win prestige and keep the funding monies rolling in!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘I also have a general question about why scholars are being turned into investment bankers. As you might remember the Humanities is not a money-winning subject and we focus entirely on scholarly business. Are you trying to say that you would have preferred to sweep the whole business of which subjects are worthwhile, under the carpet, rather than deal with the reasons behind the working excesses!’
VP Finance: ‘We should not forget that our whole university only runs because we have large sums coming in from the research funding agencies, and from donors and sponsors. We must keep this money flowing to survive!’
Dean of Languages: ‘But you VP Finance have gotten us all into the situation of mice running on the wheel, or Sisyphus pushing the stone up the mountain. You have converted parts of our scholarly institutions into get-rich-quick research factories!’
Dean of Law: ‘I ask the same questions as did the Dean of Languages – because Law is a practice of inherited traditions, and the judges are the ones who try to keep our societies from falling apart!’
VP Finance: ‘But the Law Faculty is one of our best-sponsored faculties. Many successful lawyers contribute to our budget!’
Dean of Law: ‘Many successful lawyers contribute to OUR Faculty budget. You VP Finance have changed the regulations so that all monies flow your way, despite the fact that it was labeled as Personal Sponsoring and intended for OUR Faculty!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘I know it is not on the agenda for today but I ask that at the next meeting we discuss how money earmarked for specific Faculty tasks, ends up being managed by accounts in the Central Administration who play at being investment bankers!’
Dean of Law: ‘On a more general note I think we need to discuss how we deal with the problem that some areas are heavily funded by agencies, sponsors and donors, whereas others find it hard to attract money. If I understand VP Finance he would like us to support only well-funded areas. This would mean that studies like Classics, Languages, Philosophy would all have to be abandoned because they ‘do not pay’. We as Deans must decide on procedures whereby we support the traditional fields that started Universities in the first place!’
Dean of Languages: ‘Hear, hear to all of that! May our future grow from the past!’
President: ‘So where do we stand in the matter of Prof C?’
VP Human Resources (formerly Personnel Department): ‘We cannot prevent scandals being released to the outside world even if they do us incredible reputation damage. We must devise a procedure whereby scandalous items are not shovelled under the carpet, as they are elsewhere in publicly funded life. Even though we are a private University with considerable private resources, we still rely upon the public purse through funding agencies for ‘Education’, and ‘Research’!’
Current VP Research: ‘We should also not forget that we are not alone in the funding world. Public Universities were started to give the whole population a chance at Higher Education – not just for the privileged families who flock to us. It is a little pointless if we engage in a battle to death against all other Universities in the matter of raising the highest budget for our VP Finance!’
VP Human Resources: ‘Back to the original question! We must find a way of finding an Ombudsman/woman who can actively organise investigations, especially when family members are also involved. I realise that to attract a particular person to our University, then a job must be found for the partner, but we should carefully avoid that they are in the same Department!’
VP Human Resources: ‘With regards to Prof C, this colleague has already been fed to the lions of the press. We must find a way to correctly remunerate him, so that his lawyers do not further tear us apart!’
President: ‘I ask the Dean of Medicine to be sure that no mobbing has taken place! Either of groups of students or Faculty against Prof. C, or the other way with colleagues and ambitious students supporting Prof. C to mob others. Mobbing is very high potential scandal material and the Government is working hard to stop this ruthless hunting of the needy by the greedy!’
President: ‘Thank you all. Can we pass on to the next item, which is about Prof. P!’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof P is much respected, much sought after instructor by incoming students, has had a professional solo and accompaniment career with several well regarded recordings.’
Dean of Music: ‘The problem has been started by Prof. X during the time that he was Acting Dean of Music. Now there is an application from Prof. X to terminate the contract of Prof. P!’
President: ‘What problem can there be with such an accomplished Faculty Member as Prof. P? Furthermore Prof. P is tenured and can only be fired for crimes against the Nation or the University, whichever is greater!’
Dean of Music: ‘Well during the time of early COVID, we all followed the University’s guidance on distancing, masking, limited meetings. We conducted all recital and examination via our Internet communication platform - I believe it is called ‘ZOOMER’. Prof. P was a full and valuable contributor to all of these events, albeit remotely via Internet.’
President: ‘What problem can there be with such a responsible Faculty Member as Prof. P?’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof. X was hoping to increase income by rushing to open the conservatory for public concerts despite COVID restrictions, where the main donors could hear the wonderful playing of Faculty Members and selected students!’
President: ‘What, you mean opening our doors to airborne diseases? Even now we are following the University’s rules by holding this meeting via ZOOMER on the Internet!’
Dean of Music: ‘Prof. X called me this morning proudly stating that in the Government the Premier has dropped all COVID bans. There is no limit now to events. Thousands are streaming to the pubs and dance halls where they can freely sweat and aerosol over their fellow party lions! The Premier himself is hiding in the Bunker claiming need to isolate after talking with some infected COVIDists – who refuse to get vaccinated because they think the Government is trying to take away their freedom!’
Current VP Research: ‘We should not forget that new COVID cases are at least 50,000 per day, and that the hospitals are staffed by demoralised care teams, who are barely able to cope with the rising number of deaths. The behaviour of the Premier is totally irresponsible, Furthermore he no longer attends meetings himself but sends along representatives – loyal servants prepared to die for their master!’
Dean of Music: ‘Several of our prominent donors have called me saying they do not find public concerts to be safe in these times of rising COVID. Especially when the business clowns are sending their workers back to the factories as they lounge around isolated on their country estates. Our donors encourage that the concerts should be via Internet via ZOOMER, as they would not attend in person anyway until the COVID Crisis is much improved. The multi-ZOOMER may be a difficult task for the software experts but can be coordinated – as I understand from our Computer Scientists!’
Dean of Computer Sciences: ‘We have just lodged patents for ten-thousand plus ZOOMER, and of course the whole world will want to buy it and the monies will roll in!’
VP Big Investment: ‘That is wonderful news, your sector is much respected by my Office for the way in which it fills the coffers!’
Current VP Research: ‘Good God Men, the world is in crisis and all you can do is yammer about money and profit! The whole system of our University is threatened and your Offices cannot realise anything less than greed!’
President: ‘While I understand the need that we have to finance all that we attempt to achieve, I feel that we must find a way to go forwards even when our budgets will become much reduced from the results of COVID!’
President: ‘I suggest that the Dean of Music talk again with Prof. X reminding him that the University still maintains COVID restriction, despite the playboy tactics of the Premier. If Prof. P wishes on his own to take early retirement we should be most generous to thank him for all of his years of excellent service. This can go down in the protocol of the Meeting as another example where greed to donations has been given more weight than respect for the regulations and the individual!’
President: ‘I ask the Dean of Music to be sure that no mobbing has taken place in this case either! Either of groups of students or Faculty against Prof. P, or the other way with colleagues and ambitious students supporting Prof. P to mob others!’
President: ‘I understand the next item concerns Prof. B, over to the Dean of Science!’
Dean of Science: ‘The case of Prof. B has a long history and is one of several similar cases that have long been swept under many carpets. The first case of mobbing came up about thirty years ago when his colleague Prof. E, argued that Prof. B was not doing what he was appointed to do! Prof. E argued that he had supported the application of Prof. B, because he was supposed to do exactly what Prof. E’s friends from the Academy thought was top priority research! It turned out that Prof. B was not convinced by the wished-for research directions of Prof. E and the Academicians, and indeed wrote several papers contesting the suppositions that were made. These papers attracted a lot of attention, and now this work of Prof. B is regarded as fundamental as a paradigm change!’
Dean of Science: ‘I have asked the Former VP Research to join us here from his retirement, because he has been aware of the case surrounding Prof. B for many years!’
Former VP Research: ‘I think I should mention that Prof. E was one of the old–style Professors where they were set up as heads of kingdoms. I know that Prof. B was strongly supported by the President at the time of his appointment because he had been trained in the ‘new-school’. There an open structure was favoured – where colleagues talked to each other and to the students of other colleagues - and generally promoted open discussion study in the style of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Whereas in the Prof. E School it was forbidden to talk to other groups about your work, and it was impossible for a new Faculty Member to talk to the students of the older colleague! Prof. E and others of his generation that supported him - mostly out of fear rather than conviction, believed that you were appointed to teach one view for the rest of your career – the view of your own teacher! Whereas we have long claimed that once a colleague joins the Faculty he can change his teaching and research directions, as s/he thinks fit! S/he may be expected to maintain teaching in certain fields to keep the curriculum balanced but this work can also be shared with the Prof. Es.’
Dean Of Humanities: ‘Whatever happened to those new schools where open discussion was favoured in the Sciences and Medicine as well as in the Classics and Languages?’
Dean Of Languages: ‘As we have heard discussed today, the open schools were swallowed by the money grabbers. Don’t forget the Financial Administration in this University has grown in the last ten years disproportionately ahead of any Faculty appointments!’
Dean Of Law: ‘Well we should alert our VP for Finance, VP for Investment, VP for Big Deals, VP for Bigger Deals, VP for Biggest Deals, VP for Money Manipulation, that the halcyon days of apparently endless resources are likely coming to a quick end, as COVID takes its toll! We are faced with having to pay hundreds of Money Monkeys when the financial supplies are drying up. Perhaps the VPs for Money Making should make contingency plans for the next big financial collapse!’
President : ‘Can we please return to the items on today’s agenda. More on Prof. B please!’
Former VP Research:’ I sent a few of my team to investigate the rumours. They found that Prof. B, gave excellent lectures, listened to students, took extra responsibility for administration so that younger colleagues could spend more time at research. In short Prof. B was a well respected colleague, who took part is his Departmental affairs and not hiding in a corner under the excuse of being a hermitised scholar!’
Current VP Research: ‘Needless to say this saga has continued over to the present where colleagues and former students of Prof. E, do their best to undermine the work of Prof. B, despite the fact that the rest of the world seems to appreciate it!’
Current VP Research: ‘We could note here that Prof. B has by far the largest Citations Index of his Department. For information to colleagues in Classical Departments without similar bibliographical evaluations, the ‘Citation Index’ supposedly represents the impact of a paper upon the field as reflected by the numbers of times the work is cited by other workers. Furthermore this index is one of the prime indices for the world ranking of University Departments. Simply said, the high ranking of Prof. B’s Department at the International level has quite something to do with Prof. B’s citation index. Even shorter said, colleagues and former students of Prof. E have profited immensely from the work of Prof. B!’
Current VP Research: ‘The situation worsened about ten years ago when there were cries that Prof. B was a ‘Scharlatan”. This happens often in Academia and is regarded by the Accusers/Insulters as the worst insult that they can throw at the back of their colleague – rather like accusing citizens of belonging to the OTHER Political Party. The Accuser is often joined by third-rate academics – who are hoping that by jointly accusing the ‘Scharlatan’, they will deflect attention from themselves!’
Current VP Research: ‘The Insulters accused Prof. B of only ever writing Review Papers, whereas ‘real scientists’ obtain ‘facts’ with the most up-to-date facilities available – to be read by specialist-only readers. I understand that Prof. B sponsored the work of younger Faculty members in his team, and encouraged them to publish their work on their own – without the holy name of the great Professor at the end of the list, like a trademark!‘
Former VP Research: ‘Perhaps we had ‘green-eyed monsters of envy’ at work here?’
Former VP Research: ‘Just a final word about Review Papers. Many colleagues believe that science advances through review papers = because they give an overview of where the field has been going, and where it might go next. The detailed research searching facts gives the detailed under-view upon which to hang the greater pictures. Obviously we need both views to advance forward, and neither side should assume that they are ‘better’!’
President: ‘Now that Prof. B has retired, one might argue that the situation is closed, but mobbing is still going on to this day - as we have heard from the other two cases on today’s agenda! One thing that is passed on from President to President is a piece of advice, for cases of complaints, accusations and mobbing - “Don’t just look at where the words are going, look where they are coming from!”
President: ‘At an informal meeting among several University Presidents, we talked about tenure. Some younger colleagues do not see why older colleagues should have jobs for life, especially when the ‘aged’ are past their prime. The same young ones seem to forget that they will age too, and will likely be just like the older colleagues that they are now complaining about. They forget that University Faculty Members are actually like government employees, the clergy, the judiciary, the military, civil servants - who all have jobs for life, or are on long-term renewable contracts. The purpose of ‘permanent employees’ is to ensure that the system functions and incorporates all useful new suggestions!’
President: ‘Usually the younger aggressive colleagues do not carry the full responsibility of Professorial Office, while they are still trying to prove themselves. If we start firing our older Academic Faculty, who have the experience and wisdom, then the aggressive younger Faculty are not actually yet qualified to take over these tasks!’
Dean of Humanities: ‘Did you talk about the other side of tenure which is a protection for scholars, who are often demeaned by younger colleagues, and usually all behind the victim’s back?’
President: ‘Yes, and we decided that such actions constitute mobbing. We should not only confront such aggressive behaviour, but try to find out why it happens!’
Dean of Law: ‘There have been cases where one Faculty Member tried to scandalise another colleague to get her dismissed from tenure. We found out that the aggressive colleague wanted to replace the mobbed colleague with one of her own students!’
President: ‘I also ask you all to give thought to the next meeting where we should begin to draft guidelines about where Scholarship is more important than Money and Profit!’
President: ‘I thank you all for joining in today with ‘ZOOMER’ and wish you all good health, balanced thinking, and not too many worries about finances – after all, we have enough ’Money Monkeys’ who should worry for us!’
- Share this story on
- 7
Bernardo Mendes
09/23/2021Extremely well-written story Alan! I'm sure those conversations really happen in the university "world". And truth be told, "Money Monkeys" are a real problem for some of these institutions that were not created to have profit in mind, but instead to serve the public, not the rich, not the poor, not the middle class, but all the population. I also like the position that the "President" has in this dialogue, he seems to have a very based mind. Great job, Alan, I'm eager to read more stories.
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Bernardo,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 23 Sep, which I have just received today - 12 Oct 2021.
Unfortunately the 'Money Monkeys' have taken over much of the business and institutional world. They make the public work harder to fund their 'Monkey Business',
Thanks, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Gail,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 23 Sep, which I have just received today - 12Oct 2021.
The discussion was centered on academia, but sadly reflects much of institutional behaviour.
Thanks, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Sidra
09/23/2021The dialogue depicts reality perfectly! Had my mind working. The way different sides were elaborated in the form of a dialogue was interesting to read. People put in so much effort to avoid the truth!
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Sidra,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 23 Sep, which I have just received today -12 OCT 2021.
The dialogue style helps to get to the point somewhat quicker than normal prose?
But long involved descriptions are also fine in a different type of story.
Cheers, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Lillian Kazmierczak
09/22/2021Interesting and well witten synopsis of things going on today. I enjoyed the university setting you used to get your point across. Its easy to see why you are star story if the day.
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Lillian,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, which I have just received today - 12 Oct 2021.
It is a pity that so much of what is happening today is hidden behind institutional walls.
Many thanks, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Carol MC.
09/22/2021It is interesting how one may think that ignoring or lying about a fact can lead someone(people) to something better when it is actually the opposite. Truth will always come to light even if we want to numb it. Thank you for this interesting view and topic,I liked how you addressed people's reactions to the pandemic.
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Carol,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, which I have just recived today - 12 Oct 2021.
I have noticed when some person is vigorously complaining about another, the complainer is actually talking about themselves, and trying to blind us so that we will not notice.
Cheers, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Christal Donegan
09/22/2021Thank you for sharing. This was very thought-provoking and a great read because of the issues it addressed. Good work.
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Christal,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, which I have just received today - 12 Oct 2021.
It would be wonderful if more issues could be put on top of the table!
Thanks, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Daniel Findlay
09/22/2021This was a good read! A lot of humor and real-life issues were discussed. Keep 'em coming.
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Daniel,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, which I have just received today 12 Oct 2021.
Sometimes the humor becomes a little too cynical, especially where truth is hidden,
Cheers, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Samoya Browning
09/22/2021You raised some really good points in this story that really needs to be addressed in reality. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Samoya,
Sorry for this late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, which I have just received today 12 Oct 2021.
It is an almost unreal reality in the academic world!
Thanks, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Kevin Hughes
09/22/2021Good job Alan, as usual. I do want to jump in to the conversation a little bit. Science (you know that thing that we used to count on for expertise in certain areas) says that we were actually do more to avoid telling the truth than to actively tell a lie.
And, as JD mentioned - politicians are adept using either strategy.
I have one friend who is a retired dean and another friend who HEADS A major Institute at A well-known university campus. I am sending your story along to both of them. I believe they will actually laugh out loud at some of the things because of their familiarity. They might even sigh Because of how close to home you hit.
Smiles Kevin
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Kevin Hughes
10/12/2021Hey Alan,
My friend loved it and sent me a book called: "Dear Committee Members", by Julie Schumacher. Covers some of the same issues and topics. He loved your short story.
My other friend laughed out loud reading it. He read it to his wife, also a retired Academic. It brought back memories for them.
My other friend sent me a short note: "No Comment." followed by a big smiley face. I laughed out loud.
My other friend said that he feels your story has a much broader scope today than mere Academia. He feels we run our Political and Social Institutions exactly how you portrayed them in your story.
All in all, good reviews!
Smiles, Kevin
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
10/12/2021Dear Kevin,
Sorry for late reply to your comment of 22 Sep, but i have just received it today 12 Oct 2021.
I would be pleased to hear the response of your academic colleagues,
All the best, Alan
Help Us Understand What's Happening
JD
09/17/2021Thought provoking discussion filled with real world issues that need resolution. Thanks, Alan! : )
ReplyHelp Us Understand What's Happening
JD
09/22/2021It seems like we prefer both avoiding truth and telling lies to actually admitting to mistakes and telling the truth, even if it hurts. And our politicians have become very adept at avoiding the truth and spinning lies. Anyway, happy short story STAR of the day! :-)
Help Us Understand What's Happening
Alan Bruce
09/18/2021Thanks JD,
I often wonder whether we prefer to 'avoid the truth' or to 'tell lies'
Best wishes from the Deans.
COMMENTS (10)