Passion

I’ve been waiting to write a blog with a racy message.  However, my title of “passion” isn’t describing a steamy relationship; rather it describes an intellectual relationship between a dean, department chairperson, and/or tenure or promotion committee chair, and the accomplishments of the tenure/promotion candidate that is being written about.  I have read thousands of tenure letters from all the participants in the process and I have written hundreds of letters recommending tenure.  What registers most on the next step in the process – a letter that comes across as boilerplate or a letter that articulately and passionately describes why the person deserves tenure or promotion?

Too many letters are of the boilerplate variety.  Each point is touched on that needs to be touched on –  teaching, scholarship, and service are all discussed but often without noting why this is a compelling candidacy.  The student evaluations and peer observations are OK; the articles, chapters and or books are OK; and the service is OK.  If this is the standard for tenure and promotion, recommendations like this should serve the purpose.  But often the standard for tenure or promotion requires excellence in one or more of these categories.  And for tenure especially, there should be no doubts.

Boilerplate letters often don’t do justice to the outstanding candidate for tenure and or promotion.  Sometimes such letters are prepared because “everything is OK” is the best that can be said.  More than once in my career, a department chair, a committee chair, or a dean have written such letters, come to such conclusions because it really was the best that could be said about the candidate and perhaps even more than the best.  If Ok is the best we can say, is this tenure or promotion deserved?

And sometimes, the letters that are written do a tremendous disservice to the candidate.  The candidate is clearly outstanding, awesome, a tremendous asset, and deserving of tenure or promotion but the letters don’t convey that level of achievement. Every personnel statement should strive to do justice to the person’s record.  If the record is outstanding, the letter documenting those achievements should make the case persuasively.

Everyone involved in the tenure or promotion process should make sure the letters written are the strongest most passionate accurate assessment that can be compiled about the candidate.  If each of us viewed our letter as the critical document in the process and the key to the candidate’s promotion and or tenure, letters in general would be at a much higher caliber. Promotion or tenure should not be a judgment call; the facts and the resulting documentation should be compelling.  What a loss it would be to the University if this person was not tenured or promoted.  Let the passion be real and let the passion shine through.

Economics - The 360-Degree View

Be careful what you wish for.  By the end of last week, I was looking for a reprieve from Anthony Weiner stories.  Every newscast I watched or listened to and almost every bulletin on the internet dealt with another facet of this widely covered and fully uncovered story.  I am from the school of thought that public officials should not only provide leadership but should also serve as role models.  I would like my kids to view public service as a desirable higher calling and view our elected officials as exemplary citizens.  Sleaze and corruption undermines interest in government service and undermines the very fabric of our society.  If you can’t have confidence in our elected officials, can you have confidence in our government?

What turned attention away from Anthony Weiner in this area was the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing below the 12,000 point level on Friday, June 10^th.  The headlines now focused on the DJIA decline over the last month and the perceived increased weakness in our economy.  What was happening to our recovery?  What was happening to jobs creation, to housing prices, and what would the impact be on the 2012 elections?

Last October, I had the pleasure of being invited to an economic conversation with Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.  As a higher education economist, I am always cautious in conversing about national and international economics (especially with a Prime Minister) but at that conversation I made one key point that remains fully relevant today.  The economy is moving forward and the White House, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve all deserve credit.  I am pleased to note the increasing viability of Detroit and I am pleased to see the increasing strength of our financial institutions.  But without a 360 degree view, you are not seeing the entire picture and you are not in a position to accurately gauge our economic vulnerability.

I live on Long Island, in New York State.  I like Long Island and I like the proximity to New York City, but Long Island, New York City and New York State are all encountering dire financial situations.  New York in general and Long Island specifically, has lived outside of its means and newly elected government officials are working diligently to restore the financial viability of the area.  Jobs are being cut on the local and state level, programs are being curtailed, benefits for existing workers and especially for new hires going forward are being reduced, and a tax cap has achieved more popularity than Lady Gaga.  What is happening in New York is also happening in many other states.  Often politicians defend these cuts as resulting in doing more with less.  To some extent this may be true but to a greater extent we are doing less with less because there is no other alternative. 

With states and localities cutting back, there is a significant drag on the economic recovery.  A recovery requires a certain momentum and a certain velocity.  We want that momentum and that velocity to result in a robust economy.  But just as Washington has helped provide that initial thrust, New York and other states have provided increasing downward drag on the economy.  This will not be a vibrant economy anytime soon, we will not be impressed with the gains in employment and in the Dow Jones.  I think we are on the right track, however, and if we stay the course, the economy – absent any external shocks – we will continue to move forward.

Slow News Day

On November 9, 1965, my doctor appointment in mid town Manhattan lasted longer than I expected and I needed to be at a meeting at The City College within less than 30 minutes.  So instead of a casual walk from Madison to 7^th or 8^th Avenue to get on the subway, I decided to make use of connecting trains.  I was very fortunate, the train came immediately  (at about 5:25PM) and though it was very crowded, I was on my way.  Well, on my way, turned out to be an exaggeration.  We did get out of the station in a timely manner but somewhere between that station and the next station, the train stopped and everything went black.  I was in fact caught in a major northeast/New York blackout and it took me and my fellow riders almost five hours to be led out of the train to an above ground exit.  No fun at all.  What made it especially difficult, in addition to the very crowded conditions, was the panic that set in among a number of passengers. An hour into our five hour ordeal, a passenger in the train indicated that she thought we were trapped because of a nuclear attack.  The panic spread to a few more people in the train but luckily, cooler heads prevailed and we, for the most part assumed, what turned out to be the case, that we were in the midst of a major blackout. 

The speculation regarding a nuclear attack most upset the few kids that were in the train.  A blackout is frightening enough for children; add a nuclear attack and the situation becomes especially hard for most children to handle.  The parents and friends of these kids did all that they could to calm them down but as their crying demonstrated, there was very limited success.

Fast forward through the decades to Saturday, May 21, 2011.  According to Harold Camping, the world would end that day.  An earthquake would spread through the time zones from east to west; the rapture day would be here at last.  Yet, even though there was significant press coverage regarding the coming end of the world, no one seemed consumed by the prediction (though a few students – tongue in cheek – did ask if the grading process could be speeded up so that they would know their grades prior to the 21^st).  But as the day approached, I did notice that my kids, who are relatively young, and their friends seemed somewhat cranky but I wasn’t sure why.   On the morning of the 21^st as I am out running errands with my 9 year old daughter, I comment to her that after a week of rainy weather, it was great to have a beautifully sunny, clear day.  She responds by asking if the world is about to end.  I say absolutely not and try to assure her that periodically throughout time, people have been predicting the end of the world but the world keeps going.  I stress that throughout her lifetime and many succeeding lifetimes, the world would be fine.  She seems reassured but nevertheless does decide that she will wait to take a shower or do her homework until Sunday.

Dedicating as much press as was dedicated to an end of the world prediction shows it was a slow news period of time. And yet maybe during such periods, the press should still not highlight extreme predictions.  As grownups, we pay no attention to such stories and continue to do what we do. We often even joke about predictions of this type.  But for kids, with all the complexity and uncertainty that already exists, we do a tremendous disservice by highlighting predictions like this.  Kids should have the opportunity to be kids.  What we find funny or off the wall, they may find very scary.  We should remember that before we highlight future predictions like this, and if they are highlighted, we should remember to explain in advance what they do and don’t mean. Since Camping has issued a revised end of the world schedule for October, we will get another chance to do it right.

Robert L. Payton

Earlier today, I received a phone call from an emeritus faculty member telling me that she had just heard about the passing of Robert Payton, a major figure in the study of philanthropy.  I had known and worked with Bob earlier in his career and this phone call immediately made me think back to a phone call I had received from him in 1975.

The call came on a Friday afternoon toward the end of August.  I was an untenured assistant professor of economics standing for tenure at Hofstra and Robert L. Payton was the President.  I had also just been appointed as the Associate Dean of University Advisement. My record was strong but Hofstra’s enrollment was declining at that time and the granting of tenure to me meant 100% tenure in the economics department at a time when all the enrollment indicators suggested that more fixed costs were not a great idea.  I was home at the time, actually vacuuming my living room, and trying not to think about my tenure candidacy.  But that wasn’t easy.  Vacuuming for me is not a fascinating activity.  And, as far as I knew everyone else standing for tenure that year had already been informed and I also knew that the Hofstra Board of Trustees had met earlier that week.
 
I answered the phone on the second or third ring.  It was President Payton’s assistant indicating that he wanted to talk with me on the phone for a few minutes, and was this a convenient time to have that conversation.  What can you say other than yes?  Bob got on the phone and immediately stated that the Board of Trustees had agreed with his recommendation that I be awarded tenure and that he knew this was in the best interests of the University.  I have always appreciated his willingness and the University’s willingness to take that chance in difficult economic times.  And what a class act he was to call and personally inform me.

At the beginning of that academic year, Bob Payton and I team taught a course on the economics of higher education.  I had been scheduled to teach this course and when he found out about it, he indicated he wanted to participate.  Scary to some extent to have a President as a teaching partner but I give him enormous credit.  He was exceptionally well read in all areas of higher education and I loved teaching this course.  It was team teaching at its best—the academic rigor and the practical experience, all in one course.  But it is important to note that Bob was not just informed regarding higher education, he was extraordinarily well read and extraordinarily worldly. Earlier in his career he had been the ambassador to Cameroon and he had a global orientation long before global was on most people’s radar.  He also very much had that sense of style and polish that one associates with an ambassador. Bob had the highest regard for the liberal arts, a keen understanding of what constitutes a good education and the importance of good teaching in making that happen.

Bob was only President for 3 years and they were difficult years enrollment wise for Hofstra.  After he left Hofstra he first headed the Exxon Education Foundation and later was a key figure in the founding of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.  In his leadership role at both Exxon and at Indiana he made enormous contributions.  I greatly respect these contributions and Bob’s legacy is inextricably interwoven in this good work.  But for me it was Bob Payton the person that made an indelible impression at a critical stage in my career.  And I am a better educator, a better provost and a better person because of the example he set.