Carleton (fwd)

[Richard Plant]

Hi Moira, et al:

Like many other people, I am very conscious of the development of a
corporate model in
universities. One of the characteristics of the retail sector,
particualarly for large-ish corporate retailers is the employment of
part-time workers, at a scale of 80% or so of the staff. No benefits to
pay; flexibility in hours; greater ease in scheduling of the number of
staff needed at any moment ("you don't need to come in tomorrow, but we
may need you the next day"). Except for "full-time part-time" staff, who
have greater protections, part-time staff are very vulnerable.

As well, in universities, dealing with cutbacks by eliminating whole
departments on the basis of
financial exigency has been seen by many of us as a strategy
administration could use to avoid -- at least try to avoid -- those parts
of tenure which might protect faculty from cuts. Attempting to cut staff
on an individual basis would be a much more difficult proposition, if
only because such an approach could lead to many individual legal
challenges which the administrations would have to face.

However, I note that we (alarmed faculty members) have a tendency to fall
prey to inaccurate information, which doesn't do our cause much good. For
instance, the recent claim that Mike HArris actually made the statement
about humanities, geographers and sociologists needs checking. As I
understand, the statement was in a draft sent to the media -- apparently
this statement was later to be taken out. (A useful ploy for
HArris's office? Leak such a statement as a trial balloon to see what
reaction it gathers, then deny that such a thought ever really
entered their collective minds?)

Last evening I heard part of an interview with Carleton's president. Apart
from an apparent rigidity on his part (he stated in no uncertain terms
that the Senate "could do what it wanted" in some areas), he did indicate
that his administration was working with inaccurate data. I gather some
changes are imminent in the administrative position. (I do worry about an
administration which operates on the basis of inaccurate figures regarding
costs of a programme which overall they administer.)

But, the situation at Carleton can in itself be a trial balloon, and bears
the collective attention of academia, as you point out.

Richard Plant