Faculty Unrest at Virginia Tech

Provost Thanassis Rikakis

A growing number of Virginia Tech faculty members are unhappy with Provost Thanassis Rikakis, the university’s chief academic officer. A recent faculty senate resolution declared that promotion and tenure policies addressed in a Rikakis memo violated tenets of the Faculty Handbook. Some professors have openly discussed holding a no-confidence vote.

The Roanoke Times has obtained copies of the Rikakis memo and a faculty critique of the provost that illuminate the inner workings of university administration and politics. Writes the newspaper:

[One] memo addresses problems with faculty perceptions, calling for bottom up implementation of changes and improving communication between administrators and faculty members. The memo lays out target dates for change and action plans for improving promotion and tenure, new initiatives and general communication at the university.

Another memo from the provost intends to “clarify the promotion and tenure process and to specify outcomes that are possible throughout that process.” … One part of the memo says faculty members who receive a “negative decision” during the review process can be reappointed to a different position elsewhere at Tech.

In a near-unanimous vote, the 40-person Faculty Senate rejected the Rikakis memo’s description of the tenure system.

By way of background Virginia Tech has articulated plans to create world-class “destination areas,” interdisciplinary teams that will make Tech “an international destination for talent, partnerships, and transformative knowledge.” The university has identified five so far: adaptive brain and behavior; data and decisions; global systems science; integrated security; and intelligent infrastructure for human-centered communities.

Writes the Roanoke Times:

Tech administrators have said that faculty buy-in is a critical piece to making initiatives such as destination areas a success.

“All Thanassis and I can do … is to create a scaffold or a framework to simplify the conversation,” Tech President Timothy Sands said in an interview for a Roanoke Times profile of Rikakis that was published in January. “In the end, it has to be the students, faculty, staff and partners to make it work.”

Bacon’s bottom line: There are at least two ways to frame this issue. One is that Virginia Tech’s faculty is righteously resisting encroachments upon its autonomy by an administration that seeks to accumulate power and authority. Another is that Virginia Tech’s myopic faculty is selfishly defending its institutional perks against an administration trying build Virginia Tech into a world-class educational institution. I imagine that a good case could be made for both views.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

2 responses to “Faculty Unrest at Virginia Tech”

  1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    The memos attached to the Roanoke Times make for painful reading.

    Where is Virginia Tech’s President in all this? Why is he hanging the Provost out to dry? Where is the concept of educating students in all this rhetoric?

    This “dispute” reflects recent trends in the power structure of today’s Research University. It is all about business. It has little to do with educating students. And the truth is that TODAYS business of research (particularly STEM) requires high priced “Rain Makers” supported by a costly research infrastructure, served by as many cheaply paid non tenured contract researchers as possible.

    This support structure for the modern Research University has nothing to do with teaching students. It has everything to do with attracting grants from federal government and other private and quasi public institutions. In fact it seldom achieves a “profit” but must be operated somewhat like as a business “to succeed.” Thus this grant and contracting work typically only covers a portion of the research institutions overhead to do the contract and grant work.

    Hence all major Research Institutions must have access to large amounts of internally generated funds, typically generated from endowments, tuition, and other student fees. Very little of this money serves to educate students.

    Indeed I suspect significantly less that 10% of the costs of STEM research universities is devoted to teaching. And likely less that 15% of the costs of today’s so called Arts and Sciences today go to teaching.

    Here is appears the Virginia Techs is somewhat behind the curve in meeting the demands of a “world class research institution” as defined today. UVA started this painful process back in 2011. One can find the initial structure outlined in surprising detail in Teresa Sullivan’s May 2011 memo to Rector Dragas, although in that document Teresa Sullivan claimed to intend to invest most of the powers, authorities, and responsibilities for her ambitious STEM programs in the Faculties and Academic Deans, a promise likely not fulfilled given the recent history where Administrators took control, centralizing all major powers in the hands of a few high paid Administrators supported by a still burgeoning staff of junior administrators.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    Universities are “industries” as Reed intimates. And in some respects there are similarities between for-profit, not-for-profit and non-profit in that each entity seeks to invest in itself to make itself bigger, stronger, more competitive and more “profitable”..

    The ability of the institution to perform it’s basic mission is really as important as the mission itself.

    It takes money to build and maintain a University that people want to go to.

    And the bigger and stronger ones are not about getting smaller and less appealing.

    Whether or not their tuition is “right priced” is just another issue to be “worked” but changes are ongoing as more and more people just cannot afford the traditional on-campus 4 year degree.

    Like a few other things that signify those who see themselves as “middle class”, this is another that might be slipping away a little.

Leave a Reply