Posted on 04/22/2019 5:23:04 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The end of the spring semester marks the 20th anniversary of my professorship at Duke, first as an assistant professor and then as an associate professor of the practice at the Sanford School of Public Policy. During this time, I regularly taught the required ethics class for all undergraduate public policy majors. I won multiple teaching awards, consistently received scores on student teaching evaluations above the school average and, in a Duke Chronicle poll of undergraduates, was ranked as one of the three most popular professors at Duke University for several years.
Therefore, I was blindsided last April when informed that my contract would not be renewed, particularly given that for the past five years (I was on a five-year renewable contract) I was never informed of any problem with any aspect of my performance. Nor was I given an evaluation, despite a change to the Duke bylaws in 2017 mandating such reviews (see here).
When word of the non-renewal of my contract got out, a letter written in my defense, signed by 100 former students, was published in the Duke Chronicle, and these same students and others began a letter-writing campaign imploring the Sanford administration to reconsider their decision.
Last April, I filed a complaint with the Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC), a university-wide committee tasked with hearing faculty complaints on matters such as tenure and contract renewal. In their written report, they made clear (as Sanford never did) the actual reason for the loss of my job: Dissatisfaction with my “classroom performance.” Specifically:
Professor Charney’s tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some students in the classroom due to his confrontational teaching style—a style that had a tendency to be polarizing among students, particularly in a required Sanford course
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
My daughter hasn’t take Charney’s class yet but said her friends loved his class.
He is being forced out because he questioned liberal students as to their beliefs.
Excellent synopsis of what is happening in most Universities in this country.
People are becoming emotional thinkers and are losing their abilities to analyze facts prior to making a decision.
They make an emotional decision, regardless of the facts and fall in love with the decision they have made. This leads to an aggressive response toward anyone who disagrees with them.
This describes the emotional Democrat Party and how they manipulate the emotionally unstable special interest groups.
and why many of these special interest groups are resorting to violence!
From wiki:
“In 2018, the Sanford School announced it would not renew Charney’s contract after some of his students alleged that his classes reproduce and reinforce racial, gender, and class inequality. In response to this decision, a group of 101 current and former Duke students signed on to a letter to Sally Kornbluth, the provost of Duke University, urging her to reconsider her decision. The letter was published in the Duke Chronicle on May 8, 2018.[7] Despite this letter, Kornbluth rejected Charney’s appeal on May 23, 2018.”
The Group of 88 is the term for the professors at Duke University who were signatories to a controversial advertisement in The Chronicle, the university’s student newspaper, on April 6, 2006. The advertisement addressed the Duke lacrosse case, in which an African-American woman claimed to have been raped by three white members of Duke’s lacrosse team several weeks earlier. The incident was under police investigation at the time of the advertisement, and all charges were dropped and the students declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General less than a week after its publication.
The Group of 88 is the term for the professors at Duke University who were signatories to a controversial advertisement in The Chronicle, the university’s student newspaper, on April 6, 2006. The advertisement addressed the Duke lacrosse case, in which an African-American woman claimed to have been raped by three white members of Duke’s lacrosse team several weeks earlier. The incident was under police investigation at the time of the advertisement, and all charges were dropped and the students declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General less than a week after its publication.
One signer, Kim Curtis, a visiting associate professor in the Political Science department who specializes in political and feminist theory, failed two members of the lacrosse team who were in one of her classes. When one of them appealed the grade, Duke did not act immediately; they eventually raised his grade from “F” to “D”. Kyle Dowd and his parents sued Curtis and the university. Duke later settled, listing the grade as “Pass”.[6][7][8]
An engineering professor at Duke, Michael Gustafson, was concerned that the restrictions on stereotyping had been done away with. He suggested that the accused lacrosse players had not been evaluated as individuals, but as caricatures, making it easier for commentators to criticize them.[9]
One of the signers, English professor Cathy Davidson, wrote in the Raleigh News & Observer in January 2007 that the ad was a response “to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house.”[10]
Ten months after the original letter to The Chronicle, a group of 17 economics faculty signed an alternative petition, stating “the Group of 88 does not speak for all Duke faculty”.
“If you invite to campus large numbers of students who don’t really value knowledge, don’t want to learn to think, just want to have their little self-referential virtue-signaling mental fantasy world reinforced, this is what you get.”
Oh, you mean social justice, sociology and gender studies majors?
RateMyProfessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=605892
He should not claim to be surprised, he has been living and working in an ultra-liberal environment for the past 20+ years. Just another wake up call for the audience.
You are allowed certain beliefs and that is all. I liken it to being an English major. You write to the opinions of the teacher because their opinion is the right one.
If a student is doing poorly in your class, they think it is your fault
Emotional manipulation is the hallmark of EVERY Lib/Prog speech/action.
If one is too good, others become envious, which leads to the desire to destroy.
Teaching for 20 years yet remaining an Associate Professor at least in past indicated that they had not published books and letters. If they had published yet not been promoted anyway, it usually indicated friction with peers, department chairman or administrators.
Granted, universities today are even pettier than the were, but if what he wrote is true, he should sue. He alleges they violated their own policies, so this will at least expose their reasons to the light of day.
Although his seat may get a bit hotter if he doesn't win a championship in the next couple of years. He had probably the most talented freshman class of all time last year, and couldn't make it to the Final Four.
He actually challenged them, and confronted them, and not everyone was in lockstep agreement? Heaven forfend!! Throw the monster out!!!
Every month or so I'm given more confirmation that I got out of teaching at just the right time. Those who continue to weather the storm without me give an unending stream of stories of decline among students, student and faculty performance, study habits, expectations (of faculty, staff and students), administration, and parenting. Even my college professor friends continue to report the decline at the university level, where a vast percentage of students cannot be bothered to follow simple written instructions or to make deadlines consistently... but then beg for exemptions and "second chances".
There will always be the 20% or so who are motivated, engaged, focused, and performing... but the remaining rabble just get more and more pathetic with each passing year. Lunacy from the administration at every level is just accelerating the problems.
It usually takes more than one season to make superstars a team. The bug egos do not merge easily.
The same is true for Duke Dr’s. They go after the best big name who is not always a team player with peers, nurses, and staff.
UNC Hospital is much more team oriented.
I’ve spent considerable time at both.
For later
This.I’m surprised this guy lasted as long as he did.
PFL
The hypersensitive liberal student snowflakes are on a rabid slash and burn frenzy, destroying all who are not members of their cult of self righteousness. Their motto “hurt our feelings and we will destroy you”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.