[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

More arguments for tenure-track

Having just gone through a similar process at UNI, here is part of 
a document I drafted for use in our situation (where we have a
debate team and an IE team).  

Arnie Madsen
UNI Director of Forensics

----------

Models of Forensic Program Organization

There are three models of organizing a forensics program that I 
want to outline and discuss.

A. Tenure-track Director of Forensics (DOF), Tenure-track Debate 
Coach, Term appointment Individual Events Coach.  This model 
allows a number of benefits:

Anchors program academically within Department.  DOF must have a 
Ph.D., must have a background in Communication Studies, must 
conduct research/creative activity, must engage in service 
activities, must teach in areas of specialization, etc.

Provides the link that would allow the Forensics Program to meet 
Department needs --– offers central individual who is responsible 
for receiving Departmental input and acting in an appropriate 
manner.

Allows continuity across time – - allows the Forensics Program to 
maintain stability without having to “reinvent the wheel” each 
year.

Increases accountability – - a tenure-track DOF would be more 
accountable academically, fiscally, etc.  

Provides a link to outside communities – - stable leadership 
increases the interaction with the broader communities we deal 
with on a regular basis, such as high school and college 
forensics programs.

Provides staffing over the summer –- while a tenure-track 
appointment isn’t a 12-month appointment, it does provide a good 
guarantee that one will continue in the position the next 
academic year.  This is important for forensics since our program 
doesn’t shut down with the end of the Spring semester.  Student 
acceptance and rejection of financial aid must be processed, 
tournament invitations must be drafted and mailed, accounting 
must reflect the end of the fiscal year, fundraising is an 
ongoing process, etc.  And, since our students are expected to 
conduct research and work on debate and individual events over 
the summer, we need staff who can commit to the activity to the 
same degree. 

Increases recruiting ability –-  consistent turnover in staff sends 
inappropriate signals to the high school community regarding the 
program.  Further, over time a person develops an increasing 
number of contacts that can aid in recruiting.

Increases fundraising ability – - similar to recruiting, turnover 
in staff impairs fundraising ability, while consistent staffing 
leads to increasing the number of productive fundraising 
contacts.

Makes administrative sense –- it makes administrative sense to 
have a tenure-track appointee supervise tenured and term faculty 
members.

B) Temporary Director of Forensics (9-month appointment), Tenure-
track Debate Coach, Term appointment Individual Events Coach. I 
believe this is an inferior model to the first for several 
reasons:

No guarantee of an academic anchor.  A temporary appointment does 
not require a person with a Ph.D., nor does it require that a 
person’s degree is in Communication Studies.  Similarly, there is 
no requirement that the person conduct research/creative 
activity, nor is the person required to engage in service.

Does not guarantee a program that meets Departmental needs -– as 
the appointment is short-term, for nine months at a time, the 
focus is on the present and the success of the program at that 
time, rather than on long-term goals.

Prevents continuity across time – - just as one gets up to speed on 
the position, the appointment ends and the process starts again 
three months later.

No guarantee of accountability –- the appointment ends on May 15, 
at the end of the teaching term, thus preventing long-term fiscal 
or academic accountability.  

No link to outside communities –- relevant individuals in the high 
school or college communities may not know who is in charge of 
the program.  This impairs the ability to recruit, impairs 
fundraising abilities, and reduces the likely attendance at on-
campus tournaments.

No staffing over the summer –- the appointment is clearly a 9-
month appointment which may or may not be renewed.  Summer work 
related to forensics is difficult. to justify if one may not be on
staff the next year.

Impairs recruiting ability –- consistent turnover sends a signal 
to the high school community that our program is not stable.  

Impairs fundraising ability –- much of the fundraising activity 
must occur over the summer, due to the nature of fundraising 
options for Forensics.  Without an individual on-staff in the 
summer, fundraising is difficult.  Further, fundraising is 
impaired simply by the signal that the program is not stable, as 
noted above.

Makes little administrative sense -– a 9-
month temporary appointee overseeing and supervising a tenured 
Debate Coach, an Individual Events Coach on a 3-year term 
appointment, and graduate assistants who are typically on-campus 
for two years seems to make little sense.

C) No Director of Forensics, Tenure-track Debate Coach, Term 
appointment Individual Events Coach. I think it is the least 
desirable for several reasons:

First, all of the criticisms of the temporary DOF listed above 
apply to this situation, although with even more force.

Further, this model prevents programmatic unity – rather than a 
“Forensics Program,” this model would, by nature, create a 
“Debate Team” and an “Individual Events Team.”

In addition, this would increase the workload for the Debate and 
Individual Events Coaches, in turn, requiring additional release 
time for those positions.  The present workload (hours per week) 
devoted by the DOF to the Forensics Program would be passed on to 
the Debate and Individual Events Coaches.

Finally, this model would significantly impair decision making – 
what process would be used to decide the percentage of the budget 
allocated to Debate and Individual Events, or the amount of 
financial aid available to the two “teams”?  How would decisions 
on resources be made without a DOF looking out for the best 
interests of the program as a whole?


Summary

It makes sense administratively and academically to have a 
tenure-track DOF, and it makes sense for the overall program.

As there is increasing uncertainty regarding leadership of the 
program, the program’s ties to the Department and its needs will 
also decrease.  Further, uncertainty about the leadership of the 
program impairs fundraising, recruiting, and other issues related 
to the day-to-day operation of the Forensics Program.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page