The responses from the senior administrators during the Q&A was simply appalling, and represented a combination of CYA dog-ate-my-homework excuses and air of complete negligence, incompetence and failure on the part of this leadership team. The professors rightly saw through the charade. Banks resigned, but Anan should, too.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 06:38 🎙️ A special Faculty Senate meeting is held to address issues with tenure hiring and DEI after outside interference in the journalism faculty hire. 08:20 🤔 Faculty believes Dr. McElroy's tenure offer was altered due to her opinions on DEI and/or demographics, causing significant media coverage and loss of trust in the university's hiring process. 12:07 ✍️ Faculty Senate demands adherence to the principle of merit-based hiring, promotion, and tenure, without influence from opinions or demographics. 15:42 🗣️ President Banks expresses commitment to address concerns, regain trust, and foster unity within the university community. 21:04 👥 Faculty expresses concern over external pressures potentially influencing tenure decisions and calls for transparency and accountability in university operations. 26:07 📄 Lack of clarity on the events leading to the change in Dr. McElroy's offer raises questions about administrative oversight and communication. 28:23 🗳️ Concerns are raised about potential racial animus in the situation, calling for transparency and adherence to established university procedures. 32:46 📰 The president refutes claims of Dr. McElroy's offer being revoked and discusses the accuracy of media reports, expressing respect for the former administrator's decision to resign. 34:27 ❓ The authenticity of a five-year contract offer to a faculty member is questioned due to lack of documentation and signatures. 38:06 🤔 Concerns are raised about the breakdown of administrative control during the hiring process, impacting the university's reputation for hiring competent individuals. 40:35 😞 Faculty expresses disappointment and lack of confidence in the administration's ability to hire the best candidates and effectively manage high-profile programs. 47:36 🤝 The department claims they followed standard procedures during the search and hiring process, disputing the notion of a "rogue action." 52:06 🧐 Questions are raised about the consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the hiring process and the potential implications of recent state legislation (SB 17) on hiring practices. 56:09 ❓ Uncertainty remains regarding the cause of the breakdown in communication and approval processes, leading to confusion and gaps in knowledge at the higher levels of administration. 58:38 ❗ External groups claim involvement in derailing the hiring process, raising concerns about external influence and potential impacts on future hiring decisions. 01:00:02 ❓ The question of legal action and communication restrictions with the candidate remains unresolved, causing further complexities in addressing the situation. 01:02:49 🗝️ There is a tenure approval process involving various committees, departments, and higher levels of authority before final approval by the Board of Regents. 01:04:01 🛡️ The Board of Regents cannot expedite or approve tenure on arrival without following the standard faculty processes. 01:05:14 📰 A document was produced and released to the media stating that the original offer was not revoked, but due to legal counsel involvement, certain details cannot be shared. 01:14:01 🤝 The university values and supports research on diversity, and Senate Bill 17 exempts research and instruction from its limitations. 01:20:41 😔 The recent events have negatively impacted the university's reputation and may affect its ability to recruit top faculty, but there are ongoing efforts to address the situation and regain trust. 01:27:49 🚀 The focus now is on moving forward, addressing the process flaws to prevent similar incidents, and restoring the university's credibility, rather than dwelling on past mistakes. Transparency and trust are crucial in the process. 01:31:08 🧑‍💼 President Banks denies meeting with the rudder tra group, expressing surprise at their claim. 01:32:24 📜 President Banks emphasizes that faculty searches should follow fair and unbiased processes, with faculty input at all stages. 01:33:05 🏛️ President Banks defines outside influences based on AAU definition, excluding the Board of Regents from that category. 01:34:00 🎓 President Banks assures that Board of Regents will rely on university guidance and faculty committees' evaluations for tenure cases, not imposing bias based on research topics. 01:35:00 📚 President Banks states that DI (diversity and inclusion) related research is considered acceptable and not an exemption in tenure and promotion decisions. 01:36:28 🏛️ President Banks discusses plans to improve the image of the Aggie Community, emphasizing the need for communication and cooperation with various university bodies. 01:40:21 🗳️ Senate votes to keep the meeting open and transparent despite earlier motion to make it a closed session. 01:54:46 📜 The faculty Senate proposes a resolution to address concerns about outside influence on faculty hire and promotion, emphasizing the need for clear public statements and preserving faculty independence in shared governance. 01:59:03 📜 A named program or scholarship is suggested to acknowledge the appropriateness of the candidate for the role and to address the situation that occurred. 02:00:03 🧐 There is a call for a thorough investigation to determine what exactly happened and who may be at fault. 02:01:27 💬 The resolution is viewed as a starting point and may need further amendments and investigations in the future as more information comes to light. 02:02:23 🔍 The need for a fact-finding committee, possibly with faculty Senate representation, is emphasized to ensure a comprehensive investigation. 02:03:06 🤝 The resolution should express skepticism and lack of trust in the explanations given by the administration, as some aspects seem questionable and lacking clarity. 02:04:34 🔍 Plausible deniability is pointed out as a potential reason for the lack of information, and the need for meaningful actions beyond high-minded affirmations is emphasized. 02:06:25 😡 The resolution is criticized for not having enough teeth and not addressing the concerns adequately, leading to frustration among faculty members. 02:08:33 📝 A suggestion is made to add concrete asks to the resolution, such as forming a committee with Senate and student representation to investigate the matters. 02:10:48 🕵️‍♀️ Concerns are raised about limitations on fact-finding due to potential litigation threats, but a call for ongoing investigation and skepticism towards explanations remains. 02:12:22 🏛️ The importance of symbolic gestures, such as naming a department or program after the faculty candidate, is emphasized to keep the issue in focus and address its impact on the university's reputation. 02:12:50 🛡️ The need for more concrete actions and investigations is stressed to maintain the university's credibility and integrity. 02:16:14 😔 Disappointment is expressed over the lack of information and transparency from the administration, with a call for meaningful changes and accountability. 02:20:54 ❓ Questions are raised about the effectiveness of the resolution, and some members suggest sending it back to the executive committee for further review and refinement. 02:26:16 📋 Several senators propose amendments to a resolution, with some suggesting the establishment of a committee to investigate matters related to hiring, recruitment, tenure, and promotion at the university. 02:27:38 🕒 Some senators express concern about delaying the process by sending the resolution back to the EC and emphasize the urgency of taking action today. 02:28:09 📝 Senator Haney highlights the gravity of the situation and emphasizes that this discussion is just the beginning of the conversation. 02:32:31 🏛️ Senator Rice proposes an amendment to the resolution, calling for the establishment of a fact-finding committee to investigate the failed appointment mentioned in the resolution. 02:47:06 🗣️ Some senators express concerns about the effectiveness of a Senate committee in fact-finding, while others argue that it is important to pursue all available avenues for investigation. 02:53:59 📌 Senator Hammond suggests that the fact-finding committee should include specific positions from the administration, potentially even the university president, to hold them accountable and seek information from external sources. 02:56:01 📜 Some senators support not putting specific positions on the matter, while others feel adding administrators to the committee could lead to conflicts of interest. 02:56:42 🤔 Administrators may be advised not to discuss certain matters due to legal considerations, leading to potential challenges in fact-finding. 02:58:52 ❓ There was confusion during the voting process, leading to an explanation of what the vote was about and how it affected the proceedings. 03:00:13 🗳️ The motion to stop discussion and vote on the amendment was approved, leading to a subsequent vote on the amendment itself. 03:01:50 🗳️ The amendment to add a specific line to the resolution was passed, expressing skepticism about the administration's explanations. 03:09:18 🗳️ Another amendment, stating that the Faculty Senate remains skeptical and lacks confidence in the administration's answers, was added to the resolution. 03:11:14 🗳️ The resolution, with the two added amendments, was passed by the Senate. Some senators expressed the possibility of creating additional resolutions in the future. Made with HARPA AI 👍 Upvote to improve video surfing

@constructioneerful

Жыл бұрын

Wow! I wish I’d seen this wonderful set of Bookmarks an hour ago!

@constructioneerful

Жыл бұрын

And 10/10 for the iconography.

@michaelmurray6150

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate the notes and the index.

@littlejademoon

Жыл бұрын

This is brilliant; thanks!

"Makes us look incompetent"... couldnt have said it better

Good lord. By standards of academic internal discourse this was an absolute bloodbath o.O. No wonder she resigned.

The President's defense that the original tenured offer was not revoked is untenable and reeks of desperation. It is is natural to assume that subsequent reduced offers are superseding of previous offers. If I send you an email saying that I'll buy your used car for $1000, then another email saying that I'll buy it for $750, then a third email saying that my offer price is $500, would you say "OK, since the the $1000 offer has never been revoked, that's the one I'm accepting", and expect that I will say "Certainly, that $1000 offer was never revoked, so $1000 it is!" This is crazy.

This is why I love faculty. They get right to the heart of the matter.

A masterclass in bureaucratic obfuscation. And a wise Faculty resolution. Grahame McCulloch Former General Secretary National Tertiary Education Union(Australia)

"I assume all texts were deleted" KB 🙂

It's always sunny just did an episode about the system

How can the President get away with saying "I don't have any further information than what I've read"? At the point of this meeting she should have dug into it already.

Tenured upon arrival 1:03:17 still has to go through further review. At what point did it go from 5yr down to non-tenure 1 year? 1:04:49

It’s his fault no it’s their fault no I didn’t know and the department didn’t know and who am I and where is this place??? I have amnesia! Seriously guys? This is an embarrassment for academia. Glad the president at least resigned to save a little face.

and the president's repetition ad nauseum that the offer was never rescinded and remains valid is so CLEARLY a CYA against an anticipated breach of contract claim, its pathetic. she is so lawyered up its not funny

⚖️👌

Such an impressive example of stonewalling they have going on there.

11:40 perception...beyond reproach...merit...tenure....altered.

Lawdy, I’ve not seen that much tap dancing since the last Donald O’Connor movie I watched. Bottom line, all those with institutional power were primed and ready to throw the academic version of a military enlisted troop, a Department’s Admin,under the bus. Most of the faculty were just a bit too timid (except the guy in Istanbul) to hold the Pres and Provost’ feet to the fire. This is shameful.

hmmm

Anyone ever heard of editing? Do we really need to watch in silence as everyone logs into the zoom meeting?

aside from the obfuscation, the fact that no one in the faculty had the ability, tenacity, courage and confidence to effectively question them and pin them down speaks poorly of the faculty.

Racism in Texas! Say ain't so 😮

@jstring

Жыл бұрын

What was racist about it? The TLDR?

@jsweet1864

Жыл бұрын

​@@jstringfound a rasict 😂

Wow, this was brutal trying to listen to a bunch of Academias have a discussion...but let me boil this down for everybody: An offer was extended to the candidate without the Dean's signature, and she signed it anyway. So she signed an incomplete offer. Then there was a signing ceremony on campus "with balloons" to celebrate the new hire. Then there was a media story in the UT Texas Tribune (The UT school paper I believe) that said the candidate's offer was reduced from "with tenure" to a 5 year and then a 1 year contract. Thus the candidate subsequently declined the offer. The President of A&M (now former President) is disappointed the candidate rejected the tenured offer, and EVEN though it was an INCOMPLETE offer without the required signatures...she would still honor this offer. But Pres Banks wants the "process" to be followed and improved. Except of course in his case, it's OK to honor an incomplete offer that nobody can seem to locate... Nobody in the hiring process seems to know where the original offer is and it can't be found "in the system." Someone is lying...I believe it's the Candidate, who likely told the UT Texas Tribune that her offer was reduced from tenure, to 5 yrs, to 1 yr...but Pres Banks says that only ONE offer was ever made, for Tenure if approved by the Regents (as all tenure contracts must be). So to sum up...the candidate signed an incomplete offer (no Dean's signature), had a on campus signing ceremony "with balloons" but however nobody can find the offer letter. Then she lied to the media that her contract was reduced, and rather than the A&M Admin flatly denying this, that ran scared of false media coverage based on lies. The irony that this was a Journalism hire is not lost on me...

@benritmato

Жыл бұрын

Did the candidate lie to the media, though? According to the Texas Tribune's article, she shared copies of all three offers with the Tribune. It's the school that can't seem to find the paperwork. Also salient: The head of the communications/journalism department said the university President misled faculty and that a draft of his offer was altered (and his signature kept on the document) without his knowledge. The president of TAMU has resigned in the wake of this controversy.

@mwalukas1237

Жыл бұрын

Around 25:00 (and a few times after) the President says the offer was with tenure and was approved by the Regents and that the offer was still valid. Also the fact that the President suddenly resigned shortly after this zoom meeting suggests the candidate is NOT the one lying.

@nickrangel153

Жыл бұрын

The Texas Tribune is NOT the UT school paper.

@warren4485

Жыл бұрын

I don't know about your conclusion.

@patriciaelmore172

Жыл бұрын

Let me boil it down for YOU. Go back and listen to this again. The Dean DID sign the agreement. Dr Anan did not sign the agreement. After this situation occurred, a signature line has been added for him to sign. But it was missing from the agreement. Your assumption that the fault lies with Dr McElroy is BASELESS. Banks gave conflicting, disingenuous responses, and we need to know more about all the outside influences involved. And just because Banks thinks the Bd of Regents is made up of fabulous members does not mean that a member of the Bd of Regents did not interfere.