BYU-I Teach let go

[6EQUJ5]

21 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

In what way is expressing a wish for improvement criticism? Isn't being frank about an org's strengths, weakness, goals, and how one intends to shore up weaknesses to achieve those goals...part of reasonable/measured discussion.

If nothing deemed esecially proprietary is communicated, what is wrong with being transparent with customers?

And was it said whether that wish was expresed on a company FB page, specifically designed to engage with customers? If it was, it would be *even more* appropriate and fitting to say such a thing there, in response to a customer complaint, with frank admission of a temporary hiccup and expression of a wish for rapid resolution.

We aren't talking about transparency with customers. Nor are we talking about spin that CEOs always include in their quarterly earnings conference calls. We are talking about an executive stating a public position at direct odds with the position of his/her employer. 

Also, it is very very common in my line of work to sign mutual non-disclosure agreements with customers.  An assurance of privacy between two parties enables candor, and thus more transparency.  If there are no assurances of privacy, transparency between companies and their customers/partners would suffer.

Without expectation of privacy:

"Mr Customer, I am really sorry that our service failed to meet your expectations and I can tell you that we are working diligently to shore up the weakness in our internal process which caused the problem."

With an expectation of privacy:

"Hey Bob. We really messed this up but we'll make it right.  Unfortunately we had a bit of a crisis last week ..... [details about the internal problem] ....."

Anything you say which could become public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Edited July 19, 2017 by 6EQUJ5

[hagoth7]

21 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

We aren't talking about transparency with customers...

You aren't talking about transparency.

(I am.)

A transparent world, a sea of glass, and a city with transparent walls.

Frank. Open. Direct. . Kingdom come. Heaven on earth..

So transparency is whatI I'll choose to talk about. Until it *becomes* a reality - whether in this sphere or another...

If *that* facet of discussion doesn't appeal to you, feel free to move on.

Anything you say which could become public can and will be used against you...

Not for?  Only against? 

If so,

Peter, you've become a pirate. 

And Wendy mght have a helpful thing to suggest about your maternal line. 

...in the court of public opinion.

What if one has weighed choces, and determined that public opinion is less important than a better world?

Choose the right....let the consequences follow. Elder Wirthlin.

 

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think another good rule of thumb is to not mix your religion with your employment.  This is not the first time something like this has happened.  BYU has been under sanction by the American Association of University Professors for over ten years because of academic freedom issues. 

If I worked as a math teacher in the public schools, and rejected Algebra based on my feelings. I could hardly claim academic freedom if the school didn't renew my contract.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this supposed to be a justification for injustice..?

The govt creates and regulates a market, the govt intends any injustice.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

She didn't have a masters or PH.D. So unlikely they were trying to see if a good fit.  She had apparently been a TA and then had an internship, so they already knew what kind of teacher she was.

My opinion based on years as an observer of hiring practices is that for the university in general it is to get cheaper teachers or to be able to increase the number of classes without too much effort.  For the departments, sometimes it is for the latter, but also it can be to get someone who has a different experience or skill set than the typical college prof, which can be helpful in many classes with a practical slant.  For example, in my husband's dept. they have at times successful entrepreneurs who volunteer to team teach in order to share their practical business experiences with students interested in starting their own.  Some of the entrepreneurs have enough experience teaching that they can teach the class on their own.

Most adjunct positions are part time

[Calm]

Right, most adjuncts I have known teach one or two classes.

 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I agree that's a bad state of affairs for the adjunct, and possibly for the institution, BUT... what is the intent of this status?  To see if they can get classes taught with as little expense as possible, or to have a way to get a better idea if the person is a good fit for the institution without having to make too early a commitment?  Not my field of knowledge, so I don't know.

It's okay for grad students, but the problem is that universities are relying more and more on adjuncts to teach classes, and there are fewer full-time teaching positions available. There are a lot of PhD adjuncts out there teaching for multiple universities to make ends meet. Meanwhile tuition keeps rising. Administrative positions keep expanding, while those who are actually teaching are getting the short end of the stick

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I love you stem but sometimes you are hard to take seriously.

Let's say I go on FB right now and post about how I disagree with the CEO of my company on X, Y, and Z.  I would rightfully be fired. I get paid to make the company successful. If my public actions run counter to the stated mission and goals of the firm, I am hurting the company.  Why would any rational person pay someone who openly opposes their policies and goals?  That's absurd.

 You have to get this, brother.  You aren't dense.  You just ask these silly questions to get peopled riled up. And then when you are called on it, you play "who me!?"  LOL.  Basically your OP argues that the Anti Defamation League would be in the wrong to fire an employee who posts neo-Nazi memes on FB.

BEST. TROLL. EVER.

My OP asks a couple of questions...nothing more. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

OF COURSE HE WOULD BE FIRED!  Are you serious?

An executive publicly criticizing internal company operations is 1) a sign that the exec is very foolish and 2) a fireable offense.  There is no way you don't get this.

When you work for someone this stuff needs to stay in the family and you need to work it out internally.      

Whatever the case we're talking about a religion and beliefs here.  And seeing as more info has come out, it seems she is not all that well suited to be teaching there in the first place.  So the issue feels more moot to me now.  The at the story was reported by the opening link though, I admit, I'd feel concern. 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And nobody wants to address my question, is this kind of use of information something we want to aspire to in our modern information age.  Do you support businesses using this kind of information for hiring and firing practices?  What say you? 

When it comes to making hiring decisions why wouldn’t you look at every piece of information available? There is a reason why the majority of companies perform social media research on prospective hires. It’s another potential data point that can be used to gauge whether or not someone would be a good fit for the organization.

Here’s the thing: for any professional position available there are multiple people who are perfectly capable of doing the job. I don’t work in the education sector, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that adjunct poli-sci teachers are a dime a dozen. So, when it comes to the school’s attention that this particular teacher is publicly advocating against the institution’s core values, it should be obvious to everyone that this person isn’t going to be a good long-term investment for the organization. They should feel free to replace her with someone better whenever they see fit.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just took the time to read Robertson's Facebook post from the bottom of the article linked to in the OP. And then, mere moments later, I read the following in Alma 15:15 as part of my Book of Mormon study: 'for they were of the profession of Nehor, and did not believe in the repentance of their sins'. Interesting juxtaposition.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

What is it about Nauvoo that you believe broke so many shelves?

In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith's polygamy and other leaders was hidden and fairly unknown to many LDS back then, and current LDS, until the internet.

But as Calm mentioned, this woman is a feminist and she may have known before about JS having lived polygamy like that, and it's just the polygamy itself that broke her shelf. I'd have to hear it from this gal though.

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Great point. The adjunct thing is terrible. Adjuncts get paid less than public school teachers, with no benefits. I'm not sure how colleges expect to have anyone to continue to teach their courses in the next generation, when more and more classes are taught by people with advanced degrees who are earning not much more than minimum wage. Why would anyone get a PhD with the idea of teaching at a university under current conditions?

 

But I digress.

Supply and demand. There are many trying to work their way to a graduate degree this way. Not so many professors with advanced degrees, published in their field, etc, which colleges view as an asset.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I think you misunderstand me 180 degrees.

hagoth7,

I appreciate your replies and attempting to engage me on this issue, but I'm not sure where to even start to reply.  We are looking at this in such different terms.  I typically try to understand where the other person is coming from and then try to build on some common points, but from what you're explaining to me, you are on a different planet with respect to how you're looking at this issue.  The kinds of examples you're giving about how employers should handle employment decisions sound to me like they are right out of a dystopian sci fi novel.  I'm really at a loss about how to even engage you on this discussion.  If I come up with an idea later, maybe I'll make an attempt, but for now, nothing is coming to mind.  

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Supply and demand. There are many trying to work their way to a graduate degree this way. Not so many professors with advanced degrees, published in their field, etc, which colleges view as an asset.

It's gone way beyond that. Now it's PhD with often years of experience who are adjuncting. It's a way for universities to save money now, but it is going to cause all kinds of problems for them down the road.

Many of them are moving into teaching at public schools (high schools) because they can actually earn more money.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Gray

[cdowis]

She went beyond expressing her views, and clearly belittled the church and its doctrines with inappropriate commentary and analogies.  As a member she is free to do so, but as an employee, she went beyond her freedom of expression  by trash talking the church.

She remains a member, but she needs to find another employer who tolerates such unprofessional comments in a public forum.

Edited July 19, 2017 by cdowis

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Is it a good idea to base a job at a Church-owned school, granted, on whether a professor agrees with policy on her personal facebook entries?   Why does her personal view expressed on facebook require her to lose her job? 

I don't use Facebook for many reasons and this is one of them.  I believe people should be able to say whatever they want online and not have it affect their employment unless they are using their employment as part of getting a following or some sort of advantage.  When one is off the clock they are off the clock.  A cop should be able to make as many racist statements as he wants online and not affect his or her employment as long as they don't identify themselves as a cop.  What they do once they show up to work is what should matter.  

As for this teacher, I have questions like was she using her position as a platform to promote her posts?  Was she using the Church or her membership of the Church as a platform to promote her posts?  It is one thing for a person to say "I support gay rights" and quite different to say "As an LDS member, I support gay rights and homosexuality is not sinful and the Church needs to change."  Being gay by itself is not sinful just as being a heterosexual is not sinful.  Ones actions that go beyond that baseline however determine whether one commits sin or not.  Even being sexually attracted to young children is not sinful by itself.  But move beyond that baseline and watch out;.

Edited July 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's gone way beyond that. Now it's PhD with often years of experience who are adjuncting. It's a way for universities to save money now, but it is going to cause all kinds of problems for them down the road.

Many of them are moving into teaching at public schools (high schools) because they can actually earn more money.

Again supply and demand Gray. PhDs are now a dime a dozen. Getting a PhD doesn't automatically make a job appear - something Obama didn't quite seem to grasp. Although it did seem to create a lot more leftist sock-puppets.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Again supply and demand Gray. PhDs are now a dime a dozen. Getting a PhD doesn't automatically make a job appear

 

They're creating a long-term problem for themselves for short-term financial gain. Not unlike the housing bubble, but in reverse.

MBAs are even more of a dime a dozen, but MBAs are getting better jobs at universities than PhDs. Universities are losing sight of their mission. Administrative bloat is sucking up all their resources.

 

Quote

- something Obama didn't quite seem to grasp. Although it did seem to create a lot more leftist sock-puppets.

This is mainly nonsense.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

When it comes to making hiring decisions why wouldn’t you look at every piece of information available? There is a reason why the majority of companies perform social media research on prospective hires. It’s another potential data point that can be used to gauge whether or not someone would be a good fit for the organization.

Here’s the thing: for any professional position available there are multiple people who are perfectly capable of doing the job. I don’t work in the education sector, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that adjunct poli-sci teachers are a dime a dozen. So, when it comes to the school’s attention that this particular teacher is publicly advocating against the institution’s core values, it should be obvious to everyone that this person isn’t going to be a good long-term investment for the organization. They should feel free to replace her with someone better whenever they see fit.

Privacy is decreasing at an alarming rate.  Companies have access to increasingly accurate information about everyone.  I want to think through the implications of this kind of access to information, because I worry this encroaches on our freedom.  

Did you see my other example earlier about Target, a company that has publicly come out in favor of the transgender community.  Would you support Target using publicly available internet data to find and identify any employees of Target that have ever made comments or posted articles that are negative towards the transgender community, and then firing those employees on the grounds that those comments go against company's values?  

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

They're creating a long-term problem for themselves for short-term financial gain. Not unlike the housing bubble, but in reverse.

MBAs are even more of a dime a dozen, but MBAs are getting better jobs at universities than PhDs. Universities are losing sight of their mission.

Glad we agree. Numbers don't lie.

Quote

This is mainly nonsense.

Perhaps you have forgotten Obama's drive to provide lots of student loan aid during the crash? Now all those students have gotten their PhDs in Lesbian Dance Theory (admittedly unfair generalization) and wondering why they are being offered part-time minimum wage level compensation by those same schools where they got their degrees. It's not nonsense at all Gray. Obama is the one who pushed it. Hopefully, a good percentage of those PhDs will prove useful to some employer and society at large. But unfortunately a good percentage were hoping for something that doesn't seem to be materializing - and have debts that probably won't get paid off anytime soon. 

Can I dane see the next leftist political plum to pick? School loan debt forgiveness - at the expense of the country as a whole of course.

[Freedom]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'd be more worried about a parent that expects a college student to be solely instructed by people who agree with everything the Church teaches.

But that, in a nut shell, is what a private religious school is all about. If I were to send a child to BYU, I would be expecting exactly this. There is nothing sinister about such an expectation. 

[Freedom]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Privacy is decreasing at an alarming rate.  Companies have access to increasingly accurate information about everyone.  I want to think through the implications of this kind of access to information, because I worry this encroaches on our freedom.  

Did you see my other example earlier about Target, a company that has publicly come out in favor of the transgender community.  Would you support Target using publicly available internet data to find and identify any employees of Target that have ever made comments or posted articles that are negative towards the transgender community, and then firing those employees on the grounds that those comments go against company's values?  

The issue is that so many amateurs now have access to a public forum and do not know how to use it. At some point, we need to learn that social media is a public forum and we need to be careful in our use. If an employee at my company posted something critical of my place of employment, they can expect to be put on probation or fired. This is a matter of people grossly misusing social media to post comments that should not be posted. 

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Again supply and demand Gray. PhDs are now a dime a dozen. Getting a PhD doesn't automatically make a job appear - something Obama didn't quite seem to grasp. Although it did seem to create a lot more leftist sock-puppets.

I abandoned my own quest for a PhuD when I discovered that the only opening in the country was at a JC in Nebraska, and not the good part.  Why spend 3 more years in grad school (longer if the dissertation took longer) if there were no opening at the end  ...  and that was in 1980.  Imagine now.

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Privacy is decreasing at an alarming rate.  Companies have access to increasingly accurate information about everyone.  I want to think through the implications of this kind of access to information, because I worry this encroaches on our freedom.  

Did you see my other example earlier about Target, a company that has publicly come out in favor of the transgender community.  Would you support Target using publicly available internet data to find and identify any employees of Target that have ever made comments or posted articles that are negative towards the transgender community, and then firing those employees on the grounds that those comments go against company's values?  

That's already happening.  Not necessarily Target, of course.