Ass-ass-ment (not my term)

The context:

An article about the Collegiate Learning Assessment, one of I presume a number of standardized measures of critical thinking.

The comment:

“Never have so many fought for so little that benefits so few! The Bush sold the war is the same way administrations sell assessment. Lies, distortions, made up data, packaging, and humbug!”

The explanation:

First of all, my hats off to the commenter for titling his comment with the term “ass-ass-ment”. I have no idea what point it tries to communicate, but it uses the word “ass” not once but twice in a single word/pun/whatever, so that’s double bonus points.

So here’s the thing with assessment: You use up resources that we could spend elsewhere. Show me what I get in return for investing in you instead of investing in something else. If “it’s not really possible to *articulate* in concrete terms” what it is you do, then you must just be full of shit and don’t do much of anything useful. If a freaking classical studies department can put together concrete student learning outcomes (I’ve seen it), then any one can. That’s how I “sell” assessment.

As to the “Lies, distortions, made up data, packaging, and humbug”… Well, you’ve got me on the humbug. I’ve got no clue what to do with that. But for any lies, distortions, made up data, or packaging, here’s a suggestion: put up (you know the alternative). There’s a real easy way to call out someone on dishonesty or spin – publicly show data to the contrary. It’s that simple. Doing that requires one of three responses on the part of the call-out-ee. First, they can bluff with more data, and eventually it just gets amusing. I love it when that happens, because I enjoy being amused. Second, they can look at your data, look at theirs, and decide that they’re wrong. I hear that happens, though I have no personal experience with the matter. Finally, they can look at your data, look at theirs, and explain why theirs is right and you have no idea what you are talking about. I’m pretty sure that happens on a fairly regular basis.

Last piece of advice: if you want to get into this particular pissing contest, make sure you don’t bring a slide rule to a supercomputer fight.

You CYA leach…

The context:

U of Iowa requires all employees (including faculty, yes, including tenure-track) to go through sexual harassment training after a professor is accused of sexual harassment. In the same issue of the Chronicle is a story about U of Missouri Kansas City paying a $1.1 Million settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought as a result of the actions of two professors there.

The comment:

“Sheer administrative ass-covering. As if the rest of the faculty don’t know that an A for a lay is unkosher. It’s a total waste of time, and will not constitute a legal defense. Whichever administrator ordered that should go on the job market immediately. That kind of idiocy is in high demand these days, and he could make a bundle.”

The explanation:

Requiring faculty to go through the same sexual harassment training that all the other employees go through is in fact only one part ass-covering. It’s also one part stewardship and one part doing the right thing. Let’s talk about the ass-covering first.

First, let’s be clear about whose ass is being covered. It’s the university’s, not the administrator’s. Implementing a training program isn’t going to cover an administrator against a harassment accusation. What it’s going to do is help the university cover its ass when the next accusation comes along. Employers in the U.S. have a legal obligation to provide an work environment free from sexual harassment (as well as other forms of harassment and discrimination, for what it’s worth). Does a training program by itself do that? Nope. Is a training program possibly a step in that direction? Sure. How do you justify allowing an entire segment of your workforce (tenure track faculty) not going through basic training required of every other employee when the purpose of that training is to make it clear what does and doesn’t constitute sexual harassment? Judge: “didn’t you think you might want to at least make people aware of where the lines are?” University: “ah, come on, as if the rest of the faculty don’t know that an A for a lay is unkosher.” Yeah, that’s not going to work out real well.

Now, you might reasonably ask yourself, what is in this university ass-covering for me? This is where the stewardship comes in. When a university (like U. of Missouri Kansas City) has to pay over a million dollars to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, guess how many fewer dollars there are for the academic program? Do you see where I’m going here? This is called risk management. Administrators may do things that seem absurd to you because they can protect the resources that make your work possible. Like ask you to spend ten freaking minutes going through a web-based training program that says an A for a lay is unkosher.

Let’s toss aside for a moment, though, the issue of ass-covering. Suspend your disbelief for a moment and pretend that administrators are not completely evil greedy bastards. Imagine that they have some semblance of morals. You’re probably a moral person (or think you are anyway), so imagine that *you* are an administrator. Do you think it might be the right thing to try to prevent future sexual harassment from ever occurring? What if someone suggested to you, “hey, I know this isn’t a silver bullet, but maybe we could prevent some of the mindless dipshit kind of sexual harassment if we just point out to people that what they might have thought was OK really isn’t”? If you thought that you could educate one person and prevent one sexually harassing situation from arising by requiring faculty to go through a ridiculously low-investment training module, do you think you might do that?