
The Best Way to Not Get Tenure - panic
https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/posts/2016-10-22-the-best-way-to-not-get-tenure/
======
seibelj
I work in industry, but the key to getting stuff done in a hierarchical
organization is _tact_. I think he is a poor politician, and is clearly very
unhappy about being denied tenure. I think putting out feelers and going about
a new job more quietly would be more effective.

Hypothetically, let's say you (the person reading this comment) want to make a
big change in your organization. You identified a problem, and honestly think
the solution is a fundamental change in direction. The incorrect next step is
to bring up your opinion in front of the decision makers! This causes strife,
anger, embarrassment, negative attention, etc.

The correct plan is to quietly gauge support, get allies, make your case one-
on-one, and get things going with multiple stakeholders on board. No one
embarrassed, the majority in agreement. Rocking the boat publicly (as this
post clearly shows he is OK with) is not the mark of good political skills.

~~~
nostrademons
I'd agree that the way to appeal to management is to build relationships &
grassroots support in the organization. But the way to appeal to the market
(which seems to be his current situation now, since he seems to be looking for
a new job) is to make a big splash, take credit for all the things you've
done, define yourself in terms of what you'd most like to do, and then wait
for the calls to come in.

The difference is on whether the set of people you work with is mutable or
immutable. If it's immutable, you _better_ preserve relationships, because
you'll be working with them in the future, regardless of what happens, and you
need them to implement your plans. But if it's mutable, then when people
dislike you, just find new people. Stake out a territory in idea-space, and
then just adjust the set of folks you hang out with until everyone agrees with
you.

Voice or exit. If you want voice, you've got to speak to what the people
around you will hear. If you're willing to exit (or going to anyway), you can
say what you want and swap the people out until you find the set who hears
you.

Interestingly, the current U.S. presidential race is a perfect example of
this. Trump is following the people-are-mutable, if-they-don't-like-you-
fuck-'em strategy. He's burning bridges with everyone who criticizes him. And
he's probably doing this because it has worked for him in business - when he
stiffs a contractor, sexually harasses an employee, or loses an investor's
money, there is always somebody else willing to get in line behind them.
Clinton, however, is the consummate relationship builder. She's carefully
worked across the aisle through decades of experience in Washington, such that
she's got all the really important people supporting her. Trump's strategy
works great at rallies, where he can speak only to the people who agree with
him, but fails across the entire electorate, where he has to deal with a pre-
existing composition that isn't going anywhere.

~~~
jsemrau
>take credit for all the things you've done

Might sound corny but -there is no I in team -. Great leaders bring change by
assembling great teams where everyone gets their time to shine and don't take
the credit for it. Everyone wins.

~~~
gaius
_Great leaders bring change by assembling great teams where everyone gets
their time to shine and don 't take the credit for it._

Yes and no. Let's say your team has pulled off a major coup. As a (good)
manager you very publicly say that all the credit belongs to the team. The
team are happy and they love you. But the power players understand your real
message.

~~~
austinjp
This suggests that management is a duplicitous role. It shouldn't be. You
publicly praise those who deserve it. You privately (i.e. in interviews)
explain your personal involvement.

------
code_sardaukar
I read the whole article and it's very hard to judge the correctness of most
of the article's claims. Most importantly, it's hard to judge the most
important thing: the author's own research.

However, I can say that there are different ways to interpret things. The
author sees tenure as a way to establish obedience to the unwritten rules of
the department. Based on my knowledge of academia, including friends who were
granted tenure, the process is mostly fair, but of course most people are
going to want to do everything they can to maximize their chances. What the
author interprets as proving obedience, I interpret as not wasting time on
things the committee can't measure objectively, or doing things that might
piss off people on the committee.

As someone in industry, I see academia as somewhere where people can make
immense contributions to human knowledge, that cannot be done elsewhere, but
they have to jump through certain hoops to do so. Outside of academia there is
very little opportunity to do research. Industry is conservative, and prefers
to implement and refine known techniques.

~~~
kevhito
I agree with this. But research isn't everything. And there are at least some
hints and signs that this person doesn't know how to get along with
colleagues.

> I worked really hard to bring an exciting and rigorous operating systems
> class to UB.

Why did this effort require working "really hard"? Was it because of
obstructionist, jealous, or stupid colleagues? Or people who wanted a boring
and unrigourous course instead? Or were there perhaps legitimate reasons why
others didn't want to change the existing course?

> I led a complete overhaul of our department’s undergraduate computer science
> curriculum. It includes two new exciting introductory programming courses
> that I spent a great deal of time designing.

Let me guess: the existing curriculum was terrible, boring, not at all
rigorous, and there was no reason to keep any of it, and the author made sure
everyone knew it. And why did the author have to spend a great deal of time?
Because no one else in the department was capable of doing as good a job?
Because nobody else could comprehend this grand vision?

Everything listed under "speaking out" gives me the same vibe. It doesn't seem
to have crossed this person's mind that there are reasons why other people
have different approaches to teaching, research, administration, hiring, etc.,
beyond others being obstructionist, brainwashed, or just stupid. I'm reminded
of the parable reminding us [1] to not take down a fence until we have truly
understood why the fence was erected in the first place.

And really... bringing a dog to work in violation of a clearly stated campus
policy, repeatedly, even after having been warned, then encouraging a student
petition and getting your name in a local paper about the incident? That's
just asking for trouble.

(Full disclosure: I'm coming up for tenure myself, and one lesson it has taken
me 5 years to understand is that people who disagree with me on campus aren't
doing so out of spite, stupidity, or carelessness, they often just have
different priorities than I do. Just because our department absolutely needs
more resources to do a good job handling our rapidly growing student
population, doesn't mean the college should make this a priority over other
things.)

[1] [http://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-
down/](http://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/)

~~~
Thriptic
> Full disclosure: I'm coming up for tenure myself, and one lesson it has
> taken me 5 years to understand is that people who disagree with me on campus
> aren't doing so out of spite, stupidity, or carelessness, they often just
> have different priorities than I do

In my experience, one problem is that the priorities are frequently rooted in
the self-interest of powerful PIs or staff and are to the detriment of the
department / university as a whole. As a staff scientist working on many
different types of projects, I frequently bump up against stupid problems
which should be fixed at a university level. At one point, I tried spear
heading a number of these projects (creation of a central index of core
facilities and support services for our university so people can actually find
resources efficiently, centralized billing and training services for shared
facilities across departments, secure storage and an EMR for investigators
working with patient information).

All of these projects failed to launch for selfish reasons:

central index: powerful PIs feared discovery of their private core labs which
they were abusing; core labs feared institute-level data would lead to
institute wide optimization and loss of local control.

centralized billing: financial admins feared loss of control and had job
security issues

centralized training: core labs feared loss of control

secure storage and EMR: PIs thought this was too inconvenient, preferred
leaving shit on external hard drives with no access control. Feared if this
were created they would be forced to use it.

I don't ever try to fix anything now beyond the lab level, and even that is
frequently challenging.

I've also seen two talented investigators passed by for tenure in our
department because my PI is powerful and other PIs fear that having another
person from our lab in the department will further consolidate power in my
PI's hands. Our department recently spent an enormous amount of money
renovating a single floor in our aging building. That floor had the
departmental chair's lab on it. In my experience, academia is full of people
who for the most part are in it for themselves and have no interest in
improving the situation of the group / lab / department / university as a
whole.

~~~
adrianratnapala
I'm sorry but I suspect your deeply, deeply wrong and your work will damage
your university. Everything you talk about is about centralising knowledge and
control.

In practice, this never helps in the business of getting experiments done.
Students and postdocs just pend some time doing pointless training courses,
overheads increase, lead-times for ordering equiment increase. And to what
purpose?

~~~
Thriptic
> Everything you talk about is about centralising knowledge and control. In
> practice, this never helps in the business of getting experiments done

We have researchers that literally cannot get work done efficiently because
they don't know that core labs exist on campus to serve them, and labs that
spend tens of thousands to buy instruments that they seldom use for the same
reasons. At a department level (let alone an institute level), we have no idea
what instruments or services people need, and no usage statistics for
instruments that we already have. This means that it is likely that shared
facilities are sub-optimally serving the community as a whole, and labs are
buying multiple copies of the same pieces of equipment when one unit could do
if it were shared. The lack of central indexing also means that most labs have
no idea what other labs are working on, which hinders collaboration.

For training, right now EACH core lab forces researchers to do similar
training courses for the same instruments; there is no way to prove you know
how to use an instrument without taking each course. Similarly, every core lab
employs different billing software which financial admins / lab admins have to
sign up for and deal with.

How is this at all productive or efficient for anyone? If you were to suggest
a similar setup for interacting business units, you would literally be laughed
out of the room at a company.

The reason people like this current system is precisely because it's
inefficient and confusing. This makes it difficult to regulate at a high level
and makes it ripe for abuse by powerful people.

------
Chinjut
I don't know and can't speak to the merits of this guy's research, but it
distresses me to see so many people here taking him to task merely for daring
to publicly voice criticisms of his employer. Not just advising him "This may
be tactically suboptimal...", but apparently actually mad at him for saying
such things!

Are we not to be allowed, as human beings, to speak for ourselves? Are we to
always be in our employee role, subservient to the boss, saying outside of
hushed whispers only ever what most pleases the boss? Always in costume, any
extra personality immoral to wear outside…

~~~
mwfunk
Since hardly anyone has firsthand knowledge of what happened, everyone is
extrapolating (it's all anyone can do really). You are extrapolating that this
is a case where individuality is getting crushed by The System and this guy's
only crime was speaking the truth and not conforming to this or that soul
crushing norm of professional life.

For the most part the less sympathetic comments I've seen are extrapolating
that there may have been issues with maturity, professionalism, self-
awareness, "reading the room", etc. Of course those comments also come from
people extrapolating about what really happened based on the account of one
person.

The truth is unknowable to almost everyone here, so all people can do is
compare what was written to their own experiences. I don't think you're any
more right or wrong than anyone else here, but I think your interpretation is
based on a different reading of the situation altogether, rather than everyone
reading it the same way but having different notions of what was just or
unjust about what happened.

~~~
Chinjut
I'm not saying he was crushed for his individuality and truth-speaking then.
As I said, I have no idea what he was like in the past, or the merits of his
tenure case. I'm saying people, in this thread, are taking him to task for
criticizing his (soon to be ex-)employer publicly now. That "Don't criticize
your employer!" norm, to me, is a bizarre one for strangers to get upset over
deviations from.

~~~
tdb7893
Vocal criticisms for a former employer will do nothing but come back to bite
you. It looks pretty bad to future employers and burns bridges unnecessarily
with the former employer, who you generally have to rely on for
recommendations. In this case the public criticism being in general a bad idea
just highlighted the lack of political acumen that this guy had already shown.

~~~
Chinjut
This becomes the chilling effect that one must never criticize their former
employers, regardless of what happened or how one feels; they are to be
treated as above reproach. Which is exactly the worry.

~~~
tdb7893
An analogy for it might be someone complaining about their ex on Facebook. You
can still complain in private and voice your opinions when it's relevant but
doing it in a public forum without prompting just screams immaturity. I mean
it does have a chilling effect but I don't think that's always a bad thing
(people's reaction to this post being a prime example as to why)

------
psyc
Kind of hilarious how many comments in this thread already echo the mentality
he's opposing. Get in line. Don't rock the boat. Don't complain about your
lot. And you probably deserve what you got, because it's what you got. (Aka
Just World Fallacy.)

~~~
kevhito
I think it's mostly just me. It's not so much "get in line", but "before you
complain about getting in line, maybe consider why there is a line in the
first place".

Getting burned by pissing off one or two people in your department is
unfortunate. Pissing of more than half the people in your department? Plus
lots of people in other departments? And the administration too? And even the
local newspaper?

Either he is the only good guy in a sea of jerks, or maybe he's not quite the
good guy he thinks he is. I don't know the which it is, and the article
doesn't tell us either.

I'm not sure why this story upset me so much. I think it is because when I
started in my department, I saw things I thought were terrible -- courses that
hadn't been revised in years, the wrong languages being taught, outdated
exercises, poorly-written web pages, cumbersome processes, etc. And I said so,
frequently. Thankfully, I had some great mentors to help teach me to slow down
and listen to others, and work with others. We've now made lots of changes,
updated the curriculum, and done it all together. And some things I thought
were terrible I know realize are actually elegant solutions to problems
outside of our control (e.g. finite money and time and expertise, and a
college administration that needs to think about public perception, alumni,
gifting, athletics, other departments, and lots of other things besides "what
will make the CS department awesome").

~~~
dluan
Often feeling that any criticism of your work is unfair can blind you to what
the real criticism is.

Yeah, there's probably a few folks who you can't win over no matter what. But,
there are also valid and real takeaways that colleagues are offering, and
holding your hands over your ears saying the system is rigged isn't going to
help one to continue to grow.

------
mcherm
This article has a powerful and important point to make. But much of the
strength of an argument rests on the author's evaluation of his own
contributions which is almost unfailingly positive.

The article would be even more effective if accompanied by statement from one
or more of the eight department members who voted against granting tenure.

~~~
gsylvie
He obviously pissed off his department, and so they voted with an aim to
punishing him. He's a fool not to appeal it, though. If he appeals then the
decision will be made by people outside of his department who won't have the
same emotional stakes in the decision. Rage quit after you win your appeal, if
you must!

$3,000,000 in funding, most of it still active is astonishing
([https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/proposals/](https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/proposals/)),
and his DBLP ([http://dblp.uni-
trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey](http://dblp.uni-
trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey)) is pretty awesome (note: he's in DBLP as
Geoffrey Challen, Geoffrey Werner Challen, and Geoffrey Werner-Allen).

But he _DID_ keep his dog in his lab, against university policy:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffal...](https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffalonews.com/20130308/Off_Main_Street_The_offbeat_side_of_the_news.html)

I hope he changes his mind about not appealing. The grass ain't greener
anywhere else. All university departments are filled with miserable gossips.

~~~
skosuri
It looks like he also flipped classrooms and was active within the department
service-wise. That's a pretty crazy decision not to tenure him from the
outside.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
It was really crazy in the department too, at least among undergraduate
students. His lab is very well known as a great place to learn about the
development of mobile devices, which is basically not offered in any courses
and difficult to be formally educated in otherwise.

------
jfasi
Working in a large organization straight out of college, I've learned the
meaning of the phrase 'pay your dues.' When you get hired at a large
organization, you're expected to fall in line for a while before you get
entrusted with political clout. Many people chafe at this: why is someone of
my caliber wasting his time doing low-level work in an obviously broken system
when I could be making real change happen?

The naive and/or cynical answer is because the organization demands
conformity: wouldn't want to hire a fresh thinker to derail our institutional
gravy train! Let's burn them out by making them jump through an arbitrary and
tedious series of hoops so they come out the other end too limp and tired to
overthrow us! This interpretation is nonsense.

The informed answer is that this stage is an additional filtering process.
Being a leader in a large organization requires politicking: coalition
building, patience, tact, etc. Not every junior hire will develop these
skills. Organizations that endow too much power in someone lacking such skills
will inevitably suffer from unnecessary conflicts and (often) fruitless
instability.

This post seems like the author is listing his accomplishments while stunned
that they alone don't qualify him for tenure. However, I would wager anything
that his potential to accomplish these sorts of things was obvious to the
department from day one. If so, it likely influenced their decision to hire
him in the first place. His achievement of this potential yielded little new
information. Meanwhile, his ostentatious conflicts and overly vocal style
likely did.

My personal assessment is he's clearly a brilliant and hard-working faculty
member, but the rock-the-boat actions he boasts and the very fact that he
wrote this post suggests that he lacks the soft touch of a leader. Tenure
doesn't just mean being un-fireable, it means helping shape your institution,
and a brilliant leader without a steady hand is more trouble than he's worth.

------
cs2818
I am surprised by the sentiment of many of the comments here. Perhaps it is
from spending so many years in the academic world, but I have repeatedly
witnessed how "conforming" or "following protocol" with hopes of tenure has
fostered teaching and research deficits within academic communities.

I don't know the author of this article or his research, but his story is
entirely plausible. Tenured faculty can be brutal to those bidding to join the
club, often perceiving the most well-intended actions to be threatening. In
the end the consequences most strongly harm the advancement of the field and
the education of students.

------
dluan
I know this is a rough situation, but perhaps there are real merits to the
decision that I wish we could've seen discussed in the post. For example, I
went ahead and watched a few of the videos from his internet course and very
quickly grokked what kind of professor he might be.

On an industry level, yeah he's right. These things are happening throughout
academia in departments everywhere. Tenure is a poorly designed system. Most
likely, UBuffalo is missing out on a great teacher. On a personal level, it'd
be a shame to walk away from an experience like this as being cynical and
defensive.

~~~
tschwimmer
What kind of professor is he?

------
sseagull
This article is somewhat resonating with me, and where I am in my life right
now. After a few years of postdoc, I'm at a crossroads of where I want to go.
In some sense, I'm a lot like the author, and I'm not really doing enough of
what "they" want. I love research and tackling tough problems. But becoming a
full professor just isn't about that.

I'd much rather stay in my office and work out a problem than go to a
conference and "network". Or waste time writing a paper about my incremental
progress (I could just wait and write about the whole thing!) That makes me a
terrible "scientist", I guess.

~~~
roel_v
As my gran used to say - "we don't bake 'rather' cookies here". I mean, I'd
'rather' lay in my hammock sipping pina coladas, but here I am on a Sunday
afternoon waiting for my project to compile. Every job has aspects to it that
aren't much fun, that's why it's a job.

------
twblalock
Academics realize that when they grant tenure to someone, that person is
likely to be their coworker for the next several decades.

This guy may very well be brilliant in his field, but he is clearly not a good
fit for the department he was in. Quite frankly, he seems to be abrasive and a
bit of a dick. He also seems inexcusably naive about how academia works,
considering how long he has been an academic. Why would any rational person in
his department guarantee him the job security to stick around for the rest of
his career?

Why would anyone want to hire him after the unprofessional and petulant
display he just posted on the web?

~~~
inimino
Assuming he is indeed "brilliant in his field" and simply not very good at
politics, there are _tons_ of places who will happily hire that combination.

------
Tinyyy
Here’s a (albeit small) sample of his students’ opinion of Geoffery.

[http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392](http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392)

A common criticism seems to be that he has a huge ego.

~~~
TillE
I've seen so many professors I loved, especially the tougher ones, given
crappy ratings by stupid idiots who choose to use that site.

------
muglug
Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly.
One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.

~~~
apathy
That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road.
So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you
will.

~~~
joeclark77
Yes, but he's now trying to take his show on the road and get a job at another
university. The reason this "parting shot" is risky is that it may get him
pre-emptively ruled out by a lot of other hiring committees.

~~~
fencepost
But speaking out here about the reasons he was denied tenure may be the only
chance he gets to present that to some schools that might otherwise say
"Buffalo knew this guy and tossed him, they must know something."

It may also prompt potential employers to look at the makeup of the department
that rejected him - is it full of people who got their initial degrees when
32-bit architectures were theoretical novelties?

~~~
joeclark77
Good point. In this case I think he's confident that he'll get a job
_somewhere_ , and therefore he's willing to do this as a way of eliminating
potential employers from contention based on whether they do or don't value
the kinds of contributions he's making. It's a good strategy _unless he 's
wrong_ about how desirable he is.

------
dronemallone
it's such a letdown when one realizes that universities are not this ideal
utopia where everyone's a straight talker, where there is zero politics, where
the people care about research and not the money it brings etc.

Must have been depressing for this guy to realize that universities nowadays
are just massive hedge funds that sponsor football programs that are bigger
than computer science departments.

~~~
hash-set
Couldn't have said it better! They want to place stupid games? Then watch
their relevance dissipate into nothingness. Science doesn't need the current
research system in order to survive and thrive.

------
pistle
Well, that's his side of the story. Burning bridges publicly while signalling
that you are difficult to work with is a twofer. Classy. Subtle. There are 8
people who have any second thoughts answered, and likely two others who might
not abstain if given a second chance.

Life goes on. Pick up your pieces and build a new dream. Don't stand on the
bridge you are burning.

------
skywhopper
If the author was really "point[ing] out problems with resource allocation,
poor distribution of teaching load, lack of diversity among both our faculty
and students, terrible graduate admissions systems, looking the other way
regrading student plagiarism, and our neglect of our undergraduate programs"
from the start, then I'm not surprised at the outcome. While I'm sure most or
all of what the author complained about were true problems, the fact is that
your colleagues (1) already know; (2) know a lot more than you do about _why_
things are broken (or the reasoning behind what only _appears_ to be broken);
(3) might already be working to fix it; (4) might be _responsible_ for what
you're ranting about, which may well be a huge improvement over previous
iterations of the policy/system; and (5) don't appreciate being lectured about
how broken everything is by someone that doesn't realize #1-4.

Tenure is a big commitment by the department and the university to your
career. No matter how successful you are on the objective criteria behind the
selection, you also need to be someone the faculty can envision being glad to
work with for the next few decades, and who they think can be effective in
improving the department in the future. If we believe the author's own
evidence, then I would have been inclined to vote nay as well.

~~~
edtechdev
If any of those items were true (and I highly doubt that), his colleagues
should have simply mentioned it rather than stay quiet, passive aggressive,
and butthurt.

~~~
skywhopper
I'm guessing they _were_ trying to mention it and he interpreted it as "don't
make waves till you get tenure". And sure, some people explicitly say that,
but the fact is, new people in an old organization do not understand the
complexities, and telling everyone they're wrong is not going to win friends
or influence people.

------
hudibras
Here's a similar blog post from 3 years ago, with similar HN comments...

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-
awesomes...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-
awesomest-7-year-postdoc-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-
tenure-track-faculty-life/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501)

------
partisan
Couldn't scroll on the site on my iPhone. I don't think I've seen that before.

~~~
phreack
I've had it happen before, what's likely happening is that you're scrolling an
element behind the article due to a bug in safari with z indexes.

------
KKKKkkkk1
How come the three papers that the author cites as examples of groundbreaking
work have 2 citations between them? Is this the norm in computer systems?

~~~
robotresearcher
They were published this year. They'll be cited next year if they are useful.
There's a 6-9 month delay between paper submission and publication.

~~~
roel_v
So how does he know they're so great then? In academic career progress
contexts, citations are what matters. If your 'great' papers have 2 citations,
they're objectively not great - in fact, they're pretty shit even. They might
become 'great' next year, time will tell - but making a case of how great a
researcher you are with a paper selection like that is, well, not very smart.

~~~
robotresearcher
If they are new, they are neither proven great or shit. Like a new novel or
work of art, or any IP.

The author is proposing that people read those papers becaus he is proud of
them. Nothing wrong with that.

~~~
roel_v
No, not true. He's arguing he's an asset to the university, and one of his
arguments is his publishing track record. In that context, there are two way
papers are 'good': they are published in Nature or The Lancet, or they have
high citation counts. Whether a paper _has the potential_ to get lots of
citations doesn't count for anything. Likewise, if the content is super out of
this world great, but nobody has cited it - _the paper is shit_.

In all sorts of other contexts, obviously there are many ways in which
something can be good. In the specific way he used it, there is a very well-
defined and objective standard, and he fails it.

~~~
phdysfunction
Why do you hate this guy? In most areas of computer science, certain value of
publications is attributed to the venue where they are published, which isn't
necessarily science or lancet. His RV work got the best paper award, which is
a good indicator of quality and potential. The other two papers are in
reasonably good venues.

I think that his publications record isn't great, and that and his personality
are perhaps what lead to his tenure's outcomes, but that's not a point you are
making.

------
Hondor
From this other page
[https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/](https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/) , it looks like
he can take his grants, research, Phd students and courses with him to a new
job! I'm totally amazed at that. Don't they belong to his old university? Is
that how it usually works in universities?

~~~
dluan
Most times, grants stay with the department and they have the discretion to
use the remainder however they want.

~~~
clegoues
Not quite; there's a mechanism for this, though the details vary by
department/funding source/phase of the moon. Typically one can take at least
part of earned grants elsewhere, though sometimes the originating school can
still take overhead before transferring the rest (leading to double-overhead,
when the new school takes a percentage of the remainder).

(The funding system doesn't always make sense, but it REALLY wouldn't make
sense to give a grant, especially something like a CAREER, which is given to a
single PI based on the work that PI proposes to do, to a department where the
PI who proposed to do the work no longer actually works...)

------
gregmac
Why is Tenure still a thing? It's basically a lifetime employment contract.

It seems the only argument for tenure is academic freedom.. a tenured
professor can pursue an avenue of research without fear of reprisal for it
being controversial or not yielding results (though really, even experiments
that 'fail' actually serve to prove that it's not the way to go).

It seems to be me like this is a problem that can be solved in many better
ways. For example, employees in most (every?) jurisdiction are protected by
laws that mean they can't be fired without just cause. Even if the employer
tries to find ways around this (making up reasons), the fired employee can
generally lodge a complaint/lawsuit to prove otherwise. Can some type of
protection of this sort not be written into academic contracts as well?

~~~
pmiller2
> employees in most (every?) jurisdiction are protected by laws that mean they
> can't be fired without just cause.

The United States is not one of those jurisdictions. Employees can be fired
for any reason other than certain protected reasons (race, etc.) One can
literally be fired for supporting the wrong political candidate, for example.

~~~
latch
I understand the spirit of your comment, and it's probably a fair summary for
anyone unfamiliar with at-will employment, but

(a) a lot of this is state-specific, not US wide as you indicate

(b) many states have laws specifically to protect employees from being fired
for their political affiliations and activities.

(c) some states have even broader protection

But, to your point, you can always fire someone for their political view and
say it was for one of a billion other non-protected reason.

~~~
pmiller2
The specifics vary by state, of course, but actually very _few_ states protect
political activity, either inside or outside the workplace. In fact, only 3
states specifically protect political activity, and two others protect "lawful
conduct outside work."[0]

But, yes, you can always fire your employees for being too attractive[1], if
firing them for their political beliefs is too risky or distasteful.

Broadly speaking, unless the employee has contractual protection; or the
reason is discriminatory against members of a protected class, is in
retaliation for exercising other workplace rights, or is contrary to public
policy; it's legally acceptable to fire anyone for any reason.

[0]: [http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-
activ...](http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activity#1)

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/fashion/Some-women-are-
fir...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/fashion/Some-women-are-fired-for-
being-too-attractive.html)

------
natch
Look at his video on the flipped classroom format. He really draws out the
explanation. Very verbose. I'm not impressed. It could have been explained in
one sentence.

And he loves to say "you know." Way too much.

And when he writes names of people on the whiteboard (later in a video on
packets) he scribbles them. If it's worth writing down, it's worth writing
clearly, especially for something like a person's name where it's not a
dictionary word with a known spelling. This is a quality of instruction issue.
To be a great teacher, you have to notice these things, care about them, and
fix them.

------
ubbu1234
I know number of citations is far from perfect, but from a rough look at
google scholar his papers (since he started as assistant professor) have been
cited <100 times... I am not too familiar with his field but in most CS fields
I would assume that hardly counts as groundbreaking research.

I am sure there is some kernel of truth in his claim of unfairness, and he
seems like a genuinely great teacher, but denial of tenure seems more like a
case of promising faculty (his publication record prior to his start at UB
seems stellar) not living up to expectations?

------
WhitneyLand
I don't know why he has significant supporters here, saying things like "stay
true to principles".

Principles don't require a person to project bitterness and cynicism. He's
indulging his frustrations which may feel satisfying, but does not strengthen
his argument.

Many organizations would pass him over based on this post alone because they
would worry he may be difficult to manage or not a team player.

It's true many people don't have political skills but there are workarounds.
For example, always get a second opinion before posting something like this.

------
bluenose69
Those who noted his discussion about teaching might want to consult youtube
for some examples of how he does that.

------
sunstone
As the Japanese say, the nail that's standing up gets pulled out.

------
partycoder
This resembles the late stages of stack ranking, where in the "endgame", the
remaining high ranking contributors try to preserve their ranking by avoiding
working with potentially stronger contributors.

Stack ranking is a downward spiral.

------
CalChris
_my department voted against my tenure case earlier this week_

Since this was posted 2016-10-22, I'm gonna assume the department did this
smack in the middle of the semester.

~~~
joeclark77
Academic job markets get started around this time of year, depending on the
discipline and affected by the dates of their big conferences, for jobs to
begin in fall of the following year. So by giving him the decision now, he has
enough advance notice to prepare his CV and apply for jobs.

~~~
CalChris
I guess you're right. I took a class once where the prof was denied tenure
about half way through. He was completely deflated and it affected his
teaching considerably. He'd expected he'd get tenure.

------
hash-set
As a former academic, my advice is that this may hurt in the short term, but
staying true to your principles is important in a world where situational
ethics rule. I am a lifelong libertarian and made no attempt to hide it.
Leftist academics are not interested in diversity of thought, they are not
interested in debate. They merely want to rule and have an echo chamber. I
found that most of them weren't even very intelligent people--just kind of
mediocre, and that most were intimidated by anyone with real gumption, diverse
skills, and the bravery to speak against the party line.

The world needs you. No matter what your politics are, if you truly are
advancing science and doing all the things you wrote about, you will be fine.
You just need to take this lesson to heart and understand that the machine is
like Skynet in that it protects itself.

I further recommend you leave NY State, especially upstate. It's had it.
Barring some massive turnaround, there is no future for anyone in Upstate NY.

------
gnipgnip
Somehow, everyone thought that putting people in a straight-jacket for 30-35
years is a great way for obtaining "creative individuals".

------
tiatia
Well, I guess I am generally one of the worst performing employees. But why
would you post such a statement in public? Maybe he is right in everything but
in making this public I would never hire this guy. Probably would like to hang
out for a beer with him. But hire?

------
cowardlydragon
Well, everything is negotiable. If he's bringing in money, negotiate with the
university about a good salary.

It's no more job security than in corporate america.

------
rustynails
I both admire and feel sorry for the author. To pour your heart and soul for
so long and not achieve your outcomes can be very hurtful and devastating.

The language in this document is telling in a few ways. There is not much
about collaboration with peers or superiors other than conflict. The article
left me with an impression of conflict and someone who wasn't a team player. I
am guessing that cultural compatibility was an issue. It may be possible that
the outcome may be for the best because it may help the author grow (although,
public accusations will not be seen well by future employees as it's airing
many people's dirty laundry).

I'm also note that the author raises some issues that I as a boss take
exception to. For example, more diversity. I am aware that in today's climate,
diversity is a highly charged, politically correct topic. The author talks
about diversity by hiring by gender. What diversity is the author seeking?
That of genitals? Is there some magic empathy or creativity that females
supposedly have? I've always built teams based on needs of skills,
personality, cultural fit. As an example, I knocked back a highly qualified,
well presented male candidate because he was too ambitious for a maintenance
role. This was not because of his gender, but, because he was unlikely to
provide a long term ROI and would expect promotion that couldn't be delivered
and cause unrest by venting disappointment as a lack of growth. I would most
probably be seen by the author as being sexist for not hiring by gender to
fill a quota and I would view the author as sexist for hiring by gender and
being unable to see that diversity is not a gender, but skills and
personality.

I would encourage the author to ask themself if they are a team player. I
would encourage the author to understand themselves and the sort of culture
they want to work in. Maybe, it is a culture of creativity rather than talent
that the author craves (as an example). Seeking feedback from peers outside of
work may be very helpful and revealing too.

I can be confrontational (too many fights over too many years), but I know who
I am and I know what I want. I support my organisation above myself (during
working hours) and I support and respect juniors, peers and more senior staff.
I negotiate my views. I listen carefully. I seek feedback from my peers. I
align my views with my peers where it doesn't compromise my principals. As an
example, I would never work for a company that hires (or excludes) by gender
or race because I want freedom to hire the right staff, not some boxes ticked.
I know myself and my employee. I turn down jobs where I don't believe in the
company for my own sake and the company's.

I wish the author the best of luck and hope they have the courage to ask the
tough questions. I think they need to ask some tough questions.

