Katherine Tachau, professor of history in the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences, is the new president
of Faculty Senate and its executive committee, Faculty
Council. A specialist in medieval history, Tachau
has been on the UI faculty since 1985.
fyi asked Tachau about her goals for the year
to come and the challenges she foresees.
When you took office, you made a speech that set
the current situation of university faculties nationwide
in a broad historical context. What prompted that
approach to your new position?
I come from a family of historians and amateur historians.
It would be difficult for me to believe that history
is not the way to figure out the situation we’re
in. History doesn’t tell you that you can’t
do something; rather, it tells you how you got to
where you are and the likely, though not inevitable,
parameters of the problem’s possible solutions.
I asked the faculty to take responsibility for the
way that Iowa is drifting. Iowa is drifting because
other universities are drifting, but we don’t
have to do what other universities do. We can be
pioneers in solving the problems that many universities
face.
What issues face the Faculty Senate in 2004-05?
We will look at establishing better salary policies,
whether we want bonus plans, and how to strengthen
tenure. Another salary concern is the increasing
divergence of pay scales across disciplines and colleges.
I want to see progress on diminishing the faculty
salary disparities among various disciplines. It
matters to all of us that arts, humanities, and some
medical disciplines here are underpaid in comparison
to peers nationally in other universities or to other
faculty here. We have to start changing the pattern
so we can continue to be healthy and attract the
best of the next generation’s scholars.
What do you need to accomplish that goal?
We have a creative, intelligent, dedicated president
capable of both vision and genuine shared governance.
We have a new provost, and I think that is also true
of him. We have deans eager to work more broadly
in concert with the faculty on issues of workload
and compensation. And we have a faculty eager to
be part of the equation. What we need is to develop
a common vision so we can cooperate in finding solutions
that can be put into action and succeed, because
they will work well enough for all involved.
How will you proceed?
The Faculty Senate officers, with the provost, will
appoint a committee of faculty members and deans
to work out factors involved in establishing salary
policies and bonus plans, if any, and how to strengthen
tenure. This will include renewing the faculty’s
commitment to the understanding that after tenure,
they will continue to be productive contributors.
I would like to emphasize that almost all faculty
members do live up to that responsibility, and often
when there is an exception, there’s something
behind it, such as an illness, that means that they
cannot participate as much for a period of time.
What is your timeline?
The deans in health sciences particularly want new
plans to be developed as soon as possible. But I
don’t want a fiscal emergency driving us to
the wrong place. I will make the appointments over
the summer and then I will talk with the faculty
members about what would be a reasonable rate of
progress. I would like to achieve an agreement by
the end of the coming academic year, so I can still
help as past president as it is implemented.
How do you feel about the idea of allowing researchers
to choose a research track, in which they would be
faculty members but not teach?
I’m not sure. Several years ago, faculty members
were placed on a portfolio system that assumes an
ability to adjust the percentages of time spent on
research, teaching, and service. If a particular
person wants—and we want that faculty person
to have—a primary research focus, I’d
like to know whether the portfolio system could achieve
that.
There are research scientists whose research interests
are the same as those of the faculty. Some of those
seeking research track status would come from that
group. Do we really need the title “faculty” for
such researchers? If the title is so valuable, we
shouldn’t just give it away. On the other hand,
in Europe, major governments finance research faculty
in separate institutes within the universities. Perhaps
the European system could work here.
In recent weeks, we have had announcements from
well-known faculty members who are leaving to go
to other higher education institutions. How do you
feel about that?
When good professors leave for other universities,
it is proof we hired well. But we should make conditions
here such that they don’t want to leave. In
times when faculty salaries are a low priority for
legislators, faculty come to be rewarded only on
a short-term basis and not for all the years of building
knowledge that went into their current level of expertise.
When you’re under budget pressures, as we
are now, it is enticing to make as short-term a commitment
to faculty as possible. But long-term commitments
are what produce major research discoveries and creative
achievements.
Moreover, we treat medical faculty as being responsible
for the shortfalls in clinic income that are really
due to failing accounting software. That is disrespectful,
and we should expect that many faculty members will
lose their loyalty to the University.
What else do you intend to do this year?
I also want to get to know well Cheryl Reardon,
Staff Council president, and the new student president,
Lindsay Schutte. It will be fun to have all three
posts held by women this year. We have a lot of things
in common that we can work on together. One of our
common projects will be undertaking an overdue review
of the University’s Charter Committees, to
enable them to be as effective and useful as possible.
by Anne Tanner
|
