Continental reports Paquette denied a raise
From the Continental, the only source of real student journalism on the Hill. It is very well done.
from Behind Closed Doors
Last spring, Paquette received his annual salary letter but there was something absent from the letter … a raise. In a letter dated May 25, 2007, Dean of Faculty Joe Urgo wrote to Paquette, “Bob, despite your publications in 2006 and your efforts at teaching effectively, I cannot see clear to increasing your salary in 2007-2008. While we were disappointed in the outcome of discussions surrounding the Alexander Hamilton Center, it is incumbent upon us all to handle such disappointments in a professional manner.”
Update on May 9, 2008 at 07:14PM by
hb
hb
And speaking of professional comportment, a reader sent in the following account of a recent Alumni Association event in upstate
Last night I attended the reception for Dean Urgo. It was indeed a lively evening. I enjoyed meeting the hosts, alumni, and guests. I learned a lot from Dean Urgo; for example, that swimming is a subject required for graduation — but economics, Shakespeare, and American History are not… I also learned that the founders of the AHC were “where they wanted to be from the beginning,” which is not on campus.
It seems Mr. Ugro is simply not constrained by the truth, but rather is more interested in talking his own book and disclaiming his own participation in what is quite obviously the largest failure of competence at Hamilton this side of Ward Churchill and Susan Rosenberg.
Reference is made to Urgo’s own words in another good article in the Continental, the alexander hamilton center, or perhaps in the Colleges own announcement of the formation of AHC on campus:
A press release by the College on Sept. 6, 2006 announced the founding of the AHC with unbridled enthusiasm. Urgo “characterized the center as “an exciting faculty initiative, one that will draw renewed attention on this campus to the considerable scholarly interest in the life and work of the founder who leant his name to our college.”
Anyone having any questions as to the intentions of the founders of the AHI or C as the case may be is welcome to address the founders directly. Their website is www.theahi.org. Urgo’s disingenuous conduct is unfortunately tolerated by the administration and evidently, the trustees.
25 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (25)
Do you think the attempts to intimidate are limited to the faculty or do you think that it trickles down to the students also?
I mean if there's no object reality but power constructs, then I guess that would be ok?
But since the President has already publicly stated there is no politicization at Hamilton, I'm sure the Dean of Faculty would be open to an investigation....kind of like the Kirkland review.
Care for a confidentiality agreement to go with that attestation?
If you want an answer to your question, call my office and identify yourself. As I'm sure you know, I'm not hard to find.
I'm serious. Given the way people have treated you, why not move to another institution as a senior professor?
Since I am a Burkean both by temperament and philosophy, I will answer your question by quoting Burke: Hamilton College is "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." The current administration and the current board should not be equated to Hamilton College.
Somehow breeching an agreement on the AHC is deemed professional & collegial, but pointing it out is not.
One supposes that selective academic freedom is better than none at all.
AHC was insufficiently post modern. Insufficiently 'of Hamilton'. Support Annie or Ward or Tobin's endowed chair or get goose egged.
What is interesting is that faculty members, who stood up in Professors Paquette’s behalf concerning his lack of a raise, were disbelieved when they said that their opposition to the then-Alexander Hamilton Center was based on its governance structure.
It seems a bit incongruous to suggest, that a group which stepped up to bat in the way this faculty group has for Professor Paquette with respect to his raise, would seek to quash the establishment of the then-AHC on ideological grounds.
Clearly, there is great respect for Professor Paquette’s scholarship amongst his peers on campus. So where does that leave all those lingering insinuations about the purportedly “real reasons” for faculty resistance to the then-proposed AHC?
http://hcagr.squarespace.com/home/2008/5/9/and-all-along-we-thought-ward-churchill-was-worthless.html