It seems to me that like every other college or university I have either attended or worked at, WPI has yet to settle one of the oldest debates in academia: which counts most, great teaching or great scholarship? Actually, that is wrong, because the Provost here has cast his vote. Scholarship wins again. What a surprise. Once more young, creative, and innovative professors are being cast aside because they have not danced to the proper fiddler. Old story, old result.
I was saddened when I read Professor Walcerz's speech in which he detailed how he and his colleagues had proposed new and creative projects, developed them with the approval of the faculty and the Provost. Then when it came time for tenure review, they were told that such was not the kind of scholarship that gets you tenured. Why were they surprised? Did they really believe they could not be set up and used and then cast aside at the whim of the Provost?
I have seen the same done in the ministry, in the Health Care industry and in the public school system. Supervisors will give you all the rope you want, let you run with your creative juices to your heart's content, and you even can invent cold fusion. But if you don't pay allegiance to the traditional customs and rules, don't do what has always been done, then you are just fooling yourself. The pile of bodies that have been cast aside by supervisors who have used and then thrown away young innovative hotshots would climb past the tower on Boynton Hall.
The "People in Charge" are scared to death of creativity and innovation. Behind the smiles and encouragement is a dagger waiting to strike. The "People in Charge" want to stay in charge, thus they have a great deal at stake in the status quo. They are the ones who encourage scholars to keep writing articles so specialized that even the people in the journal's field don't understand them. But writing for such mundane journals are safer for the "People in Charge" than creative innovations that might actually further our common life together.
What Professor Walcerz and colleagues forgot was Rule #1: the Boss is always right! And if the boss does not want you here, despite whatever previous assurances and encouragements you have received, you're gone. The real tragedy is that we will never know the real reason why these four men were denied tenure. Was it money, or too many tenured profs already here, or some underground power play: who knows? The Provost has the power and he exercised it; it is not up to us to question the "People in Charge."
Send all the letters of protest and petitions you want, but they will end up in the garbage can. For if the Provost were to be reversed on his decision he would have to leave, for his credibility would be destroyed. If it comes to a choice between four nice guys with a bit of creativity who wouldn't play by the ol' boys rules, and the Provost who is the head of the faculty whose job it is to enforce the ol' boys rules, the choice is a no brainer. The "People in Charge" always protect the "People in Charge."
So how does this get Whoopie Tech ready for "Engineering Criteria 2000?" It appears that WPI 2000 will look at lot like WPI 1900. Maybe someday some provost will discover that some people are great scholars and some are great teachers, but very few are both. And WPI needs both. Maybe someday tenure will award scholarly and/or teaching excellence in an open discussion where everyone concerned will be honest and forthright about the process. For now, hope is all we have.