and this is an important point: how do we demonstrate that the work done,
though antithetical to the short-term bottom-line bean counters is, in the
long and not-so-long term important and valuable? how do you demonstrate
that "radical change within the institution" is desireable?
i like your proposal, steve, and i'm very much in favor of gene's
re-locating the academy in *understandable* and relevent praxis. can we use
this attack as an opportunity to discuss what tenure could be (should and
ought to be?) rather than fighting for a flawed system -- and taking the
sides of unproductive faculty we don't respect -- or throwing it all out and
taking the show on the road?