Zero reward for academic effort

Editor, I would like to present some data about what values UB appreciates in its faculty. The bottom line is that performance is irrelevant; only administration counts. Judging faculty performance may be difficult, but the tenure process deals with it on a continuing basis. For scientific research, however, grant income is a reasonable measure, since it is subject to continuing peer review. I have correlated faculty salaries and grant income in the five departments of basic science in the School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. There is no correlation.

The data should be viewed in the light that the overhead expenses from grants (approximately 50 percent of grant income) goes directly into the university budget. Faculty who get grants also teach and do (unpaid) administration, as do those who don't get grants. The university apparently does not feel that getting grants and the resulting research is useful work.

Does UB reward any kind of effort? They do; administration. In my sample, the average salary for chairs was approximately $128,000, while the average salary for other faculty was approximately $78,000. Higher-level administrators get much more. Anecdotal reports from other schools suggest this policy of ignoring faculty effort is not common.

Given UB's policy of no reward for effort, the university should make clear during its recruiting of potential faculty members that their academic efforts are for their own amusement and are irrelevant to the administration. Anything else would be misleading. A policy of zero reward for effort supports low productivity from tenured faculty (young faculty will still have to show productivity to obtain tenure), difficulty in recruiting the best new faculty, a drop in grant income and loss of its contribution to the university's budget. We should not be surprised if these patterns are visible.

­Frederick Sachs, professor, Physiology and Biophysical Sciences

Many involved in changes to office of Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action

Editor:

The April 9, 1998, Reporter contained a letter from six colleagues regarding the Office of Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action Administration. Having chaired the university's Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EO/AA) Committee from 1995 through 1997 and having been instrumental in initiating several of the changes now reflected in this office, I would like to outline the actions taken by this broad-based university committee that, I believe, respond to the questions and comments.

The role and responsibilities of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action Administration began to be discussed when the university's EO/AA Committee formed a subcommittee to review the university's required affirmative-action responsibilities. This led to a distribution of responsibilities among the then EO/AA Office, senior management, deans, chairs and individual faculty and staff. The sub-committee's recommendations were discussed and endorsed by the university committee, recommended to the president, distributed by the president for comment, revised, finalized and widely distributed in a memorandum dated Jan. 21, 1997. That document noted that the then EO/AA Office would have responsibility for assisting with policy statements and affirmative-action programs; preparing and submitting mandatory reports; addressing findings in reports and complaints; designing and implementing an audit and reporting system; serving as liaison between agencies and the university; assisting in keeping the university community informed on developments in EO/AA. Responsibilities for senior management and deans, chairs, directors and individuals also were identified. This was a process that took more than a year and finally resulted in the distribution of a university policy. To me, that defined the role and responsibilities of the EO/AA office. Subsequently, the interim director stated her intention to retire.

A draft position description for director was prepared that reflected the duties of the office as noted in the President's Jan. 21, 1997, document, several Task Force on Women recommendations, and information gathered by two committee members on other AAU public universities' affirmative-action and equal-opportunity efforts. The draft position description reflected the new name of the office, as well as the duties of the director. This draft also was shared with and reviewed by the university's EO/AA Committee. The broadly represented search committee for the director is using the final approved description.

Enough, I think, on process. From where I sit, the duties and name of the office, the role it would play at UB, and the duties of the director evolved over an extended period of time and included many participants.

The relocation reflects changing space needs of the university and a recognition that the office could very effectively carry out its duties in any number of locations. I had thought that it would be best located along with Personnel Services in Crofts Hall, but I received several letters suggesting that a location on the spine would better serve our students and faculty. The Commons provides such a location, since it is very proximate and accessible to all students, and, like Sponsored Programs Administration, which also is located in the Commons, can meet the needs of faculty and staff.

My bottom line is that affirmative action is important, very important, and that our focus should be on how to improve our faculty, staff and student diversity to benefit our students and to better serve the needs of our state. To me, affirmative action, diversity and equity all are issues and opportunities that we need to be addressing now and in the years ahead.

­Robert J. Wagner, Senior Vice President