Energy expert visits UT to discuss the alternative energy sector

Again, I am making ABSOLUTELY NO (maybe upper-casing it will help it sink in) claim about what faculty should be making, so I don't understand the point of this excerpt. The "spirit" of my point has nothing to do with a claim about whether faculty are making enough, too little, or too much. The claim is simply that it is incumbent upon everyone to not misrepresent related facts (how much they make and under what circumstances). Seriously, this is a simple point - what is causing the confusion?

"I meanwhile was pointing out the absurd argument you were making that everything good that happens at UT is PR spin and only negative things are representative of real facts."

How is the actual pay of faculty members, the conditions under which they earn it, and the increasing number of students enrolled at UT a negative or positive fact? They are simply empirically verifiable facts, facts which you got wrong (a fact itself which you apparently have trouble clearly owning up to here).

"(Your last paragraph)"

You’re right, “PR spin” was a bad choice of words on my part in that it could be taken as suggesting a certain set of bad intentions behind the post. Mea culpa.

*However*, it is important to note that the misrepresentation of facts and disregard for context (whether due to laziness in not verifying the claims or willful deceit) as an action is problematic *no matter who a person is* (i.e. is not dependent on one’s intentions or goals). If you are just lazy or are a PR person/faculty member jealous of colleague's wages/angry student or whomever with whatever axe to grind (driven by profit motive or not), misrepresenting these facts and not (or just barely) responding to my challenges regarding this misrepresentation is universally unacceptable. My inadvertent PR person attribution would simply have been successful in determining a particular context to your actions (which would be deplorable in any context).

See, this is the tricky thing about real debate. You have to engage the actual ideas at hand, not simply demonstrate your intentions are good (or your opponent's bad). Perhaps that works in politics, but certainly not in higher education. I have yet to see you demonstrate how your complaint about contradictory faculty opinion is not fallacious, nor have I seen you demonstrate how the figure of “20 hours a week 8 months a year for 120K ” is not outrightly false or lacking in context (you only stepped back from the later claim of 80% making $100,000, and then only furtively), nor have you addressed my cited retort regarding enrollment figures. I, on the other hand, am responding exhaustively to every point you raise without subterfuge and admitting fault where appropriate.

Other than the fair point regarding "PR spin", what you HAVE DONE is set aside my challenges (that is, my actual ideas as registered here), talk about others' actions (bloggers, intransigent faculty, etc.), and talk about me as if I support them as an embittered individual (not to mention misinterpret my claims). Your running retort thus far has been *utterly dependent* on my intentions (wholly untrue ones, at that), and has not yet addressed the substance of my reasoning or actions in the slightest (minus the "PR spin" flub).

So no, I must say that my argument is not at all undermined (despite my admittedly sloppy presentation at first). Quite frankly, it troubles me for your sake (not to mention your students') that you can’t see that.

Outstanding points:

"because ONLY PR people could possibly find good things going on at UT, clearly"

Again, nothing I said reasonably suggests this. Heck, I pointed out correctly UT's strong enrollment performance (and I can assure you I am no PR person).

"(when the whole basis of your accusation against me was that I was saying positive things so therefore I must be spinning on behalf of PR)."

Nope. The basis of my accusation is that you have repeatedly gotten demonstrably wrong obvious facts, skipped over necessary context, and been lazy in responding to my points. Again, these actions as sad are not restricted to any one type of person and bespeak poorly of whomever commits them.

For example, I haven't heard you expressly oppose the use of violence as a pedagogical tool here, so until you do so I could cast moral aspersions on you which would dismiss your credibility. Doing so would sure make this debate much easier for me. But, of course, that would be ridiculous. Demanding these types of things, as you do, would be both impractical for the debate as well as ethically questionable. I, on the other hand, have engaged only the ideas and claims actually raised here by you (not the imagined ones).

So, do you want to respond to my other initial points (already having admitting that $100,000 is not actually representative of ASC faculty's pay), or do you want to continue this diversion game? Of course, after you do respond to them with careful, well-formed arguments (if there you have any argument to offer), you can ask about my views on these other issues and responsibly and sensibly shift the discussion in that direction.

Oh, and it's Ben and Ashley "Pryor".

"So let me say, that I'll never be able to drop the "PR spin" as you call it because your definition of "PR spin" is not using my classroom as a forum for UT political fights, not seeking the most negative interpretation of everything that happens and not resorting to racist and sexist jokes like A & S has on their blog to express anger."

I'd like to note the galling irony here of your decrying others’ imputation of "negative interpretations of everything" and your embrace of the same tactic. My earlier post aimed at two things and nothing else: 1) challenging your fallacious argument dismissing contradictory faculty opinions of Jacobs and 2) pushing back against your cavalier disregard for citation (identifying where the “20-hour” work week figure came from), unimpeachable fact (getting wrong how much The Blade site actually reports ASC faculty as having made last year), and full context (failing to note that many of the profs in question earned these salaries by virtue of working year-round or nearly so last year by chairing, directing, or teaching summer classes). It is this irresponsibility of yours and only this that I mean by “PR spin” (not present with a bare appreciation or disdain for a person or thing).

I have not said *anything* about what you should teach in your classroom (except for a healthy respect for the truth and well-formed arguments), about how students or faculty should feel about UT as an institution or its administrators, about whether I identify in any way at all with the bloggers in question (or any other UT community member), about how I feel regarding those blog posts in question, and about the state of UT faculty discourse at anytime whatsoever (except to say that I have weighed your contributions here and have found them wanting for reasons already outlined).

That is, I have absolutely no stake in any faculty(/students) v. administrators debate, nor do I even endorse that polarized and strictly dichotomous framework for campus dialogue (as you seem to suggest I do). My only interest is in ensuring that the discourse proceeds *with* accessible and verifiable citations, proven facts, and full contexts – and proceeds *without* strawman rejoinders based on misinterpreted or fabricated claims imputed to me or anyone else (rejoinders which you so readily marshal here).

And, as a final note: “Then you'll wonder why the administration is so bad at enrolling students.”

Wrong again. UT actually experienced its eighth consecutive semester increase in enrollment in the Spring semester of 2010. See the UT News article “UT enrollment climbs for eighth straight semester” on the UT Web site as (gasp!) my citation.

"[Jacobs'] critics say opposite and opposing things. By bowing to one set he'll further offend another."

You seem to be suggesting here (and explicitly state in a comment section elsewhere on the Web, I believe) that incompatible critiques of Jacobs from different faculty members is unreasonable or hypocritical. What this fallacious line of argumentation ridiculously presupposes is that all faculty ought to stand together - as if they were one mind. This is obviously not the case, as different people have distinct perspectives on issues (even though the valence of their assessments - negative or positive - can be the same). A good thinker would assess these critiques individually, on their own merit.

It isn't clear to me when faculty have ever claimed to develop or champion a collective critique of administrators captured in a single, cohesive argument. The Faculty Senate evaluation was certainly not an example of this. The comments by faculty contained in it (many of whom aren't a part of the body) represent individual sentiments, not a joint statement by the organization hammered out in the midst of dialogue and collectively approved.

Your dismissal of divergent criticisms of Jacobs isn't motivated by reason, rather by intellectual sloth (and perhaps professional opportunism).

"...the world can no longer afford paying them for 20 hours a week 8 months a year for 120K and they're terrified by that. (And if you think I'm exaggerating the pay, check out the Blade's site. 80 percent of A & S Council made more than 100K last year.)"

Are you being serious here? Let's set aside the ludicrous figure of 20-hour work weeks for all faculty (there are bound to be a few lazy profs out there, but you generalized the statement) and consider the very faculty members you point to here.

1) According to the Blade's listings, very few of the ASC members last year made $120,000 or more.

2) Many A&S Council members chair departments or direct programs, and so are working year-round (not for eight months) and are paid accordingly for this additional service. Furthermore, many of the associate and assistant professors on the ASC and elsewhere making around $80,000 or above are teaching summer courses (so working more than 8 months a year) and, again, are paid accordingly for extra service to the university.

3) Oh, and on my count, there are only 18 ASC members out of the 54 last year who made $100,000 or above according to the Blade's listing - so 33% (not 80%).

You are of course entitled to your own opinion about faculty pay rates and work schedules, but certainly not to your own facts.

And, finally, if you do post in response to this, let me earnestly ask you to drop the PR spin for once and argue carefully and critically.