Author: ksuchor

Ballif, Michelle, D. Diane Davis, Roxanne Mountford.  Women’s Ways of Making It in Rhetoric and Composition.  Routledge, 2008. 

Enos, Theresa.  Gender Roles and Faculty Lives in Rhetoric and Composition.  Southern Illinois University Press. Place of Publication: Carbondale, IL: 1996.

Jarratt, Susan C.  and Lynn Worsham.  Feminism and Composition:  In Other Words.  Modern Language Association of America, 1998

Kirsch, Gesa, Faye Spencer Maor, Lee Nickoson-Massey, Lance Massey, Mary P. Sheridan-Rabideau.  Feminism and composition: a critical sourcebook.  Macmillan, 2003. 

Schell, Eileen E.  Gypsy Academics and Mother-teachers:  Gender, Contingent Labor, and Writing Instruction.  Heinemann, 1997.

Committee Charge

This committee is charged to:

1. Survey the CCCC members who have contingent employment about their working conditions, teaching conditions, and needs.
2. Identify campuses where there has been improvement in the professional working conditions and conditions of instruction and identify the conditions and processes that led to such improvement.   Disseminate that information the to the membership through FORUM, the CCCC website, or similar venue to aid local strategic action and develop larger strategies.
3. Identify other professional academic organizations that have substantial interest in issues of part-time, adjunct, or contingent labor. Determine what actions they have engaged in.  Identify potential allies to work with in addressing these issues and in conjunction with the NCTE office approach these organizations to pursue alliances.
4. Report findings twice yearly to the CCCC Executive Committee.

March 2015 Update

The Committee on Part-Time, Adjunct, or Contingent Labor is currently collecting information on departmental/program needs, and on successful efforts on behalf of contingent faculty equity; the committee is also working with disciplinary and professional associations to build contingent faculty advocacy networks within and across the academy.

Name: Scott Warnock
Title: Associate Professor of English
Director of the Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum
Co-Chair, CCCC Committee on Best Practices for Online Writing Instruction
Institution: Drexel University
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Phone: 215.895.0377
Email: sjwarnock@drexel.edu
Skype: scott.warnock2
Website: onlinewritingteacher.blogspot.com

Committee Charge

This committee should:

Charge 1:  Document the variety of writing majors across the country in diverse institutional types and in diverse units, working with NCTE staff to incorporate/add data into its database.

Charge 2:  Identify and describe a common set of learning outcomes for writing majors.

Charge 3: Identify and describe specific courses/curricula that may be adapted to other majors.

Charge 4:  Track what writing majors do after graduation and report these findings to the CCCC officers and EC and membership in various venues.

Spring 2016 Update

The number of majors in writing and rhetoric has doubled in the last decade, and in Fall 2015 the Committee completed an updated list of 141 majors. We have also compiled a bibliography of sources for those interested in the writing major, which we will update each year along with the list of majors. Using this list and local studies we are currently researching commonalities across majors at the curricular and institutional level, and beginning to track career outcomes of students who graduate with writing majors. We are also working on an updated database of writing studies majors, beginning with a survey of program chairs and directors. If you have a writing studies major and do not see your name on this list, please email sjamieson@drew.edu and you will be added to the list and sent a survey. If you are developing a major we would love to hear from you, too.

Kim. D. Gainer
Radford University

Google Books allows readers to search digitized books as if they were web sites. Depending upon a book’s copyright status and upon the settings chosen by authors and publishers, the results of a search may allow a reader to see as little as a snippet from a volume or as much as an entire book.

Google inaugurated this search feature in 2004. The following year, two suits charging copyright infringement were filed against Google. Litigation led to negotiation, and in 2008 a settlement was announced between Google, the Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild. This settlement was subsequently amended in 2009, and the amended settlement received preliminary approval, also in 2009. The final hearing on the proposed settlement was held the following year. The latest twist in the case occurred last month, when, in spite of having granted preliminary approval, the judge in the case rejected the settlement. Several groups, including the American Library Association, had expressed concern over such issues as the control that Google potentially would have gained over “orphan” books that are out of print and whose copyright holders are unidentifiable or unreachable. 

In spite of the potential drawbacks of the settlement, it might have made many books available that are otherwise out of the reach of readers without access to large research libraries. Both the original and the amended versions of the settlement would have created a subscription service for libraries and other institutions that would have provided access to the full texts of books that were under copyright but out of print. In addition, a certain level of access to these books would have been provided free of charge. This free public access would have been available at one computer terminal for every 10,000 students at not-for-profit colleges or universities granting bachelor’s degrees and at one computer terminal for every 4,000 students at not-for profit colleges granting associate’s degrees. In addition, for public library systems, access would have been available at one terminal per each library building.

The future of the proposed subscription service and of free public access to the full texts of copyrighted books that are out of print is now uncertain, but readers who have been conducting searches via Google Books will not notice any immediate reduction in their current access to resources as a result of the judge’s decision. Google has scanned two million books in the public domain, and those volumes will continue to be freely accessible in their entirety. Readers also still will be able to access expanded previews of some copyrighted books as a result of agreements separate from the proposed settlement. However, there will be no expanded access to the large number of additional books that would have been covered by the settlement.

Going forward, the organizations that originally brought suit against Google have several options, which include resuming litigation or renegotiating the settlement, as they have done once before. The judge in the case identified one modification that might make a settlement acceptable: changing an “opt out” provision for copyright holders to an “opt in” one instead.

Changes in the law may also revive the prospects for a settlement. In 2008 Congress considered legislation that would have addressed the problem of orphan books. The unresolved Google Books settlement may provide the impetus for Congress to return to the issue and pass the legislation that it failed to approve three years ago.

Meanwhile, instructors must help their student make effective use of Google Books as it currently exists. Students need to understand the impact copyright date will have on whether and to what extent they can access a book via this search tool, and they need to recognize that in some cases Google Books can point them to a resource that they may need to acquire via interlibrary loan or by visiting a bricks-and-mortar library. Even in its current restricted form, Google Books may be useful to students, even if only to illustrate that copyright matters to anyone seeking access to books.

This column is sponsored by the Intellectual Property Committee of the CCCC and the CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus. The IP Caucus maintains a mailing list. If you would like to receive notices of programs sponsored by the Caucus or of opportunities to submit articles to either this column or to an annual report on intellectual property issues, please contact kgainer@radford.edu.

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Educators need to consider the concept of fair use as they prepare lessons and assignments that draw on outside materials—audio, visual, or print—that are likely to be copyright protected. At the same time, they must guide their students’ fair use of such materials within the context of twenty-first century participatory culture. One organization that tries to provide guidance to educators as they confront fair use issues is the Center for Social Media, an institute sponsored by the School of Communication at American University. Among the resources the Center provides is a web page with links to codes of best practices developed by professional and scholarly associations whose members are especially likely to confront fair use issues. One link on this web page takes the reader to a document entitled The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education. In this month’s report, I summarize this distillation of the principles governing fair use in the classroom.

The NCTE has endorsed this Code, as has the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Media Education Foundation, the National Association for Media Literacy Education, and the Visual Communication Studies Division of the International Communication Association.

The Code defines fair use as “the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances—especially when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant.” The cultural or social benefit the Code addresses is media literacy education. The goal of such education is to help students develop the ability to analyze and evaluate and create messages transmitted via various media and embedded within diverse contexts. As such, media literacy education represents an expanded concept of literacy that “responds to the demands of cultural participation in the twenty-first century.”

At the core of the document are five principles of fair use specifically framed to address the objective of comprehensive media literacy. The first of these principles addresses the fact that educators will necessarily use copyrighted material in order to help their students develop as communicators and critical thinkers. In response to this reality, the Code’s authors state that fair use permits educators to select “illustrative material from the full range of copyrighted sources” and that this illustrative material may be furnished to students in a number of settings, both formal and informal, physical and virtual. Attached to this principle are certain caveats: Material should be relevant to the lesson or assignment; the length of the material should not exceed that which is necessary to accomplish the assignment’s goals; attribution to the material should be provided; and access should be limited to the students completing the lesson or assignment. These caveats or similar ones apply to the remaining four principles.

Analogous to the first principle, the second states that fair use permits teachers to use copyrighted materials in the course of creating lesson plans and other curricular materials, such as workbooks, podcasts, and compilations of video clips. The third principle follows from this second one: fair use permits educators to share these curricular materials with other educators, whether at conferences or at professional development programs or through electronic dissemination.  If the use is genuinely fair use—relevant illustrative material of an appropriate length—the material may even be distributed commercially.  

The fourth principle addresses the use that students may make of copyrighted materials. Students will analyze and evaluate messages and will create messages not only out of words but also out of images, sounds, and music, whether in traditional or digital forms. In furtherance of these goals, fair use allows students to “incorporate, modify, and re-present existing media objects in their own classroom work.” Like their teachers, however, students may not make unrestricted use of copyrighted materials. Such material must be repurposed or transformed so that it is being used creatively in order to accomplish a valid educational objective.

The fifth principle addresses the circumstances under which students may disseminate their creations via a medium such as the internet. As in the case of the fourth principle, key to the question of fair use is the degree of creativity demonstrated by the student: “student work that incorporates, modifies, and re-presents existing media content” may be considered transformative; if so, fair use allows its distribution to an audience beyond the classroom.

In addition to developing and illustrating the above principles, the Code addresses some common myths that may cause educators to shy away both from making fair use of copyrighted material and from encouraging their students to do likewise. In sum, the Code pulls together information that educators may find useful as they attempt to navigate the law of copyright and the needs of their students.

Other Fair Use Codes accessible via the website of the Center for Social Media:

• Best Practices in Fair Use of Dance-related Materials, a code created by the Dance Heritage Coalition.
    
• Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video, developed by the Center for Social Media’s Future of Public Media Project.
    
• Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication, a document developed by the International Communication Association.
    
• Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, a guide that has the imprimatur of the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, the Independent Feature Project, the International Documentary Association, the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, and the Washington, D.C., chapter of Women in Film & Video.
    
• Statement of Fair Use Best Practices for Media Studies Publishing and Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use in Teaching for Film and Media Educators, codes developed by the Society for Cinema and Media Studies.

Later this fall, please watch for another report on the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication.

Submitted by

Kim D. Gainer

Department of English

Radford University

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Teresa Thomas: Case #2

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

M.A.  granted in English

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

In your description, you make the point that this department “…had so far failed to distinguish itself in electronic media. In hiring her, the head fnew that the graduate students would be well served…”  I think she also fnew that the department would be well served….and it was.  I’d say this young professor had been “had.”  On the one hand, she was used to build the technological  credibility of the department.  On the other, she was “dinged” for the very thing she was brought in to do.

At the “Research 1” institution I have the most experience discussing, a similar case occurred where tenure was not awarded.  However, the professor was brought in to focus on a particular area (specifically technology).  Yet this professor decided to dauble in a variety of areas, mostly involving literature.  Though her work was well done and published in good journals,there was no focus for her research, nor did she publish in the area expected.  She thus did not get tenure.

The difference is that this person was told FROM THE BEGINNING what was expected.  She was reminded each year of the same.  Yet she chose to publish as she did.  From what you describe in this scenario,your Professor Thomas was told no such thing.  It seems that she was given every reason to believe that she was fulfilling all areas of the professoriate in a splendid way. Then, in her third year, the rules change because some (particularly parochial, cranky) third internal referee decides (probably because he doesn’t know how to use his computer) that she should publish in print?  No fair!  They should have made those expectations clear from the beginning. You can’t change the rules in the third inning.

I believe that a fair decision would be to grant this professor tenure.  As I will elaborate below, the university could have a suit on its hands otherwise.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Thomas? Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The department head should have made the expectation for print publishing clear at the beginning.  She should also have defended (and protected) this junior-level professor from Professor Grouch (the third reviewer).  She should not have agreed to “have a good talk” with Dr. Thomas.  And she should have been a better mentor throughout.  Tenure should provide no surprises along the way.  On the other hand, she did provide some positive guidance.  Witness Thomas’ tremendous accomplishments along the way. 

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Thomas?  Which  did they fulfill?  Fail?

The Personnel Committee led Thomas to think her work was fine the first couple of years.  Thus, she was encouraged to continue on her path.  It was not until a recalcitrant faculty member pulled the committee up short [that there was trouble].  The personnel Committee had the obligation to give her a clear understanding of the expectations for tenure from the beginning.  It also had the responsibility to defend her work for the faculty member who doubted it.  The committee failed greatly by changing the expectations for tenure in midstream (or later), a grievable action, I believe.  Thomas had a case.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Same as above.  A Dean has the responsibility to ensure that all faculty are treated fairly.  Thomas’ yearly reviews should be fair indications of her progress with warnings or cautions guiding her.  If there were “issues” to be concerned with, the Dean or the Dean’s designee (perhaps the Chair)  should have been very clear as to what Thomas needed to do to bring about a successful tenure decision.  This was not done, and, as they say in some circles, “The buck always stops with the Dean.”

What are Thomas’s responsibilities?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Thomas fulfilled her responsibilities in each area of expectation described.  Her publications were in keeping with her fields, both  in the technology arena and the rhetorical world.  She brought these disciplines together in interesting ways.  She was a great teacher and provided the department with outstanding service (though we don’t hear here of the traditional ways a faculty member participates in “service”).  She listened to the chair after her third year evaluation.  She probably decided not to follow the advice for her own reasons (which we are not privy to).  Perhaps she knows she can go somewhere else with this outstanding record where she will be better appreciated. Or perhaps she has dug in her heels and decided to continue her research agenda and challenge the impending dissonance.  Who knows?  I wouldn’t blame her if she did.  And Ithink she’d have a case, particularly because I’ll bet external reviewers would praise her work greatly. 

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right: Spencer tries to figure out the situation, tries to adjust demands on his time (that is, he suggests a committee to help him in his work; publishes in the area of his teaching; completes his grant work).  Unfortunately, every time he tries to make adjustments, the system undermines him (the committee is volunteer rather than appointed; to publish in his teaching area requires development of new courses; to complete the grant he alienates the faculty member who becomes chair).   This case COULD have come out differently if Spencer had more support and attention from his chair and from members of the T&P committee.

Maricela Guzman was hired as Writing Center Director at a branch campus of a moderately large university.  In her interview, she displayed an uncanny breadth of knowledge about technology but seemed unable to answer
questions about how that technological expertise would translate into writing center practice and administration.  The administrators at the branch campus were really quite interested in developing a new program in technology and culture, so they overlooked the shortcomings in composition studies and argued for her hire.  She was hired into a tenure-stream position.

As an assistant professor,Guzman runs the writing center, argues forcefully for an assistant and maintains her scholarship.  Her scholarship includes three articles in refereed journals and three articles in online journals.  It also   includes a CD-Rom project on the planet Mars.   In addition, Guzman presents at conferences, those having to do with technology, computers and writing, and CCCC.  Her print-published work is translated for European markets.  The CD-Rom project is selected by Doubleday as the selection of the month in science (Doubleday having moved from “book of the month” to “selection of the month” so as to consider other than print media).  As a scholar within the digital paradigm some people consider Guzman to be  on a par with nationally-recognized full professors by the third-year review period.

At third year review, discussion among the tenured faculty is uneventful.  The only comments heard are comments of praise.  Yet when the Chair of the Personnel Committee discusses the results of the balloting with the Department Chair, he learns that her recommendation will be a mixed one, despite a departmentally approved policy to recognize on line and other technological research.  The Department Chair says her recommendation will be mixed because faculty argue that Guzman is not performing recognized scholarship in the fields covered by English studies.  None will gainsay Guzman’s expertise in the sciences, but some faculty say she was not hired to do scientific work.  And the administration at the branch campus is pressing the chair to raise her teaching load, now that the technologies and culture program is up and running, arguing that Guzman spends very little time in the writing center.

Now, in her fifth year, Guzman is interested in pursuing questions of racism and gender within computer technology, but she  is also cautious.  She will likely gain tenure, but her sense of community and her sense of mission have become real concerns.  She doesn’t quite know what to do, despite the Department Chair’s promise to support her.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

(For 4th year review, research expectations are that candidates have at minimum a completed book manuscript of high quality (it doesn’t have to be accepted at that point; by 6th year it does); teaching expectations are that candidates be “excellent”; service expectations are that candidates do their assigned service well and that they participate in the life of the department beyond their minimal assignments.)

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
M.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in English

(Although all the degrees are in English, students can—and do—specialize in Composition/Rhetoric at all levels.)

How would Jared Johns’ case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

A lot would depend on the department’s qualitative evaluation of the on-line book. On-line publications count in our department, though we want them to be refereed. The status of the review process for Johns’s book would need to be clarified.  Finally, though, if most people agreed with the report of the external reviewer, then the recommendation would be positive.  Johns, however, would be given warnings about the need to improve the undergraduate teaching—both by adjusting the syllabi so that his courses achieve the department’s general goals and by increasing his effectiveness with the range of students who sign up for those courses. We would praise his graduate teaching, and we’d talk with him about whether he was carrying too heavy a load of advising.   We would also praise Johns’s service, which seems extraordinary, though we’d encourage him to see if someone else could take over as manager/moderator of the Technology and Pedagogy listserv.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Chair needs to be sure Johns understands the tenure expectations and how his choices and his ongoing performance either match or don’t match with those expectations.  He also needs to communicate what’s involved in Johns’s administration of the computer facility—to what extent is Johns responsible for technical support and to what extent is Johns responsible for promoting research and instruction with technology.

The Chair did well in the first conference with Johns—the advice was clear and appropriate—but then the Chair failed by not continuing to communicate with Johns except to tell him to write the letter to the unhappy parents of his student. The Chair did not do well in communicating with Johns about the position of computer-facility administrator.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

The Personnel Committee’s responsibilities are to examine Johns’s record in relation to the established departmental criteria and standards in research, teaching, and service. The Committee doesn’t seem to be fulfilling those responsibilities very well, since they instruct the Chair to tell Johns to publish only in refeered print journals, when the department is on record as recognizing “electronic publication,” if peer-reviewed. The message should have been to ensure that electronic publications are peer-reviewed.

Furthermore, the question of whether the book will count—and for how much–needs to be answered much more definitively and in clear reference to the departmental criteria and standards. Does it not count at all because of the questions about peer-review?  Does it count as the equivalent of 2-3 refereed articles?  What are the quantitative expectations for Johns between now and the tenure review?  The Committee and the Chair need to make that clear to him.

A related point: whether the poetry should count seems one that should be handled in reference to a general policy about publication outside the field for which one is hired rather than by the Committee’s judgment in John’s case.

The Committee also seems not to be giving Johns sufficient credit for his service or his graduate teaching—but again it would be helpful to know more about general criteria and standards.  The assessment of the undergraduate teaching seems OK in some respects, troubling in others. Concern about Johns being below the departmental standard for his courses is appropriate, and the concern about whether the innovative assignments were fulfilling the goals of the course seems fair. But, other parts of their assessment seem questionable: the lack of conventional argumentative work shouldn’t by itself be bothersome unless the unconventional work doesn’t produce relevant argumentative skill; not reviewing the visual argument assignment because one’s machine doesn’t have a Java plug-in seems lame.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Dean has the responsibility to ensure that the Chair is giving appropriate and regular guidance to the junior faculty.  S/he also might have taken steps so that the University would identify technology-rich courses in the catalogue.  (Someone should have done that for the sake of both students and instructors.)  In any case, since the Dean doesn’t figure in this narrative, the inference is that the Dean didn’t carry out these responsibilities.

What are Johns’ responsibilities?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

He’s responsible for carrying out his teaching, research, and service assignments as effectively as he can.  He is also responsible for knowing the objectives of the department’s courses and for knowing the criteria and standards for tenure. He’s also responsible for his own career, and in that respect, he needs to make sure that his colleagues know enough about the nature of his work for them to judge it appropriately.

He seems to be a very conscientious worker, and it’s clear that he’s made good contributions to his department. But he’s also made some mistakes. He, too, could have done a better job in the communication about his duties as administrator of the computer-facility.

He should have asked more questions about the publisher of his book, and, indeed, about whether he should pursue that publication or focus on journal articles.  He should have been wiser about the amount of time he devoted to service. He should have adjusted his teaching of the undergraduate courses. He should have taken the advice of the Graduate Studies Director.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right is that Johns passed the review.  What went wrong is that there was not enough recognition on the part of the department and of Johns that he was not the standard junior faculty member and that everyone needed to make some adjustments as a result of that—even as the department could maintain its basic criteria and standards.

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research II University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English (British, world, and American literature. applied lingusitics and composition)
M.A. granted in English (general, composition and literature)
M.A. granted in linguistics
M.A. granted in TESOL
B.A. in English
B.A. and B.S. in English Education

How would Jared Johns’ case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I believe in a way similar to the department described, though perhaps not by quite so close a vote.  Our department too would give counsel to Dr. Johns along the lines described.

I as dean would support the recommendation of the department which in essence says that Dr. Johns is making positive progress toward tenure but that he needs to enhance his CV with some standard peer reviewed publications and make some changes in his teaching—both content and method.

But in addition, I would send a letter to Prof. Johns indicating my support of the department’s recommendation but suggest that to attain tenure he has several tasks to accomplish:  additional refereed print publications, assist the department in finding outside reviewers of his electronic publications, and make important changes in his teaching.  To attain these goals in the relatively short amount of time still available, he will also need to lighten up at all points on the service front.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The chair certainly needs to discuss with Dr. Johns everything that has been communicated to the chair by the committee.  While probably the chair has not had enough conversations with Prof. Johns in the first 4 years, he  definitely has not ignored the issues highlighted in the fourth year review.  But now he must be very explicit and direct because Dr. Johns will not be awarded tenure if he does not demonstrate significant progress in the areas of refereed publications and improved teaching.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

Certainly the Personnel Committee needs to be explicit in written form.  What they provided the chair by way of evaluation of Dr. Johns should be copied to the candidate.  I believe they conducted themselves responsibly.  But what I do not know is whether their conclusions and observations were communicated to Prof. Johns other than indirectly through the chair.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

As nearly as I can tell, the dean has not been involved in the process (not that the dean should be much involved up to this point, given the review system in place at University X).  I guess I would infer that at University X the dean becomes involved only at the end when s/he receives the department’s recommendation.

I much prefer the system at my university where each year every nontenured faculty is reviewed at all levels with respect to “progress toward tenure.”  In this system there is the obligation of the dean to review each nontenured faculty member’s progress to date and must decide pro or con, or if favorable, possibly to send a letter to the faculty member giving “deanly” advice both in light of what the department has said and recommended, and what the dean might have observed upon review of the materials submitted.

What are Johns’ responsibilities?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Dr. Johns of course has primary responsibility for himself and needs to heed the counsel he is given.  He has not done too well at that.  He did not pay close enough attention to advice given regarding his teaching, his choice of publication outlets, and his service commitments.

Or perhaps he was listening more closely to others who are not identified in the case study.

What went wrong?  What went right?

It strikes me that department colleagues and the chair conducted themselves appropriately (though note my speculation about the chair above).  I believe they want Prof. Johns to succeed.  But he needs to be careful that his enthusiasm for technology does not so dominate what he does that he jeopardizes his position.  He is probably pushing his technology too fast in his undergraduate teaching.  And he needs to put some of those great conference presentations into traditional article form.  He needs to “tune in” to the system more carefully than he appears to have done so far. 

Additional Comments

I assume University X has a 6 or 7 year probationary period for tenure.