I saw Philip Howard's response to the NTU jobs on the CITASA and AoIR
listservs. Just to follow up on it.

I'm not sure where the information that the president of the country
overturned Cherian George's tenure decision came from, but my understanding
(and FYI I'm an associate professor at NTU) is that NTU's board denied his
tenure; there was no overturning. Certainly there were many faculty,
including me, who were shocked by the incident, but there were probably
just as many who were not surprised. I learned very quickly after moving to
NTU that engaging in actions (whether through activism, publishing
research, etc.) that directly criticize government policies could have dire
consequences. But I would disagree that "it is a bit early, and a bit
risky, to invest your academic career in Singapore." The research
environment is lively and active, the faculty is internationally diverse,
and faculty are supported in their work....as long as they don't bite the
hand that feeds them. [Yes, that may feel like a slap in the face to a
liberal academic, but it's also increasingly a reality in higher education
everywhere.]

The Cherian George case was political, but then again people are denied
tenure or fired every year at universities for political reasons. You
didn't do what your dean asked asked you to do once and got on her/his bad
side....you didn't collaborate with the 'right' people in a lab or
department or wherever....you told your students God doesn't exist....such
stories circulate in the US, UK, Europe, and elsewhere as well. Even
tenured professors in the US feel unsafe at some institutions, from
teaching on sensitive issues to not securing 'enough' grant
money...Singapore is nothing special in this regard.

There are many people who don't get tenure at NTU, but many who do. I would
agree that scholars doing advocacy or activist work that would target
Singaporean public policy might very well do better elsewhere. But there
are many scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and communication who
do great work otherwise. Therefore I would add a caveat to Philip's
statement: "If you study communication, technology, journalism, media, or
have domains of inquiry that are culturally, politically, or economically
sensitive, this is probably not a good place for you."  A more accurate
statement would be: If you study any of those things and plan to critique
Singapore governmental policy, this is probably not a place for you." Folks
interested in a job in Singapore can begin by looking at faculty profiles
and seeing what kinds of things profs here are publishing, for one thing.
Or just apply and, if you get a campus interview, ask good questions about
your concerns during your visit. If you don't get a good feeling, you don't
have to take the job.

Cheers,

patrick.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Philip N. Howard pnhoward@uw.edu wrote:

With all due respect, while I am not denying the possibility of
politically-motivated censorship by the University, It could be argued
then, that no jobs with the Universies in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc.
academics should apply for...and no associations with institutions from
these countries should be established.

It is a common and reasonable expectation everywhere, that academics
complay with policies established by the faculty they are employed by and
do not openly criticize their own management via public domains. Being a
foreign academic/consultant/associate - one has to be even more respectful
towards  policies, practices and agendas of the employer. There is a clear
difference between freedom of speech/expression/academic freedom and
employee loyalty! As an employer, a University can have a peer assessment
system of its choice (just like any other employers in any other
industries) as long as this system is within legal boundaries. In this
particular case, I may not agree with the NTU's approach...but the call is
theirs rather than mine so I would refrain from advising others not to
accept jobs with them

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Patrick Williams subcultures@gmail.com
wrote:

--
Dr. Michael Baron
CEO, Baron Consulting
Facebook: Michael Baron (webbaron@gmail.com)
Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/154816377943690/

"My Body is my Temple"
"Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi

Well, Patrick, your post here should win you favor with your superiors.

For those who believe in educating students and not merely spreading the party line, not so much.

Rod Carveth

Hi all CITAMS/CITASA colleagues --  many thanks to Phil, Patrick and
Christian for weighing in on this tenure case at NTU and the reasons why
new media/IT/Internet scholars in particular should be paying attention
here. I think it would be very useful to share this discussion about
NTU, academic freedom, the role of new media researchers, and the
Berkman statement to other highly relevant groups, such as the the
Communication and Technology division of ICA (officers are Lee Humphreys
and Marjolijn Antheunis) and the Communication Policy & Technology
section of IAMCR (Jo Pierson is Chair,  and vice chairs are  Aphra Kerr
and Bart Cammaerts). I'm copying all of these colleagues to let them
know about this discussion on the ASA CITAMS list, in case they haven't
seen it, since it's clearly an issue that would interest our colleagues
beyond CITAMS (CITASA); they can check with CITAMS leadership about
circulating the thread more widely.

I'll be following the discussion with great interest!        Leah Lievrouw

On 8/5/15 12:02 PM, Philip N. Howard wrote:

--
Leah A. Lievrouw, Professor
Department of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
216 GSE&IS Building | Box 951520
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1520

Tel  +1 310 825 1840  Fax +1 310 206 4460
Email    llievrou@ucla.edu
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/llievrou/LeahLievrouw/Welcome.html

I'm having difficulty imagining a stronger argument against applying for a job at NTU Singapore than this, from an associate professor there:

This should be especially alarming for researchers in the field of internet and communication--very likely, and very quick to get in trouble with authorities.

-z

From: CITASA [citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] on behalf of Michael Baron [webbaron@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:14 AM
To: Patrick Williams
Cc: air-l; citasa@list.citasa.org
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

With all due respect, while I am not denying the possibility of politically-motivated censorship by the University, It could be argued then, that no jobs with the Universies in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. academics should apply for...and no associations with institutions from these countries should be established.

It is a common and reasonable expectation everywhere, that academics complay with policies established by the faculty they are employed by and do not openly criticize their own management via public domains. Being a foreign academic/consultant/associate - one has to be even more respectful towards  policies, practices and agendas of the employer. There is a clear difference between freedom of speech/expression/academic freedom and employee loyalty! As an employer, a University can have a peer assessment system of its choice (just like any other employers in any other industries) as long as this system is within legal boundaries. In this particular case, I may not agree with the NTU's approach...but the call is theirs rather than mine so I would refrain from advising others not to accept jobs with them

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Patrick Williams <subcultures@gmail.commailto:subcultures@gmail.com> wrote:
I saw Philip Howard's response to the NTU jobs on the CITASA and AoIR
listservs. Just to follow up on it.

I'm not sure where the information that the president of the country
overturned Cherian George's tenure decision came from, but my understanding
(and FYI I'm an associate professor at NTU) is that NTU's board denied his
tenure; there was no overturning. Certainly there were many faculty,
including me, who were shocked by the incident, but there were probably
just as many who were not surprised. I learned very quickly after moving to
NTU that engaging in actions (whether through activism, publishing
research, etc.) that directly criticize government policies could have dire
consequences. But I would disagree that "it is a bit early, and a bit
risky, to invest your academic career in Singapore." The research
environment is lively and active, the faculty is internationally diverse,
and faculty are supported in their work....as long as they don't bite the
hand that feeds them. [Yes, that may feel like a slap in the face to a
liberal academic, but it's also increasingly a reality in higher education
everywhere.]

The Cherian George case was political, but then again people are denied
tenure or fired every year at universities for political reasons. You
didn't do what your dean asked asked you to do once and got on her/his bad
side....you didn't collaborate with the 'right' people in a lab or
department or wherever....you told your students God doesn't exist....such
stories circulate in the US, UK, Europe, and elsewhere as well. Even
tenured professors in the US feel unsafe at some institutions, from
teaching on sensitive issues to not securing 'enough' grant
money...Singapore is nothing special in this regard.

There are many people who don't get tenure at NTU, but many who do. I would
agree that scholars doing advocacy or activist work that would target
Singaporean public policy might very well do better elsewhere. But there
are many scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and communication who
do great work otherwise. Therefore I would add a caveat to Philip's
statement: "If you study communication, technology, journalism, media, or
have domains of inquiry that are culturally, politically, or economically
sensitive, this is probably not a good place for you."  A more accurate
statement would be: If you study any of those things and plan to critique
Singapore governmental policy, this is probably not a place for you." Folks
interested in a job in Singapore can begin by looking at faculty profiles
and seeing what kinds of things profs here are publishing, for one thing.
Or just apply and, if you get a campus interview, ask good questions about
your concerns during your visit. If you don't get a good feeling, you don't
have to take the job.

Cheers,

patrick.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Philip N. Howard <pnhoward@uw.edumailto:pnhoward@uw.edu> wrote:

The Air-L@listserv.aoir.orgmailto:Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

--
Dr. Michael Baron
CEO, Baron Consulting
Facebook: Michael Baron (webbaron@gmail.commailto:webbaron@gmail.com)
Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/154816377943690/

"My Body is my Temple"
"Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi

Hi Michael, well in a strange way the call was partly mine!  I was one of the external reviewers.  The whole review panel recommended tenure and all of us agreed to go public when the decision was overturned.  So I can comfortably encourage colleagues to avoid jobs in Singapore and I have been declining subsequent invitations to do tenure and promotion reviews.  In my experience that system doesn't need me.  Yes Singapore has a distinctive tenure process--it is one that seems to be especially constraining for people working in the social sciences and humanities.

You suggest Singapore's research environment may seem more like Russia, China and Kazakhstan than like the US, UK, or Europe.  Better comparisons may be Hungary or Turkey...many domains of inquiry but those who study technology, media, political sociology and journalism really do have to do so quietly.  While I agree there can be lots of nuances to academic cultures, I also believe human rights are universal, freedom of expression is an important subset of those rights, and academic freedoms are an important subset of those freedoms.  If NTU and Singapore want to recruit scholars who study information, media, and society, perhaps they should advertise internally rather than internationally.

But I fully agree on your point about engagement with governments that interfere with academic freedoms!  So here could be some good outcomes from all this conversation:

1. Colleagues who work at NTU and in Singapore please let your admin know that advertising these jobs internationally caused a heated debate and much criticism of the reputation of NTU and Singapore's universities.  They need to know the reputational costs.  If the candidate pool isn't strong you can explain why.

2. Colleagues who apply for these jobs should ask questions about the tenure expectations and risks.  You evaluate the fit for yourselves and how Singapore's authoritarian government may provide opportunities and constraints on your career and intellectual trajectory.  NTU faculty can report to their admin that job candidates are still asking about Singapore's tenure politics.

3. If I get more invitations to help with tenure reviews I'll continue to decline saying "in my experience you don't respect the tenure process" and if any of you get an invitation you can consider accepting.  If you accept, do so by saying "I've heard the tenure process is political" and ask about how your review letter will contribute.

That should be a good set of exit, voice and loyalty options.  With some consistent prodding from us, NTU and Singapore may be able to clean up its tenure and promotion process and adopt some good freedom of expression norms.
p.

Dr. Philip N. Howard
Professor, University of Washington
Professor, Central European University
GPG Key: 9CAAEABC
www.philhoward.org
@pnhoward

New Book
Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock Us Up. Yale University Press, 2015, www.paxtechnica.org

-----Original Message-----
From: CITASA [mailto:citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baron
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Williams subcultures@gmail.com
Cc: air-l Air-L@listserv.aoir.org; citasa@list.citasa.org
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

With all due respect, while I am not denying the possibility of politically-motivated censorship by the University, It could be argued then, that no jobs with the Universies in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. academics should apply for...and no associations with institutions from these countries should be established.

It is a common and reasonable expectation everywhere, that academics complay with policies established by the faculty they are employed by and do not openly criticize their own management via public domains. Being a foreign academic/consultant/associate - one has to be even more respectful towards  policies, practices and agendas of the employer. There is a clear difference between freedom of speech/expression/academic freedom and employee loyalty! As an employer, a University can have a peer assessment system of its choice (just like any other employers in any other industries) as long as this system is within legal boundaries. In this particular case, I may not agree with the NTU's approach...but the call is theirs rather than mine so I would refrain from advising others not to accept jobs with them

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Patrick Williams <subcultures@gmail.com mailto:subcultures@gmail.com > wrote:

I saw Philip Howard's response to the NTU jobs on the CITASA and AoIR
listservs. Just to follow up on it.

I'm not sure where the information that the president of the country
overturned Cherian George's tenure decision came from, but my understanding
(and FYI I'm an associate professor at NTU) is that NTU's board denied his
tenure; there was no overturning. Certainly there were many faculty,
including me, who were shocked by the incident, but there were probably
just as many who were not surprised. I learned very quickly after moving to
NTU that engaging in actions (whether through activism, publishing
research, etc.) that directly criticize government policies could have dire
consequences. But I would disagree that "it is a bit early, and a bit
risky, to invest your academic career in Singapore." The research
environment is lively and active, the faculty is internationally diverse,
and faculty are supported in their work....as long as they don't bite the
hand that feeds them. [Yes, that may feel like a slap in the face to a
liberal academic, but it's also increasingly a reality in higher education
everywhere.]

The Cherian George case was political, but then again people are denied
tenure or fired every year at universities for political reasons. You
didn't do what your dean asked asked you to do once and got on her/his bad
side....you didn't collaborate with the 'right' people in a lab or
department or wherever....you told your students God doesn't exist....such
stories circulate in the US, UK, Europe, and elsewhere as well. Even
tenured professors in the US feel unsafe at some institutions, from
teaching on sensitive issues to not securing 'enough' grant
money...Singapore is nothing special in this regard.

There are many people who don't get tenure at NTU, but many who do. I would
agree that scholars doing advocacy or activist work that would target
Singaporean public policy might very well do better elsewhere. But there
are many scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and communication who
do great work otherwise. Therefore I would add a caveat to Philip's
statement: "If you study communication, technology, journalism, media, or
have domains of inquiry that are culturally, politically, or economically
sensitive, this is probably not a good place for you."  A more accurate
statement would be: If you study any of those things and plan to critique
Singapore governmental policy, this is probably not a place for you." Folks
interested in a job in Singapore can begin by looking at faculty profiles
and seeing what kinds of things profs here are publishing, for one thing.
Or just apply and, if you get a campus interview, ask good questions about
your concerns during your visit. If you don't get a good feeling, you don't
have to take the job.

Cheers,

patrick.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Philip N. Howard <pnhoward@uw.edu <mailto:pnhoward@uw.edu> > wrote:

_______________________________________________
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org <mailto:Air-L@listserv.aoir.org>  mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

--

Dr. Michael Baron
CEO, Baron Consulting
Facebook: Michael Baron (webbaron@gmail.com mailto:webbaron@gmail.com ) Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/154816377943690/

"My Body is my Temple"
"Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi

All, I have a good friend who works at NTU.  He tells me the decision was made by the President of the University, not the President of Singapore.  That does not mean, of course, that the government had no input, but we should be careful about propagating rumors.

Best,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: CITASA [mailto:citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] On Behalf Of Philip N. Howard
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 4:22 PM
To: Michael Baron; Patrick Williams
Cc: Bart Cammaerts; air-l; citasa@list.citasa.org; Marjolin L. Antheunis; Aphra Kerr
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

Hi Michael, well in a strange way the call was partly mine!  I was one of the external reviewers.  The whole review panel recommended tenure and all of us agreed to go public when the decision was overturned.  So I can comfortably encourage colleagues to avoid jobs in Singapore and I have been declining subsequent invitations to do tenure and promotion reviews.  In my experience that system doesn't need me.  Yes Singapore has a distinctive tenure process--it is one that seems to be especially constraining for people working in the social sciences and humanities.

You suggest Singapore's research environment may seem more like Russia, China and Kazakhstan than like the US, UK, or Europe.  Better comparisons may be Hungary or Turkey...many domains of inquiry but those who study technology, media, political sociology and journalism really do have to do so quietly.  While I agree there can be lots of nuances to academic cultures, I also believe human rights are universal, freedom of expression is an important subset of those rights, and academic freedoms are an important subset of those freedoms.  If NTU and Singapore want to recruit scholars who study information, media, and society, perhaps they should advertise internally rather than internationally.

But I fully agree on your point about engagement with governments that interfere with academic freedoms!  So here could be some good outcomes from all this conversation:

1. Colleagues who work at NTU and in Singapore please let your admin know that advertising these jobs internationally caused a heated debate and much criticism of the reputation of NTU and Singapore's universities.  They need to know the reputational costs.  If the candidate pool isn't strong you can explain why.

2. Colleagues who apply for these jobs should ask questions about the tenure expectations and risks.  You evaluate the fit for yourselves and how Singapore's authoritarian government may provide opportunities and constraints on your career and intellectual trajectory.  NTU faculty can report to their admin that job candidates are still asking about Singapore's tenure politics.

3. If I get more invitations to help with tenure reviews I'll continue to decline saying "in my experience you don't respect the tenure process" and if any of you get an invitation you can consider accepting.  If you accept, do so by saying "I've heard the tenure process is political" and ask about how your review letter will contribute.

That should be a good set of exit, voice and loyalty options.  With some consistent prodding from us, NTU and Singapore may be able to clean up its tenure and promotion process and adopt some good freedom of expression norms.
p.

Dr. Philip N. Howard
Professor, University of Washington
Professor, Central European University
GPG Key: 9CAAEABC
www.philhoward.org
@pnhoward

New Book
Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock Us Up. Yale University Press, 2015, www.paxtechnica.org

-----Original Message-----
From: CITASA [mailto:citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baron
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Williams subcultures@gmail.com
Cc: air-l Air-L@listserv.aoir.org; citasa@list.citasa.org
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

With all due respect, while I am not denying the possibility of politically-motivated censorship by the University, It could be argued then, that no jobs with the Universies in China, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. academics should apply for...and no associations with institutions from these countries should be established.

It is a common and reasonable expectation everywhere, that academics complay with policies established by the faculty they are employed by and do not openly criticize their own management via public domains. Being a foreign academic/consultant/associate - one has to be even more respectful towards  policies, practices and agendas of the employer. There is a clear difference between freedom of speech/expression/academic freedom and employee loyalty! As an employer, a University can have a peer assessment system of its choice (just like any other employers in any other industries) as long as this system is within legal boundaries. In this particular case, I may not agree with the NTU's approach...but the call is theirs rather than mine so I would refrain from advising others not to accept jobs with them

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Patrick Williams <subcultures@gmail.com mailto:subcultures@gmail.com > wrote:

I saw Philip Howard's response to the NTU jobs on the CITASA and AoIR
listservs. Just to follow up on it.

I'm not sure where the information that the president of the country
overturned Cherian George's tenure decision came from, but my understanding
(and FYI I'm an associate professor at NTU) is that NTU's board denied his
tenure; there was no overturning. Certainly there were many faculty,
including me, who were shocked by the incident, but there were probably
just as many who were not surprised. I learned very quickly after moving to
NTU that engaging in actions (whether through activism, publishing
research, etc.) that directly criticize government policies could have dire
consequences. But I would disagree that "it is a bit early, and a bit
risky, to invest your academic career in Singapore." The research
environment is lively and active, the faculty is internationally diverse,
and faculty are supported in their work....as long as they don't bite the
hand that feeds them. [Yes, that may feel like a slap in the face to a
liberal academic, but it's also increasingly a reality in higher education
everywhere.]

The Cherian George case was political, but then again people are denied
tenure or fired every year at universities for political reasons. You
didn't do what your dean asked asked you to do once and got on her/his bad
side....you didn't collaborate with the 'right' people in a lab or
department or wherever....you told your students God doesn't exist....such
stories circulate in the US, UK, Europe, and elsewhere as well. Even
tenured professors in the US feel unsafe at some institutions, from
teaching on sensitive issues to not securing 'enough' grant
money...Singapore is nothing special in this regard.

There are many people who don't get tenure at NTU, but many who do. I would
agree that scholars doing advocacy or activist work that would target
Singaporean public policy might very well do better elsewhere. But there
are many scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and communication who
do great work otherwise. Therefore I would add a caveat to Philip's
statement: "If you study communication, technology, journalism, media, or
have domains of inquiry that are culturally, politically, or economically
sensitive, this is probably not a good place for you."  A more accurate
statement would be: If you study any of those things and plan to critique
Singapore governmental policy, this is probably not a place for you." Folks
interested in a job in Singapore can begin by looking at faculty profiles
and seeing what kinds of things profs here are publishing, for one thing.
Or just apply and, if you get a campus interview, ask good questions about
your concerns during your visit. If you don't get a good feeling, you don't
have to take the job.

Cheers,

patrick.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Philip N. Howard <pnhoward@uw.edu <mailto:pnhoward@uw.edu> > wrote:

_______________________________________________
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org <mailto:Air-L@listserv.aoir.org>  mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

--

Dr. Michael Baron
CEO, Baron Consulting
Facebook: Michael Baron (webbaron@gmail.com mailto:webbaron@gmail.com ) Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/154816377943690/

"My Body is my Temple"
"Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi _______________________________________________
CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org