When the Dean of the College of Science and a member of the university's own promotion & tenure committee says in an official letter to the University President that this happened because of outside influence that's not "propagating rumors": it is telling an international community of media scholars that this is a political situation to avoid -- or at least to be aware of. When all the members of the external review committee say they will no longer work the institution, it is not propagating rumors: it is exposing the fact that international peer review has failed. There are several highly charged and political tenure cases around the world. But I for one will not (lightly) write letters for my students to go to Singapore, even though there are many excellent scholars at NTU.

You, of course, may make different choices.

Dr. Gina Neff
Associate Professor
Department of Communication, University  of Washington

Senior Fellow
Center for Media, Data & Society at Central European University

Twitter: @ginasue
http://ginaneff.com/

Author, Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries

-----Original Message-----
From: CITASA [mailto:citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] On Behalf Of Steven Corman
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 12:38 PM
To: Philip N. Howard; Michael Baron; Patrick Williams
Cc: citasa@list.citasa.org; air-l; Bart Cammaerts; Marjolin L. Antheunis; Aphra Kerr
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

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

CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org

I wasn't defending the personnel action, Prof. Neff, just sharing some relevant information.  Also, I noted in my post that this didn't exclude the possibility of outside influence.  Knowing a few things about Singapore, I would be surprised if there was not.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Gina Neff [mailto:gneff@uw.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Steven Corman; Philip N. Howard; Michael Baron; Patrick Williams
Cc: citasa@list.citasa.org; air-l; Bart Cammaerts; Marjolin L. Antheunis; Aphra Kerr
Subject: RE: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

When the Dean of the College of Science and a member of the university's own promotion & tenure committee says in an official letter to the University President that this happened because of outside influence that's not "propagating rumors": it is telling an international community of media scholars that this is a political situation to avoid -- or at least to be aware of. When all the members of the external review committee say they will no longer work the institution, it is not propagating rumors: it is exposing the fact that international peer review has failed. There are several highly charged and political tenure cases around the world. But I for one will not (lightly) write letters for my students to go to Singapore, even though there are many excellent scholars at NTU.

You, of course, may make different choices.

Dr. Gina Neff
Associate Professor
Department of Communication, University  of Washington

Senior Fellow
Center for Media, Data & Society at Central European University

Twitter: @ginasue
http://ginaneff.com/

Author, Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries

-----Original Message-----
From: CITASA [mailto:citasa-bounces@list.citasa.org] On Behalf Of Steven Corman
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 12:38 PM
To: Philip N. Howard; Michael Baron; Patrick Williams
Cc: citasa@list.citasa.org; air-l; Bart Cammaerts; Marjolin L. Antheunis; Aphra Kerr
Subject: Re: [CITASA] [Air-L] 3 positions at Nanying Tech U Singapore---avoid

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

CITASA mailing list
CITASA@list.citasa.org
http://list.citasa.org/mailman/listinfo/citasa_list.citasa.org