Page 10 |
Previous | 10 of 12 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
EMPATH, NOVEMBER 22, 1976 M a r y S to n e D ig s H is to r y / by Merlin Taylor Snow Hill Manor, an immense plantation abutting St. Mary’s City since the 17th century, is now mostly buried beneath roads, houses, and trees. For most area dwellers the old plantation is of little interest. Not so for Mary Stone, 49, Circulation Desk Supervisor at the College library and special student at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Mrs. Stone, with her husband, Hammett, has lived since 1953 on a farm near Pope’s Freehold, which was once part of Snow Hill Manor. She spends much of her time there collecting artifacts of the old plantation. Sitting at the circulation desk of the college library, she describes her method of collecting these artifacts: “ Every time Hammettplows the field, I wait for a rain. .. ’ ’When the rain stops Mary goes into the field to gather whatever remnants of Snow Hill Manor may have been unearthed through erosion. In this manner she has collected many “ architectural remains” —brick, glass, nails, and tiles — as well as many Indian artifacts — “ scores of arrowheads,” and a grindstone, which she terms “ rare.” Often artifacts from different time periods are “mingled” as a result of centuries of plowing. Mary records where each find is made, using an improvised system of sectioning her property. She eschews digging. “ I am not an archaeologist. . . I try not to disturb anything, not to destroy anything,” she explains. Once she uncovered a crude sidewalk buried six inches deep near her house; it has now been covered over again. “ I wanted to find out for myself * to see if people had been living there that long.” Thus Mary explains why she began searching for remnants of the Snow Hill Manor plantation. On the land adjoining her property she has discovered what seems to be the foundation of “ an old slave or tenants’ cabin.” Mary hopes that her list of artifact discoveries will eventually match an inventory list made by the original owner of the plantation! Robert Gibbons. Finding a copy of that list may be a challenge in itself, however, for in 1839 the St. Mary’s County Archives were destroyed in a fire. Though Mrs. Stone may have a hard time locating the county’s written history, she has already made a significant contribution to it. Mary is this year’s winner of the May Russell Historical Award, for a treatise on “St. Mary’s County Foodways Prior to 1941, and particularly during the Depression Years of the 1930s.” Published last August inVolume 24 of the “ Chronicles of St. Mary’s,” the newsletter of the County Historical Society, Mary’s paper describes in detail the dietary habits of St. Mary’s Countians for over two centuries prior to World War II: what foodstuffs were used, how they were obtained, and how they were prepared. Mary relies primarily upon childhood memories of how countians lived upon “ what could be raised and bartered among farmers and watermen” in the 1930s. In the paper she also makes 'special reference to Her-skovits’ “ Cultural Anthropology,” and to “ The American Frugal Housewife,” a cookbookj. Mary IStone represents a type of historian iseldom found on college reading lists. She is “ not an archaeologist,” yet she accumulates an extensive collection of historical artifacts — some of which predate the presence of white men in Maryland — through simple labors in the fields around her house. Mary Stone is a historian who finds history not just in books, but in her own backyard. Tenure Go Round And Round And Round And Round And Round (Continued from Page 1) provision in the new document which calls for a periodic review of faculty members. And third, the definition of ‘Adequate cause’ for dismissal. Several faculty members, including Dr. Herbert Winnik, Associate Professor of History, and Dr. Richard K. Stark, Associate Professor of Mathematics are opposed to the definition of adequate cause for dismissal in the proposed document. The provision defines “ adequate cause” to be, “ incompetence, misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, insubordination, immorality, and dishonesty.” These faculty members argue that the terminology is vague. Several documents have gone into the making of the recent tenure proposal including the Pattillo document of 1975, The “ American Association of University Professors 1976 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom” and the “ Regulations and procedures Governing Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Maryland State Colleges under the Jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees of the State Colleges.” St. Mary’s College has its’ own Board of Trustees, therefore, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees of the State Colleges. Following is a brief chronology of the tenure situation at St. Mary’s. In 1972, the Faculty Senate accepted a proposal from College President Jackson to study the tenure situation. The next year, the faculty approved a tenure proposal which raised several questions by the Attorney General of Maryland. By 1974, the faculty accepted, with modifications, a revised tenure proposal. In the next year, the Board of Trustees of St. Mary’s College asked Provost Pattillo to review the Administrative-Trustee- Faculty Committee Tenure Proposal and submit a report. In May of 1975, the Faculty endorsed the Pattillo Document for Tenure. The next month saw the Board of Trustees reestablish tenure in principle with a resolution that the number of tenured faculty shall not exceed the total number of authorized faculty positions at the ranks of Professor and Assoc. Professor. At this point, the Pattillo proposal was sent to the Attorney General. In May of 1976, College President Jackson submitted to the faculty the revised Pattillo proposal, entitled “Working Papers” on Tenure, which contained substantive changes from the previous document, including a periodic review of tenured faculty members. During the final faculty meeting in May of last year, the Faculty unanimously found the Working Papers unacceptable and asked the Board to adopt the AAUP policy or that of the State Colleges of Maryland. Neither the AAUP policy nor the State College Tenure Document contain provisions for either a tenure quota or a periodic review of tenured faculty members. Approximately 60 percent of the faculty of St. Mary’s College presently hold the rank of Associate Professor or Full Professor. By the time the college reaches its full growth of 80 to 90 faculty members, the older professors, who were awarded tenure before 1971, will retire, thus reducing the percentage of tenured faculty members to about 50 percent. Faculty President Dr. Michael Glaser commented that the quota system creates arbitrary cut off points during the consideration of tenure for a faculty member. Glaser said the institution is correct to be concerned about the number of tenured faculty members but added that the quota should not be so rigid that it hurts the institution. During an interview, Dr. Richard Stark, last year’s Faculty President, stated that a quota for tenured faculty members would mean that individual faculty members would be considered for tenure according to statistical norms rather than on the basis of merit. According to Stark, approximately 60 percent of the faculty members in institutions with a tenure policy throughout the nation actually have tenure. Dr. Laraine Gledden, Assoc. Prof. of Human Development indicated during the faculty meeting that by spelling out the quota system, the college is, “ being open and there is better communication between the faculty and the administration.” Provost Hudson has stated that the proposed quota serves an important function for the institution by guarantying flexibility in the staff and the curriculum. The proposed tenure document contains a provision for periodic review which is intended to encourage tenured faculty members to maintain professional standards. The document states that tenured appointments will be subject to review every five years by the Faculty Evaluation Process. If a faculty member is found to be deficient according to the criteria that determined the granting of tenure, the President will inform the faculty member in writing and will set forth the specific areas of deficient performance. After three years, the faculty member will again be reviewed by the Faculty Evaluation Process. If the faculty member is again found to be deficient, the President shall initiate formal procedures for termination. Faculty President Glaser told the assembled faculty that the Faculty Senate objected to the periodic review. Glaser \ has stated that he favors the AAUP document which has no provision for periodic review7. Glaser said, it is “ very unrealistic” to hope for the AAUP document. “ We would never be able to get the AAUP document through the President and the Board.” Glaser added, “ The documentwe have is better than nothing.” Dr. Stark claims that periodic review of l. tenured faculty member, where the faculty member must convince the Faculty Evaluation Committee of his competence, shifts the burden of proof for adequate cause for dismissal from the administration to the faculty member. “ We might as well have no document” Stark said. Dr. Winnik stated that periodic review is contradictory to the basics of tenure. “ I wouldn’t touch the document with a ten foot pole.” Winnik said. Dr. Gledden responded to Winnik’s statement, “ Periodic review is less damaging than the board taking measures to terminate faculty contracts.” Gledden added, ‘ ‘Periodic review is less potentially violating our rights.” “ Periodic Review can only help you,” she said. The faculty also discussed the possibility of adopting a Holding Pattern which provides job security to a faculty member who has reached the seventh year of his probationary term while there are no open tenure slots. The Faculty Senate is in favor of such a proposal. Presently, eleven faculty members who entered the college prior to 1971 have tenure. Their names follow: Stevens, Walker, Winnik, Hoaglend, Goldsmith, Stark, Strickland, Rowe, Perkins, Smith (Grant), and Buker. Most of these faculty members were awarded tenure according to the college’s 1968 tenure document. According to the 1968 document, a faculty member with a rank of Ju&Ume instructor or higher serves a probationary period not to exceed four years before being considered for tenure. In 1971, faculty members under the 1968 document were allowed to choose between their 1968 contractual statement or accepting the 1971 contract. There are several faculty members who came in before 1971 who remain teaching at St. Mary’s and, for various reasons, have not been awarded tenure. Their names follow: Ingersoll, Hoffman, Glaser, Smith (Joan) and Wilson (Ron). Chovanes was awarded tenure but had his tenure revoked in 1975 for reasons of moral turpitude. Since the 1968 tenure document was replaced by the contractual document of 1971, four faculty members have been hired by the college and immediately granted tenure. These people include: Doctors Hirschfield, Nickell and Hudson, who arrived in 1975, and Dr. Foster, who came this year. Provost of the College, Dr. Harriet Hudson stated during an interview that she assumed that Nickell, Hirschfield, Foster, and herself had tenure according to the 1971 document. Faculty Senate President Glaser said he was “ curious” about the contracts of the four faculty members who recently received tenure. “ They’ve been granted something by the Board, but there’s no document defining what they have.” Glaser said. College President President Renwick Jackson stated that the contracts of Hirschfield, Nickell, Hudson, and Foster represented a “ difficulty we’re trying to resolve.” Dr. Jackson added that there was a “ traditionalunderstanding” that the individuals have confidence that the college would not misrepresent the situation. When asked whether the State of Maryland would find itself in an indefensible position if a problem a arose concerning the contractual statements of the newly tenured faculty, Dr. Jackson replied, “ If a problem emerged, the Attorney General’s office would use the 1968 Tenure Document.” ft
Object Description
Title | Empath, 1976 November 22 |
Date | 1976-11-22 |
Year | 1976 |
Masthead | Empath |
Geographic Coverage | United States -- Maryland -- Saint Marys City |
Subject | St. Mary's College of Maryland - Newspapers |
Type | Text |
Technical Metadata | Digitized at 400 dpi true optical resolution / 256-color grayscale to uncompressed TIFF master files using i2S CopiBook HD 600. Searchable PDF derivatives shown here are downscaled to 150 dpi / Medium quality. |
Repository | St. Mary's College of Maryland Archives ( http://www.smcm.edu/archives/ ) |
Rights | St. Mary's College of Maryland retains all rights to the digital images presented on this website. The SMCM Archives website is intended for educational and research purposes only. |
Date Digital | 2012-05-18 |
Digitized by | Creekside Digital |
File Name | 1976-11-22.pdf |
Description
Title | Page 10 |
FullText | EMPATH, NOVEMBER 22, 1976 M a r y S to n e D ig s H is to r y / by Merlin Taylor Snow Hill Manor, an immense plantation abutting St. Mary’s City since the 17th century, is now mostly buried beneath roads, houses, and trees. For most area dwellers the old plantation is of little interest. Not so for Mary Stone, 49, Circulation Desk Supervisor at the College library and special student at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Mrs. Stone, with her husband, Hammett, has lived since 1953 on a farm near Pope’s Freehold, which was once part of Snow Hill Manor. She spends much of her time there collecting artifacts of the old plantation. Sitting at the circulation desk of the college library, she describes her method of collecting these artifacts: “ Every time Hammettplows the field, I wait for a rain. .. ’ ’When the rain stops Mary goes into the field to gather whatever remnants of Snow Hill Manor may have been unearthed through erosion. In this manner she has collected many “ architectural remains” —brick, glass, nails, and tiles — as well as many Indian artifacts — “ scores of arrowheads,” and a grindstone, which she terms “ rare.” Often artifacts from different time periods are “mingled” as a result of centuries of plowing. Mary records where each find is made, using an improvised system of sectioning her property. She eschews digging. “ I am not an archaeologist. . . I try not to disturb anything, not to destroy anything,” she explains. Once she uncovered a crude sidewalk buried six inches deep near her house; it has now been covered over again. “ I wanted to find out for myself * to see if people had been living there that long.” Thus Mary explains why she began searching for remnants of the Snow Hill Manor plantation. On the land adjoining her property she has discovered what seems to be the foundation of “ an old slave or tenants’ cabin.” Mary hopes that her list of artifact discoveries will eventually match an inventory list made by the original owner of the plantation! Robert Gibbons. Finding a copy of that list may be a challenge in itself, however, for in 1839 the St. Mary’s County Archives were destroyed in a fire. Though Mrs. Stone may have a hard time locating the county’s written history, she has already made a significant contribution to it. Mary is this year’s winner of the May Russell Historical Award, for a treatise on “St. Mary’s County Foodways Prior to 1941, and particularly during the Depression Years of the 1930s.” Published last August inVolume 24 of the “ Chronicles of St. Mary’s,” the newsletter of the County Historical Society, Mary’s paper describes in detail the dietary habits of St. Mary’s Countians for over two centuries prior to World War II: what foodstuffs were used, how they were obtained, and how they were prepared. Mary relies primarily upon childhood memories of how countians lived upon “ what could be raised and bartered among farmers and watermen” in the 1930s. In the paper she also makes 'special reference to Her-skovits’ “ Cultural Anthropology,” and to “ The American Frugal Housewife,” a cookbookj. Mary IStone represents a type of historian iseldom found on college reading lists. She is “ not an archaeologist,” yet she accumulates an extensive collection of historical artifacts — some of which predate the presence of white men in Maryland — through simple labors in the fields around her house. Mary Stone is a historian who finds history not just in books, but in her own backyard. Tenure Go Round And Round And Round And Round And Round (Continued from Page 1) provision in the new document which calls for a periodic review of faculty members. And third, the definition of ‘Adequate cause’ for dismissal. Several faculty members, including Dr. Herbert Winnik, Associate Professor of History, and Dr. Richard K. Stark, Associate Professor of Mathematics are opposed to the definition of adequate cause for dismissal in the proposed document. The provision defines “ adequate cause” to be, “ incompetence, misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, insubordination, immorality, and dishonesty.” These faculty members argue that the terminology is vague. Several documents have gone into the making of the recent tenure proposal including the Pattillo document of 1975, The “ American Association of University Professors 1976 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom” and the “ Regulations and procedures Governing Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Maryland State Colleges under the Jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees of the State Colleges.” St. Mary’s College has its’ own Board of Trustees, therefore, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees of the State Colleges. Following is a brief chronology of the tenure situation at St. Mary’s. In 1972, the Faculty Senate accepted a proposal from College President Jackson to study the tenure situation. The next year, the faculty approved a tenure proposal which raised several questions by the Attorney General of Maryland. By 1974, the faculty accepted, with modifications, a revised tenure proposal. In the next year, the Board of Trustees of St. Mary’s College asked Provost Pattillo to review the Administrative-Trustee- Faculty Committee Tenure Proposal and submit a report. In May of 1975, the Faculty endorsed the Pattillo Document for Tenure. The next month saw the Board of Trustees reestablish tenure in principle with a resolution that the number of tenured faculty shall not exceed the total number of authorized faculty positions at the ranks of Professor and Assoc. Professor. At this point, the Pattillo proposal was sent to the Attorney General. In May of 1976, College President Jackson submitted to the faculty the revised Pattillo proposal, entitled “Working Papers” on Tenure, which contained substantive changes from the previous document, including a periodic review of tenured faculty members. During the final faculty meeting in May of last year, the Faculty unanimously found the Working Papers unacceptable and asked the Board to adopt the AAUP policy or that of the State Colleges of Maryland. Neither the AAUP policy nor the State College Tenure Document contain provisions for either a tenure quota or a periodic review of tenured faculty members. Approximately 60 percent of the faculty of St. Mary’s College presently hold the rank of Associate Professor or Full Professor. By the time the college reaches its full growth of 80 to 90 faculty members, the older professors, who were awarded tenure before 1971, will retire, thus reducing the percentage of tenured faculty members to about 50 percent. Faculty President Dr. Michael Glaser commented that the quota system creates arbitrary cut off points during the consideration of tenure for a faculty member. Glaser said the institution is correct to be concerned about the number of tenured faculty members but added that the quota should not be so rigid that it hurts the institution. During an interview, Dr. Richard Stark, last year’s Faculty President, stated that a quota for tenured faculty members would mean that individual faculty members would be considered for tenure according to statistical norms rather than on the basis of merit. According to Stark, approximately 60 percent of the faculty members in institutions with a tenure policy throughout the nation actually have tenure. Dr. Laraine Gledden, Assoc. Prof. of Human Development indicated during the faculty meeting that by spelling out the quota system, the college is, “ being open and there is better communication between the faculty and the administration.” Provost Hudson has stated that the proposed quota serves an important function for the institution by guarantying flexibility in the staff and the curriculum. The proposed tenure document contains a provision for periodic review which is intended to encourage tenured faculty members to maintain professional standards. The document states that tenured appointments will be subject to review every five years by the Faculty Evaluation Process. If a faculty member is found to be deficient according to the criteria that determined the granting of tenure, the President will inform the faculty member in writing and will set forth the specific areas of deficient performance. After three years, the faculty member will again be reviewed by the Faculty Evaluation Process. If the faculty member is again found to be deficient, the President shall initiate formal procedures for termination. Faculty President Glaser told the assembled faculty that the Faculty Senate objected to the periodic review. Glaser \ has stated that he favors the AAUP document which has no provision for periodic review7. Glaser said, it is “ very unrealistic” to hope for the AAUP document. “ We would never be able to get the AAUP document through the President and the Board.” Glaser added, “ The documentwe have is better than nothing.” Dr. Stark claims that periodic review of l. tenured faculty member, where the faculty member must convince the Faculty Evaluation Committee of his competence, shifts the burden of proof for adequate cause for dismissal from the administration to the faculty member. “ We might as well have no document” Stark said. Dr. Winnik stated that periodic review is contradictory to the basics of tenure. “ I wouldn’t touch the document with a ten foot pole.” Winnik said. Dr. Gledden responded to Winnik’s statement, “ Periodic review is less damaging than the board taking measures to terminate faculty contracts.” Gledden added, ‘ ‘Periodic review is less potentially violating our rights.” “ Periodic Review can only help you,” she said. The faculty also discussed the possibility of adopting a Holding Pattern which provides job security to a faculty member who has reached the seventh year of his probationary term while there are no open tenure slots. The Faculty Senate is in favor of such a proposal. Presently, eleven faculty members who entered the college prior to 1971 have tenure. Their names follow: Stevens, Walker, Winnik, Hoaglend, Goldsmith, Stark, Strickland, Rowe, Perkins, Smith (Grant), and Buker. Most of these faculty members were awarded tenure according to the college’s 1968 tenure document. According to the 1968 document, a faculty member with a rank of Ju&Ume instructor or higher serves a probationary period not to exceed four years before being considered for tenure. In 1971, faculty members under the 1968 document were allowed to choose between their 1968 contractual statement or accepting the 1971 contract. There are several faculty members who came in before 1971 who remain teaching at St. Mary’s and, for various reasons, have not been awarded tenure. Their names follow: Ingersoll, Hoffman, Glaser, Smith (Joan) and Wilson (Ron). Chovanes was awarded tenure but had his tenure revoked in 1975 for reasons of moral turpitude. Since the 1968 tenure document was replaced by the contractual document of 1971, four faculty members have been hired by the college and immediately granted tenure. These people include: Doctors Hirschfield, Nickell and Hudson, who arrived in 1975, and Dr. Foster, who came this year. Provost of the College, Dr. Harriet Hudson stated during an interview that she assumed that Nickell, Hirschfield, Foster, and herself had tenure according to the 1971 document. Faculty Senate President Glaser said he was “ curious” about the contracts of the four faculty members who recently received tenure. “ They’ve been granted something by the Board, but there’s no document defining what they have.” Glaser said. College President President Renwick Jackson stated that the contracts of Hirschfield, Nickell, Hudson, and Foster represented a “ difficulty we’re trying to resolve.” Dr. Jackson added that there was a “ traditionalunderstanding” that the individuals have confidence that the college would not misrepresent the situation. When asked whether the State of Maryland would find itself in an indefensible position if a problem a arose concerning the contractual statements of the newly tenured faculty, Dr. Jackson replied, “ If a problem emerged, the Attorney General’s office would use the 1968 Tenure Document.” ft |