Empath, 1976 November 22

              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