You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Marching to a Different Gamelan
(from a talk by Elaine Barkin for the International Association of Women in Music)
This is the tale of my last merit increase review in UCLA's
Department of Music, in spring 1993; in 1994 I took an early
retirement offer that was too good to pass up.
An ad hoc committee of three department members reviewed my
dossier and exhibits covering Fall 1990 to Spring 1993. Their report
said:
"After examining the dossier and meeting to discuss the case, it is
the unanimous conclusion of the committee that there is not enough
material of substance...to justify a merit increase... It is
suggested that the chairman return the dossier to the candidate
inviting her to submit more evidence of compositional activity and
scholarly work... The committee examined...:
1) Creative Work (4 scores; an audio tape; a CD)
While the pieces with gamelan and Western instruments are of
interest, they offer little the committee can comment on. To submit
four scores for three years work is a rather meager offering. In
comparison to her colleagues...very little evidence of compositional
activity...
2) Critical Writings (11 exhibits)
While several of the articles submitted were reprints...the committee
noted the most substantial of the critical writings...seemed to be
based on a misunderstanding of some of Dr. Susan McClary's writings.
The article does grapple with some of the current problems in gender
studies but few conclusions can be reached...Of the 11 exhibits, 5
were published in Perspectives of New Music...The committee wondered
without her longtime association with this journal if these articles
would be published. Of the performance and program data submitted (20
exhibits) there was little to justify a merit increase...
3) Teaching
The committee noted that Prof. Barkin has an enviable record in
student evaluations...She carries a commendable average number of
Ph.D. and Masters student committees and has often taught...an
overload to her regular duties.
While her strongest suit may be her...work with UCLA students, it was
not felt that her work in this area was any stronger than her
colleagues...The Committee felt that there simply is not enough
material in the current dossier to warrant a merit increase at this
time, to proceed with a faculty vote and investigation by the Dean's
office could be futile and damaging to Professor Barkin. The
committee unanimously suggest that the Chair...encourage her to wait
until there is greater evidence of creative and critical work in her
dossier before attempting to gain a merit increase..."
Even as I retype this ungrammatical report, I get furiouser
and furiouser. When I first read it I exploded. In almost 20 years at
UCLA I'd been on many such committees and written many reports, but
I'd never seen or written anything as dismissive or nasty. When the
acting department chair said there was nothing he could do I read it
to the chair of the Privilege and Tenure Committee. She found it
"irresponsible" and "unprofessional," had never seen anything quite
as dismissive, and advised me to rebut.
I wrote an eight-page response, describing the contents of my
dossier and commenting on both factual and procedural mistakes the
committee had made. I asked for a faculty review despite the
committee's warning that it "could be futile and damaging." I also
sent copies of the report to colleagues on and off campus, to the
Dean and to former students.
My response pointed out that, had the committee taken time to
read or listen to my work, they would have known there were no
reprints in my file. Their slap at my 30-year affiliation with an
established journal was almost unbelievable; they slighted my
performances and my work with Indonesian music, found a way to
devalue my positive teaching evaluations and never mentioned my
departmental service, my many invited residencies and papers, or the
new Ph.D. program I'd initiated. That I am not a prolific composer
gave them the ammunition they wanted.
The entire department then met and agreed that they would
serve as my ad hoc committee. Here are a few quotes from their
report: "[Elaine's] being unlike the rest of the composition faculty
is perhaps her greatest virtue...her alternative aesthetic is very
valuable...she is a valuable model for... [students] who might
otherwise have nowhere to turn..." A strong majority favored the
increase which the Dean approved.
A few years earlier a colleague in composition had received a
merit increase for far less work, and I have had negative evaluations
before this one. I don't play the game by their rules and am always
conflicted about reviews that require soliciting the approval of
persons whose approval I didn't really care for. The best advice I
can offer, for those of you who feel that the Academy is your best or
only context: take yourself and your work seriously! Alternatively,
keep options open outside the Academy, where life also goes on.
-wage@wage.org-