Poison Ivy

Foreword Focusing on one of the most hallowed institutions in western culture, higher education, Roebuck and Murty have undertaken an important exploration into the psychodynamics of the social roles of faculty members and administrators as it relates to deviant behavior. As experienced scholars in higher education and students of deviant behavior, the authors have had many years to hone their observational skills. This volume is the result. Having spent over a half century in higher education as a student and professor I instantly recognize the forms of deviance the authors discuss as well as the deviant types that are part of their typology. As I read the manuscript I repeated over and over, “I know that guy”, and “How many times have I witnessed that behavior in academe?” They certainly have captured the essence of misbehavior and the types of actors in academe that misbehave. While a narrower view of deviance might treat many of the behaviors chronicled here as quirky, weird, outlandish, petty, and childish, which they certainly are, it would overlook that the presence of these behaviors often threatens people's lives and livelihoods as well as the very mission of higher education. The typology they develop is devised from the linkages that exist among sanctionable deviance patterns, social background characteristics, structural and situational stress problems, and the subjects’ personality (self concept, attitudes, character traits, and the presence or absence of personality disorders). Their thesis is that their sample of deviant academics when analyzed along the four dimensions above allows them to categorize academics into different types. While the types are not mutually exclusive with regard to all variables, the types reflect the predominance and intensity of the variables within each grouping (category). The authors accurately conjecture that academia provides a safer haven for highly educated people with significant personality problems than does many other social institutions because of its culture of tolerance for differences. This would seem particularly true in the post-World War II explosion of public higher education in the United States. Before the war higher education was largely private and served an elite audience in much the same fashion as European higher education after which it was modeled. Public education before the war was primarily vocational in nature focusing on agricultural improvements and teacher preparation. This post-war explosive growth coupled with the pervasive egalitarian view that higher education is for everyone has led to a concomitant growth in the professorate and because of demand and the prestige assigned to graduate higher education a proliferation of new graduate programs and departments (the authors record numerous instances where new hires were made because of informal considerations or with the primary consideration being necessity rather than the excellent qualifications of the candidate). This perhaps coupled with the stereotype of the professor as someone who couldn’t make it in the “real world” has also let to the potential of having more misfits with apparent personality disorders becoming members of the professoriate. This volume makes a dual contribution: first, to the study of deviant behavior and second, to personnel management in higher education. To the study of deviant behavior we come to quickly realize that what might at first appear to be the manifestations of a quirky personality we must realize that under certain institutional stressors, it can evolve into a highly dangerous and destructive situation. Most, if not all, institutions of higher learning have personnel and faculty handbooks that explicitly spell out behaviors and circumstances that can lead to non-renewal of contracts and even termination for cause even for tenured members of the professoriate. Moreover, these handbooks often preclude evaluations of collegiality and instead focus exclusively on teaching, research and service. Even with these handbooks universities often act like adhocracies—improvising on a case by case basis. This is a dangerous strategy for many reasons. When followed it is done out of fear of the publicity associated with litigation. When followed it is also done out of compassion for the perpetrator and a powerful urge for normalcy to return. What this process overlooks though is that most of the offenders are irredeemable and will continue to erode the mission of the university and pose a threat to the institution and sometimes a physical danger to its students and personnel. For these reasons Roebuck and Murty counsel exceptional caution and care in the hiring of faculty members and vigilance throughout the promotion and tenure process. Dee Wood Harper , Jr . , Ph.D Professor of Sociology and Graduate Program Coordinator Department of Criminal Justice Loyola University, New Orleans