Opinion > April 24, 2008

By Tyler Kruse | Guest columnist

I think Visiting Asst. Professor of History Michael Bennett’s situation requires some clarification. I think some members of the faculty have gotten the impression that Bennett has used the classroom as a soapbox to “promulgate his victimhood.”

They believe that Bennett has sold his students a one-sided narrative of mistreatment that motivated the students into a frenzy of activism and concern. This is a gross misunderstanding of student concern for Bennett’s situation. Bennett has been incredibly reserved about the situation in the department, much to my frustration. It took repeated inquiries about the courses he was going to offer in the future before the “non-renewal” of his contract was brought to light. So to those of you who see Bennett as an unprofessional, agitating, embittered professor convinced he got a raw deal: you stand corrected.

Student concern for Bennett’s situation springs from several different sources. First, Bennett has made an incredible impression on his students. His personality and teaching style resonate strongly in the classroom. Bennett also uses a quick-fire Socratic Method that forces the class to continue refining its collective answer to absolute perfection. He manages to craft a compelling narrative out of historical material and he brings to life the personalities that drive the events of the past. Whether it is the evolution of tort law or the Tet Offensive, Bennett finds a way to bring the past to life and lend the student a uniquely contemporary perspective. Bennett’s talents as a lecturer, his grasp of varied histories and his unique passion for students would commend him to any other institution of higher education. In addition, his 20 years of experience as a corporate attorney would secure him employment with a number of legal firms. In summary, very few students are or should be concerned for Bennett future. From the perspective of any knowledgeable observer, Bennett’s career seems bright. In reality, many students are worried about the possible loss of such a talented professor and student advocate. During this entire episode, Bennett’s concern has seemed selfless and his distress has centered on the indifference with which student opinion has been treated.

Students are also concerned how a professor so well-respected by the student body could be so easily cast aside. Bennett’s situation raised the question of how student opinion could be so coarsely ignored when students themselves are the ones being affected. Faculty members do not pay close to $50,000 a year to sit in class with the professors they hire. Just like any other business, universities should be keenly attuned to the desires, opinions and currents among their customers. And if for some reason the department’s views conflict with that of the students’, then there should be an open, friendly discourse for the resolution of such differences. In short, there is no need for any department to enter into a defensive bunker mentality when students begin to ask questions.

Until recently, the department has towed the line that there is simply no room for Bennett. According to (History Department Chair) Dr. Simone Caron, Bennett was hired for one year, asked to stay on for a second, and now that space has run out his contract is ending and not being renewed. Under such circumstances, the department should consider finding ways to keep popular professors. The concept is simple: if something that works is not part of the plan, it is time for a change in plans. Bennett has convinced countless students to major, minor or continue taking history classes, which is important in a field that is suffering from a declining number of majors.

Thankfully, we find ourselves in very different circumstances. Two history professors will not be returning next year, at least.

If the department now decides to “not renew” Bennett’s contract then there should be a public explanation. Caron informed me that the decision to hire or fire a visiting professor is completely dependent on student evaluations. So if Bennett’s contract is not renewed, then his student evaluations should be published for students to see the reason behind this decision. If Bennett is not re-hired despite excellent student evaluations and openings in the department, then the department has been disingenuous regarding its motivations and should truthfully inform students about their reasoning. According to the guidelines provided by the department, Bennett’s contract should be renewed and students may look forward to seeing his offerings added to the course bulletin for the fall.

Tyler Kruse is a sophomore history major from Houston, Texas.