New SBL Annual Meeting Policies-Picking on Students?

Interesting debates happening on the blogosphere on the new rule changes from the SBL. Rumbling's over on Chris Brady's blog show you the reaction to the new policies:

New Policies for 2011
At its October meeting, the SBL Council motioned and approved the following policies affecting the SBL Annual Meeting. These policies were announced at the Annual Business Meeting on November 21 and take effect immediately. Please keep them in mind as you organize sessions.
1. A person is limited to participate in no more than two regular program sessions as a presenter, panelist, or respondent. Please note that this policy pertains to program unit, special, and Affiliate sessions. It does not pertain to committee appearances or presiding.

2. All students without a doctoral degree are required to submit to the Program Unit Chair the full text of the paper they will read. The paper will be submitted at the time of proposal. Student proposers will submit the paper they intend to read, not a full-length paper for distribution in written format. In other words, papers should be limited to 2,000 – 2,500 words.

3. The number of sessions students can participate in will be limited to one. This policy pertains to all forms of participation: presider, panelist, presenter, respondent, etc.

These three policies were passed unanimously.

Over on Facebook reaction to the letter sent by John F. Kutsko Executive Director of the SBL is very interesting and worth having a look at (including my rant!)

Dear Student Member:

The particular opportunities and challenges facing student members deserve focused attention. The Society of Biblical Literature is committed to this focused attention, and we will redouble efforts to develop programs and policies that provide students more opportunities and enable their interests to be represented in SBL governance. It is with this effort in mind that we are providing explanations of two policies recently adopted by Council regarding student participation in the Society’s Annual Meeting.

All students without a doctoral degree are required to submit to the Program Unit Chair the full text of the paper they will read. The paper will be submitted at the time of proposal. Student proposers will submit the paper they intend to read, not a full-length article intended for written distribution.

The number of sessions students can participate in will be limited to one. This policy pertains to participation as panelist, presenter, and respondent.

Policies limiting an individual’s participation on the program have been in effect for much of the Annual Meeting’s recent history, and they are common among peer ACLS organizations. For a variety of reasons, in an increasingly pressurized academic market,SBL is reinstating these policies. Moreover, limitations apply not just to student members but to participants in general, and Council’s recent policy statement included actions concerning all members as well as Affiliate organizations.
Every member of Council was once in your position – a student member eager to contribute to the field and to engage with senior scholars. That remains a primary purpose of the Annual Meeting, and we encourage you to attend, submit a paper, and engage with colleagues. In addition, Council recognizes that the future of the field is in your hands, and that new ideas, fresh perspectives, and brilliant research are age-blind. Our student members push the profession forward and sustain it, not only through intellectual innovation but also exactitude, care, and hard work. We all know that there is much at stake for student members and that, as a result, you consistently produce work of a high caliber. These policies were made in part to mitigate those high stakes and to ensure that student presentations fit into a larger goal of fostering a diverse, moderated, and fair career path into academic life.

First: at every Annual Meeting we now schedule over 1,700 participants in ten timeslots. For the same reason that Council limits full members to two participations, students have the opportunity to participate once as panelist, presenter, or respondent at the Annual Meeting. We are opening up the field to more student participants, and so more new voices. This allows for a more diverse SBL and Annual Meeting and provides more opportunity for student member participation.

Second: a traditional “guild” offers a pathway into its profession through a series of stages. For student members of SBL, that pathway is to submit and deliver a paper at a Regional Meeting, collect feedback from peers, and then to seek participation in the Annual Meeting after a process of mentoring, discussion, and informal peer review. The Annual Meeting does not replace Regional Meetings; indeed, the latter are an integral and rich testing ground for new ideas.
Third: because the stakes are so high for students and with the goal of modeling best practices for the field, Council agreed that a full-length paper submission is to the advantage of students and serves as preparation for that much-maligned academic master or mistress – the deadline. Limiting student members to one participation will facilitate their focus on one quality presentation in the midst of demanding thesis or dissertation work. It is also felt that the policies will increase the “currency” of student presentations at the Annual Meeting, making the notation of such presentation on a CV more valuable.

These policies will ensure more diverse representation of student work at the Annual Meeting, cultivate career path helps already in place for SBL student members, and model best practices that can serve as an example for all our members. Of course, all members should pursue the highest quality presentation, and student members present superb papers year to year, just as do independent scholars and tenured faculty. The intent behind these decisions, as I hope I have made clear, is to give students greater opportunity to achieve and display their important contributions to the field.
Students’ success at the meetings and in their careers, indeed, is Council’s main concern. As a Society, we will continue to develop and revise policies together, with the broadest interests in mind and in order to foster the future of biblical scholarship.

Sincerely,
John F. Kutsko
Executive Director
Society of Biblical Literature

Elsewhere in blogland: Pat McCullough himself,  Near Emmaus and doubtless more to follow.

My post:
What struck me is that when I'm an international member (I'm Irish) and I don't attend "regional meetings"-I try to get to as many of the annual and international meetings as I can-I don't understand how the SBL can say " traditional “guild” offers a pathway into its profession through a series of stages. For student members of SBL, that pathway is to submit and deliver a paper at a Regional Meeting, collect feedback from peers, and then to seek participation in the Annual Meeting after a process of mentoring, discussion, and informal peer review." what about those who can't? Do they class the international meeting as "regional"? What path do they see the SBL giving international students (Who pay the same membership fee as anyone else)?


I don't mind the rule change so much as the quite deliberate picking on students. I've seen manys the bad paper at an SBL conference and the vast majority were from "elder statespeople". Getting a PhD parchment and leaving college does not a good presenter make....