(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2015)
It is becoming something of a truism within the industrial sector in which academic institutions occupy a large place, that administrations are increasingly adopting a two track approach to the enforcement of their regulations. Academic administrators, and officials in collateral and financial departments are expected to abide by the spirit of the rules. Employees, including (or perhaps especially) faculty are expected to abide by the letter of the rules (as interpreted in their contextual spirit by administrators).
As one can imagine, the resulting chasm creates tensions in the way rules are understood and applied. The problem is compounded because administrators, bound only by the spirit of the rules have an increasing and increasingly absolute control over the application fo the letter of the rules. The result is to create a vast zone of discretion in which the relaitonship between administratrors and rules is becoming increasingly different from that between faculty and rules.
A recent example from Louisiana State University makes the point. And the point needs emphasis--the emerging approach to rule application and interpretation creates a large zone of discretion. This zone of discretion increasingly serves as a space in which arbitrary decisions may be made with impunity and without regard to any principled system of accountability. At its limit it will threaten to replace a "rule of law" system with one of almost pure administrative discretion that is quite at odds both with the core values of this Republic and with emerging societal notions of fairness.
What follows is the summary of the actions of Louisiana State University and the press release from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP Report, "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, A Supplementary Report on a Censured Administration," may also be accessed here.
Press Release:
Today the AAUP is releasing a supplementary report (http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-tenure-louisiana-state-university-baton-rouge-supplementary-report) about the dismissal of professor Teresa Buchanan from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, which has been on the AAUP’s list of censured administrations since 2012.
Buchanan, a specialist in early childhood education with an unblemished eighteen-year performance record, was being evaluated for promotion to full professorship when a district school superintendent and an LSU student filed complaints against her, alleging sexual harassment. Her dean immediately suspended her from teaching, and eventually, despite a faculty hearing committee’s unanimous recommendation against dismissal, the LSU board of supervisors accepted the administration’s recommendation that she be dismissed.
Buchanan was a highly productive scholar and teacher. She had a strong publication record and an excellent record of participation in university service. Buchanan was supported in her bid for full professor by outside reviewers, the promotion and tenure committee, and the deans of her college and the graduate school.
Buchanan’s situation underwent drastic change on December 20, 2013, when she received a communication from her dean stating that “serious concerns” had been raised about her “inappropriate statements.” Buchanan was known for occasional use of profanities, but any previous complaints apparently were not serious enough to become part of her performance record.
The administration’s Office of Human Resource Management investigated—without, however, affording Buchanan any opportunity to rebut charges—and found her guilty of sexual harassment and of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Subsequently, a faculty hearing committee was formed, in accordance with LSU’s policies. It found unanimously that “removal with cause” should not be contemplated, though it also faulted Buchanan for having violated LSU’s policies on sexual harassment by “her use of profanity, poorly worded jokes, and sometimes sexually explicit ‘jokes’ in her teaching methodologies.” The committee found no evidence that this behavior was “systematically directed at any particular individual,” however, only that “some individuals observing the behaviors were disturbed.” The committee found no evidence whatsoever that any law had been violated. Indeed, whatever the terms of LSU’s sexual harassment policy, as a legal matter isolated off-color comments, not directed at anybody in particular, do not constitute a hostile work environment or any other violation of sex-discrimination law.
The report raises several key questions:--Why, given that Buchanan’s eighteen-year record was devoid of any mention of misconduct and her application for promotion was proceeding without controversy, did university administrators act immediately to suspend her from teaching, an action under LSU policies only if a faculty member is said to "pose a threat to himself/herself or others?" Why did they not talk to Buchanan rather than simply announce a series of drastic actions?
--Why did the administration have the charges investigated by Human Resource Management personnel instead of proceeding from the outset in accordance with LSU’s policies, which call for a faculty committee? Once the faculty committee did consider the case and issue a unanimous recommendation against a severe sanction, why was its recommendation not heeded or reported in the public explanation of the dismissal?
--Given that few people these days are seriously turned off by mild profanities and sexual references, and the paucity of complaints about Buchanan’s expression, why is the tolerance by the LSU administration so astonishingly low compared to other public universities?
This supplementary report on a censured administration is one of only seven such reports issued in the AAUP’s century of existence. It identifies significant new issues that will have to be resolved before the AAUP can remove the censure.
If a major public research university like LSU can so brazenly ignore its own policies and impose on its faculty members a de facto but ill-defined code of expression, no faculty anywhere will be safe from similar action. AAUP investigations and the AAUP censure list are important tools we have to shed light on violations of academic freedom and threats to our professional status. At the same time, the AAUP stands ready to work with censured college and university administrations to lift censure by providing appropriate restitution to colleagues whose academic freedom has been violated and improving their policies in ways that will ensure that similar incidents do not recur. We hope that this current case can soon be resolved and that not long afterward LSU will join the ranks of those that have departed from our censure list.
In these days, as challenges to academic freedom and employment security come from all directions, it is more important than ever that teachers and scholars like ourselves join together to carry out this kind of work—work that only the AAUP does. Thank you for your membership!
Best wishes,
Henry Reichman
Chair, AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure
__________
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Academic Freedom and Tenure: Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, A Supplementary Report on a Censured Administration
This supplementary report raises questions about the dismissal of professor Teresa Buchanan from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, which has been on the AAUP’s list of censured administrations since 2012.
Buchanan, a specialist in early childhood education with an unblemished eighteen-year performance record, was being evaluated for promotion to full professorship when a district school superintendent and an LSU student filed complaints against her, alleging sexual harassment as defined by LSU. Her dean immediately suspended her from teaching, and eventually, despite a faculty hearing committee’s unanimous recommendation against dismissal, the LSU board of supervisors accepted the administration’s recommendation that she be dismissed.
Buchanan was a highly productive scholar and teacher. She had a strong publication record and an excellent record of participation in university service. Buchanan was supported in her bid for full professor by outside reviewers, the promotion and tenure committee, and the deans of her college and the graduate school.
Buchanan’s situation underwent drastic change on December 20, 2013, when she received a communication from her dean stating that “serious concerns” had been raised about her “inappropriate statements.” Buchanan was known for occasional use of profanity, but any previous complaints apparently were not serious enough to become part of her performance record.
The administration’s Office of Human Resource Management investigated and found her guilty of sexual harassment.
Subsequently, a faculty hearing committee was formed, in accordance with LSU’s policies. It found unanimously that “removal with cause” should not be contemplated, though it also faulted Buchanan for having violated LSU’s policies on sexual harassment by “her use of profanity, poorly worded jokes, and sometimes sexually explicit ‘jokes’ in her methodologies.” The committee found no evidence that this behavior was “systematically directed at any particular individual,” however, only that “some individuals observing the behaviors were disturbed.”
The report raises questions about three issues:
The LSU supplementary report on a censured administration issued today is one of only seven such reports issued in the AAUP’s century of existence. It identifies significant new issues that will have to be resolved before the AAUP can remove the censure. Censure by the AAUP informs the academic community that the administration of an institution has not adhered to generally recognized principles of academic freedom and tenure.
- The first issue relates to the administration’s immediate action to suspend, upon learning that a school superintendent and a student teacher had accused Buchanan of making “inappropriate statements.” Buchanan’s eighteen-year record was devoid of any mention of misconduct, and her application for promotion was on its way to the provost’s desk. Why did the administrators not talk to Buchanan rather than simply announce a series of drastic actions?
- The second issue relates to investigation of the charges. Why did the administration have the charges investigated by Office of Human Resource Management personnel instead of proceeding from the outset in accordance with LSU’s policies, which call for a faculty committee? Once the faculty committee did consider the case and issue a unanimous recommendation against a severe sanction, why was its recommendation not heeded or reported in the public explanation of the dismissal?
- The third issue relates to Louisiana State University’s level of tolerance for speech that people may find offensive. Many commentators have noted that given the low number of complaints about Buchanan’s profanity and sexual references, the tolerance by the LSU administration seems astonishingly low for a public university.
No comments:
Post a Comment