Less than a month after the Faculty Senate criticized Chancellor Sam Goldman’s handling of a faculty dispute, a national organization for professors’ rights could be on the verge of censuring the university for what it views as a lack of academic due process.
The American Association for University Professors wrote Goldman a letter, dated March 18, to request additional information regarding a dispute between Jill Adams, an associate professor in the School of Law, and her boss, Dean Peter Alexander.
“We learned of Jill Adams’ case and she had sent us the documents, and it appeared to us that the actions taken to place her on probation were not consistent of basic principles of tenure and due process,” said Robert Kreiser, associate secretary for the Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure and Governance with the AAUP.
According to the letter, Alexander placed Adams on disciplinary probation and sought to revoke her tenure for two academic years for “not meet(ing) the expectations of the School of Law.”
Adams appealed the decision to the Judicial Review Board, a 12-person committee that reviews faculty complaints against other faculty and administrators. The board unanimously sided with Adams.
Adams said she preferred not to comment while the case is still under consideration.
The board found Alexander had “egregiously misapplied” the university’s Disciplinary Action and Termination for Cause Policy, and said his “use of de facto Post-Tenure Review ... would set a precedent endangering tenure at (SIUC).”
Goldman ignored the board’s unanimous decision, and the two have been at odds since.
Kreiser said it is uncommon for an administration to disregard a strong recommendation similar to the board’s.
Mary Lamb, a professor of English and chairwoman of the JRB panel that reviewed the case, said the board contacted Goldman March 3 to clarify how much weight he should give their recommendations.
Goldman’s response, which came more than a month later via e-mail, said he could essentially make his own decision regardless of what the JRB recommends.
“It is our sense, and my opinion through our meetings we have had with Chancellor Goldman, that his attitude toward the JRB is full of contempt,” Lamb said. “He has utter contempt of shared governance.”
The argument has essentially come down to whether the university extensively reviews faculty members after they achieve tenure, which the university’s policy prohibits, SIU President Glenn Poshard said.
Faculty members who complete extensive research can receive tenure after six years, meaning that they cannot be fired unless there is significant just cause, according to university policy.
Goldman said Adams’ case is being used to thrust the post-tenure review issue to the forefront.
“It is a single personnel issue that has gone from one issue and been turned into a post-tenure review issue, which has never been a thought that (the university) has considered or planned,” said Goldman, who said he could not speak on specifics on the case for confidentiality reasons.
Kreiser said the AAUP deals with roughly 1,000 similar cases per year. Of those, he said, about 75 to 100 warrant writing letters to the institution. He said about four or five of those lead to censuring.
According to the group’s Web site, censure results from the group’s findings that conditions for academic freedom and tenure are unsatisfactory at a university.
Lamb said a censure from the AAUP would hold serious implications for the university’s visit from the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation next year.
The AAUP lists 47 censured schools.
“Suffice to say, if we didn’t think this was a serious case, we wouldn’t have written to the administration at all,” Kreiser said. “We were especially struck that the (JRB) reached very strong and unanimous findings, and it was troubling that the administration ignored or set aside those findings.”
Poshard said the Office of the President has taken steps to amend the situation.
He said a committee — headed by John Jackson, a visiting professor at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute — will have 30 days to present a resolution that would allow Adams’ appeal to continue to the SIU Board of Trustees, or side with Goldman’s decision and end it outright.
According to university policy, Poshard has the ability to reject or confirm Goldman’s decisions within 30 days, but said the case is too complicated to determine alone.
“If you don’t allow (the appeal) to go forward, you cut it off right there, and it may not be the fairest thing to do,” Poshard said. “I had read the case on different occasions and thought there were still a lot of unanswered questions. And it seems to me that both sides (are not able) to find a meeting ground.”
The committee will also look at the university’s Disciplinary Action and Termination for Cause Policy on a long-term scale, Poshard said, and will seek a member of the AAUP to consult the committee.
The committee, he said, has no timetable for the policy review.
Log in to be able to post comments.