Should I participate in this?

[Hegemony]

I am on my university's tenure appeals committee. Give me your thoughts about whether I should stay on the committee.

Last year we had a very time-consuming case. (A few details elided for privacy.) A young minority woman in a STEM field had been denied tenure, and as we initially read the files, we expected to be upholding the standards of the university. But pretty rapidly, the entire committee came to the conclusion that a great injustice had been done. The woman's publishing record was sound, everything in the file was shipshape, and the faculty member's department had been unanimous in the vote to give her tenure. But the head of the division, who was supposed to write a report about all this, had somehow conjured up the idea that "her behavior has been unprofessional" and "she's not what we want to see in a faculty member" and "it is unclear whether she is competent to teach her classes." We could find nothing to support this in the evidence. We called the division head in to ask him about this, and he said things like "Not everything is in black and white" and "I just know when people are not right for academia." This division head is close friends with the person who ultimately makes the tenure decision. So we called him in and he said, "I trust that my friend knows what he's talking about. It doesn't have to be in the record to be true. I'm not going to start second-guessing someone who heads the division. I appointed him to make judgment calls, and he has made one."

I should note that the head of the division claimed that he had a document on which he had jotted down some details of how the faculty member had taught a class badly. But when we asked to see this document, he said he had lost it, and he couldn't recall any of the details.

So at no point did anyone cite even one specific about how this incompetence or unsuitability presented itself. Publications were good and well within the standards required; teaching record was excellent; evaluations scores were actually the highest in the department. (To this we were told, "Scores aren't everything.") Service was good. And in the end, we had an audience with the president of the university, who said, "We have to trust the decision of the administrators; that's what they're there for." I mean, WTH? So, appeal denied, despite a massive dossier prepared by the committee, urging a reversal in the strongest possible terms.

Note: at no point did the decision go to a new adjudicator. The process means that the same people who decided it the first time around decide it the second time around. Not unrelated is the fact that the decision has not been reversed within living memory. It appears the appeals committee is just window-dressing.

The union got involved and both the union and the tenure appeals committee were convinced that the faculty member had an airtight case for a lawsuit. But she was so overwhelmed and dejected by all this that she left academia and stopped communicating with everyone.

So now I am on the committee for a second year, and the administrators tell me I have been appointed head of the committee. But nothing I have seen at this university discourages me more than the negligent and corrupt behavior of the administrators in our case last year.

The current case is a minority man in the same STEM department.

Meanwhile, because our university is a mess, the top administrator has been replaced. But the odious head of the division is the same, and the process is the same, i.e. the decision still goes back to the original person who made it.

It looks bad to refuse a committee assignment. But my inclination is to say to the new top administrator, "Because of the futile and unjust proceedings of the tenure appeal process last year, I cannot in good conscience agree to perform these duties again." Note: I have tenure and am a full professor.

But maybe I should stay on it to try to make sure that the process is fair? Or maybe being on the committee just means being a stooge of the university and participating in the meaningless window-dressing. It is clear that the recommendation of the committee has no weight.

Thoughts?

[fizzycist]

wow, that sounds totally infuriating. I would strongly consider leaking the story to the press, maybe just the student newspaper to start.

And I'd start getting real confrontational about the whole thing. I'd be grilling the new top admin explaining the old situation if they aren't aware and asking for assurances that the same thing wouldn't happen again. And if they convinced me to stay on, I'd be ready to resign from the committee mid-appeal if I felt it was going the same way as before.

But as you can see I am not politically savvy and prob not the person to give advice on this.

But wow, that was tough to read, sorry shit's so messed up at your place.

[Caracal]

Wow that's terrible. What's the point of having a process, if that process just allows one person to make a decision based on unsupported feelings and that decision can't be overturned.

I hate to say this,  but I'm not sure refusing to serve on the committee is really enough for a tenured faculty member. I think you might need to go outside the process. At some schools the president and the board of trustees ratify every tenure decision. However, if they don't at your school, I think you might need to go to them and tell them there's a real problem. Emphasizing the "we're going to get sued" part is probably your best route. If that path is blocked, you may have to make a bigger stink. That's really the point of having tenured faculty members. I know its easy enough for me to tell you this, and I'm not the one who has to do it...

[Volhiker78]

If it were me, I would resign from the committee under protest. 

I am not sure how much I would continue to push against the division head or the administration. But if I did push, I'd seek the advice of legal counsel who are familiar with discrimination in academics before I did. Make sure you protect yourself.  Sorry you are in this situation. 

[Hegemony]

In answer to Caracal, we did go to the president. He just affirmed trust in the administrators. The Board do not have a history of being very helpful or concerned. There's also a possible issue that we're supposed to keep the whole thing confidential and I believe revealing all but the vaguest details to the Board would be regarded as violating confidentiality. But if I thought the Board had any chance of being helpful, that would be an important possibility — but I do not.

The union was seeking to get the process reformed, but with the pandemic, they're now desperately trying to keep people from being laid off, so they have their hands full right now.

[mamselle]

I can't speak to the strategic options, but I want to support your hope that something more fair can be wrested from this situation.

A few decades ago, while doing my grad work, I saw three different women denied tenure, primarily because the university president had made it very clear that "tenure was wasted on women, they'll just go and get married and have babies and leave," or words to that effect.

One of them in particular could have made a huge difference in the ways my work turned out, and I've always regretted how she was treated. (Two other grad students and I, plus a number of her undergrad students, all wrote support letters, asking for redress, by the way--but to no avail. Thankfully that president is long-retired....)

The losses accrue, not only to the individual who deserves better treatment in their own academic career, but also to the students and others who might have benefitted from their presence in the school.

All good thoughts as you try to sort out the best ways to deal with this.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

Wow, that's horrifying.

Just to clarify (for myself), did the committee recommend that the decision last year should be overturned, or did the committee just defer to the president and division head?

I think you need to consider where you need to be to do the least harm. Refusing to participate in unjust processes is perfectly appropriate and sometimes necessary, although I think that one should make it clear that's why one is refusing to participate. On the other hand, I suppose that it's possible that, as head of the committee, you might have some additional power which you didn't have before, including additional power to raise a stink. If that's so, and if you feel like you're up for that kind of fight, then it might make sense to stay on, even if the committee is essentially toothless.

For the second option, I think it's important to go in with a very clear idea of what you can and will do if any similar situation crops up. Otherwise, it's all too easy to find reasons to step back when the situation arises, and then there would have been no point in continuing on.

If it were me, I don't trust that I'd have the stomach for the second option, so I'd probably choose to resign in protest instead, and consider leaking information to news outlets (via a lawyer; always leak through a lawyer).

[pgher]

In answer to Caracal, we did go to the president. He just affirmed trust in the administrators.

This is perhaps the most troubling aspect. On the one hand, I see the value in not micro-managing or contradicting the people who report to you. However, if every level above defers to the person below, then any one person in the chain who does NOT defer ends up being the decision-maker. They are all supposed to be independent actors who take recommendations as just that: recommendations from someone who has a certain perspective, but not the be-all-end-all decision. If there is never a reason to contravene a decision at a lower level, why have review at all?

[Caracal]

In answer to Caracal, we did go to the president. He just affirmed trust in the administrators. The Board do not have a history of being very helpful or concerned. There's also a possible issue that we're supposed to keep the whole thing confidential and I believe revealing all but the vaguest details to the Board would be regarded as violating confidentiality.

I'll defer to anyone familiar with this, but I don't think confidentiality can be used to keep someone from reporting a potential violation of rules up the chain of command. I'd look at the whistleblower rules for your school. I know that where I teach, things could be reported to the general counsel, which might be relevant in this case because of the legal jeopardy involved. Of course, you're right that if the board doesn't care, that doesn't leave many options.

Even so, if you do resign, I think its incumbent on you to do more than quietly quit. I mean if nothing else you could put this on the agenda at a faculty meeting? You can't reveal details there, but you certainly could express serious concerns about the larger process. Again, I know its easy to tell someone else to stick their neck out, but, as long as you're careful to follow rules, they can't do anything to you except freeze you out of committees, so I think there's an obligation to try to do something to protect people who are vulnerable.

[ciao_yall]

Deferring to those with more knowledge... still...

Can you keep documents handy and slip them to your colleague? That colleague really should get a lawyer. Your documents could help.

I did something similar this once. While I got in trouble for violating confidentiality, the evildoers did get fired.

My punishment/discipline was that I wasn't allowed to serve on hiring committees for two years. :-D

And then, once that was over, the VC of HR told me that I could request to have the incident removed from my file, so now it's gone.

[Ruralguy]

Serve, but make it very clear that you'll never shut up if the same thing happens.

[Vkw10]

Does the appeals committee write a report that is provided to administrators? Copied to candidate? Subject to open records law? Subject to subpoena?

If the appeals committee writes a report that candidate's attorney can use, it might be worth staying on so you can be in position to document case for the candidate who decides to sue. Otherwise, it sounds like a soul-destroying situation that tacitly supports a bad system and would lead me to resign.

FYI, if the committee writes a report but it only goes to administrators, I'd want to keep copies myself. After all, people sometimes lose or delete files before the subpoena is issued. Not everyone is careful about records retention requirements.

[Ruralguy]

The last time I served on such a committee I was told I had to destroy everything. I refused and told everyone why.
I said if I was ever brought in as a witness on a lawsuit, I wanted to plausibly say I had my notes and others comments from that time. Keep everything forever.

[clean]

Meanwhile, because our university is a mess, the top administrator has been replaced. But the odious head of the division is the same, and the process is the same, i.e. the decision still goes back to the original person who made it.

It looks bad to refuse a committee assignment. But my inclination is to say to the new top administrator, "Because of the futile and unjust proceedings of the tenure appeal process last year, I cannot in good conscience agree to perform these duties again." Note: I have tenure and am a full professor.

But maybe I should stay on it to try to make sure that the process is fair? Or maybe being on the committee just means being a stooge of the university and participating in the meaningless window-dressing. It is clear that the recommendation of the committee has no weight.

This is a new world, so I would serve.  IF the outcome repeats itself with all the messy details, Then you can resign from the committee (if you still serve).

The last time I served on such a committee I was told I had to destroy everything. I refused and told everyone why.
I said if I was ever brought in as a witness on a lawsuit, I wanted to plausibly say I had my notes and others comments from that time. Keep everything forever.

Similarly, I was given such an order.  (I complied).  However, if the shenanigans continue, you may modify Ruralguys comment to say "WHEN I am brought as a witness on the inevitable lawsuit..."
You may want to CC the entire committee and parties involved  as well. 


But being a Tenured Full Professor means that you get to serve on the nasty committees.  This is one of them, and I see it as your duty to help with this process. 

Good luck!

[Hegemony]

The committee wrote a lengthy report vehemently recommending — essentially demanding — a reversal of the decision, which was given to the faculty member as part of the proceedings. We also urged the faculty member to sue. We were not allowed to speak to her directly except in official meetings with other administrators, but we expressed our certainty that she would win a lawsuit when we met with the union rep, and the union rep passed our opinion on to the faculty member. The union rep later reported to us that she was too devastated and demoralized to go through a lawsuit. I think she would have won in a white-hot second, but the decision was out of my hands.

Being the head of the committee this time around isn't any particular advantage, as all of us on the committee were strongly in favor of the faculty member, and worked way above and beyond the norm to prepare the report (which was many times the usual length, with charts and all kinds of apparatus), and we called meetings with all relevant university administrators. I think the only difference now is that one of the administrators is different. The new administrator has a good reputation, but I don't know how much power to overturn the current system.

If I resigned, I would resign to the new administrator (who is the direct overseer of the committee), and make my reasons very clear.

My inclination is to resign dramatically. The committee is a hell of a lot of work. We have over 400 pages of documentation to read and absorb, multiple faculty members to interview, and the report to write. It took me alone over 200 hours last year. I'll be damned if I'll do all this just so the university can pretend to have a system of justice in place, when it's all useless Potemkin fakery.