Need to know what to say to colleague when he is denied tenure next week

[Ruralguy]

OP,

You were on the committee that decided this.

Even if you disagreed with committee, you really shouldn't be discussing his case with him.
Find other ways to commiserate, though I doubt he'll be seeking you out much.

An appeal is likely to take over a month or two just to craft, and he may wish to speak to an attorney even if the internal process doesn't require one. Then there's the whole internal process once he submits it. Might not be resolved for months.

I think anything you do at this point other than your normal interactions unrelated to the case would be see as a having a conflict of interest. Of course, if he asks, you can direct him to the proper chairs and Deans.

Also, if *you* have questions about the case, *you* can talk to the proper chairs and Deans, though if they were wise, they wouldn't tell you much beyond what you know from being on the committee.

[quercus]

OP,

You were on the committee that decided this.

Even if you disagreed with committee, you really shouldn't be discussing his case with him.
Find other ways to commiserate, though I doubt he'll be seeking you out much.

An appeal is likely to take over a month or two just to craft, and he may wish to speak to an attorney even if the internal process doesn't require one. Then there's the whole internal process once he submits it. Might not be resolved for months.

I think anything you do at this point other than your normal interactions unrelated to the case would be see as a having a conflict of interest. Of course, if he asks, you can direct him to the proper chairs and Deans.

Also, if *you* have questions about the case, *you* can talk to the proper chairs and Deans, though if they were wise, they wouldn't tell you much beyond what you know from being on the committee.

I didn't think that "sorry to hear the news" was "discussing his case with him." I was not on "the committee that decided this" (it's decided by the provost), so I didn't know for sure until I heard the decision. Was just trying to express some humanity. I suppose the consensus here is that I should not have done even that? Whew. Tough crowd.

[Ruralguy]

It's not that you did anything particular that was wrong, but to me, it looked like you were trying to get him to discuss it. He doesn't seem to want to, so I'd say to leave it alone. He knows how to find you. Otherwise just treating him normally is probably the best course of action.

[marshwiggle]

I didn't think that "sorry to hear the news" was "discussing his case with him." I was not on "the committee that decided this" (it's decided by the provost), so I didn't know for sure until I heard the decision. Was just trying to express some humanity. I suppose the consensus here is that I should not have done even that? Whew. Tough crowd.

From the original post:

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now.

To me, "sorry to hear the news" seems to suggest that you didn't agree with the decision. (Especially given your mention of his "cluelessness" above. ) I would guess many people here have a friend, relative, or colleague who they like but who gets themself into trouble with predictable frequency. Refraining from saying "I told you so" may be about as much as can be expected; expressing surprise at the outcome is probably a bridge too far.

[Kron3007]

OP,

You were on the committee that decided this.

Even if you disagreed with committee, you really shouldn't be discussing his case with him.
Find other ways to commiserate, though I doubt he'll be seeking you out much.

An appeal is likely to take over a month or two just to craft, and he may wish to speak to an attorney even if the internal process doesn't require one. Then there's the whole internal process once he submits it. Might not be resolved for months.

I think anything you do at this point other than your normal interactions unrelated to the case would be see as a having a conflict of interest. Of course, if he asks, you can direct him to the proper chairs and Deans.

Also, if *you* have questions about the case, *you* can talk to the proper chairs and Deans, though if they were wise, they wouldn't tell you much beyond what you know from being on the committee.

I didn't think that "sorry to hear the news" was "discussing his case with him." I was not on "the committee that decided this" (it's decided by the provost), so I didn't know for sure until I heard the decision. Was just trying to express some humanity. I suppose the consensus here is that I should not have done even that? Whew. Tough crowd.

I don't see an issue with this, so maybe not a full consensus. 

[Kron3007]

I didn't think that "sorry to hear the news" was "discussing his case with him." I was not on "the committee that decided this" (it's decided by the provost), so I didn't know for sure until I heard the decision. Was just trying to express some humanity. I suppose the consensus here is that I should not have done even that? Whew. Tough crowd.

From the original post:

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now.

To me, "sorry to hear the news" seems to suggest that you didn't agree with the decision. (Especially given your mention of his "cluelessness" above. ) I would guess many people here have a friend, relative, or colleague who they like but who gets themself into trouble with predictable frequency. Refraining from saying "I told you so" may be about as much as can be expected; expressing surprise at the outcome is probably a bridge too far.

Hardly means you don't agree with the decision.  I can be sorry my student failed a test but fully support the grade. 

Personally, I think this was an appropriate human response. 

[Ruralguy]

OP was on the darn committee.

[Mobius]

There is also a difference in sending an unsolicited text and responding to one. Commiserating with a colleague who reached out might be OK (tread carefully), but sending that text out of the blue wasn't the best move.

[Kron3007]

OP was on the darn committee.

I still don't see an issue.

I had a student who failed his comprehensive exam.  I was on the exam committee.  Afterwards, I comiserated  with him and nd said I was sorry how the exam went because that is what humans do.  I really was sorry about how things went, but fully supported the decision (and said as much)

[polly_mer]

OP was on the darn committee.

I still don't see an issue.

I had a student who failed his comprehensive exam.  I was on the exam committee.  Afterwards, I comiserated  with him and nd said I was sorry how the exam went because that is what humans do.  I really was sorry about how things went, but fully supported the decision (and said as much)

HR will tell you about liability when acting in an official capacity and how certain normal human actions are not prudent when a lawsuit is a foreseeable outcome.

[mamselle]

+1 ^

The student you commiserate with is fairly unlikely to sue. Your colleague could.

Do you want to be called up as a witness in a court case to explain your text?

Do you want your internal folks to ask about it, if the denied individual points to the message as a sign, or "proof," that they have grounds to appeal or go go to court? (And people do, and win.)

I agree it's good to be kind to folks, but you have to look at all 360 degrees of the optics, not just the part that your kind, well-meant, but very limiting blinders let you see.

If he uses the text in court, do you want to have to say to his face, and before a judge, that you still do see, as you said at the outset, reason for the denial?

I'm sorry this is so hard, but sad as it is, it's a multivalent issue, with wheels within wheels, not all turning the same way...do you want to be ground like corn between them?

M.

[Ruralguy]

I guess in sum I'd certainly say it's good to show compassion, but sometimes some people just aren't the best positioned to do so. If you were on the committee and agreed with the decision, then perhaps you are not in such a great spot to be that person, at least not on this issue.  A lot of this depends on your prior relationship. If friendly, but distant, then commiserating now seems a bit off.

I don't think the OP did any harm, and who knows, might have done a little good, but it would probably be better to back off on this issue. Be nice about other things, but normal. Let him lead on this. Stay away from details.

[marshwiggle]

I guess in sum I'd certainly say it's good to show compassion, but sometimes some people just aren't the best positioned to do so. If you were on the committee and agreed with the decision, then perhaps you are not in such a great spot to be that person, at least not on this issue.

Exactly. If the person initiated contact, then replying with a compassionate "How are you doing?" would be completely reasonable without any implication about the decision itself.

Side note: If during an appeal, the "sorry to hear the news" message is brought up, other committee members could feel they've been thrown under the bus. Those people will be colleagues in the future, regardless of how this goes.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think anyone can make much of a simple "Sorry to hear the news," but, yes, I think some other committee members might not be too happy about if they see such a text.  If I were on an appeals committee I would certainly ask a lot of questions about it (might not get the answers and might not make much of it in the end, but I'd ask the questions).

[Kron3007]

+1 ^

The student you commiserate with is fairly unlikely to sue. Your colleague could.

Do you want to be called up as a witness in a court case to explain your text?

Do you want your internal folks to ask about it, if the denied individual points to the message as a sign, or "proof," that they have grounds to appeal or go go to court? (And people do, and win.)

I agree it's good to be kind to folks, but you have to look at all 360 degrees of the optics, not just the part that your kind, well-meant, but very limiting blinders let you see.

If he uses the text in court, do you want to have to say to his face, and before a judge, that you still do see, as you said at the outset, reason for the denial?

I'm sorry this is so hard, but sad as it is, it's a multivalent issue, with wheels within wheels, not all turning the same way...do you want to be ground like corn between them?

M.

Yes, I understand the logic behind this viewpoint but I refuse to let the potential risk of someone suing dictate my moral compass.  I also think that based on the contents of this text, the actual risk is very low and this is more of an academic discussion of the theoretical implications rather than any real risk.  On the off chance that I were called into court based on something like this, I would be very comfortable saying that I do regret losing a good research partner (or whatever they are to me), but fully understand and support the decision based on X, Y, and Z.  I dont see a conflict, and would guess that even the official letter "regrets to inform you that....".

As for HR, it is their job to worry about this kind of thing and would likely share your view, but they can kiss my arse (pardon my french).  It is not HR that are there to govern the university, in fact it is quite the opposite.  It seems that the OP was friendly and perhaps even an informal (or formal) mentor to them, so this is the right thing to do regardless of HR concerns.

This is not a black and white situation and we will just have to agree to disagree.  The only reason I chimed in is for the OP to know they are not alone in their view and that what they did was not necessarily "wrong", even if the powers that be say it was.