EDITORIAL: A clash of rules and egos

By:

Posted: 1/22/08

Following allegations that Prof. Donald Hindley (POL) violated the University's nondiscrimination policy for comments he made in his Latin American politics course, it became clear that serious accusations against a faculty member were being skewed by confusions in jurisdiction and disputes over proper procedure.

The disagreements between Provost Marty Krauss and the Committee for Faculty Rights and Responsibilities over who handles the appeals process, including who has the final say, whether Mr. Hindley's penalties should have remained in place during the appeals process and whether the Provost should have involved the Faculty Senate in her decision-making clouded the process of justice.

In the aftermath of the allegations, the CFRR accused Ms. Krauss of violating the procedures layed out in the University's Faculty Handbook.

However, it's difficult to accuse Ms. Krauss of violating procedure because two conflicting procedures exist. What seems present throughout is her persistent disregard for the faculty's feedback and a desire to control the process with an iron will of her own.

According to the Faculty Senate and the CFRR, the Provost strayed from the handbook's guidelines. The handbook requires the Provost to inform the Senate of possible terminations, which she threatened Mr. Hindley with last October. The handbook also states that the CFRR hears faculty appeals of penalties imposed by the administration, but Ms. Krauss says the committee serves only an advisory role.

This discord has convoluted an already uncertain resolution process. The Faculty Handbook requires department chairs to "resolve issues concerning faculty rights or responsibilities through direct discussions with the faculty member involved and/or through mediation." In addition, the Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy recommends that these problems be resolved "informally" and that the Human Resources and Employee Relations Department can "assist in this process."

Then, in her Dec. 10 memo that rejected the CFRR's ruling on this matter, the Provost asserted the authority of a separate appeals process led by Human Resources. In its response to Ms. Krauss' memo, the CFRR maintained that its voice in the appeals process is not just an "advisory" one, as the Provost described it.

Controversy in the classroom will inevitably arise on occasion, and it's shocking that a single process that gives justice to all was not developed long ago and agreed upon by all.

Whether Mr. Hindley deserves the Provost's penalties-which included having his classes monitored by a member of the Provost's office and having to attend an anti-discrimination seminar-is still unclear based on the facts available to us. All we know is that the Provost and the CFRR have different notions of how professors should be treated if accused of making racially insensitive remarks, and that the two standards seem at an irreconcilable crossroad at the moment.

We recommend the Provost work with a faculty committee to sort out this confusion and establish a straightforward and fair process. Let this case ignite debate for creating clearer relations between the faculty and the Provost's office.

Looking once again at the abuses in the stilted investigation, it is troubling that the word of the student complainants has superseded Mr. Hindley's throughout this process. While we feel that students should not be afraid of addressing their concerns, complaints must be viewed as only one side of a complicated picture. What Mr. Hindley has said about the incident in question and what the students who support him have been arguing should also be factored into an eventual decision.

Ms. Krauss pointed out in her Dec. 10 memo that in a case as serious as one involving potentially discriminatory conduct, the University was under a "legal obligation to take prompt and effective remedial action to end the harassing conduct and ensure that it did not recur." But, aside from the fact that sanctions were imposed on Mr. Hindley immediately, Ms. Krauss' original letter to him about the investigation into his actions didn't even notify him of his right to appeal the decision, according to the CFRR. While Ms. Krauss is correct that harassment law does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt, it is disturbing that a tenured professor who has spent 47 years at this University wasn't notified about his options for vindication.

The Provost's role in this episode has become so central that now her actions, and not just Mr. Hindley's, have been placed under the microscope. But by rejecting the CFRR's ruling on her decisions, Ms. Krauss has become, in the committee's words, "the final judge of her own actions." Someone else needs to be evaluating her judgments, and that person must be University President Jehuda Reinharz.

There is no clear indication of where this confusing resolution process is heading, and until it's shored up, it seems that Mr. Hindley will continue to pay the price for a decision he hasn't had a real chance to refute.