| |
Vice Chancellor Frederick Shaffer
outlines the procedures used in the case
At the
monthly plenary session of the University Faculty Senate last night, a
number of persons raised some concerns with the Chancellor about the
action taken by the Board of Trustees at its meeting on Monday to grant
tenure to Robert David Johnson of the Brooklyn College History Department
and to promote him to full professor. In addition, there have been
some e-mails on the UFS list serve on the subject. The purpose of
this memorandum is to set forth the main background facts concerning the
procedures that were followed and to address some of the specific
misapprehensions that have been expressed. Because of the
confidentiality of personnel matters, I will not deal with the substance
of the tenure and promotion decision.
I. The Governance Issue
Under the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, all recommendations of a
college president concerning appointment, promotion and tenure are
made by the college President to the Chancellor, who in turn presents them
to the Board with his recommendations, if any. The final decision on
such matters rests with the Board. While It is not common for either
the Chancellor or the Board to reject a college's recommendation on such a
matter, it has occurred before, and it is clearly within their
authority to do so. Neither the Chancellor nor the Board is intended
to be a rubber stamp, any more than the college President is intended to
be a rubber stamp of the personnel committee(s) of the college.
Indeed, the Board expects the Chancellor to exercise his judgment with
respect to matters he brings before it.
II. The Usual Grievance Procedure
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a faculty member who is
dissatisfied with a decision concerning promotion or tenure (among other
things) may file a grievance. An effort to resolve a grievance
initially occurs at a meeting with the President or her designee (Step 1);
if the grievance is not settled at that level, a similar effort is
undertaken with the Chancellor or his designee (Step 2). At either
step, the settlement may include the full range of remedies, including the
appointment of a "select faculty committee" (see next paragraph).
If those efforts to resolve the grievance are unsuccessful, the faculty
member may commence an arbitration. If the arbitrator finds that the
grievance is meritorious, however, the remedy may not include a grant of
tenure or promotion, or any other exercise of academic judgment. Rather,
the arbitrator must remand the decision to a select faculty committee
consisting of three faculty members who are not from the same college as
the grievant. The list of names for service on a select faculty is
negotiated and modified from time to time by the University and the PSC.
There are currently about 50 names on the list. The actual selection
of names for a specific matter is made within the University's Office of
Faculty and Staff Relations.
III. The Procedure Followed Here
Early last year Professor Johnson applied for promotion from associate to
full professor. Under the Bylaws, if he had been promoted to full
professor, he would have been granted tenure upon his next reappointment.
His application for promotion was denied by the appropriate faculty
committees at Brooklyn College primarily on the basis of an alleged lack
of collegiality. Professor Johnson's excellent record of scholarship
and teaching was never in doubt. Professor Johnson appealed that
denial to the President. Prior to that appeal, Professor Johnson,
with the assistance of the PSC, had also filed a grievance relating to his
annual evaluation.
In October, the private counsel who represented Professor Johnson in
connection with the appeal [Robert M. Rosen, Rosen, Leff, Esqs.] submitted
a detailed memorandum to the President, the Chancellor, the Executive Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for Faculty and Staff
Relations and me setting forth certain alleged irregularities in the
denial of promotion. My receipt of that memorandum was the first
time I had ever heard of Professor Johnson. After reading the
memorandum, I requested and carefully reviewed Professor Johnson's
personnel file. I then reported to the Chancellor that some of the
points raised by Professor's Johnson's counsel concerned me and could be
the basis for a successful grievance.
At around that time, a number of reports began to appear in the press and
elsewhere about this matter. Letters also came in from faculty (at
Brooklyn College and elsewhere), students and other interested persons -
both supporting and opposing Professor Johnson's promotion. The
Chancellor concluded that it was not in the best interest of Brooklyn
College and the University to allow this dispute to fester over a
prolonged period
while Professor Johnson pursued his legal remedies. He therefore
directed me to get in touch with Professor Johnson's counsel to see if
there was some way to resolve this matter. About that time, but
unrelated to those discussions, the President of Brooklyn College
reappointed Professor Johnson for next year, contrary to the
recommendation of the History Department.
In early February the University reached a settlement with Professor
Johnson that provided for the appointment by the Chancellor of a "special
faculty committee" to make a recommendation to him concerning Professor
Johnson's promotion and tenure. Since the settlement was reached
outside the grievance process, and Professor Johnson was not represented
by the PSC in connection with the settlement, it was not necessary to
follow the precise details of the Collective Bargaining Agreement,
although the intent was to incorporate the basic thrust of a grievance
settlement. However, the Chancellor wished to include for
consideration for service on the special faculty committee a broader array
of faculty than was on the CUNY/PSC list, especially in the field of
history and related disciplines. Furthermore, the Chancellor wanted
to personally select the members to satisfy himself that the committee was
composed of the most distinguished faculty possible. He ultimately chose
Pamela Sheingorn, Professor of History at Baruch College and Executive
Director of the Doctoral Program in Theatre at the Graduate Center, David
Reynolds, University Distinguished Professor of English at Baruch College
and Louis Masur, Professor of History and Chair of the History Department
at The City College. There surely cannot be any questions as to the
competence or integrity of such a committee. Furthermore, the Chancellor
had no contact with the members of the
special faculty committee until after they had completed their work.
The Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs asked them to serve on
the committee, and I provided them with a memorandum setting forth their
duties.
The special faculty committee reviewed the entire record, conferred and
voted unanimously to recommend that Professor Johnson be granted tenure
and be promoted to full professor. No one at the Central Office had
any substantive communication with any member concerning the merits of
this matter. The committee operated independently and its conclusion
was entirely its own.
Thereafter, the Chancellor reviewed the record, which included reading one
of Professor Johnson's books, and interviewed Professor Johnson. He
reached the same conclusion as the committee. As the Chancellor
stated at the meeting of the Board of Trustees, although collegiality is a
factor that may be considered in connection with promotion and tenure
decisions, he did not find compelling and objective evidence of a major
problem in that regard sufficient to trump Professor Johnson's truly
outstanding record of scholarship, teaching and other aspects of service.
That decision was based entirely on the merits--without regard for the
views of anyone else, either within or without the University.
|
|