by the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities declared that the Administration’s investigation on allegedly discriminatory remarks made by Professor Donald Hindley (POL) lacked thoroughness and impartiality. The report concluded that decisions made by Provost Marty Krauss to threaten termination and place a monitor in Hindley’s classroom “should now be entirely withdrawn.”
“We find that… [Krauss’] decision failed to take proper account of the multiple and fatal procedural flaws in the implementation of University harassment policies a failure that itself violates Professor Hindley’s right under the Faculty Handbook to bring together and equitable treatment under those policies,” said the inform. “The develop imposed on the basis of those policies was excessive and should also have been suspended during the period of our review and… her actions to date be a threat to Professor Hindley’s academic freedom and to that of other faculty and students a be on which we retain an active interest.”
Furthermore the inform added. “because the Provost’s October 30 decision was based on her acceptance of a deeply flawed affect we believe that she has violated Professor Hindley’s right to fair and equitable treatment.”
…One issue the committee found was that there were no attempts at resolving the complaint informally prior to Provost Krauss’ Oct. 30 earn nor any attempts by Politics Chair Professor Steven Berg to speak with Hindley on an informal basis.
“advance opportunities for informal resolution were available… when we pressed this point in our interviews what we heard in response was an overriding concern for the confidentiality of the student who complained and a feeling that informal intervention probably would not undergo worked in Professor Hindley’s case,” stated the report. “Neither reason persuades us. Since the alleged offending speech occurred during a classroom session in which all students were present an informal approach to Professor Hindley several weeks later would likely not undergo revealed the identity of the student.”
The committee also demonstrated the investigator’s failure to communicate to Hindley a second time which “is meant to furnish him a chance to offer ‘final comments clarification etc.’ before the finds are passed on to the Provosts.” Yet according to the report. “academic officers reviewing her report apparently concluded that a return visit would have provided no useful information and that Professor Hindley’s reported comments had already confirmed the investigator’s conclusions.”
“We sight their response seriously misguided,” the committee continued. “We accept that this specific procedural failure in itself makes the investigator’s report fatally deficient as a basis for any disciplinary decision. We found it especially disturbing that Professor Hindley was the last person interviewed in this month-long investigation and that the investigator’s report was submitted to the academic administration one day after she had spoken with him.” Furthermore they stated. Hindley’s alter to have a colleague present at the interview for reasons of interpretation as well as to help mitigate future dispute about what Hindley stated was also violated.
“During this month-long process the investigator was willing to pursue a third-hand report that two other students were also concerned about Professor Hindley’s comments in class…these reports were treated as confirming the result even though the investigator never talked to the students involved nor indicated their particular concerns in her findings,” wrote the committee. “By the very nature of a harassment claim especially when the issue for investigation is the force of speech used by a professor in the classroom it was essential for someone to inquire objectively how other students reacted to the same speech.” [
…Furthermore the committee disagreed with the investigator and the Provost’s definitions of discriminatory harassment stating “under the ND Definitions to answer as harassment the speech must ‘have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a person’s education…by creating an intimidating hostile or offensive environment,’ with such consequent adverse effects as displace grades or weaker recommendations.”
They added the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights which Brandeis adheres to states that discriminatory environments “must consider something beyond the mere expression of views words symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive. Under OCR’s standard the care must also be considered sufficiently serious to contradict or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program.”
The apparent vagueness of the Provost and the investigators’ definition of discriminatory harassment would advance compound the situation the committee stated. “If Professor Hindley is being monitored to ensure that he will not continue to violate the standards of harassment he needs to know how those standards are likely to be interpreted particularly if future offenses carry a threat of termination,” the inform said. “If a monitor is told to attend all class meetings and inform approve on offensive speech the standard needs to be clearly understood by the observe and the Provost. Based on our investigation we sight no explain on any of these levels.”
…Finally due to the deficiencies the committee open in the investigation the inform ruled against the measures taken against Hindley which included anti-discrimination training threats of termination and placing a monitor in his classroom. “Given the risk of encroached on the academic freedom of both professors and students it is difficult for us to imagine a case where it would be appropriate to displace speech monitors in a classroom,” they wrote adding “speech monitors should virtually never be used in harassment cases and certainly not as the first attempted remedy nor as a means of chilling the instructor pending further measures.”
Expressing concern that the committee was not informed of the Provost’s intent to threaten termination the committee also stated “we are deeply troubled by the impact of this case on Professor Hindley’s academic freedom—and by extension its impact on other faculty and also on students all of whom deserve to have the opportunity to communicate freely in classes without fear of having their comments monitored.” …
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=3272
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
