Spring Break
EDITORIAL: A clash of rules and egos
Editorial | 1/22/08
Posted online at 3:35 AM EST on 1/22/08
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once again at the abuses in the stilted investigation, it is troubling that the word of the student complainants has superseded Mr.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.
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.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
John Bottonari (Class of '75)
posted 1/22/08 @ 8:36 AM EST
This entire matter is a pitiable travesty. I suggest that the cosseted youth so mortified at hearing "wetback" apply themselves to rectifying injustice on the street instead of flourishing their "sensitivity. (Continued…)
John Bottonari
posted 1/25/08 @ 5:30 AM EST
As no one else has yet opined herein on this matter. let me add my own P.S.
My father--son of Italian peasants* who, but for his 88 years would also be Horowitz quarry--told me years ago that "WOP" had meant, "Without /immigration/ papers. (Continued…)
Karen
posted 1/25/08 @ 10:10 AM EST
These idiots are the ones demanding terrorist get their day in court and should be presumed innocent. Odd how Stalin-like tactics are being used by a university that used to have a reputation against such things. (Continued…)
Richard Cataldo '77
posted 1/26/08 @ 10:51 AM EST
I'm a former student of Prof. Donald Hindley and consider him one of the best teachers I had at Brandeis. I found him to be an open-minded , tolerant individual whose concern for the downtrodden of the Third World was always very clear. (Continued…)
John Bottonari
posted 1/26/08 @ 8:10 PM EST
Glad to see that others are also repelled at the unparodiable, desperate unhipness of the Provost.
MS. KRAUSS: Are you trying to catch up with the other privileged upper-middle-class White people whose high dudgeon--not to mention, utter incomprehension of their own privilege--piled-on Professor Summers at Harvard? Is the "Hindley Affair" a consequence of Brandeis's perhaps-unattainable aspiration to parity /parody/ with Harvard?
I, myself, am immensely grateful to, and for the existence of, Brandeis; and, I emphasize, I am NOT a "neoconservative. (Continued…)
Post a Comment