EDITORIAL: A clash of rules and egos
Editorial | 1/22/08
Posted online at 3:35 AM EST on 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."
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."
0 
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