The-Ave.US

More on the UW administration’s problems with following the Faculty Code.

In this letter, stored in our Library, Attorney David Corbett defends a faculty member from UW Tacoma.  The letter, however, is not really about that faculty member.  The letter details, in a very orderly way, a series of violations of the Faculty Code, all too similar to the Aprikyan affair and the way Mark Emmert dismissed the vote of the Senate last fall.

This letter suggest a further question, who is the person responsible for interpreting the faculty code? The Ave invites Dr. Killien, Secretary of the Faculty,  to comment on the issues raised by Attorney Corbett’s letter.

While there are many attorneys on campus, most of these must not function as attorneys since State law limits that job to the Attorney General and her or his delegated attorneys.  Nonetheless, these UW staff members often appear at meetings as representatives of the State and claim to be able to rule on what is and is not law on the campus.  Under the Code, the only person who is supposed to have that authority is the Secretary of the Faculty, currently Marcia Killien, [email protected].

An additional question is whether there is even a record of changes that have been made to The Code by the administrators responsible for the UW Handbook?  As I read the code today, it seems to me that many provisions, especially those relating to free speech and academic governance, have been weakened.  I do not remember these changes being voted on by the Faculty.  Is there an official  formal record of all changes made to the Code over the years?

The Ave invites Dr. Killien to comment on the issues raised by Attorney Corbett’s letter.

(note: possible spelling erros here are due to OCR)

Letter is abstracted below and in THE-Ave Library.

Dear President Wise and Professors Harrington and Christie,

I recently represented a UW professor with a complaint against then-Provost Wise
and other members of the University administration. Although that matter has now
settled, documents submitted on behalf of the administration during the proceedings
establish that the Office of the Provost is systematically violating the Faculty Code. In
particular, the administration maintained in writing that the Provost has the authority to
unilaterally discipline faculty members for alleged violations of University rules or laws
without ftrst having a hearing in front of a faculty (or faculty/student/staff) panel,
provided only that the discipline imposed falls short of “removal from a position (or
‘ discriminatory reduction ofsahuy,).,,1 “Unless the proposed action would meet th[is]
threshold . . . any Faculty Adjudication should come only after the University has taken
action, Le., imposed discipline. ,,2 Moreover, the administration implied that the Provost
exercises this purported authority in “dozens and dozens” cfcases each year.)

Any unilateral imposition of discipline on a faculty member without a prior
hearing violates Section 28-32(A) of the Faculty Code, which states as follows:

[I] if reasonable causes exist to adjudicate charges that a faculty member
has violated University regulations or state or federal laws pertaining to
the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties …. then, before
taking any disciplinary or punitive action against such faculty member, the
Provost shall initiate an adjudication for resolution of such charges
(emphasis added). 4 This language is not ambiguous.’ It leaves no room for.!:IDY
disciplinary or punitive action against a non-consenting faculty member prior to the
initiation of an adjudication.6 Moreover. the extent of discipline imposed, if any. is
initially detennined by the hearing panel or hearing officer. not by the administration.7

The history of Chapter 28 and the related § 25-71 decisively confirms the plain
meaning of the Code’s text. When the faculty approved the 1994 amendments that gave
those provisions their current [ann, they knew that they were changing the adjudication
system from one in which “a dean can take disciplinary action against a faculty member,
including revocation of tenure, before the faculty member has the opportunity to respond
to the accusations at a hearing” to one where “[t]he administration could not take
disciplinary action against a faculty member until a hearing has been held and a Hearing
Panel finds that the disciplinary action should be taken .. ,8 Then-President Gerberding
and the entire Senate Executive Committee specifically discussed, and unanimously
endorsed, this precise feature of the amendments.9 Everyone understood that they were
ushering in a new system where there could be no discipline of any non-consenting
faculty member without a prior adjudication. 10 On paper, that system has remained
effectively unaltered since 1994, and it remains binding on all of the University’s faculty.
including the Provost and the President.
In practice, the administration-by its own admission- violates the Faculty Code
“dozens and dozens” of limes a year by imposing supposedly minor discipline on non-consenting
professors without first holding the required hearings. 12 However abstract
and bloodless these violations may appear at first glance, they are surely not experienced
as such by the faculty subject to them, Moreover, the Office of the Provost plays an
important role in enforcing the University’ s rules. It should not be violating those rules,
certainly not “dozens and dozens” of times a year, and above all, not knowingly. To put it
in mildly, knowing violation of the rules is cheating. Since the University claims to
uphold academic integrity as one of its basic principles, it must find a way to close the
glaring gap between its rules and its practice.  To muddle along as if the Code doesn’t
mean what it clearly says will expose the University to continuing litigation and ridicule.

Sincerely,

David Corbett

(see Library for end note citations).