AAUP
American Association of University Professors
Oregon State University Chapter
Tenure Track Assistant Professor terminated at OSU
In the Fall of 2003, a tenure-track assistant professor in the Department of Psychology was given "timely notice" after three years of service. Timely notice is the term used by administrators when they decide not to reappoint an assistant professor. In other words, the faculty member is terminated or fired.
The Psychology Department case is remarkable in a number of ways:
First, the administrators refused to tell the faculty member on what grounds he was being terminated. When questioned by other faculty members, the administrators still refused to explain the termination. Apparently, the administration believes that dismissing someone "without cause" means that they do not have to provide a cause. This might be beneficial to the administration, but it is clearly inconsistent with conventional understanding of democracy and due process: He was not able to defend himself because he did not know his crime.
Second, when the case was brought before the University Grievance Committee, the administration finally produced a "reason" for the termination. Not only did this reason come too late for an adequate defense, but it was also inconsistent with the AAUP's policies. Because the affected individual had been rated as satisfactory in the core areas of research, teaching, and service, the administration resorted to a fourth criterion, "collegiality", in order to remove him: He was charged with being "noncollegial" because he filed a large number of grievances against other faculty and administrators.
We cannot defend the individual's excessive use of the grievance process, because the AAUP would rather see problems solved through mediation. Nevertheless, the use of collegiality as a grounds for dismissal is problematic in many ways. In general, the AAUP argues that it is extremely dangerous to use collegiality as a "fourth" criterion in faculty evaluation, because it can lead to constraints on academic freedom, and because it can be so easily exploited to remove someone (On collegiality as a criterion for faculty evaluation, 1999). More specifically, the AAUP points out that when considering dismissal, great care must be taken to ensure that the problem arises from the individual, and not from the environment in which he or she functions. In this case, the terminated faculty member's use of the grievance process (though excessive) was defensive in nature, due to his mistreatment by other members of the Psychology Department. In deciding to terminate the professor, the administrators gave inadequate consideration to the fact that he had to function within a hostile and non-collegial environment (Institutional regulations of academic freedom and tenure, 1999) and Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments ,1989).
Third, the administration violated AAUP principles by failing to consult with other members of the Psychology Department prior to making the decision to fire the professor. This was a unilateral decision orchestrated by the Chair of the Psychology Department (now retired) and higher level administrators. If they had bothered to consult faculty, then they would have been provided with additional information that might have prevented the termination; that is, they would have had a better understanding of the problematic nature of this department, as well as the damage to the curriculum that would result from the termination (Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, 1966).
This is a particularly unfortunate case. The terminated assistant professor was able to obtain a fixed-term position in Japan, but he had to leave before his grievance procedure was completed. As a result, his is long range career goals have been disrupted and most likely destroyed.
This is not the first time this has happened and it will not be the last. Indeed, a more recent and perhaps more egregious termination has occured in another college at OSU. Many more terminations are likely when the OSU-2007 Strategic Plan is initiated.
Assistant professors need to understand that the assumed six year probationary period can be terminated at the will of the administration. They should understand that the OSU Faculty handbook is misleading in implying that "termination without cause" applies to rare cases involving financial exigency and program reduction. A careful reading of the relevant OAR, as well as administrative actions such as those described above, indicate that assistant professors can and will be terminated for just about anything. Assistant professors need to do everything possible to protect themselves.
All professors should understand that such actions violate the right of fundamental AAUP principles of academic freedom and shared governance, as well as most academics understanding of tenure and the "six year" probationary period. We need to face the fact that dismissing someone without stating the cause violates basic human rights to due process.
