BY HANK REICHMAN
The termination earlier this month of University of Mississippi assistant professor of history Garrett Felber, ostensibly because he declined to communicate orally with his department chair while on leave, has attracted considerable attention, including an open letter to the administration protesting his termination, which has to date attracted over 5,000 signatures. Because this case may at some point become the subject of an AAUP investigation and a possible recommendation by Committee A that the school’s administration be censured for violating academic freedom — which, hopefully, will not be necessary — as chair of that committee I cannot offer any sort of judgment of this case based solely on media coverage. However, because a university spokesman claimed that the department chair’s “recommendations for a 12-month notice of nonrenewal is consistent with AAUP standards” I have been asked whether that is indeed the case. In response, I can confirm that the decision to provide a year’s notice does accord with AAUP standards with respect to notice, but it is questionable whether other, arguably more important, standards have been observed.
Specifically, I have concerns about both the process that reportedly has been followed and the stated grounds for termination.
With respect to process, it appears that the department chair acted unilaterally and that there was no formal or informal review by an appropriate faculty body. Indeed, members of the department report being “completely blindsided.” This is highly unusual and certainly would appear to violate at least the spirit of AAUP policies. Peremptory power not to renew a faculty member’s appointment may threaten academic freedom. Moreover, a tenure-track appointment implies a more ongoing relationship than other term appointments, even if it doesn’t offer the extent of protection provided by tenure, and hence requires greater due process protection. Fortunately, thanks to previous cases that led to AAUP censure at UM, the university, in order to remove that censure, adopted policies — in basic compliance with sections 5 and 10 of the AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (see also Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments) — that provide for appeals of such actions to a faculty review body that can adjudicate whether a professor’s academic freedom has been violated. The university must now expeditiously provide Professor Felber with access to such an appeal.
With regard to grounds for termination, the department chair’s claim that Professor Felber failed over a two month period, while on leave, to communicate orally seems grossly inadequate in the absence of any stated concerns about his teaching or scholarship. Professors are not subordinate to their chairs or other administrators, nor is lack of collegiality an appropriate criterion for disciplinary action, much less dismissal. Termination on such grounds alone would more than likely amount to a violation of academic freedom.
As the 1940 joint Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure noted, “During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have.” As the Recommended Institutional Regulations state, “Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.” This is the AAUP standard that must be applied in this case.
Pingback: In Defense of Garrett Felber | ACADEME BLOG
Although I agree with most of the statements in Hank Reichman’s excellent post, I must take exception to the characterization of the nonrenewal of Professor Felber’s appointment as a “dismissal” or “termination.” Professor Felber holds a probationary (tenure-track), not a tenured, appointment. Unlike tenured appointments, which are of indefinite duration and can be terminated only for cause (and, under extraordinary circumstances, because of a bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuance), appointments that are probationary for tenure are for a definite term (usually one year) and are subject to renewal or nonrenewal when they expire. Professor Felber was denied reappointment in his fourth year of service at the University of Mississippi. As the decision was negative, his appointment was not renewed beyond the following academic year. The AAUP standards applicable to nonrenewal of term appointments are set forth in Regulation 2 (Probationary Appointments) and, as Professor Reichman points out, Regulation 10 (Complaints of Violation of Academic Freedom or of Discrimination in Nonreappointment) of the AAUP’s “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” As Professor Reichman also indicates, these procedural standards are more fully elaborated in the AAUP’s “Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments.”
But Regulation 5 (Dismissal Procedures) of the “Recommended Institutional Regulations” is not applicable to the nonrenewal of a probationary appointment, regardless of whether that nonrenewal occurs in the tenure year or in previous years. Regulation 5 governs dismissal for cause of a faculty member with indefinite tenure or of a probationary faculty member whom an administration seeks to dismiss for cause PRIOR to the expiration of the term of appointment. Professor Felber’s situation does not fall into either of these categories. As Professor Reichman points out, if Professor Felber believes that the the nonrenewal of his tenure-track appointment resulted in significant part from considerations that violated his academic freedom, he is entitled to pursue his claims in that regard under the procedures set forth in Regulation 10, which, as Professor Reichman also points out, is incorporated in the official policies of the University of Mississippi. But the AAUP’s dismissal standards are inapplicable.
B. Robert Kreiser
Senior Program Officer, 1982-2013
AAUP Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance
Given Bob Kreiser’s decades of experience at the AAUP dealing with such cases, I am happy to grant that he is no doubt correct that technically the action taken against Professor Felber was a non-renewal and not a termination and that Regulation 5 of the RIR is not precisely applicable in this case. That said, the question arises whether in the case of a nonrenewal decided without due process and perhaps outside the institution’s usual renewal and tenuring procedures this amounts to a distinction without much of a difference. If Professor Felber was in his tenure year I would presume that the University of Mississippi, like most institutions with tenure systems, has a regular procedure to decide whether or not candidates for tenure will be renewed to that status. They may also have regular procedures governing renewal decisions earlier in the process. (I have not as yet looked into the university’s promotion, tenure, and review policies.) Whether or not these processes fully comport with AAUP standards, I seriously doubt they countenance individual action by a department chair without any formal review by a faculty body or without warning to the candidate. Hence it would appear that this is far from, as Bob suggests, simply an unfavorable tenure decision. But these are the sorts of issues that an AAUP investigation would seek to examine. In the meantime, given that the charges made by Professor Felber and his many supporters stand unrebutted, let us hope that the university will soon reconsider its actions or, at minimum, afford Professor Felber an appropriate avenue of appeal to a duly constituted and representative faculty body.