BY JOHN K. WILSON

Last month, University of Mississippi assistant professor of history Garrett Felber was fired in one of the most remarkable attacks on academic freedom in recent memory, a dismissal that violates the First Amendment, academic freedom, shared governance, the faculty handbook, AAUP guidelines, and basic principles of intellectual standards, fairness, and justice.

Last week, Henry Reichman explained some of the AAUP’s concerns about this case, but since I don’t speak for the AAUP, I wanted to give my own personal view in more detail about exactly why this case is so appalling.

The firing of Felber is an alarming attack on academic freedom, and it has been met with statements from the American Historical Association, PEN America, FIRE, United Campus Workers of Mississippi, the Organization of American Historians, and an open letter from faculty around the world (including a call to boycott speaking at the university, which I disagree with because I’d be happy to speak at the University of Mississippi about why this firing endangers academic freedom).

The clearest reason to object to Felber’s dismissal is that it appears to be political retaliation against Felber for his anti-racist activism and criticism of the department’s decision earlier this fall to reject a grant that Felber had applied for. The evidence of this retaliation is very convincing, considering that Felber has an extremely strong record as a researcher.

However, instead of focusing on the clearly damning motives behind Felber’s dismissal, I will try to explain exactly why his firing is a violation of due process, professional standards, AAUP guidelines, and the University of Mississippi faculty handbook.

Unlike the typical hiring of adjunct faculty, the hiring of tenure-track faculty is a collective endeavor by an entire department. The idea that a department chair acting on her own can simply decide to fire a tenure-track professor without consulting the department is a shocking abuse of power, and a violation of shared governance within the history department.

Anne Twitty, associate professor of history at the University of Mississippi, reported on December 18, “Today, we, this history faculty, finally met to discuss my friend @garrett_felber’s sudden, unilateral termination by the chair of our department. I did not learn anything that would change my initial assessment: her action was unprecedented and unwarranted.”

Today, we, this history faculty, finally met to discuss my friend @garrett_felber's sudden, unilateral termination by the chair of our department.

I did not learn anything that would change my initial assessment: her action was unprecedented and unwarranted. https://t.co/3azT2Ns3xI

— Anne Twitty (@ProfessorTwitty) December 19, 2020

 

To understand why this dismissal is so extraordinary, let’s discuss the difference between firing a professor for cause and firing a professor for lack of merit. Firing for cause means some kind of serious violation of professional responsibilities that justifies firing a professor despite any of their academic merits. The University of Mississippi is not firing Felber for cause. You must hold a hearing to fire a professor for cause, and you do not need to provide a year’s notice.

Firing a professor for lack of merit is a different matter, and status affects it. Lack of merit basically means you’re just not good enough at your job and should be fired. If you are a tenured professor, it requires very strong evidence and a hearing to try to fire someone for lack of merit. If you are a short-term adjunct professor without contractual protections, not being renewed for lack of merit is a constant threat since it requires no proof or hearing.

Tenure-track professors can be fired for lack of merit, but typically this only happens through the tenure process and a denial of tenure. Firing a tenure-track professor for lack of merit before a tenure hearing is extraordinarily rare. That’s because the whole idea of a tenure-track hire is to give someone enough time to prove their worth. Firing a tenure-track professor before their tenure hearing is essentially saying that the professor is doing so badly that they have no hope of rectifying their record before their tenure hearing. To fire a tenure-track professor for these reasons under AAUP guidelines, “The faculty member will be advised of the time when decisions affecting renewal or tenure are ordinarily made and will be given the opportu­nity to submit material believed to be helpful to an adequate consideration of the faculty member’s circumstances.” None of this due process has been provided to Felber.

It is worth noting that the University of Mississippi is also not claiming that Felber lacks merit. Instead, the department chair who fired Felber, Noell Wilson, has invented a completely novel reason for firing a professor, one that I have never encountered before in the history of higher education. Inside HIgher Ed reported,

Noel Wilkin, provost at Ole Miss, defended Wilson in a statement, saying that Wilson “recommended a 12-month notice of non-renewal for Dr. Garrett Felber. She sent her recommendation to Dr. Felber in a letter that he subsequently disclosed to dozens of members of the university community.”

Wilson therein described “multiple instances where Dr. Felber refused to speak to her, and how that refusal made it impossible to maintain a productive working relationship necessary to supervise his faculty responsibilities,” the provost said. “Dr. Wilson’s recommendations for a 12-month notice of non-renewal is consistent with [American Association of University Professors] standards and university policy for untenured faculty.”

Basically, Wilson has asserted that because Felber is not speaking to her right now about the research grant, Wilson will be unable to perform an adequate evaluation of Felber’s tenure case when it happens.

This makes absolutely no sense. Tenure evaluations are based on merit about research, teaching, and service. Having personal conversations would provide little to no relevant information about a tenure candidate. Even if Felber refused to speak with Wilson personally in the wake of her rejection of his grant (which he absolutely has not done), there is no basis to say that he would never speak to her in the coming years.

As Felber noted, “The idea, moreover, that one should be recommended for termination simply because a department chair has been unable to schedule a phone call or video conference with a faculty member on approved research leave during a roughly two week period is deeply troubling.”

Does Felber have an obligation to speak with Wilson in order for her to evaluate his tenure case? The University of Mississippi policy on tenure states: “Chairs shall confer individually, after consultation with their tenured departmental faculty and academic dean, with all non-tenured faculty in tenure-track positions once a year concerning their current performance. Each faculty member whose status is being reviewed shall be so notified by his or her department chair no later than March 1 of each year. Relevant information pertaining to the faculty member’s progress toward tenure shall be provided by the faculty member to the department chair. Discussions between tenured faculty members of each applicable department and the department chair shall take place regarding the individual’s progress. These discussions should be followed closely by a helpful and candid meeting between the department chair and the faculty member under review, this by means of a written evaluation, a copy of the same being given to the candidate at the time of the oral evaluation. Such meeting shall be held no later than May 1.”

We must constantly repeat the fact that Felber has never refused to speak with Wilson about his annual review or tenure case, and so the only given reason for firing him is completely baseless. Wilson has never informed Felber this year of having a “helpful and candid meeting” about progress toward tenure, But even if Felber had refused this policy-mandated meeting, it would not justify denying him tenure and certainly would not justify immediate dismissal. This requirement for a tenure progress meeting is an obligation on the administration, not the faculty member. The evaluation of the faculty member is what matters; the meeting is simply to aid the faculty member in understanding the written evaluation. The fact that the written evaluation must be completed by the chair before any meeting with the faculty member is further proof that this meeting is not essential to the chair’s evaluation, and that Wilson’s excuse for firing Felber is completely without merit since she has not yet had any required meeting with other tenured faculty about Felber’s evaluation. Even if any of this could justify firing a tenure-track professor (and it can’t), AAUP guidelines require universities to evaluate the professor’s overall merit, and colleges cannot fire someone based solely on one factor–and considering that Wilson herself publicly praised Felber as “an indefatigable researcher and community builder,” it’s especially difficult to make any case for lacking merit overall.

Chit-chat between professors may be considered common courtesy by some, but it is not a professional obligation listed in any job description. Even if the service obligations of a professor included faculty meetings where the chair is present (which Felber has never refused to participate in), that would not compel personal meetings.

Under normal circumstances, a chair demanding personal meetings with faculty would be a highly unusual requirement for continued employment as a professor. But there is another important fact that must be considered here: Felber is on a research leave at Harvard this academic year, a leave that was granted (and celebrated) by Wilson. A leave means that Felber is relieved of the normal professional duties he would otherwise have. So even if you somehow accept the bizarre theory that personal meetings with the chair are an essential duty for a professor, this does not apply to a professor on leave.

Even if Felber made a decision not to speak to Wilson on certain matters, it would be completely reasonable in the wake of Wilson’s rejection of the grant Felber received. If you believe that a department chair is hostile to you and biased against your political beliefs, it is absolutely rational to want a record of your communications. While some might interpret the silent treatment as a form of hostility, it can also be a way of de-escalating conflicts. If personal conversations can tend to devolve into harsh arguments and misunderstandings about what was said, discussions by email–where you have time to consider your thoughts and edit what you say–can be a better choice. The assertion in this case that personal meetings are always better than email and a professional obligation for colleagues is absurd.

The firing of Felber is wrong because it violates the due process required for a tenure-track professor, both according to AAUP guidelines and the rules at the University of Mississippi. A faculty handbook is a contract between the university and the faculty, and it must be followed by the administration, even if it includes mistakes. The University of Mississippi faculty handbook provides a link to separate policies for “Termination of Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty” and “Termination of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty.” But the policy for “Termination of Untenured Faculty” Invoked to fire Felber says that it applies to “tenure-track faculty during their probationary period” (which certainly violates AAUP guidelines requiring additional due process for dismissing tenure-track faculty). Because the Faculty Handbook functions as a contract, the University of Mississippi must follow the policy linked in the Faculty Handbook, and apply the same standards for dismissing tenured faculty to tenure-track faculty with the exception of the tenure decision itself. The University of Mississippi cannot promise tenure-track faculty one procedure for termination in the Faculty Handbook and then violate that promise, even if some of their policies allow something different. The Faculty Handbook creates a contractual obligation to provide due process. The policy on non-tenured faculty termination allows the administration to dismiss tenure-track faculty only when other policies and contracts do not prohibit it, as they do here.

All of the evidence points to the firing as being based entirely on politics. But even if this firing was done without any political motives, it is still completely indefensible. The reasons for firing Felber are the least substantial excuse for firing a tenure-track professor that I’ve ever encountered in my decades of studying higher education. The firing violates basic due process, it violates AAUP guidelines, and it violates the University of Mississippi’s own rules.

What does the University of Mississippi need to do now in this case to restore its credibility?

1. Immediately rescind the dismissal of Garrett Felber and apologize for the violation of his rights.
2. The history faculty should demand the removal of Prof. Wilson from her role as chair of the department due to her abuse of power and misconduct in this case.
3. The Academic Freedom Committee should investigate these violations of academic freedom at the university, and all important documents related to these cases should be released.
4. Campus policies should be fixed to clarify adequate protections for tenure-track faculty and to eliminate the unconstitutionally vague faculty speech code that bans “malfeasance, inefficiency, or contumacious conduct.”