Sun 19 Sep 2004
A new, and extremely well-informed, anonynous source reports:
I am writing with information regarding the racial slur incident you’ve been discussing in EphBlog. The sanctions imposed on the faculty member in question are as follows:
1) She is not allowed to attend department meetings for five (5) years;
2) She is not allowed to participate in tenure and hiring decisions for five (5) years;
3) She is not allowed to supervise junior faculty or other colleagues in the department (i.e., she cannot become chairman of the department) for five years;
4) She will teach an additional undergraduate course every other year for the term of the sanctions (this additional course was assigned in light of the fact she will not attend meetings or do tenure-committee work).
Together, these constitute a minor sanction. The Dean of Faculty and senior College administrators imposed the sanctions (i.e., the Discrimination Grievance Committee was not involved).
I am a person with knowledge of this situation and feel that the debate in EphBlog and elsewhere needs to move beyond a guessing game (about the players involved in this incident) to a genuine debate about the nature of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanctions imposed. I hope the information I’ve provided fosters that debate.
Comments:
1) Great stuff! Many thanks to this source and all the other folks that provided EphBlog with information. I firmly believe that the College is best off handling this matter in the most transparent manner possible. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
2) As always with anonymous sources, we need to take care in evaluating these claims. With any luck, the College will officially confirm the information along with Professor Laleian’s identity. Even if the College doesn’t confirm it — and no doubt calls from the Record and Transcript will be coming soon — I would still wager that this information is correct. Who would have an incentive to lie about this, especially when others could so easily correct the record?
3) Although I had initially expressed an interest in finding out more details — who went to Dean Lenhardt, what sort of (ill)working relationships existed in the department — I know agree that we have enough of the details to “move beyond a guessing game.”
4) My own opinion depends on how similar, and not so similar, cases have been handled in the past. Are the sanctions imposed on Laleian the harshest that the College has imposed in the last 20 years or are they, relatively, light? What is the history of faculty-sanctioning at Williams? I am not looking for names and dates, just the sort of executive summary that the honor and discipline committee provides each semester.
Let the debate begin.
September 19th, 2004 at 8:39 pm
This thrust of this punishment is primarily the social exclusion from the department and its decision making apparatus. While the offender may have the title and pay of a tenured professor, her status is very akin to that of a visiting faculty member (who are not involved in any departmental decisions … and for good reason).
Past the psychological/sociological aspect, it isn’t clear to me that this is a punishment. No committee work for five years in exchange for 2 or 3 extra courses to be taught? I know many professors who hate meetings and would gladly accept such a deal. Perhaps the committee work at a liberal arts college is extremely light, but still, teaching a 3/4 load every other year doesn’t seem a huge punishment.
If the College is going to go for shunning as the punishment, they should go all the way. Why limit it to members of your department? The offender should be forced to wear a big red “R” for all to see. It is Massachusetts after all.
September 19th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
Hmmm, I have very mixed feelings about this entire discussion as I would not have engaged in any of the speculation that’s gone on. (That being said, I have, of course, avidly read every word of it, so my holier-than-thouness should not be over-interpreted.)
With regard to the sanctions as listed, however, I must say that I think many faculty would find them “minor” indeed. In fact, while there is the obvious loss of having say in departmental matters for five years, the amount of time freed up by not having to attend monstrously time-consuming meetings and doing committee work would be relished by many.
In addition, what kind of message does it send to assign extra teaching as part of the “sanction”? While many faculty would probably prefer the time saved from campus citizenship to go toward professional development, teaching is why most of us enter this profession in the first place. I daresay that many would be more than happy to trade time spent in meetings for time in the classroom.
It reminds me of an (amazing) professor I had in grad school, one who reached Williams’ level of excellence while teaching the hundreds of students in intro-level courses at Rutgers. He often commented on the absurdity of rewarding outstanding teaching with a reduced course load, as is the practice at many colleges and universities.
September 19th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
Punishing a Professor for speech. Yes, I said punishing a Professor for speech. Where have we heard this before?
September 20th, 2004 at 12:03 am
Is anyone clear about the context and intent of the statement? The Transcript article offers:
The fact that four faculty members went to Lenhart (separately?) would suggest that either: clear intent; or, group think.
It is possible that the phrase was intended as an ill-advised metaphor, but the subsequent sanctions would suggest that at least Lenhardt and the four professors who complained thought otherwise.
Judging the appropriateness of the sanctions is difficult when the event has been publicly discussed only in very vague terms.