Kaleidoscope of Questions

A single tenure case raised questions about the Faculty Senate, a hearing board, and the Power Committees.


Why do most men value looks over brains in women? Because most men can see better than they can think.

Many Puget Sound faculty care more for beautiful form than for righteous sub­stance because appearances are more attainable and accessible than actualities and because forms are more easily faked than essences. When procedures are too obviously flouted, our sys­tem provides for formal appeal to a hearing board and for rectification by the Faculty Ad­vance­ment Committee [FAC]. These entities usually tidy up proceedings more than they remedy substantive injustices. Indeed, folklore among the ancient faculty holds that hearing boards are not authorized to consider substantive miscarriages of justice but only violations of procedures. What aspirations! What aspirations?

The very first hearing board under the new Faculty Code raised questions about the ability of a hearing board, the Professional Standards Committee [PSC], the Faculty Senate, and the Faculty Advancement Committee [FAC], among others, to meet procedural, let alone substantive, norms. If our colleagues usually do procedural justice better than they do substantive justice and if several colleagues did procedural justice so poorly in 2003-2004, how badly do they routinely bollix substantive justice?


Oh look outside the window,
There's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes
And now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Phil Ochs


An evaluee ambushed in her departmental deliberation by allegations and letters from students was informed by the Chair of the PSC that she could appeal informally or for­mal­ly but not both. Guided by this misreading of the code, the evaluee elected a for­mal appeal to a hearing board. What can we do to get junior faculty better advice? Get the PSC to elect more competent chairs?

The hearing board held no hearing. Rather, it directed the de­partment that allegations must be aired in a forum in which the accused would have a chance to answer. The de­part­ment, if it wanted to prosecute the evaluee, would have to use an ap­pro­priate forum, the PSC. In other words, “grieve it or leave it.” What could go wrong with that?

The PSC, without authority and for reasons unknown to me, then took over the process. First, the PSC determined that the hearing board had ceased to exist once it issued its rulings about violations of the code and its recommendations for correcting those viola­tions. Please re-read that last sentence. The official interpreters of the Faculty Code declared that a hearing board that had failed to hold a hearing had completed its work when it issued its recommendations. What time will such creative thinking save in future cases? Will the PSC resolve grievances without hearings, witnesses, or evidence? Will the President decide disputes without grievances or responses?

Although the hearing board did not authorize the PSC to do anything – a hearing board has no such authority to bestow – the PSC or its chair then began to collate and to reformulate allegations. Supplementing the original allegations and rewriting the charges in a manner that would offend due process as understood by students in eighth-grade civics, the PSC thanked the hearing board for its good work but snootily stated that im­ple­mentation of the hearing board’s remedy was a matter for the PSC. Now what authority made implementation a matter for the PSC?

The hearing board protested the actions of the PSC via memorandum to the Chair of the Faculty Senate, which allegedly oversees its committees. That chair promptly de­posited said letter in his desk without informing the senate of its existence. When will the Faculty Senate take oversight seriously?

After the department’s re-deliberation, the evaluee placed no faith in another for­mal appeal – If you wonder why, you are not paying attention – so she informally appealed. Despite the clear dictates of the Faculty Code, the departmental chair did not meet with the evaluee or attempt to recon­cile differences. How did the FAC miss that violation of the new code?

The FAC then took months to deal with the matter, demanding submissions from the evaluee and sending materials back to the department without any authority that I can dis­cern. I was a member of the FAC at this time, so I should be aware of such authority if it existed. Where did the FAC get the idea that it could demand anything from an evaluee?

My answers to the questions above? A rogue PSC, a slumbering Faculty Senate, an un­responsive FAC, and administrators either inept or insidious generated a perfect procedural storm of nonfeasance and malfeasance.

Riding down the highway, yes, my back is getting stiff
Thirteen cars are piled up, they're hanging on a cliff.
Maybe we should pull them back with our towing chain
But we gotta move and we might get sued and it looks like it's gonna rain
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Still Phil Ochs


Next – “Litigiousness” – When substantive and procedural inequities propel faculty members to pursue their rights, such faculty are denounced as litigious. Would that litigiousness were rampant!