Brown University Task Force on Faculty Governance February 21, 2003 Report to FEC

From: John Savage 
To: Mary_Doane@Brown.edu, Carolyn_Dean@Brown.edu, James_Egan@Brown.edu,
   Constantine_Gatsonis@Brown.edu, Michael_Rosen@Brown.edu,
   Susan_Short@Brown.edu, Anne_Fausto-Sterling@Brown.edu,
   Michael_White@Brown.edu, Rajiv_Vohra@Brown.edu, Russell_Church@Brown.edu,
   L_Gromet@Brown.edu, Nancy_Armstrong@Brown.edu, Richard_Fishman@Brown.edu,
   John_Savage@Brown.edu, William_Beeman@Brown.edu
Subject: Report to FEC from the Task Force on Faculty Governance
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:46:27 -0500

Dear Bill:

At its meeting on Friday, February 14 the Task Force on Faculty Governance
discussed problems arising from adoption of the following motion from AAMC:

  Add the following item 'd.' to the charge of the Faculty Diversity 
  Subcommittee (FDS):

  d. Review denials of promotion, tenure, and re-appointment for adherence
     to the Corporation statement on non-discrimination and submit
     findings, in writing, to the TPA and the Provost.

NOTE: by previous acceptance of a friendly amendment the Faculty Diversity
Subcommittee was renamed the Subcommittee on Diversity in Hiring (SDH).

Because the FEC will probably be called upon to deal with these problems in
the near future, we share our analysis of these problems with you in the
form of this brief report.

* The amendment to SDH duplicates part of the charge to TPA, as described by
  the following sentence from Item c of TPA's charge:

      "The procedural review shall also determine whether the decision was
      consistent with (1) the written University Affirmative Action plan,
      (2) the acadmic units's written criteria for contract renewal,
      promotion, and tenure on file with the Dean of the Faculty, and (3)
      procedural regulations of the University."

* The amended SDH reviews denials of tenure and promotion, even though
  denials are made by the Corporation, not TPA.  Obviously the Faculty has
  no authority to review actions by the Corporation.

* The amended SDH eliminates the primary purpose of a proposed Ombudsperson, 
  who would have had access to confidential information and been of
  assistance to faculty members who need advice in dealing with work related
  disputes that include but go beyond discrimination.

Members of the Task Force recognize that well-meaning members of the Faculty
disagree on the matter of how best to address issues of diversity.  Our
approach was not simply to dismantle the AAMC but find alternative, more
effective mechanisms to ensure diversity in the Faculty.

john