EDITORIAL: "Confidential to the Commission"

Of course, we don't know why the School of Arts and Sciences personnel committee denied Plotnitsky tenure after the English department recommended he receive it. That information is secret, because of University confidentiality rules. However, we do know that such a reversal is almost unprecedented. Equally unprecedented is the fact that English Department Chairperson John Richetti hopes to serve as Plotnitsky's representative, or "colleague," in the case -- a bit of information which, under University confidentiality rules, is supposed to remain confidential, but is now public. More commonly, the department denies the professor tenure and -- in the event of a grievance -- the chairperson represents the University against the grievant. But this time, the department is on the professor's side. This leads us to several questions that we think deserve answers. Who better to judge a professor's scholastic work and teaching than his or her fellow professors? Why did the personnel committee end up second guessing the department? Considering the number of unprecedented twists and turns in this tenure case, even people close to the case seem to have good reason to believe the decision was "arbitrary" and "capricious." Beyond the confidentiality rules, even those faculty members and administrators with informed opinions still seem to have differences of opinion. These people deserve either a very good explanation of the decision, or else a chance to state their case. And whatever the reason, we'd appreciate it if you let us in on it, too. It can be our little secret.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.