Trustees approve changes to judicial process

New judicial procedure gives the University President ultimate power to punish faculty found guilty of unprofessional conduct. Much of the power to punish faculty members changed hands at the June 20 stated meeting of the University's Board of Trustees. The trustees voted to increase the President's power to punish faculty members accused of a serious violation of professional practice should be given a major sanction by replacing the procedures for the "Suspension or Termination of Faculty for Just Cause," adopted in 1991. According to the resolution presented to the trustees, the new procedure "makes the President the final decision-maker, provides for the reconsideration of the recommendation of a major sanction and relates the procedures for imposing a major sanction to a Dean's procedures for imposing minor sanctions." On the recommendation of the trustees, the faculty and administration worked to improve the procedures to make them "more coherent, appropriate and less cumbersome." They presented the revisions to the trustees and administration by a mail ballot on May 22, 1997 in which only 19 of the 426 votes opposed the proposed procedures. "The aim of the revision is to ensure fairness and to give the campus's academic community -- the faculty and the academic administration, deans, provost and president -- the responsibility for any disciplinary action against a faculty member," Provost Stanley Chodorow said. "In the old procedures, the trustees played a role at the end of the process, and they did not feel comfortable with that role." According to Chodorow, the procedure still requires that complaints raised by either the administration or a group of faculty members against another faculty member be heard by a faculty committee. The old process mandated this committee be the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, but accused faculty members may now choose to be judged either by CAFR or by a tribunal of faculty drawn from the entire University faculty. The new process also removes the right of the hearing committee to appeal to the trustees. Previously, the committee could appeal to both the whole faculty or to the trustees. "The process represents a professional, academic judgement and is now carried out entirely within the academic community," Chodorow said. And under the new policy, University President Judith Rodin is responsible for punishing guilty faculty members. Previously, the trustees penalized guilty faculty members on the recommendation of the President. The President can send a case back to the hearing committee if she thinks there was a procedural error or the original recommendation of a sanction was too lenient. She can also reduce the severity of the sanction if she deems the committee's recommendation too harsh. And she can dismiss the case if she feels the charge was not proven by the record of the case or the hearing panel's findings. "Overall, the new procedure will reduce the time it takes to complete the process, while giving accused faculty members a full opportunity to defend themselves from charges," Chodorow said. "The process has been improved for everyone who might be involved in it."