More specifically, see this comment: ---------------------snip Peter N. Kirstein December 27, 2014
I think CAFT’s criticism of the process that led to the contract revocation is undermined by their recommendation that a committee of “experts” launch a formal investigation of Professor Salaita’s “professional fitness”: This strikes me as an investigation of scholarly misconduct that I find unnecessary and unwarranted. It is a virtual dagger thrust into the heart of shared governance. CAFT does not need to establish a bypass around other units, such as the American Indian Studies Program and the interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, that previously examined his scholarship and offered him an associate professor rank with tenure. I would like to correct a point you made in your first comment. You were critical that I rejected the CAFT’s decision not to solicit any information or perspective from Dr. Salaita or his counsel: “it also explicitly calls for him and his representatives to be allowed to refute any questions about him.” That statement refers to the putative right to critique a yet-to-be established committee report that would investigate Dr. Salaita’s “professional fitness.” If the faculty panel believes that an investigation of his “professional fitness” is warranted, it needed to make a solid case, which it failed to do, and to provide Salaita an opportunity to challenge beforehand any such recommendation. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:48 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Robert Naiman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The head of the faculty union at UIUC (Campus Faculty Association, which >> has campaigned against the Chancellor's actions in the Salaita case) called >> this report a "gamechanger." >> > > > It is true the report is overall very good news for Salaita. The best > break he has had since this whole thing broke. > > Salaita (through his attorneys) also had good things to say about the > report. > > http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/salaita%E2%80%99s-attorneys-praise-academic-freedom-and-tenure-committee-findings > > Nevertheless, there are some problematic aspects to the report. > - There is some concern that the report is legitimizing the > administrations arguments about Salaita's tweets by recommending a new > review of Salaita's appointment instead of unconditional reinstatement. > - The Committee spoke with Wise and got her side of the story, but never > bothered speaking with Salaita or his attorneys in the course of its > investigation. > - The report includes in an Appendix a list of offending tweets, but > these are taken out of context and other, more typical example of his > Twitter activity were not included; so basically this list was cherrypicked > to make it look as bad as possible. > - There is also a concern that the process recommended by the CAFT report > undermines the American Studies department in various ways. > > See the comments at the article I cited earlier for a good critique of the > report: > > http://academeblog.org/2014/12/26/justice-denied-to-steven-salaita-a-critique-of-the-university-of-illinois-committee-on-academic-freedom-and-tenure-report/#comments > > -raghu. > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:47 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> http://academeblog.org/2014/12/26/justice-denied-to-steven-salaita-a-critique-of-the-university-of-illinois-committee-on-academic-freedom-and-tenure-report/ >>> >>> http://www.senate.illinois.edu/aft_salaita_2014.pdf >>> >>> --------------------------snip >>> Dr. Steven Salaita’s proposed appointment was initiated, reviewed, >>> approved, and processed in accordance with all applicable university >>> procedures from the initiation of the search through his acceptance of an >>> offer of appointment. It was complete except for final Board of Trustees >>> approval. At that point, less than a month before his projected start date, >>> concerns about his professional suitability for appointment arose and he >>> was notified that his appointment would not be forwarded for that approval. >>> Eventually, it was forwarded for Board approval and was rejected. His >>> status at the time was complex: he was more than an applicant and less than >>> an employee. Under these circumstances, we believe the academic freedom and >>> liberty of political speech afforded to members of the faculty by the >>> University Statutes should reasonably apply. >>> >>> The process by which Dr. Salaita’s proposed appointment was withdrawn >>> and eventually rejected did not follow existing policies and procedures in >>> several substantial respects, raising questions about the institution’s >>> commitment to shared governance. The reasons given the civility of tweets >>> made by Dr. Salaita in the summer of 2014 is not consistent with the >>> University’s guarantee of freedom of political speech. Statements made by >>> the Chancellor, President, and Trustees asserting that the in civility of a >>> candidate’s utterances may constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting h is >>> appointment should be renounced. We conclude, however, that the Chancellor >>> has raised legitimate questions about Dr. Salaita’s professional fitness >>> that must be addressed. >>> >>> In light of the irregular circumstances leading up to the Board of >>> Trustees’ disapproval of an appointment for Dr. Salaita , the Committee >>> recommends that 3 Dr. Salaita ’s candidacy be remanded to the College of >>> Liberal Arts and Sciences for reconsideration by a committee of qualified >>> academic experts. >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
