From
the Chair
Just
Cause
| The Task Force
on Procedures Governing Sanctions Against Members of the Faculty has submitted
its report to President Fagin. It is now the responsibility of the
faculty to review this report and decide if it is to be accepted.
To facilitate this procedure I have formed twelve groups, each composed
of two or more Faculty Senate constituencies, and have requested that a
constituency representative convene each group for a discussion of the
proposed procedures. A member of the Task Force will be present at
each meeting. The conveners of these meetings will form an ad hoc
committee that has been charged with the task of recommending to the Senate
Executive Committee the form and procedure for the faculty vote on the
proposal. The report along with the committee's comments is published
in this issue of Almanac so that you may review it before the constituency
meeting.
An overview of the proposed new procedures was given by David Hildebrand (Almanac, February 16, 1993) and I will not duplicate his effort. His column is available electronically through PennInfo or from the Faculty Senate Office. The proposal brings together the existing procedures for * Just Cause (pp. 47-51, Handbook for Faculty and Administrators),into a cohesive policy that addresses all of these issues. In so doing it provides a uniform and consistent framework for dealing with them. The proposal distinguishes between major infractions and minor infractions and limits the sanctions that can be taken in the latter case to minor sanctions. In the heat of the moment actions and behavior that are truly minor can become major issues. The proposed new procedures guard against this happening. The most controversial aspect of the report appears to be the proposal that would create University-wide tribunals to adjudicate cases of alleged major infractions. This is a change from the current procedure that gives the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CAFR) of each school the responsibility of judging cases of misconduct that arise within the school. The faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences has voted 173-41 in favor of a resolution that opposes the proposed change. That resolution states, in part: ...we believe in trial by one's peers, and we believe that the School of Arts and Sciences share a common body of experience, knowledge and scholarly norms which qualify us as the most appropriate judges of the merits of any charge that a member of this Faculty has committed a major infraction of University rules or the standards of a scholarly committee.The argument in favor of a University-wide tribunal is based on the principle that it is the responsibility of the entire faculty to judge misconduct since misconduct by a single faculty member reflects badly on the entire faculty. While there is little doubt that the faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences is sufficiently large to ensure that the judicial process is not influenced by friendships or animosities that occur within a department, the same is not true of some of our smaller schools. The proposal also limits the power of a dean to affect the results of a case by influencing the deliberations of the tribunal. There are myriad other issues in the proposal that require close scrutiny by the faculty. I urge each of you to read the report and attend the discussion group. This is your opportunity to influence the final proposal that will be brought to the faculty for a vote. I believe that the unification of procedures and the distinction between major and minor infractions are significant improvements to the existing procedures. I hope that we can devise a procedure for voting that will allow support of these changes independent of the decision on the composition of the tribunals. Please read the report and attend the constituency meeting so that the Executive Committee can truly represent your views. |