2008 Woodie Awards
Keep tenure discussion open
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 4/13/07 Section: Forum
The Guilfordian reported on March 23 that the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees moved to uphold the negative tenure recommendation of Eleanor Branch, assistant professor of English, following her appeal. Controversy persists over her dismissal.
Branch rigorously outlined with evidence the grounds for her appeal in a document that she submitted to the Board.
The appeal includes claims of numerous procedural and factual violations that, if true, deeply challenge the commitment of both the administration and the Board to Guilford's core values and Quaker heritage.
In a recent letter, President Kent Chabotar wrote that though "some will continue to disagree … this tenure review and appeals are concluded."
Given the apparent weight of evidence that Branch provides, the relevance of the case to the overall mission of this institution, and in accordance with Quaker consensus, it is imperative that discourse surrounding this issue remains open.
Namely, Guilford's faculty must collectively examine and discuss the contents of Branch's appeal document. They must also recognize that this issue profoundly affects and reflects the way we now live at Guilford.
Among her detailed allegations, Branch claims:
•That she was required to perform duties that were neither stated in the faculty handbook and fourth-year review letter, nor expected of her white colleagues.
•That the Faculty Affairs Committee, Academic Dean, and President repeatedly mishandled and distorted the factual evidence of her case. According to Branch, these instances include positive comments on a course evaluation from Fall 2004, written by a student and current Guilfordian staff member, which were deliberately misrepresented to support a negative recommendation.
While the confidentiality requirement in personnel matters is intended to protect those directly involved, Branch has released her tenure materials for review by anyone.
Refusal to respond publicly to her substantive claims in the name of confidentiality is thus unfortunate and unwarranted. This conversation should remain open.
Faculty members bear a unique responsibility to this community and must therefore urge the administration to respond openly to the substance of Branch's claims, so that our values and our heritage may yet survive in reality as in name.
Branch rigorously outlined with evidence the grounds for her appeal in a document that she submitted to the Board.
The appeal includes claims of numerous procedural and factual violations that, if true, deeply challenge the commitment of both the administration and the Board to Guilford's core values and Quaker heritage.
In a recent letter, President Kent Chabotar wrote that though "some will continue to disagree … this tenure review and appeals are concluded."
Given the apparent weight of evidence that Branch provides, the relevance of the case to the overall mission of this institution, and in accordance with Quaker consensus, it is imperative that discourse surrounding this issue remains open.
Namely, Guilford's faculty must collectively examine and discuss the contents of Branch's appeal document. They must also recognize that this issue profoundly affects and reflects the way we now live at Guilford.
Among her detailed allegations, Branch claims:
•That she was required to perform duties that were neither stated in the faculty handbook and fourth-year review letter, nor expected of her white colleagues.
•That the Faculty Affairs Committee, Academic Dean, and President repeatedly mishandled and distorted the factual evidence of her case. According to Branch, these instances include positive comments on a course evaluation from Fall 2004, written by a student and current Guilfordian staff member, which were deliberately misrepresented to support a negative recommendation.
While the confidentiality requirement in personnel matters is intended to protect those directly involved, Branch has released her tenure materials for review by anyone.
Refusal to respond publicly to her substantive claims in the name of confidentiality is thus unfortunate and unwarranted. This conversation should remain open.
Faculty members bear a unique responsibility to this community and must therefore urge the administration to respond openly to the substance of Branch's claims, so that our values and our heritage may yet survive in reality as in name.
Be the first to comment on this story