Bullet proof

When should campus leadership respond to lies.

This week, we received a letter from our regional accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), advising our University that each and every accusation set in fourth in complaints from four faculty members - totally over 150 pages - were without merit.

The complaints were a compilation of over two years of open hostility by a relatively small number of faculty opposed to actions by the Board of Governors to increase assurance of learning, accountability for tenured faculty and a more open process for faculty participation. In particular, these faculty members opposed:

• An Academic Objectives Policy that would require external validation that our students (1) had achieved competence in their field of study and certain general academic areas; (2) possessed such cognitive skills as critical thinking; problem solving and the ability to communicate; and (3) had participated in community service projects to the degree that they possessed an appreciation for the need to give back to their communities.

• The implementation of a post-tenure review process that would provide assurance that they were maintaining the same level of achievement and excellence as they had at the time of the granting of tenure.

• Instituting a faculty assembly in place of a faculty senate that would provide for a greater opportunity for all faculty to participate in shared government on campus and reduce the ongoing filtering of information by senate leaders that had been offered by the campus leadership to the faculty, in general. This action followed the attempt by a small oligarchy of faculty leadership to rig the faculty senate election and, effectively, eliminate any opposition to the current leadership.

The faculty complaints were replete with false information to support false narratives; tortured interpretations of existing policy and law; and wild rants characterizing the campus leadership’s actions to provide accountability as creating a “banana republic” and a “dictatorship.”

Nevertheless, the HLC’s letter essentially confirmed that the Board and the campus leadership was well within it’s authority to take the actions they deemed necessary to enhance the quality of the University’s academic programs and administrative processes and that it had provided more than enough opportunity for the faculty to comment on such initiatives and that the Board.

So, is that it? Not necessarily.

There is no problem with faculty questioning, challenging or disagreeing with proposed policies. In fact, the reason the Board moved to a faculty assembly was to provide more opportunity for more voices to be heard. Moreover, state law - and common sense - requires campus leadership to “consult” with faculty on any actions that may impact then.

Moreover, when faculty attempt to stir up emotions among their colleagues by advancing false narratives, demonstrating their incompetence as to existing legal authorities and offering wild rants in the place of thoughtful conversation, there is little to be done but calmly offer mature responses that disprove their allegations.

However, when faculty. members file an official complaint with a national accrediting body - an organization whose approval is necessary for our students to access federal funding in order to pursue an education - and the accusations are premised with no less than pure falsehoods, they have advanced the discussion beyond the point of tolerance of unprofessionalism to a point of academic dishonesty.

At our institutions as with most, academic dishonesty is grounds for dismissal. However, to do so will undoubtedly bring cries of “retaliation” and the obligatory filing of grievances.

So, what is campus leadership to do? On one hand, to pursue dismissal on the grounds of academic dishonesty may leave the issue in the hands of an administrative and judicial hearing system that has historically created a very low bar for the affirmation of claims of “retaliation.” On the other hand, to just declare victory and move on would provide no disincentive for future baseless claims and would render such claimants as “bullet proof.”

If you are truly dedicated to maintaining the credibility of the institution, the imposition of some form of disciplinary action is necessary. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.