Essig tenure case sees appeal

Author: Scott Greene

The College's Appeals Committee, citing procedural grounds, has upheld the appeal of Assistant Professor of Sociology Laurie Essig following a December recommendation by the Reappointments Committee to President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz that Essig's tenure-track contract not be renewed. The decision allows the Reappointments Committee to revisit its previous review and rectify errors made in the original review, though many students and faculty continue to express reservations and skepticism about the review system itself.

According to Liebowitz, the Appeals Committee found two procedural errors that require correction.

"Our rules require that any part of the review that was affected by procedural errors be redone," he said. "The entire review is not done over, but only those two portions that were affected by the errors. Once those parts have been re-done, the [Reappointments] committee considers its recommendation in light of the new information it may have learned from the corrected procedures."

When reached for comment, Essig expressed "guarded optimism" with regards to the new developments in her case.

"I am quite glad that the Reappointments Committee has a chance to reconsider its decision," she said, "and I am hoping that, given that chance to reconsider, they will go ahead and reverse themselves."

The review process for tenure-track appointments is three-pronged. A three-person Reappointments Committee solicits input from evaluations of faculty from the department from which the professor teachers in, as well as student evaluations from the professor's classes. The final decision, however, remains with the three individuals on the committee.

Because of legal obligations to uphold the confidentiality of the review, Essig could not go into details about the decision itself. Liebowitz also declined to disclose specifics about the two procedural errors. But according to sources familiar with the decision, who declined to be named, committee members disregarded the most recent course response forms in the original review even though the evaluations had become available five days before the final decision was made to terminate Essig's contract.

Secondly, the language of Essig's original contract hindered the Reappointment Committee's ability to conduct a thorough review. Though many members of the faculty believed that Essig was employed by both the College's Women's and Gender Studies Department and Sociology and Anthropology Department, the contract for the initial appointment stipulated that she was employed only by the Sociology and Anthropology Department. As a result, the original review only involved feedback from faculty members of the Sociology and Anthropology Department.

To rectify this procedural error, the Reappointments Committee's second review will include input from members of the Women's and Gender Studies Department.

"They were not consulted, and they will be consulted now," Essig said.

The members of the Reappointments Committee for the 2007-2008 academic year are Professor of History Don Wyatt, Professor of History of Art and Architecture Cynthia Packert and Professor of Physics Jeff Dunham.

The three-person Committee will have the opportunity to make a second recommendation to Liebowitz after it completes its reappraisal of Essig's case. Associate Professor of English and American Literatures Yumna Siddiqi applauded the decision to uphold the appeal.

"I think it was an excellent decision," said Siddiqi, who is on the Steering Committee of the Women's and Gender Studies Department and was concerned and alarmed, as a colleague, that Essig had not been retained. "I think they must not have looked at the case very carefully and hopefully seen what a poor decision the first one was."

Siddiqi noted, however, that the appeal decision overshadows the true problems inherent in the process of reappointments at the College, a process long-criticized for its lack of transparency and an institutional bias towards more progressive professors.

"I think it is not an ideal system because there should be more people on the committee of review so the decision does not rest narrowly in the hands of three people," she said.

The process has also come under fire for what some perceive as a tendency towards departmental bias. Catherine Wright, a lecturer, tutor of writing and the College's acting director of technology, claimed that even the feedback from members of the Sociology and Anthropology Department did not get the consideration it deserved, in Essig's case.

"Many faculty have suggested that the review process undergo revision," Wright said. "It has been suggested that the original purpose of many of the guidelines is to protect faculty undergoing a review from departmental bias. In this case, the [Sociology and Anthropology] department was overwhelmingly in favor of Essig's reappointment, yet their recommendations were overturned." Similar qualms emerged in the spring of 2006 when then-Associate Professor of Sociology Marc Garcelon was denied tenure despite widespread support from within the same department.

The Student Government Association (SGA) has voted to recommend to the College administration that it conduct a review of the reappointment process. In addition, Associate Professor of Spanish Miguel Fernandez, the head of the Faculty Council, has agreed to meet with students to discuss the process.

Wright noted that despite the imperfections in the reappointments system, the success of the appeal is a sign that the system of checks and balances at the College is functioning well. Ryan Tauriainen '08, co-president of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (MOQA), repeated this view but added that the system of appeals is also flawed.

"While I am thankful that the appeals board upheld Professor Essig's appeal on the basis of procedural grounds, I am troubled by the system Middlebury uses itself," he said. "It seems innately unfair that all the appeals process does is ask the exact same board that was found guilty of making mistakes, possibly based on discrimination, to re-evaluate the candidate at their discretion."

Essig noted that the appeals system does seem more circular than linear, and that the process lacks an adequate degree of clarity and openness.

"This process is unique in that you do not just win your appeal, you win it and it goes back to the same committee that makes the decision in the first place," she said. "Part of what seems to be problematic about this process is the lack of transparency and that confidentiality can protect some people in some cases, and in other cases it can protect the institution."

Still, Essig made clear that she does not judge the College community on such a system.

"I really think that this decision to not reappoint me does not reflect Middlebury as a community," she said. I do not think it reflects the opinion of students or people in the Sociology and Anthroplogy and Women's and Gender Studies departments, and maybe after reconsideration it will not even reflect the opinion of people on this committee. It would be easy to see Middlebury as a hostile institution that doesn't want me there, but I don't believe that. I think Middlebury and I are a good fit and I hope that I am part of the institution for many years to come.

Essig does not know when the Reappointments Committee will conclude their review, though she predicted that a decision will happen after spring break.

"I trust the Reappointments Committee to reconsider my case and have the potential of making a different decision," she said. "It would be great."

Siddiqi hoped for the same. After she found out about the possibility that a Women's and Gender Studies teacher would be asked about Essig, she personally attended one of Essig's classes an
d was impressed by the level of student engagement and Essig's ability to weave together theoretical analysis on analysis of the films in the class, which studied Walt Disney and the sociology of heterosexuality. Siddiqi believed that a reversal of the original review is the right decision not only because of Essig's ability as a professor, but also because it would be consistent with the College's stated goals.

"My sense is that Middlebury should go out of its way to keep excellent queer and minority faculty and my sense is that they have not done so in the past," she said. "It also seems to be at odds with the newly stated commitment to diversity that we see on the part of the College to fire somebody who teaches queer studies."

Morgane Richardson '08 echoed Siddiqi's view that the successful appeal gives the College a chance to rectify more than just procedural errors.

"If the College does not understand the importance of inviting more professors like Laurie Essig, then I fear that it can never become a diverse and progressive institution," she said. "You know, mistakes are made - this was clearly one - now the committee has the chance to correct themselves."