Committee reviews, reverses Essig ruling

Author: Scott Greene

In a largely unprecedented move, the College's Reappointments Committee last week reversed its decision regarding the tenure-track contract of Assistant Professor of Sociology Laurie Essig after a decision last month by the Appeals Committee found procedural errors in the original review. The ruling was well-received by faculty, students and administrators alike, though it is the next step in a controversy that has brought the College's reappointments system under a microscope of scrutiny.

Essig expressed relief at the news of the decision and gratitude for the support her case received from the College community.

"I was so overwhelmed by the response in the beginning," she said, "and now it is truly overwhelming to think about what people did on my behalf and that they actually turned it around."

When reached for comment, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz said he was pleased with the outcome as a validation of the system's overall effectiveness, as did College Provost Allison Byerly.

"I am glad that our review and appeal processes worked as they are intended to, and, because of that, Laurie has been reappointed," Liebowitz said. "The new findings allowed the Reappointments Committee to place its original finding in a fuller context, which was, quite obviously, very helpful to the committee."

The Reappointments Committee in December recommended to Liebowitz that Essig's tenure-track contract not be renewed, despite an overwhelming degree of student and faculty support for her reappointment. The College's Appeals Committee then ruled in March that the Reappointments Committee made two procedural errors during its original review of Essig. First, 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, though many members of the faculty believed that Essig was employed by both the College's Women's and Gender Studies [WAGS] 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 review only involved feedback from faculty members of the Sociology and Anthropology Department. The second review allowed the Reappointments Committee to revisit its original decision, and it ultimately reversed itself.

Essig said that the inclusion of the Women's and Gender Studies faculty in the second review likely played a critical role in the new decision.

"Having the opportunity to meet with [Chair of Women's and Gender Studies] Sujata Moorti and to hear what role I play in that program was important," she said, "and she had a lot of letters from [WAGS affiliated] professors who came to my classes."

Still, Essig disputed the notion that the end result represented a sign that the system worked.

"I think that the system is out of whack when the opinion of three non-experts can override both the student evaluations and the unanimous senior colleague evaluations," she said. "I do not know what the solutions are but I think its time to ask questions about what other schools are doing."

Many had previously criticized the system of appeals for sending an upheld case back to the committee which conducted the original review. The process has also come under fire for what some perceive as a tendency towards departmental bias and a bias against a more progressive curriculum, something Essig said affects the role of academic freedom in the College's tenure system. Liebowitz said that in all his discussions with the committee, Essig's progressive scholarly focus never came up as a basis for judging her teaching.

The College Handbook's rules on academic freedom are adapted from both the 1940 "Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), as well as the AAUP's 1969 Interpretive Comments on the issue, which clarified several components of the original statement.

The College does not adhere to the AAUP's 1989 "Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Non-Renewal of Faculty Appointments," a statement which Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry said could be interpreted to require faculty-elected reappointment committees to follow the recommendations of academic departments on reappointments, in the name of departmental autonomy. Though this would have certainly given more weight to the recommendations of the Sociology and Anthropology and Women's and Gender Studies Departments during the original review, Dry noted that two people at the AAUP denied that the language of the statement compelled such a conclusion.

"Speaking for myself, I think it would be a mistake to defer unconditionally to departmental recommendations in matters of reappointment. These are the toughest decisions for a college to make and they affect the long-term character of the institution too much to leave them entirely in the hands of the several departments," he said. "I think there is a place for a college-wide faculty-elected committee to take all relevant information into account and make a recommendation to the president."

While Liebowitz defended the system and its guiding principles, he did not rule out future reforms to the process.

"I believe it is a good thing for the institution and for the faculty to review its rules and procedures for reappointment and tenure every so often," he said. "We have not done that, top to bottom, for 15 years, and so I would like us to do a major review of our procedures and either reaffirm our confidence in them, or propose changes."

Ryan Tauriainen '08, co-president of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance, applauded the committee's decision but said that professors' service should be taken just as seriously as their scholarship and teaching in the review. Associate Professor of English and American Literatures Yumna Siddiqi, unconvinced that the recent decision regarding Essig shows the processes of reappointments and appeals is satisfactory, also proposed several changes to the system.

"I think that the committee should in the first place consist of five people," she said, "that more weight should be given to the department's recommendation when it is properly backed up and that a different committee should look at a case when an appeal is granted - perhaps that could be the work of the appeals committee."

Moorti agreed, adding that an overhaul of the system is easier said than done.

"We will need to figure out a fair way for an interdisciplinary committee to assess various disciplines and diverse pedagogical strategies," she said. "We will also need to figure out a way where we can balance the needs of confidentiality with those of transparency and accountability."

Changes to the system, according to Essig, would go a long way in alleviating a culture among junior faculty of feeling vulnerable because one might have spoken up at a faculty meeting or voiced one's political views on campus. Dry did not deny that this occurs, but doubted that it was widespread. Still, Essig claimed that the presence of such a culture hampers the intellectual vibrancy of the community and prevents it from creating a dialogue of dissent.

"I think that we can learn lessons from other institutions about how to create an atmosphere in which students and faculty feel free to experiment in the classroom and still be held accountable in their field but not have to feel that creating intellectual vibrancy is a problem," she said. "Giving your opinion on ethical and political issues should be an obligation for students, faculty and administrators alike as members of the community. It shouldn't have to come down to hundreds of people rescuing somebody. The system worked bec
ause hundreds of people stood up and said something is wrong here. I am incredibly lucky, but what if I were not as connected?"