How did we do?
Order Client
Katie Turner
Order #
TC0010748767
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your future orders
Need Help? mailto:[email protected] Get this transcript with table formatting
Section 1 of 15
[00:00:00 ‐ 00:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
[inaudible 00:00:05] America moves very fast, apparently.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:00:10] But the stuff that you had out there a couple weeks ago was really good.
Speaker 1:
It was like a two week frenzy, and now, until the next monument gets [crosstalk 00:00:18]
Speaker 2:
Something tells me that we'll be circling back.
Chris McLaughl.:
First of all, thank you everyone for joining us; I appreciate that. We are here to convene a public meeting of the Faculty Grievance Committee. We are here as a sub‐committee to hear an individual grievance filed by a faculty member because that involves confidential personnel matter. We need to go to a closed meeting. So do I hear anyone who might raise a motion to go into closed session?
Erika Ripley:
I raise a motion that we go into closed session.
Chris McLaughl.:
Do I hear any second? [crosstalk 00:00:48]
Neera Skurky:
Second. I'm sorry.
Chris McLaughl.:
Thank you. Committee members ‐ you vote in favor of going to closed session?
Erika Ripley:
Yes.
Neera Skurky:
Yes.
Chris McLaughl.:
Any opposition? Excellent, we are now in closed session. I look around; I do not see anyone who is not here as a part of the grievance process. So that's excellent. So that is a reminder that we are required to deal with these procedures as confidential, so I ask that you treat them the same as well, as much as possible. We should introduce ourselves ‐ also, I want you to know you see in front of the room, or the middle of the room, a recording device. We are recording this. We may be required down the road to produce a transcript, so we're happy to share this, either the audio recording with you all, or the general counsel's office will be very helpful in getting us a transcript made that can share that with you as well. And we'll do the same if there's a need down the road to meet with other individuals, especially if everyone cannot get together, which I know is difficult to do; make sure we share transcripts with you as well.
Because we are recording this, I want to make sure the transcript ‐ if we could go around the room and briefly introduce who you are and what your role is in
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 2 of 46
this proceeding. My name is Chris McLaughlin; I'm a member of the grievance committee. Erika Ripley:
I'm Erika Ripley, also a member of the grievance committee.
Beth Posner:
Beth Posner, also a member of the grievance committee.
Kara Simmons:
Kara Simmons, from the Office of University Council; I'm here to advise the grievance committee.
Jay Smith:
I'm Jay Smith, the complainant.
Neera Skurky:
I'm Neera Skurky from the Office of University Council; I'm advising the respondents.
:
Chris McLaughl.:
Thank you. And that is all the folks who are in the room right now. As I sent an e‐mail around yesterday, or earlier in the week, [inaudible 00:02:34] procedure, our main goal is to give all parties a chance to share information they believe relevant with this committee. I appreciate all the written submissions we've received from both parties. Our secondary goal is to keep this as non‐ confrontational and non‐adversarial as possible. And to that end, we will not be having parties question one another; I wanted to ask the attorneys in the room, here to advise our committee, or the respondents to do so privately and not be involved directly in the proceeding as well. With that, I think we're going to give the floor to Jay. We've asked you to take roughly 15 minutes to summarize your position, sharing new information with us. Please know we've read your submissions carefully, both the original ones with the e‐mail attachments and supporting documentation. Of course, you've read the respondent's written response, and then you [inaudible 00:03:28] complaint. So I don't think you need to summarize everything all over again, but do, if you could hit the most important points, or anything you think that needs to be emphasized or added to what you've showed us.
Jay Smith:
I haven't rehearsed, so I don't know exactly how long I'll take ‐ [crosstalk 00:03:42]
Chris McLaughl.:
We're flexible.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 3 of 46
Jay Smith:
I hope to keep it to ten minutes, actually, but yes, so I've submitted two pretty detailed complaints; at this point, everybody knows what's in those complaints, and so I don't plan to reiterate the timeline that I've laid out. I would like to make a few broad points, including a couple that haven't been made before, or haven't received sufficient attention before. The first one is simply a correlation that has gone largely unremarked upon, I think, in public commentary and in our own internal communications. That is, I just want to remind everyone that, you know, for the past five years or so, I have been battling UNC administrators over a number of issues, particularly with regard to the athletics scandal.
I became a bit of a lightning rod for Tar Heels fans everywhere through this five years of agitation, if I can call it agitation, and my course generated a great deal of discussion among Tar Heels fans out there in the public at large, many of whom, I have to assume, have ear, just because he's close to the athletic department. And so it is, you know, the idea that it would be a coincidence that it is me and my course that prompted this unprecedented intervention into the process of departmental courses scheduling is ... well, it's just, it would be hard to accept. You'd have to have been asleep in this community for the past five years to assume that there's no correlation there between those two things.
The other big point that I want to make is that I think the documentary record, as well as my own experience of what has happened to me and my many conversations with the departmental leadership, both since last fall, all show ‐ actually, since last summer ‐ all show that there is a ‐ has been a pattern of obstructionism and resistance toward this course from the very moment that South Building learned of its existence. This goes back to either late March or early April of 2016, when word got around that the department had created this course and scheduled it for the first summer session. I believe, can tell you that he received a call from, I believe, ‐ asking him to explain how this course had been created, to justify its existence, and to make a case for my teaching this course. That was from, you know, the first days of the course's official existence.
That continued ‐ that pattern continued through the summer when we made the decision ‐ and I made the decision to substitute 383 ‐ the sports course ‐ for a badly underenrolled honors course that was initially slated for the fall 2016 term. As you know from the timeline, when we made that decision, we immediately encountered resistance, and it took skillful negotiating on the part of and a bureaucratic quirk, which was that the course got onto the books and had students enrolled in it before South Building learned what had happened. It took those two things in order for that iteration of the course to survive. I taught it successfully, and I wanted to teach it again this fall; that's what I requested when the department sent out its course requests last fall and, as you know, that's why we're here: because there were efforts to suppress the course for the academic year, initially, and there
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 4 of 46
has been a recent reversal we can talk about at some point, if we need to, but the pattern is clear, in my view.
I actually have one additional bit of evidence that I didn't include in my initial e‐ mail submissions. If I may, I'd like to give it to you now. I've got extra copies ‐ everybody can look at it. This is a very curious thing that happened. Last May, early June, after the department had succeeded in getting South Building to acquiesce in my teaching the course in fall 2016, we set the enrollment cap at 35; well, I immediately attracted 19 students within the first week to ten days that the course was scheduled. And I kept checking back over the next week to 10 days to see how the enrollments were coming along, and the course was stuck at 19. 19. 19 ‐ for two solid weeks.
Finally, I e‐mailed our , who handles enrollment sizes in our classes, and I said, " what's going on here? We're stuck at 19" ‐ actually, I had received an e‐mail from a student who was trying to get into the course. Connect Carolina indicated that it was still open and it had 35 seats, but she couldn't enroll ‐ what's going on? Well it turned out, and I've got e‐mail proof of this, that someone, somewhere in the university had capped the course at 19, without the department's knowledge, without ever consulting the and I learned department. This, too, was an unprecedented move. When what had happened, she came to my office ‐ her hands were trembling. She said, "This has never happened before. I don't understand what happened here. I'm gonna try to find out what did happen."
In the end, she couldn't. She couldn't figure it out because the codes were so peculiar. But, again, departmental autonomy, departmental integrity, was violated in ways the department ...
Speaker 1:
Section 1 of 15
[00:00:00 ‐ 00:10:04]
Section 2 of 15
[00:10:00 ‐ 00:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Complainant:
Departmental integrity was violated in ways that the department was not even aware of. It was all because someone wanted to control enrollment into my course. So, here are some copies of that email. The pattern is clear.
The last big point I want to make is that I really was insulted by the letter that the respondents sent to you all, a few weeks back, when they asked you to drop this grievance. To claim that I have suffered no injury is, to me, just outrageous. I have had to invest untold numbers of hours and amounts of energy since last summer in fighting for this course and defending my academic freedom, and
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 5 of 46
defending the integrity of the history department's curriculum. I've had many discussions with , and my other history colleagues. I can't tell you how many hours I spent with the AAUP this past Spring, with fire, with local media, interviewing with local media. I have had to fight tooth and nail to get this recent reversal that they've granted to us, allowing finally the course to go on next Spring.
I've also, I'm not going to go into details but, I have medical issues today that I did not have a year ago, that are stress related. Doctors will testify to that fact, if they need to. I've spoken to lawyers about bringing action against the university for a pattern of harassment that stretches back at least two years. I have suffered serious injury through this entire process and I was insulted by the suggestion that there was no injury done in this case. And that the idea now that they've allowed us to go ahead with this course next Spring, the whole matter is settled, and there's no need for any further discussion is just silly. It is just silly.
We need to know exactly what happened, why it happened, what the sources or origins of this desire to suppress my course really were, and have a frank discussion about how we prevent this in the future.
Speaker 2:
Thank you, I have a couple of questions [crosstalk 00:12:24] so I understand the timelines as you see it. Could you explain the timeline for history 383 for the 17/18 academic year? As I read through it and you're telling the story, it was on, it was off, it was on, it was off. And so could you summarize that timeline, as you see it of‐
Complainant:
I think I can. There were a lot of steps in the process but ... so it all began, the story began on October 10th 2016, when I submitted my course request form to the . On that course request form‐
Speaker 2:
I'm sorry is
Complainant:
[ 00:13:03], that's right, yes. On that form I listed 383 as one of my two fall courses, and I can't even remember honestly what the other course was ... And probably the French revolution and a first year seminar for my Spring term. That was October 10th. On October 24th, I heard from I got She suggested to me that the department could a cryptic email from really use a new honors course, for fall 2017, and would I be interested in offering a new honors course. And she mentioned there's course development money available for this, suggesting there was ... Trying to entice me to develop a new honors course. And I responded that I would be happy to teach an honors course but it's easy enough simply to place an H next to an existing course, and my 383 course would be a wonderful honors course.
Indeed, it would because the resources available to our students doing research projects are so copious it would be a wonderful honors course. So I said "Why
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 6 of 46
don't we just do that?" And said "I hate to break it to you ..." I'm paraphrasing but, "We can't offer 383 next year." And that's what initiated my resistance to this entire process. I realized that, through conversations with and eventually with I realized I was told that South building didn't want this course taught. And, therefore, I was gonna have to come up with a substitute.
And, so of course, being the compliant colleague that I generally I, I came up with a substitute, and we proceeded with alternative plans for my teaching for 2017/2018. But, I continued my agitation around the issue through the end of the fall and into the early spring semester but, ultimately, I was told more than once, by that this just wasn't gonna happen. That 383 could not be taught next year. I asked him that in November, when he came to my office to tell me it wasn't gonna make it on to the books for next year, and then I asked him again early in the spring semester ... I forget exactly when this was, January, February, I went to see him and I said "is it definitive, it's just not gonna be on the books?" And he said "Yeah." And so that was my understanding. 383 was dead for this academic year.
And then, between late April and early July, my colleagues and the press and AAUP and fire began to put pressure on the administration about this issue. And I don't know exactly ... Obviously, I don't know what they were thinking, I don't know how they interpreted that pressure. I can only guess but, my guess is, that that pressure made them at least pause to reconsider what had happened in this instance. And, after [ 00:16:42] for the social sciences in early July, I found out a few weeks later that the course was gonna be back on the books.
And I'm grateful, I'm delighted to be teaching the course but there are a lot of mysteries hanging over this issue. A lot of unaddressed questions. Many things that have not been explained and the department's autonomy was violated, my academic freedom was violated. I was harassed and persecuted. I was singled out for monitoring because of that very first thing that I mentioned when I ... I believe, when I opened my, when I gave you my opening remarks. And I would like to hear an explanation.
Speaker 2:
I'm
Complainant:
[
00:17:38] was the‐ .
Speaker 2:
When the communicate to you that the course, did you understand that the course would not be offered in 2017/2018 at all?
Complainant:
Yes.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 7 of 46
Speaker 2:
And this was in the fall and early spring of 2016/2017? And I see there's, I recognize there's some email communication between you and the and maybe with the as well, what reasons ... What was your understanding of the reason why your course was not being offered in 2017/2018?
Complainant:
Well, I hesitate to put this this way because I'm putting my in a very difficult position because I'm sharing details of conversations that the two of us had that I think he expected would remain confidential. I feel terrible about that. But both made it clear to me that the reason we couldn't proceed with 383 was that the opposed the course. The didn't want me teaching that course.
Speaker 2:
When you say the
Complainant:
[ 00:18:53] and [ 00:18:53]. But what their thinking was, why they didn't want me teaching that course, I have no idea. I can guess. I can speculate but it was never communicated to me, why they didn't want me teaching that course. I mean there's a suggestion somewhere along the way that the was concerned about honors offerings and the history department needed to offer more honors courses, something like that. Even if you provisionally accept that rationale, there's no logic to the next step then. So why is it me and my course that has to get out of the way for history to offer more honors courses? Why is it me? Why is it my course that has to be shelved? So all I can say is that it was communicated to me, more than once, that the didn't want me ...
Section 2 of 15
[00:10:00 ‐ 00:20:04]
Section 3 of 15
[00:20:00 ‐ 00:30:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Complainant:
The didn't want me teaching this course. It was suggested at one point, and this is hearsay, so maybe I shouldn't even mention it but, it was suggested at one point that they didn't even want the course to exist. They hoped it would be deleted. Now maybe they'll deny that, that's fine but their opposition to the course was strong enough that, it was clear to me, that was the reason I couldn't do this.
Speaker 2:
I will likely have more questions for the grievant, but I think I'd like to hear from the respondents. I know that [ 00:20:41] has said that he does need to leave potentially earlier than the other parties, so I'll make sure we have a chance to hear from him, his response as well. But that's when we come back with more questions and the chance to have a conversation. So we give the response the floor, in whatever order or organization they want to do so.
[inaudible 00:18:51].
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 8 of 46
Respondant:
I will start and I thank the panel for being here, and for volunteering your time. It's important. But I think it's also important to recognize that we're sitting here today talking about a course that was approved by the college administrative board. It's been taught twice in the last sixteen months, and it's apparently going to be offered again this academic year. We're here talking about a claim that J Smith's academic freedom has been violated. So, I think, even if the course had been prevented from being taught this year, if he had been prevented from teaching it this year, with the statement of academic freedom that he produces even if protected, the answer is no, because there's no statement or recognition of academic freedom that gives an individual faculty member the unilateral right to teach any class that he or she wishes to teach, whenever they wish to teach it.
J Smith claims that he's never been told why this course was questioned, and why his decided not to offer it this semester. Yet he consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that the departments must ensure the course offerings meet the strategic priorities of the department and of the college. An effort to craft a strategic plan for the college began in February 2016, shortly after I became And that all chairs should make, be looking at the data that we were putting forth, for the first time, showing data in enrollment trends and budgetary trends so that they could make more informed decisions about the curriculum and furthermore justify their requests for resources.
History is one of the departments that has experienced a reduction in the number of Majors over the past decade, and yet it remains one of the largest faculties at the university, in terms of the number of overall faculty, and continues to request funding for more faculty. And, as I want to support all of our departments. I want to continue to support the history department, I actually ... We did this, this past year in agreeing in trying to recruit underrepresented faculty member in an area that their strategic plan is suggested is an area of need. But doing so can be challenging when a department looks over resourcing.
One way a department can remedy this issues is to show how it is contributing during these periods where there's decreased enrollments, can show ways in which they're gonna contribute to the broader mission of the college. For example, teaching more of these high demand courses, such as first year seminars, and honors courses. As for the scheduling and the role that the college administration plays, we're responsible, in a college offering sciences, for the general education curriculum, for nearly nineteen thousand students, eighteen thousand students.
And it's our responsibility to ensure we have adequate courses, for me, they're general education requirement, which includes offering every student an opportunity for at least one first year seminar and meeting the requirements for
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 9 of 46
honor students. This past year we had 1971, just shy of 2000 honor student, up 68% from just five years ago. The most honor students we've ever had on campus, ever. And, but yet we have a shortage of honor sections and of first year seminars. There's also been a growth ... We've seen a tremendous growth in several of our natural science departments, with this shift towards more interest in stem disciplines, and in some social science departments that has caused some of those departments to offer additional sections of larger courses in lieu of honor courses and first year seminars. They're traditionally smaller courses. Therefore, departments following undergraduate majors, such as history, can contribute to the overall success of our students in the college, by offering more honors and first year seminars. This has been made clear.
Last year we took a 2.2 million budget cut in the college, and we're now preparing for potentially an even larger cut this year. So the has every right, in fact an obligation I would say, to ask how courses fit within the broader curriculum needs of our students. We're fortunate to have four senior associated Deans that assist in this process. They work closely with the partners to piece together a rather complex puzzle, to make this all fit. And so I think the point I'm trying to make here is that, in fact I've had discussions with students in the past two weeks, as has and and about trying to help students meet these demands. So we're very involved in curricular planning, is the point I'm trying to make. I have plenty of examples where senior associate Deans and or the Dean, have to contact department leadership to enquire about select course, or request curricular changes to help meet the needs of the general education curriculum.
At the same time, in having these conversations and asking these tough questions, I learn a lot. In this particular case, I learned how J Smith's background as an historian qualifies him to teach a course like the history of big time athletics, and how historians often use historical methods to explore different or new topics. I had that conversation with both and with J. So, despite J Smith's statement that he's never received an explanation for why he's teaching a first year seminar this fall, which also to my understanding happens to have an honor designation to it, instead of the course he really wanted to teach, it's because he's teaching a course that's really needed by our students and that can meet our curricular needs.
He doesn't like that answer because it, perhaps, doesn't sound scandalous enough. It doesn't fit the narrative that he's crafted for so many people, including several media outlets over the past several months. But, this is the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 10 of 46
truth. Despite J Smith's assumptions, there were no grand scheme to prevent him from ever teaching history 383. As soon as the course was advertised on social media inquiries about the course, and specifically about J Smith's qualifications to teach such a course as an expert in European French history, certainly surfaced. And it was ... While he alleges that he was singled out for this treatment, he acknowledges that he is a lightning rod. He said it here, he's said it in the documents that he's produced.
And so we began hearing from a long line of faculty members, even students, about this. So, therefore, the advertisement of the course caused people outside the university leadership to suddenly begin asking questions. . So I asked , to reach out to gather some information about the course so we could be equipped to respond to those inquiries. I addition to learning more about, again, J's qualifications to teach in this area, I also confirmed that the course had been properly vetted and approved through our internal processes.
In the end, gathering this information actually helped us defend offering this course, given there are ...
Section 3 of 15
[00:20:00 ‐ 00:30:04]
Section 4 of 15
[00:30:00 ‐ 00:40:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
... offer in this course. Given that our process was properly followed, our concern with the course had nothing to do with the content or who was teaching the class. Instead, my discussions about the course focused on how it fit within the greater strategic priorities for the department and the college, and I've stated time and time again that I was specifically concerned about this course having replaced History 516 Honors, which was already on the books, and had students enrolled in it.
So, there are a number of inaccuracies, and really, mischaracterizations, in Jay Smith's grievance. In the time allotted, I can't identify them all, but I do want to clarify a few things, and address some of this.
Jay Smith claims over ten months he was harassed and persecuted as administrators singled him out. Again, I want to emphasize that it was approved, it's been taught twice. Chairs indicated it's going to be taught again. Some questions were raised about the course, in my office. It was to understand why History 383 was replacing an honors course three months before the start of a new semester, when students were already registered for it.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 11 of 46
Jay Smith has explicitly stated that he had no intention of offering this course every year. The , [ 00:31:30], said early on that there was no intention of this necessarily being part of regular course offerings every year. So, to make this ... but yet, Jay Smith still insists on making this an issue, despite clear evidence establishing that we have a significant demand for first year seminars and honors courses has been made clear.
Jay Smith claims that challenged to defend the creation and teaching of the course, asking, "How did this course ever get approved?" As in any way, about this course, but stated above, was not asking instead he was trying to simply gather facts that we could adequately respond to the questions that were being asked by the faculty, students, and some alums. This information was needed to explain and actually defend the course offering.
Jay Smith claims that the honors course was badly underenrolled in May of 2016, with only four students registered. That, too, has been debated, because our records show that there were six students registered for the course. Nonetheless, we do not always cancel honors courses because they're underenrolled. While most honors courses hold somewhere between 12 and 24 students, there are several that are taught to eight to ten students because of the appeal of the honors program, and its offering of small courses. In fact, if you go to the website, you'll see it says, "Honors Carolina. Come here to go anywhere." Then, the tagline says, "Small classes. Big ideas." So, there were still three months for students to enroll in this course, and I've been told that with the number of honors students seeking out courses, it would likely have hit its , , actually target. In fact, the questioned about this, and asked why was it taken off the books, and asked for it to be reconsidered.
Jay Smith alleges that successfully negotiated his right to teach the History of Big Time Athletics in the Fall of 2016. There was no negotiation, I can promise you. asked if Jay Smith's teaching assignment should be switched back. He came over to visit with and me, and asked if it should be switched back, after he had learned that it's on the books, switched back to the honors course. I think we made it clear that this is his decision, but pointed out that switching it back would potentially hurt more students who, as Jay's already indicated, were already enrolled at that point in this course. So, we felt that was going to just hinder more students, at that point in time.
This is when we began a conversation with about helping to meet the strategic needs of both the department and college, and trying to find a balance of how this approved course, one that, as Jay indicates, had received favorable ratings from students, could be worked into the curriculum, to find the balance. Jay alleges that was summoned by [inaudible 00:34:58] to this outbuilding to discuss this course on November the 4th of 2016. However, the truth is, had another meeting already planned, and we have
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 12 of 46
the documentation to show Then, it was at the end of that meeting, according to who communicated to that the course could be taught if it was best for the overall strategic priorities of the department, and if it was needed.
The message on this matter has been consistent throughout, been consistent with what I've shared with Jay Smith on the day prior to that meeting that apparently had. While Jay asked me about the course, and left, I think, with a different impression from what I've said, what I've said was specifically that if the course is needed, the course should be taught. Jay's exact statement to me, as he left, because it frustrated him, I think, was that, none of my courses are necessarily needed." It may be the case. That, in itself, worried me a bit. Through some of the email exchanges between him and the , it appears that at times they were having difficult finding courses for Jay to teach.
Speaker 2:
[crosstalk 00:36:16] I just want to interrupt for one minute, and say I recognize we're going past 15 minutes. That's perfectly fine with me. [inaudible 00:36:21] will make sure you will have time to respond, so we are going to extend the time here. You will have plenty of time to rebut. I'll make sure we hear [crosstalk 00:36:27].
Speaker 1:
I'll wrap this up. Again, Jay Smith claims that the Spring schedule was set months in advance, and that we finally relented under pressure in July to allow him to teach this course. If this is the case, how did he switch the History 516 course to the History of Big Time Athletics just a few months before the Fall of 2016 semester? So, he makes it sound as if the switch for him to teach the History of Big Time Athletics next Spring is an unprecedented change that shows that we gave in to pressure, and that a felt bad for him, but it's simply not true.
On May 30th, 2016, well before the filing of this grievance, I, and , met with‐
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:37:16].
Speaker 1:
I'm sorry, of 2017. I'm sorry. May 30th of 2017. We met with a subgroup of History faculty who had signed a letter regarding Jay Smith's History of Big Time Athletics course, in addition to reaffirming our commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the conclusion of the meeting, I was asked if the course could potentially be taught again in academic year 17/18. I said yes. If the department decided that it needed to be taught, then it should be offered.
Following this meeting, [inaudible 00:37:49], told ... Again, this is coming through communications with me and that once their transition was completed, that he would connect with about moving forward. This conversation
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
and
Page 13 of 46
occurred in the last week of July, as met with and I was later notified that had decided to offer the course in the Spring of 2018. So, nobody relented, and our message has been consistent all along.
I think the bottom line is that we have provided Jay Smith with everything within reason that has been requested as a remedy of this grievance. We've now affirmed our commitment to academic freedom on at least eight occasions over the past 18 months, [inaudible 00:39:09], and we have articulated this, so I think the message has been the same every time, that Jay Smith could teach the History of Big Time Athletics when appropriate and consistent with the needs of the department, the college, and of the university, and most importantly, our students. So, to suggest that I would suppress this as an area of inquiry on our campus actually pains me.
which was given by Hodding Carter, who at the time was working with the Knight Commission. As you well know, the Knight Commission is an NCAA watchdog with an eye toward reform of college athletics, particularly in regard to emphasizing‐
Section 4 of 15
[00:30:00 ‐ 00:40:04]
Section 5 of 15
[00:40:00 ‐ 00:50:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
To over perform with college athletics, and particularly with regard to emphasizing academic values, and so Bill Friday was also a part of that, and he, at the time, also had serious concerns about the influence of big time sports on academics, and the lecture that year, in 2006, was the proper role of intercollegiate athletics within higher education. I think it was important time, because it began a dialogue on our campus, and I believe in some ways empowered people to begin asking these important question that helped to uncover that which I know Jay Smith is so passionate about. It's as important to me as I believe it is to Jay. It's just as important, I think, to our leadership at the university, and I don't believe that anyone ... I would never try to suppress it, and I don't believe that our university leadership would, as well, so I would like to conclude by stating that we don't believe the grievant
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 14 of 46
bears the burden, of that we believe the grievant bears the burden in this process of presenting sufficient evidence of a violation of university policy that warrants an adjustment in his favor. Jay Smith has identified no such evidence to date, and I think when you listen carefully to the argument it becomes clear that the allegations are based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation. Speaker 2:
Do the other respondents like to add anything to that claim? Then that we'll do is, Jay, if there's anything you'd like to add or respond to that, and then I open it up to the community for questioning. Jay, the floor is yours.
Jay:
Just a few responses. These all strike me as red herring arguments, I have to say. The noted that he's responsible for the gen ed curriculum of 19,000 students. Indeed, that's a lot of students, but he chose to focus on my 30. This was a priority for him, focusing on my 30 students, when he's got 19,000 students to manage. That strikes me as a curiosity.
He claims that his real imperative here was to get the history department to offer more honors and first year seminar courses, because these are high‐ demand courses. I have a couple of responses to that. The history department always meets its obligations to the honors program, and to the first year seminars program, and occasionally even offers the extra honors or first year seminar course. We have always met our obligations. I know this from experience, having been associate chair in my department for eight years. We're very scrupulous about meeting our obligations to those programs, and we've never heard in the past any complaints about our failure to hold up our end of the bargain with our honors program and our first year seminars program.
If, indeed, this is the concern that drove these discussions about History 383, I can only ask why is it that it's only my course? Again, I come back to that. Why is it that I'm the only one who needs to be told that, "No, you need to teach another honors course, or another first year seminar course, rather than that course you want to teach?" Why am I the only one in the history department? Are other faculty in other departments being similarly instructed? "Yes, I know you'd like to teach this course, but no, instead you've got to offer an honors course next fall, or a fist year seminar course next spring." Really? That's happening on an individual by individual faculty member basis? I'd like some other examples of that, if it's true.
Finally, the suggests that his only concern about the scheduling of this course, well, his other concern in addition to the history department's failure to live up to its honors and FYS obligations, was that he wasn't sure it was strategic for the department to offer this course. What a vague and elusive term that is. What does it mean to be strategic? and I agreed that it was indeed strategic, we even used that term. It was strategic to offer the 383 in place of the 516, because students would flock to the 383, and our enrollments would get a boost. A course with four or six students enrolled after two months of pre‐registration doesn't seem to be such a high‐demand course, honestly, so we thought it was strategic to put the 383 in its place, and indeed this is one of
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 15 of 46
the strategies that our department and other departments follow regularly. We think hard about which courses are going to draw the most students.
Finally, I just want to correct one thing that the said about my course offerings in particular. When I said to him on my way out the door, " none of my courses are necessary," what I meant by that was that no single course in isolation is necessary in any given year. French history is necessary. I have no trouble filling up my French history classes. I'm going to make that clear. My French Revolution class, my old regime France class, my French micro‐history class that I'm teaching this semester, they all fill up regularly. I have no trouble. The department has no trouble finding courses for me to teach. I'm not sure why that even entered into the discussion.
383, however, is another course that I've developed that is also quite popular. I enjoy teaching it, my students love it, and I think it's a vital part of this curriculum right now, and yes, I did say in that one email to , "Look, I realize that I can't necessarily teach this regularly. We've got other things to worry about," but after I taught it last summer I realized, wow, the students really react to this course, and I get a charge out of it, too, and I think it's important at this moment in the institution's history for me to teach it regularly for the next couple years.
I don't accept any of the
Speaker 4:
I'd like to direct my first question to the because I know said you may need to leave slightly early. We've not heard discussions of any of your involvement, I don't think, so far today, and so the basic question to you is what was your involvement, if any, in History 383?
Speaker 4:
arguments.
I don't think I had any real involvement in it. I was aware that there were conversations going on, and that were talking to the Professor Smith about that, but other than knowing Professor Smith engaged with an attorney and came to speak to me, and in front of the sometime later, that was the only direct conversation we had about it. Prior to that point had you expressed any opinions about the course to any respondents or other individuals involved in the process?
No.
Speaker 4:
Questions from the committee for others?
Speaker 6:
Just for department [inaudible 00:47:50]. [crosstalk 00:47:52] I'm just curious about what happened to the possibility of turning 383 into an honors course, if that was one of the concerns, strategically, having more first year seminars or honors classes. Why floating that, why that didn't move any further?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 16 of 46
Well, that was never floated ... As far as I know that was never floated, and there is a process, but I don't think it's a lengthy process, to have a course converted from a regular course to an honors course. I think that there is a ... It goes through the and a small committee, is my understanding, and so I had not heard that as a suggestion, in that case. There are some criteria that they ask for.
Speaker 6:
To the
was that a suggestion that you were aware of, and a possibility?
Speaker 7:
has I honestly don't remember that, because I'll just explain. The broad discretion over course planning, because in a department of our size we have, if you do math, I assume we must have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 courses every semester, so the job is really to manage course size. I honestly don't remember having that conversation with her, and we didn't exchange any emails, so I don't ... An instance where having here would be helpful, because I don't remember that discussion. I believe she may have made the decision that that wasn't a solution.
Speaker 6:
We don't have a sense of why that decision would have been made without having her here?
Speaker 7:
Yeah. Honestly, I don't recall ever speaking to her.
Jay:
Look, maybe I can clarify one aspect of it‐
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I guess you ... Did you have any conversations about ... Was that ever pursued? The idea of changing to an honors course? Was that ever pursued?
Jay:
It was not, but for the fall 2016 version of the course, I did not assume that we could get an H suffix added to it.
Section 5 of 15
[00:40:00 ‐ 00:50:04]
Section 6 of 15
[00:50:00 ‐ 01:00:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
I did not assume that we could get an age suffix added to it. I didn't learn, definitively for sure, until late May that I would be allowed to offer the 383 in the fall.
Speaker 2:
Of 2016?
Speaker 1:
2016. I floated the idea. I mean, you may not remember, but when I ... when we met in your office, I did mention that 383 would be a great honors course, and that I would be happy to teach it as an honors course, but by then,
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 17 of 46
we were talking about the fall of 2017. So we had plenty of time to add the suffix, had we wanted to.
I didn't advance that conversation at the departmental level because, next thing I knew, I had been told by that that course wasn't being taught, period. There was no opportunity to consider that option.
Speaker 2:
I ... would you say that ... I think that it is a good suggestion to pursue that, and I would encourage you to do that. It was in one of your emails that you proposed that to go east. That's when I first saw it.
Speaker 3:
Jay, 00:51:19] shared with us a number of emails ... communications, and I think it's true that all, or most ... I think perhaps all of them are focused on the spring 2016 timeframe, talking about whether or not you would teach 383 for fall 2016 ...
Speaker 1:
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3:
... so you heard that, which eventually ...
Speaker 1:
Which is true.
Speaker 3:
... you did wind up teaching. Just to make sure I understand that and you ... correct. You taught in the fall.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. That's right.
Speaker 3:
I have some questions. I know that is not here and, in fact, you're suggesting that maybe [inaudible 00:51:43] we should talk with her. But there is some communication back and forth. And I'd like to ask Professor [inaudible 00:51:47] ...
Speaker 2:
Sure.
Speaker 3:
... your understanding or your involvement in those emails. In May of 2016, and this is on the handouts you're reading now, that shared with us, wrote: "Here's the situation. [ 00:52:05] does not want you to teach that course in the fall. specifically asked to let him know. does not want to be administration intervened. But, of course, you'll have to pay a price for scheduling the course." [inaudible 00:52:17] didn't write that email? Do you know anything about what she's talking there about intervening in this decision?
Speaker 2:
I think she is repeating her understanding of what was going on, the discussions about the course. The conversations being had that I had had with her was after the course was switched, I believe this is fall or shortly after the course was switched from your honors course to 383. There were questions about the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 18 of 46
course. Why was it being offered instead of the honors course? So, I think she's translating what I talked to her about. I would not have phrased it exactly that way, but it's within the realm of reason to translate what I said to her. Speaker 3:
Could you explain to us your conversation with for 2016?
Speaker 2:
I think there were two elements of it that were at issue. One was when Jay's assignment was switched from an honors course to 383, as mentioned. There was a social media blast thrown out there, which we always do when we add a course to the books. We send out a social media blast in hopes that it will promote undergraduate involvement flocking to the new course. My recollection is that wondered about why the social media blast was sent out and the decision about the course being moved. So, all of the details that I think had alluded to the general question about why the decision had been made. So, I explained that and my sense from the meeting was that there were concerns about this course being offered. So, to say that ...
Speaker 3:
What kind of concerns did [inaudible 00:54:54] have?
Speaker 2:
The probably speaking what has outlined that this was not part of the strategic plan. This wasn't clear how this fit in with the strategic goals for the department. That switching courses out of honors was not something that the college wants more honors courses. right to 00:55:21] who's . contacted me about moving course, so that's what I was referring to or that's what I explained. All of those forces were at work.
Speaker 3:
Did course?
Speaker 2:
I don't remember any occasion where ever said anything ... When you mean substance, I mean, I don't ever remember any occasion where questioned Jay's qualifications as an historian to teach the course. My sense was that it was about the appropriateness of that course for the college's strategic plan. And, again, this issue. I'm not trying to litigate your meaning there, except that I honestly don't remember ever raising a question about Jay.
There were comments made to me and, here I must admit, I may be combining things that said to me and said to me. There were discussions about the History Department being over‐resourced [inaudible 00:56:48] years. They have a large department, declining enrollments, in which we have a faculty member who, on the surface of it, appears to be teaching outside his or her I don't recall, ever area of expertise. But that's different from any ... making a specific comment about Jay's qualifications or the appropriateness of Jay teaching this course.
about this course
at that time, express any concerns about the substance of the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 19 of 46
Speaker 3:
Do you know, that I've heard we probably should start on that conversation with you,
Speaker 1:
No, no, no, that's my ...
Speaker 3:
so if you could share your recollection of the conversations you had with [inaudible 00:57:21] about your concerns about this course.
Speaker 4:
OK. Great. First, just to explain,
I do want to just, if I could, go back to the summer of 2016 because I think that informed me may be when we and the as noted ... that he had received questions about the course. And he asked me to follow‐up with to find out about the course. And I should say that this happens sometimes that people outside the university or other faculty or students hear about a course and come to us with questions about it. So, in that situation, it is typical to reach out to their so that we can make sure that all the proper procedures are followed, and also to provide us with the necessary information that we can then explain why this course is being offered them.
So, yes, I did call and explained to me the course had followed the standard procedure and approved by whatever procedures the History Department has, and had gone to the administrative boards of the college and approved there. And, as I recall, at that point, told me that his understanding was that this was a course that would probably continue to be taught in the summer, but he did not think that it would be taught during the academic year. And I said, "Fine, if anything changes, please let me know." Then, I think what said is exactly right. The next thing ...
Section 6 of 15
[00:50:00 ‐ 01:00:04]
Section 7 of 15
[01:00:00 ‐ 01:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Well if it says, exactly right. The next thing, you know, is suddenly There's a social media blast of this new course being offered in the fall of 2016, replacing
Because the College of Arts and Sciences is so large, there's a Senior Associate Dean for Fine Arts and Humanities, there's a Senior Associate Dean the for Natural Sciences, , [ 00:57:45] is [ 00:57:55]. In some universities, History might report to the of the Humanities, but here History reports to . So, just to explain why I am the one talking to
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 20 of 46
an honors course. In other words, the honors course that had been on the books was canceled and was replaced by this course and to the best of my knowledge, the honors course had never been subject to a media blast or effort to boost its enrollments. But some of these were replaced and this new course was advertised and so yes, I did reach out to to ask him to explain the logic and I think that has summarized the key elements of our conversation before. Speaker 2:
Would you have had the same concerns about this course if it had covered any other topic? As long as it were still a non‐honors course?
Speaker 1:
I think that, as I noted, on occasion we get questions about courses and because of this ... The notion ... Because it was a social media blast and because it was replacing an honors course, [inaudible 01:01:22] and I had a conversation and decided it would be good for me to get more information from about the logic, particularly because originally, from what I recall from my first conversation with this was a course that typically be offered in the summer. And yes, it did seem unusual to cancel and honors course and replace it with this one but ...
Speaker 2:
Outside of the replacement of an honors course with an honors course, I understand your concern with that issue. Would you have the same concerns about that switching if the course had dealt with anything else other than UNC Athletics?
Speaker 1:
I ... Very possibly, yes.
Speaker 3:
Can you ...
Speaker 4:
Question ...
Speaker 3:
Sorry ...
Speaker 4:
No go ahead ...
Speaker 3:
Yeah. Can you elaborate on what you mean? A course that is ... That it was only appropriate for summer school?
Speaker 1:
No, I never said it was only appropriate for summer. Once courses are approved by the administrative voters of the college, it can be taught at any time. I'm just relaying my understanding or what I recall having told me about this.
Speaker 3:
Sure, no I just thought in your ... After your summary of that discussion, you in your last statement, you referred to it as a class that was going to be taught in summer school and so the idea that it would be taught in the fall term raised flags. What is it about ... It is a content thing that certain topics are traditionally
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 21 of 46
only taught in summer school or ... What is it about the move from summer school to regular term that catches attention. Speaker 1:
The ... Really the only issue ... As I said there were two issues. One was that we had originally been told, if I recall the conversation correctly, it was only going to be taught in the summer and then the other was that it seemed to be promoted much more assertively than an honors has been promoted.
Speaker 4:
So if I can just ask really a clarifying question, I ... Kind of in terms of the timing, it does seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, that initially this course came to your attention for scrutiny because of outside forces regarding the substance of the class. So initial, folks from the outside or somewhere, raised concerns with you as they may about any kind of controversial class, that this is undeniable that this could raise outside questions. Why is a French historian who is in the media a lot about athletics, an agitator about athletics, now teaching a course in athletics. Is that a good use of, you know, the state's dollars or, you know, people just might have concerns about that. So initially ... Whatever those concerns were, that's how all of this started. How this got your attention. Otherwise, classes don't generally, you know, especially in a large department, get up that high in terms of scrutiny.
But that would be the place it started and then from that, there was a question, kind of down the line, not to diminish your roles in this, but down the line, please find out for me what this is about. That kind of satisfied you with regard to Professor Smith's qualifications in teaching the class and satisfy you both in your ability to defend the class to people who were asking you question about it. Is that correct?
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Yes.
Speaker 4:
And then from there, the next ... So then, everybody's satisfied that this class is appropriate, at least at the summer and you feel like you've heard this is being taught in the summer. And then the next you hear about it is seeing the social media blast and so ...
Speaker 1:
Let me clarify. I'm not on social media, I did not see the social media, I was told that there was. So, again, you know, I can't state that there was one, I can state that I heard that there was one.
Speaker 4:
Okay. So we start with kind of substantive issue about the class that you feel is satisfied and then we move to the kind of, the structural issue. This is a class that is now replacing an honors class and from your perspective, when you talk about the strategic plan of the department or of the college, you're talking about the strategic plan that involves having more honors classes and more
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 22 of 46
first‐year seminars or something different in terms of substantive curriculum in your department?
Speaker 4:
No, was speaking I was speaking of the strategic plan as I understood it explained to me by the because the strategic plan was, at that point, in gestation and hadn't ... And certainly at the department level, we had not engaged in strategic planning so it was my understanding of what the evolving strategic plan was as was explained to me. So that's a, if you will, external force and that sounds wrong ... But I mean, that was external to the department considerations but I understood it that they were important to the college. And so, and ... That's what I'm trying to understand. What that ... What piece of that strategic plan? Was it more first‐years seminars and honors classes or more enrollment? Just across the board? Well, I ... I think this speaks to many layers of my understanding now, retrospectively, of what happened here, if I can put it that way. That there are complex principles involved here, there are complex goals involved here that were not shared and understood by all parties. And I realize that's a great abstraction but specifically with the strategic plan. It was evolving at the time. . What I heard, as major concerns, were we have very limited resources, and as a I've certainly experienced that, so I knew that. We have limited resources, we have, in some fields, including history, we have had a decline in majors. Not so much in the enrollments, given the resources we have. But nationally, I know, history enrollments have collapsed. Just dramatically. So it's of great concern to me because I know if our enrollments collapse, we're not going to get resources because we don't need them. We're not in [inaudible 01:08:08] we have.
So, listening to the talk about limited resources, departments especially with declining enrollments, and we have other departments like say, computer science or econ, that are holding. We need to marshal resources in the college appropriately. I hear that as one in which history better be doing everything it can to facilitate the college's larger goals as they are compatible with what the History Department can do. So that's what I heard and I realize I'm talking in broad abstract terms. So how that translates to this specific course, I can't articulate that. That, I think could do better than I. But that's what I heard. And so the message I heard was that it's very important for the History Department to do what it can to advance the broader college strategic plan at a time when the History Department otherwise, declining enrollments, declining majors, is perceived as being over‐resourced.
Speaker 6:
Can I interject?
Speaker 4:
Please.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 23 of 46
Speaker 6:
First of all, I agree with everything that just said and in February of 16, we became pretty ... February 3rd, I remember that date because we had a
One of them was, as said, was number of majors, number of credit hours taught, both at the graduate, undergraduate level. And let me just also say that, keeping the History Department strong is important to us. It's ... They're ranked 10th or 11th by US News and World Report ...
Section 7 of 15
[01:00:00 ‐ 01:10:04]
Section 8 of 15
[01:10:00 ‐ 01:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
... they're ranked tenth or eleventh by US News and World Report. As ,
Yes, they're majors may be dropping, but they do, and [ 01:10:31] is correct, I think that while the majors have dropped maybe 30 percent, the overall credit hours taught is not 30 percent, it might be 15 percent over the past ten years.
This conversation that we began was really about: how can you help me help you in thinking about this course? Which I also, while I haven't mentioned, I know it's in the documentation, but I quickly agreed to teach in this course, and I enjoy teaching in that course, and I said I would teach in the course again when it's taught.
In fact, that invitation and my acceptance to teach in that course came at some point in probably late summer before Jay was preparing to teach that course in the fall of '16. I didn't know at that point that it had replaced an honors course. It was even after I had agreed to teach in the course that I think the question was raised. I think it was whenever came and brought that to our attention.
But again, with people, I said, "I think to take it off the books at that point was his decision, but it didn't make sense. It would hurt other students." There are a number of metrics, going back to your question Beth, about how we're trying to look at what our 48 departments bring to the greater mission of the college. History does teach a high number of first year seminars and honors courses. That can't be disputed but we have departments in math, computer science, in
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 24 of 46
biology, in chemistry, where that's where we're needing to hire additional lecturers to fill the void for this shift in STEM. We have a couple department chairs that are teaching overloads.
When this issue hits the council of chairs meeting and they start, I mean, what I was told, I don't know if you were there, if you were there, but I wasn't in the council of chairs meeting when this issue was discussed. But there were concerned and in these other departments about boutique type courses being taught in these other departments.
So again, us learning more about this course, me teaching in the course, helps to again defend it. The conversation that and I had was more around, let's find a balance in terms of, when a course like that would be taught when it doesn't necessarily fit within ... maybe it will be part of a core within the history department. But I think at that early time as the course was being taught the first few times, it hadn't and it and it didn't look I think to many people like a one off when in fact we get all these other demands.
That's what I have been very consistent about talking about the strategic needs of the college broadly and of the departments. I remain confident that is confident, or is committed to finding that balance and having a continuing picture of even the way the history department is.
Speaker 2:
So does some of that balance though, and I think you've kind of alluded to this, really does have to do with perception as well. You talked about what the council of chairs says about some of the boutique classes and resources in other departments, which really aren't impacted by any decisions that your department makes about who teaches what in your department, because that money's not going to somebody else in some other department.
Speaker 1: Cause as I said, we had a budget cut, so those dollars are going to those departments that need to offer 24 additional sections of English 105 this year, we're needing to find 24 additional sections.
So there are faculty in that department that aren't able to teach some of the things that they might want to teach cause they're teaching these courses, or the intro math classes, 131 and 232, I think it is. We have senior faculty that would love to be teaching an upper level math class and they're being forced more or less to teach the entry level course. Those are just some examples. I'm sorry, I kind of interrupted you.
Speaker 2:
That's okay.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 25 of 46
So some part of it is perception and part of it is actual numbers. I'm just wondering in terms of the strategic kind of planning. When you look at courses like this, it sounds like they attract actually more bodies than some of the other classes. I'm wondering the role that places in decision making as well, and potential major as well. So somebody might take that course and decided to major in that course.
Speaker 3:
That is directly related to assignment for fall of 2016.
I'll just add a detail here, cause this does speak to something mentioned. had asked me to avert him if a decision was made to teach the course again. At the very moment ... And I didn't mention that to It was in the summer when this came up and it's one of those things. We don't regularly meet necessarily unless there's enough business to warrant her meeting with me.
I was coincidentally away the day in which she and Jay made this decision. I'm not, I only mention that because the consequence of that was, I came back from was asking, "What happened? This being away for two days and course is now on the books." There was a social media blast. Also, had sent me an email saying, "Oh, we just switched the course."
In any case, her decision was motivated strictly by the desire to, as we do, we're anytime we can substitute a course if somebody wants to teach, it will attract a higher enrollment in a course then we have on the books, we're willing to do that. Assuming it's not grievously inconvenient for any of the undergraduates. At this point with six or eight or whatever and at that point in the summer there was the assumption that they could certainly find other courses to take. If we could have a course we'd have 30, 35 students in it as opposed to course we'd have 12, while we were still meeting our honors obligation, let's seize that opportunity. Cause it was again, my gravest concern is that our history enrollments will decline the way they have nationally. And they have, yeah. But that's cause, then we'll be starved for resources.
Speaker 4:
Can I make two quick remarks. May I?
Boutique course. A course on the history of college athletics at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Is this some form of exotica? I don't think so. Students clearly love the course, I'm considering boosting the enrollment in the spring and teaching it with a TA. This is not some self‐indulgent form of curricular experimentation. This is a vital course for our curriculum. The person who used that term, "boutique", I happen to know who it was, knows nothing about the historical discipline or the humanities generally, how we develop our curriculum and how we teach our courses. So that notion that this a boutique course, no it is not.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
making a final decision to change Jay's
Page 26 of 46
The more important comment I want to make si that I hope you're hearing the subtext of the remarks that the and the have just shared with us. The is saying to the and it's the I guess, they're both saying to the "Hey, you're an over resourced department, and you want continued resources. Is it really strategic for you to offer this courses that people are asking questions about? That I'm having to field questions about? Is it strategic for you to do that?" That's what's going on here. The got pressured from outsiders, unidentified, I would love to know who some of them are. I would love to know some names. Who's putting pressure on him? He's getting questions. He would prefer not to have to put up with those questions, and he's suggesting to the "It would be strategic for you not to offer that course."
Section 8 of 15
[01:10:00 ‐ 01:20:04]
Section 9 of 15
[01:20:00 ‐ 01:30:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Strategic for you not to offer that course. Strategic is a term of art. Let's face it. It's a term of art. It can mean many things. One thing it can mean is that it's not going to be good for you if you do that. I think that's what happened here.
Speaker 2:
Can I respond to that?
Speaker 3:
Yes. Then I do want to state, I think we should take a break after this. We'll have some more questions, but I know that we do need to take a 10 to 15 minute break. So yes.
Speaker 2:
"I really enjoyed working on the strategic plan for our department". We're focused on being strategic, bold, and student focused.
I keep saying it's going to take resources to do that. But with a good roadmap on how to do that, we will get there. I have been using strategic long before this course was questioned by anyone. I just want to make that clear. It is, our university just finished for the first time in several decades a strategic plan. A strategic framework, it's actually called. I just want to make that point.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 27 of 46
Speaker 3:
Thank you. Let's take a 15 minute break. We understand that you may need to leave. Let you know, we will make the transcript available if needed. Obviously if there are followup questions you can reach out.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 3:
Thank you. Reconvene here at 10:40. There are more drinks in the cooler. There's coffee that's basically undrinkable, but it's free.
Speaker 4:
Who could pass that up?
Speaker 5:
We love coming here because of the drinks in the cooler.
Speaker 3:
I think we'll do this, let's go back into session, and this when we're comfortable, I think ...
Speaker 5:
And
Speaker 3:
We can go back to a closed session. Again, for the purpose of recording, to let them know that we can start transcribing from this point going forward. Some follow‐up questions from the previous discussion, [inaudible 01:22:37], you mentioned, I think the statement was that you had promised to tell if 383 was going to go on the fall, just the regular academic year schedule.
Why did he ... I assume, when did he make that request and why do you, why did he, in your understanding, why did he want to know?
Speaker 6:
I have no doubt has great notes on this, and I say that with great appreciation, he always took good notes of our meetings and in retrospect, i regret that I didn't take notes. So, li don't remember the first time he mentioned that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't very early in the discussions of when the first questions about the course arose.
And I don't recall, per se, explanation of why he wanted to know. He just asked me to let him know if the course was gonna be offered, and I said I would let him know if the course was gonna be offered.
Speaker 3:
Had or anyone else at that level ever made a similar request about any other course?
Speaker 6:
No, I've never had another conversation about another course, so. I don't have anything to compare it, to.
Speaker 3:
So, [inaudible 01:23:59]
will join us shortly after
gone, yes?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
‐
Page 28 of 46
Speaker 7:
Sure. Just to clarify, I don't have any notes. So. What I'm saying is not based on any notes; I don't have any notes, and it's based on my recollection and when I first asked him about the summer course, and for the reasons that we've already gone over, so I'm not going to go over them again, and as I recall, said, "Well, we expect that this course will normally be done in the summer and not during the academic year."
In order not to be surprised again, and just to be kept informed, given that [inaudible 01:24:45] come to me, saying there was ... that he wanted to know more about the course and that's why, in that conversation, I asked to tell me if anything changed.
Speaker 3:
But of thousands of courses that might be offered in a given semester, again, why the focus on this one specific offering?
Speaker 7:
Well, as I've already said before. There are occasional courses that [inaudible 01:25:14] attention and whether it's from faculty, other faculty, I had a faculty member ask me why is this course being offered, there are students who might ask about it, there are a number of people outside the university.
I've had similar issues with other courses in other departments. It's not common, but this is not the only case in which it occurred.
Speaker 3:
Did you in the spring, or previous to that, 2016, had you told or anyone else that you did not want this course to be offered in the regular academic year?
Speaker 7:
No, I never told
Speaker 3:
Other questions on that?
Speaker 8:
So, to be clear, just that you should be alerted if it was to be taught, for the purposes of being able to manage any kind of PR or optics issue about the class?
Speaker 7:
That was the key issue, yes.
Speaker 3:
Much of our discussion, the grievance focuses on the decision to offer the course in 2017/2018. Almost all of our discussion has been focused on the 2016 decision. I'd like to now turn to the specific issue of whether or not this course would be offered in 2017/2018, so, , if you talk about your process, I suppose that began in October of 2016, with Professor Smith submitting a proposal to teach this course in the 2017/2018 academic year.
Speaker 9:
So, as I said, normally, I have limited participation in those decisions, because the does that. And we talk at a kind of global departmental level about our needs, are we ... do we have enough large enrollment courses, and I can explain these matters to you, if you're interested, then. Do we have enough
that I didn't want the course to be offered at any time.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 29 of 46
courses in the various categories? Do we have enough fixed‐term faculty available to teach any course we need to have taught by fixed‐term, so we talk at the, as I said, the kind of global level and usually don't talk about a specific course.
But because this course has been an issue in the past, I was of course alerted to what Jay requested. When Jay's request came in, and I talked about it and my perception of the college's intent, desire, was to not offer this course.
So, and I talked about it and I, so to speak, kicked the can down the road, as long as I could before we'd have to finalize our course design for the following academic year, so that it gets entered properly. When I say I decided to kick the, I was mulling over how I'd deal with this issue.
Speaker 3:
I want to go back to your other statement. You said you understood that the university, the administration did not want this course offered.
Speaker 9:
My perception was‐
Speaker 3:
Why?
Speaker 9:
Because my understanding of what I was hearing was that this course did not mesh with the college's largest strategic plans. It was ... the department should be positioning itself to meet the needs that the college was identifying as part of its strategic plan, and, for example, more honors courses, all of the things that has discussed. So, my perception was that it was in the interest of the department collectively that .
Speaker 3:
Was your understanding at all based on the substance, the controversy, the potential controversy that might be connected to this course?
Speaker 9:
No. I've never ... if a course is, I must say, , I don't know that I've dealt with any controversial courses but I've always assumed that we offer a course and someone doesn't like it, they can take another course. I mean, that's not. Unless there was some grievous ....
Section 9 of 15
[01:20:00 ‐ 01:30:04]
Section 10 of 15
[01:30:00 ‐ 01:40:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Unless there was some grievous mistake by the faculty member in what he or she signs, or what they've said, but if the substance of the course is approved, the person is qualified to teach it‐
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 30 of 46
Speaker 2:
I suppose my question is not on student reaction to it, but external reaction. That we've heard that there was interest, and questions asked by outside folks. Was your understanding, or your concerns, or your understanding of the university's concerns focused on pressure or input from folks outside the‐
Speaker 1:
Well, no. I understood there was pressure, because I myself had received an email from a faculty member as soon as that social media ... Actually, even before that, when the course was first approved, and this was when it was going to be offered as a summer course. I received an email from a faculty member in another department asking me why this course was being offered, and I was taken aback because I'd never received an email from a faculty member in another department questioning a course.
, because it was raising, of I replied to that and CC'd the course, a question about the and obviously I justified why I thought it was entirely appropriate for the courses we offer, and then there was one other email as I recall I received from an alum who was outraged that the I've gotten course was being offered. Periodically, in the time I've been emails about Jay and his activism, so I knew personally that there was external commentary on the course, but that didn't enter into my decision.
Speaker 2:
At that point, was your understanding that it was likely that course would never be offered in a regular academic semester, a non‐summer academic semester?
Speaker 1:
My understanding ... I'm not sure ...
Speaker 2:
Well, so we've heard before that the and others have said, "Well, we never said this course couldn't be offered again, and it's gonna be offered again in the spring. We never suggested it would never be offered again," but from what I'm hearing from you it was your understanding, this is now in the fall of 2016, that the university would prefer that it perhaps be offered in the summer, that's fine, but never during an academic semester.
Speaker 1:
I don't recall a conversation where there was a suggestion that the course would never be offered. Instead, the conversations tended to be much more tied to the specific circumstances of either the course was offered now, or will the course be offered this period of time, so I certainly don't recall ever having a conversation specifically where my understanding of the conversation was the intent was to never teach the course again. For example, in the fall of 2016, so a year ago, the conversation was I was asking when can, should this course be taught? When would it be appropriate to teach it? Not, of course, a question about will this course ever be taught?
Speaker 3:
And you mean a question you were putting to yourself, internally, in the department, or you actually asked that question?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 31 of 46
Speaker 1:
There were two occasions I can recall where I talked to about that, and so the proposal, the operative timeline I was working on was we would offer this course, I explained to that in the fall, or I should say in the fall of and I talked about, and 2018, and that was something accepted that, but for the academic year 2017/2018, the current academic year, I perceived that it would be compatible with the college's strategic plan, the college's vision for what history should be doing as part of a team player in the college, to not have the course taught.
Speaker 3:
Can you talk just a little bit about how you arrived at that perception?
Speaker 1:
Well, as I say, in retrospect ... Well, first thing, this is not something I'd ever engaged in before, so I was in uncharted waters for me, and I was trying to discern what the college wanted in a context in which I heard, and I don't say I heard secondhand, but I was participating not at the center of it, so we say on the margins of the college was involved in the strategic plan, so I was aware of the emphasis on the strategic plan, the emphasis on limited resources, the emphasis on aligning departments like history with the needs of the college at a time when STEM and other disciplines were in [inaudible 01:35:53], so that's the larger context in which I said, "Okay, we have" ...
Before this matter even came up in the history department, we knew we wanted to go after a target of opportunity hire. A target of opportunity hire at the full professor level. Well, we thought it was going to be at the associate rank, but full professor level. We also have a distinguished chair, a distinguished professorship that has not been filled for maybe four years now that we would like to fill, that would require state resources to make it possible. We have an urgent need for a modern Japanese historian, and then I thought it was likely, and it was true the case that year, that we had five retentions. We didn't know we were going to have five, but I though we were going to have three. We ended up having four that the college provided us resources for those retentions.
I knew this was that we were a large department that often needs to go to the college and ask for resources, and I was acutely aware that it was important for the department to be able to make those calls, make those requests for resources with the greatest likelihood of having access, so I was concerned about positioning the department at the time when I understand resources are going elsewhere in the university. That's the larger global context.
Speaker 2:
Did you ever feel that the department would be punished if there were opportunities to offer this course to people?
Speaker 1:
Based on my experience with , I had no reason to think that the department would be punished, so no, I did not think the department would be punished. I was still concerned with making sure that we could make the strongest possible case for resources. It's a different, that's a‐
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 32 of 46
Speaker 3:
But it does sound like ... Punished is kind of a negative term, but that you definitely felt that by keeping this class off the books, you were in a better position to be asking the for these things that you felt the department needed for the year?
Speaker 1:
Yes. That's‐
Speaker 3:
It was like a trade.
Speaker 1:
That's the decision I made, and that's how I looked at this as one in which the ... Find my words carefully here. I looked upon this as a situation in which my decision ... Let's put it this way: I was not certain what consequences there would be if I approved this course being taught.
Speaker 3:
Have you ever felt that way about another course in your time as
Speaker 1:
No.
Speaker 2:
I'd ask the to respond to that observation there, that there would be financial, I assume you're saying, consequences to the department if this course were approved for 2017/2018. Is that a true statement?
Speaker 4:
No. I mean what I would say is ... I mean, what I recall is that and I met, and we reviewed history's strategic planning, and all the things that were already repeated, and that if thought it was‐
Section 10 of 15
[01:30:00 ‐ 01:40:04]
Section 11 of 15
[01:40:00 ‐ 01:50:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Interviewer 1:
And that if thought it was in the strategic interest of the department to offer the course, and it was needed, to go ahead and do so. And that's also what I was going for in November. After had had a previously scheduled meeting with me and a fellow colleague to talk about another matter. And I should say that you know we had all kinds of ongoing work that we were continuing to do and I ... and at the end of that meeting [inaudible 01:40:37] I shared that further thought with and frankly I had no idea what was gonna do. I didn't know if he was gonna ... if the course was gonna be offered in 20 seven, 18 or not. But my clear sense was that the course was definitely gonna be offered again. And as far as I know the matter is closed. Did you have any input into the decision to offer it in 2017 or 2018?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 33 of 46
I had no input. Several weeks later told me that he had made the decision not to offer the course and I said, "Fine.". I had no input into it. And um, let me just ... I want to reiterate in the larger context, that said and that is that history is one of the stronger departments in the college. It's nationally ranked [inaudible 01:41:37]. It does have some challenges that has indicated. Could I just? I do want to affirm that at the end of every meeting that I can remember, said this as well, that I should make whatever big decision I thought was in the best interest of the department. But I definitely want to affirm that that was always said.
Interviewer 2:
So, and I hear that. I'm just wondering what kind of happened. The responses to hearing a say I made this decision because I felt like I had to be a team player here or else I might not get my target of opportunity higher. I might not get my fly of retentions, I might not get the modern Japanese historian or this distinguished professorship. Whether that perception was grounded in anything you said or did, I guess I think it might be helpful for everyone to hear what your thoughts are when you hear a say that. "That I dumped this one class out of all of them. I let go because I wanted to be a ... I felt like I needed to do that to be a team player.". Could I just say something that maybe you can, you talked about. But I ... We are in a really challenging time, as budget cuts are real. And I think every is trying to do just what described. Just use ... under different sit ... Every department has a different situation in terms of how they're trying to meet their core curricular needs, you know within their disciplines. And some departments have seven or eight specializations. They're trying to contribute to the general education that you know, domains that we have and so I think that every department chair is trying to be a good team player.
And so I think they're all jocking for those limited resources. And so and I wanna just add that I, what said was that he had no idea if the course would be offered next year, I had no idea if the course was gonna be offered, I mean this year. But yet, during all of this we responded I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, to every request that was asked. I didn't know if it was for our retentions but you know would come to me and say, "Here's another one.". I mean we had a lot.
But in a big department as said, you're gonna have that. But we responded to every one of them. I think we retained every one of them. And we fought like crazy to get this . At every step upping what we would put into it, so and that was all done not knowing what ...
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 34 of 46
Interviewer 3:
Interviewer 3:
How about you distinguish your comment that again every chair is looking out to try to be strategic and make sure that his or her department is supporting and pursuing university goals. But, when you have a department with over 100 courses, the thought that a chair would think that this one course in the mix I could have between this number of honors and this number of graduates class and this number of entry into our third courses. A course that has been taught before, has attracted what is a reasonably healthy enrollment. A professor who wants to teach it again, that that decision there would be potentially crucial to the financial fortunes of a large department ... is unique, it would be not normal. Is that a fair observation? Yeah, and again I ... he made that decision based on a lot of information and as I said, I think that we never said not to that course could not be taught and all intentions I think nor that it would be taught again. I think it was a matter of just balancing you know the curricular demands and contributions to the general curriculum. As a specific question ... So I don't know and I don't know if I interrupted the question you were trying to ask but.
Interviewer 2:
No, no that's fine. I think that kind of answers my question.
Interviewer 3:
More limited question on a specific meeting that I think occurred in November of 2016 between Professor Smith and . about this course. That Professor Smith says he left with understanding you would be able to teach the course in the spring of 2018. Can you ... do you recall that meeting? And if so, what was the substance and did you in fact leave that meeting with the understanding that the course would be offered in the spring of 2018?
I thought it was a good meeting in fact as I indicate earlier J. I think did a really good job in that meeting. Not that I was asking for it, but I think that he was trying to defend his right, cuz he knew that I had been asked about a French historian teaching this course and he gave me some good examples of how other faculty in that department over time have taught courses outside. Maybe their area that they use is historical methods which help me then if I was asked about to further defend the teaching of the course.
However, I was very consistent [inaudible 01:47:06] with the message about, "I'm not making this decision about whether or not you'll teach the course next year, the following year, or whenever.". That's a departmental decision. And I said it's very consistent with what we said all along. If it meets the strategic needs and priorities for the department then it should be taught.
And then we had, I thought it was a good meeting. We had this little thing at the end where I don't, I'm not sure J. liked the framing of need. But that, and what
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 35 of 46
he said is what he did say, which was that I don't necessarily need to teach any of the you know the courses so that. So, I thought we left on good terms. He did write me a summary of that meeting and I knew that ... I think maybe whenever he wrote that, that maybe a meeting had already occurred between and and I wasn't part of that meeting. So I wasn't gonna say ... I wasn't going to say, "Oh yeah this is exactly right. You can teach the course or you're gonna teach the course.". I hadn't heard what happened at that point. I wrote a very short email that was thanked for the meeting. I believe and are meeting or will be meeting soon. That was it. Interviewer 3:
So, to summarize you did not leave that meeting with the impression that you had approved or otherwise indicated that the course could be offered or would be offered in the fall of 20 ... of spring 2018. It wasn't ... No and it's not my ... I wouldn't do that. [00:08:39 unintelligible] who was in that, what faculty member was in there. I wasn't gonna go above the ... I wasn't gonna ... I have no idea what may have had in mind or what he's had in mind for next year, for ... yeah for the following academic year. I mean there are all sorts of issues. Faculty go on research and study assignments and sometimes people have to share their teaching loads because faculty would go on you know family personal leaves and so that's not for me ... if I had said, "Yes, absolutely you're gonna teach that course next year." And then some other plan had been made between and that wouldn't help anybody. I never left that meeting.
Interviewer 3:
Chris Smith did you have any additional comments you may want to share about that meeting?
Chris Smith:
Not about that particular meeting. I ... the subsequent meeting was very meaningful to me because I went to office. And I said, " you're not said it's okay with him. So long as it's consistent with our gonna believe it. vision of the department's needs if we offer the course next year. So apparently I can teach the course." And was stunned. He was genuinely stunned by that news. It took him a couple of seconds to get his composure.
Section 11 of 15
[01:40:00 ‐ 01:50:04]
Section 12 of 15
[01:50:00 ‐ 02:00:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
A couple of seconds to get his composure. And he told me that he felt a little angry about all of this, because this was inconsistent with the messages that he had been hearing, but that he was glad to know that it was gonna be okay for me to teach the course.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 36 of 46
I mean, that was a great day for me. I was heading to Iowa to go to a conference. I was giving a paper. I thought, "Wow." You go to talk to the powers that be and sometimes they listen to. It was a great day. I got back Monday, I and within 24 hours, I'm hearing from that oh no, wrote that email to you're not teaching that course next year. I was told that they don't want you teaching that course.
Now, I don't know. I wasn't at that meeting. I don't know what words were exchanged. Maybe is making it all up; I don't know. But I know that I left town, the evening of the 3rd, thinking I was teaching the course. And the next time I was on campus, on the 8th, I was told I was not teaching that course. And in the intervening four days. I don't know. had had a meeting with
Someone tell me what that means. I know what I think it means.
Speaker 2:
I'm going to turn ... do you recall any meetings during that time frame that may have occurred? First of all, do you recall the conversation with Professor Smith about his understanding that the investigates have blessed the course for spring [inaudible 01:51:35]?
Speaker 3:
I don't ... but I don't. I just don't recall that conversation, but I don't question. It sounds very. I honestly just don't remember, but it sounds very plausible, as Jay describes it.
And I must confess, I don't remember the timeline as clearly as Jay does. But at that point in time, you say that was in October? That‐
Speaker 1:
November 3rd.
Speaker 3:
Early November, yes, that was exactly at the moment in time when I was making the decision, so if the meeting you're talking about must have been when I went over to and we had various things to talk about, and at the end of that meeting, I'm assuming that's the meeting where I said that I've made the decision that Jay's course. So, that must be the timing.
Speaker 2:
Follow‐up on that or any other questions?
Speaker 4:
So it sounds like what you heard was, "I was told you can't teach that course," and what you say most likely happened is that you felt like, your perception was, that it was a bad idea for him to teach this course this year, but it wasn't explicitly said to you, you just felt like that was the general tenor of things?
Speaker 3:
Yes. I don't ... there was no conversation where ."
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
said to me, "Do not
Page 37 of 46
Speaker 4:
And is it possible that the way you conveyed that might have led Professor Smith to believe that it was more explicit than that?
Speaker 3:
I think I recall, but again, I don't recall the specific meetings, but I think I recall how I conveyed it, and I don't think I ever conveyed the idea that I was ordered that the course shouldn't be taught. What I did convey was I had the perception that , or that scheduling the course was inconsistent with the college's strategic plan, etc.
Speaker 4:
But to be clear, not necessarily inconsistent with your department's kind of course offerings or curricular plans for that semester?
Speaker 3:
Right, and again, always said and did, on two occasions, I can recall talking about this course with said I strategic goals and curricular needs.
Speaker 4:
And at that time when you made the decision, you weren't making it based on the curricular needs of that semester, but you were thinking kind of long‐term in terms of what your department might need from the university?
Speaker 3:
I was thinking of long term, I was visioning the department to be as responsive to the larger goals of the college, since at the end of the day, all of our resources come from the college. We have no ... well, we have some endowment. And I'm was always very tenacious not suggesting, again, I want to affirm about getting those resources and I wanted to make sure we continued to have access to resources I felt were needed.
Speaker 4:
And so that last piece seems to indicate that you might not continue to have access to that kind of zealous advocacy if this class were on the books for the fall?
Speaker 3:
That's where I had to make, shall we say, a leadership decision and had to figure out, we're in a time of scarce resources, extremely scarce resources, how do I know what decisions will be made on basis outside of what I know?
Speaker 2:
Last question, I think, is, how do we get to the point where the decision was made to put the course on the schedule for spring 2018?
Speaker 3:
Well, I ... in conversations with subsequently, I don't remember specific conversations, but I always, this came up in no contrived manner, just as an issue that was continuing to, if you will, [inaudible 01:56:52] the department and be of concern to me as a and my role was trying , and there were just to provide the conversations about what we could do to improve the relations, if you will, between the faculty who were growing suspicious about [inaudible 01:57:13] and the particular occasion I can remember, as outlined, was every,
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 38 of 46
usually end of the spring term, even beginning of the summer,
coming to early faculty meeting to talk to We talked about, for example, the faculty and at the end of the meeting, we talked about re‐visiting this issue, and I think very ... actually, he might not even have, yes, I guess he had just taken over, came over to see me, talk with me about this, and I proposed to him that if I changed decision and the course was scheduled, I think that would be a wonderful way to begin to address some of the tensions, if you will.
So, that was how the decision was made. It was really ... a recognition, certainly, on my part, that this was a step that would be good for the department. And it's consistent with our curricular needs.
Speaker 2:
How would that ... if in the fall of 2016, your decision was this course was not consistent with the curricular needs, how did that ... the overall, oh, in that's curricular needs, but strategic plan? The overall plan? How did it change between then and spring‐
Speaker 3:
Section 12 of 15
[01:50:00 ‐ 02:00:04]
Section 13 of 15
[02:00:00 ‐ 02:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
In which he and I would work, without this course as being part of the ongoing discussion. So that's ... I don't know if that answers your question. That's the context in which we were talking about it.
Speaker 2:
This the first conversation?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 39 of 46
Speaker 3:
So, it was never a question of the curricular needs for the academic year 2017‐ 2018, but in the Fall of 2016, when you were making a decision about 2017, you had these other concerns about being a team player and consequences for the department, the larger colleges admission and how it fit in. But now, those needs were met for department and we're at Fall 2017 and you see the department having some morale issues around this. And so the decision for 2018 is largely based on ... Since you don't really have curricular concerns. And now you no longer have the concerns about what the consequences are, you can meet the morale needs of the department?
Speaker 1:
Well I think it's also, this has been a ... I would say a learning curve because the always [inaudible 02:01:16] this issue. There is nothing in the that talks about a matter like this, there's nothing ... This was not a matter I was going to talk to other people about, I wasn't going to talk to about this, so it was ... I felt very isolated, thinking about how to approach this. In retrospect, I'd do things very, very, very, very differently. But it happened in history, I suppose, through retrospect and so I was, in retrospect and this I think, if you'll allow me a few minutes, this I think will address the change of mind. In retrospect, I would have done much more to try to educate on the culture of course assignment in the history department. Because it is very different than say, the math department. Or chemistry.
In history, you have certain obligations to teach certain courses. They're not courses by field nec ... well, they often are by field but they ... We are most concerned that every faculty, regardless of rank, teach one large course. We don't want senior faculty abandoning the large course to the assistant professor. And that hasn't always been the case, , we impose that on everyone now.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 02:02:42]
Speaker 1:
So once he ticks that box, everything else he teaches is up to him and a broad curriculum need, so he can't just go off and teach random courses but he has very wide discretion. That's different from some of these other departments and I could have done a better job of educating I think, and about that so that the questions about this course could be understood as violating the traditions of the department and curricular allocations. I think I also should have talked more strategically, and I mean that ... or tactically with and about how to address their concerns and why again, it was this course. But I also should have talked to faculty about it and that's where I should have been very ... I did not know how to talk to faculty about it, because of questions about the climate between our department and South Building that I think aren't unique to department at all, they're characteristic to departments in the humanities.
There is a great suspicion about the stem disciplines from consuming the university and we're being starved ... So some of those are not just tied to this
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 40 of 46
campus, they're sort of disciplinary‐wide in humanities disciplines across universities in the United States. And then I will say one thing that contributed a lot to this, changed my attitude was the election of Trump. Because it created an atmosphere in which, we have faculty can feel besieged by external forces. And so there are a lot of ... And I realized that seems, what does Trump have to do with this? But then when I have faculty perceive for example, that the civil rights center will be under threat, that virtually any ... anything that's matched a progressive or contrary thought might be targeted, that contributes to the anxieties about Jay's course. And so those all fed into my idea of it, well it's important to send a signal that this course will be supported. Regardless of whether I was right about reading the consequences for the department one way or the other.
And that was, as I say, there has been no ... The support from the college, for the history department, at has been consistently very strong.
Speaker 2:
Was there any input from any of the about that decision to add the course back, this is now in July, this is now‐ [crosstalk 02:05:51]
Speaker 1:
that was in the context of all this questions about the Well talking about climate and trying to, if you will, reset the conversation. But he wasn't, was in no way saying, you need to add this course or to the contrary. He was talking through how to address this matter.
Speaker 2:
And not really a question but I want to address it because it's part of the grievance, is again if you comment on any input, influence, pressure from the athletic department on this decision process.
Speaker 4:
None on me.
Speaker 1:
None on me, no.
Speaker 2:
You had no contact with anyone from that department about‐
Speaker 1:
No.
Speaker 2:
... History 383?
Speaker 1:
I mean there were questions about, early on, I don't know if it was in the summer or fall teaching of the course, it might have been fall of '16 about a tour of a Loudermilk. Which was a concern of ... but it was raised, they had wanted to give a tour of the Loudermilk Center, which is where the student athletes receive their advising, and apparently it was shut down or was ... The concern was raised that you can't tour students through there, that eventually that was ... I did not get involved in that but I think the worked a plan where you
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 41 of 46
could give a tour of the Loudermilk Center, that's the extent, that I was copied on some emails regarding ... Speaker 4:
Just one ... Actually it's a question to fix, I think meeting, where you and I kind of went over the course of previous year and possible future dis‐ I thought was in that meeting.
Speaker 1:
was. That's why then He was. Yeah, I meant to, yes. ... As you describe, he revisited the issue with me.
Speaker 5:
And if I could just add to that as well, was also in the meeting, which I thought was also a very good meeting that we had with three or four members of the history department in late May, just to answer questions that they had about it. With the follow‐up to a letter that they did send. It was and I that met with them and that it was a good meeting, and after that meeting I think as I said in one of the comments, the plan was for this transition to take place with and to circle back to and to come up with in mid‐July I a plan moving forward. And it was when I was meeting with guess, you know we were doing weekly check‐ins, just as he was getting ready the conversation was, was there a follow up on that, and he had just indicated ...
Had a conversation with him about what the plan was, but there was no, my frustration is that is as Jay presented, it sounds as if we relented under all this pressure. That wasn't the case. It was about when is the right time to teach the course and when it's needed, teach the course. And so he'd just check in with ... And I said as we were leaving, we'll remind him of that meeting we had with the history [inaudible 02:09:24], that we agreed at that meeting that if the right time to teach the course could be decided by the course. That's how that happened. I think that was the last week of July.
Speaker 1:
Any more questions?
Speaker 2:
I don't know, I don't have any more questions but I'm going to turn to both the parties to ask them to sum it up very briefly, if there are any‐
Speaker 4:
Yeah, I just have a couple of quick observations. has referred to the change in climate in the spring, summer, that led him to rethink the decision to offer 383 this year. I just want to point out that‐
Section 13 of 15
[02:00:00 ‐ 02:10:04]
Section 14 of 15
[02:10:00 ‐ 02:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 42 of 46
Jay:
... this year. I just want to point out that one important contributing factor to that change in climate was a fierce resistance by my colleagues to what had happened to my course. If there was a morale issue in our department around this course, it was because my colleagues learned all the details of what had happened, and they were pretty outraged by it. So that in addition to other pressure that was brought to bear in late spring and summer contributed to this changing climate that suddenly made the scheduling of my course more appealing than it had been.
The only other thing that I want to say is that there's a sentence in both of my complaints that has not come up today. It's a pretty serious allegation that I make in the sentence, and I want to revisit it before we leave. I want to leave everything on the table before we adjourn. I was told more than once that someone in South Building, I'm not sure who, communicated to [ 02:11:26], "I'm not threatening you, but ..." "I'm not threatening you, but ..." in connection with the scheduling of my course. That has not come up today. We haven't talked about that, and maybe this is all, maybe I was hallucinating, that this never happened at all. I'm pretty sure my colleagues heard much the same thing at our April department meeting, and I think if that is a misrepresentation on my part, it should absolutely be cleared up. But if it's not, I'd like to hear someone address it.
Speaker 2:
I'll turn to closing, and if you can as part of closing address whether or not, I suppose I think we'll start here, because you're suggesting that that message was delivered to you [inaudible 02:12:21] about a subtly veiled threat.
Speaker 3:
The phrase that I think [Jay's 02:12:32] referring to is ... I'm not threatening you, it was "This is not a threat, but ..." around the time ... I'm paraphrasing. Around the time of scarce resources etc, etc.
Speaker 2:
Could you explain who made that comment to you?
Speaker 3:
made that to me in the two occasions I met with him. It wasn't in context in which, I think Jay summarized that.
Speaker 2:
You have a comment on that?
Speaker 4:
I can't imagine. First of all, saying I'm not threatening you, but I would never use that phrase, or say that I'm threatened. We talked a lot about scarce resources. We talked a lot about over resource. We talked a lot about the timing of offering this course. I never said threatened. Threaten a or department. I have to refute that.
Speaker 2:
Any other closing thoughts?
Speaker 4:
Well first of all, just to touch on the point that Jay just made about the [inaudible 02:13:58] in the letter that they sent to us that was signed by a
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 43 of 46
majority of their faculty. I have since had a number of those faculty talk to me about what happened, and describe it as being somewhat sloppy with how that process was taken place over email. Debates whether it should be copied to the press or not. I think the people who ... Those that didn't sign that letter I think were ... Basically they apologized to me for that. Almost embarrassed with the department. Just have one individual described. I think that needs to be part of the record. This notion of the history department versus the south building it's the first I'm hearing of it. Maybe it was sort of said in, or joking that I ... One of the best meetings I had as the . I went around to meet with all of the departments, and we had a fantastic meeting. I heard a lot about the department, and went well over the time we had set aside. It was with [ 02:15:15], and his team.
I've never sensed a tension between a certain . Maybe when it's said about south building, maybe their rather talking about south building back certainly did not since then. I think just enclosing there was no conspiracy to keep history 383 from being taught. I think Jay would like people to believe that, but there was no grand scheme to prevent him from teaching this course again. Some people had strong feelings about Jay Smith? Yes. Did people on campus not just the administration, but students, and the fellow faculty members, and faculty you've heard today from a number of us raise question? There were questions raised about why I had to [inaudible 02:16:09] was teaching a course in big time athletics. Did the respondents personally have a problem with Jay teaching the course? No. After confirming that it was properly approved, my only concern again is that I've said repeatedly was it was replacing in that fall semester a course that we were desperately trying to find more sections of honors, and first year seminars courses. As I were to mention, as I guess lecturing that course, which I enjoy doing.
Would I really associate myself in a course in this way if I had an objection with the class, or the professor, or it's content. It's clear to me now that there was certain miscommunications, and just hearing this today, and misunderstandings that ... And perceptions here that in terms of the way information was passed along from person to person. I am disappointed. in fact you felt conflicted about how resources would, or wouldn't flow based on decisions that were made, because that was never the intention, but yes we had conversations about constraining resources, but we never prevented Jay from teaching the course. I think the thing that we need to realize is that we're all academics, and I think that Jay has this perception that administrators of south building are enemies of academic freedom. We're all academics.
and I value the importance of sharing governance with what academic freedom really brings, and the importance of it. We don't just acknowledge our faculties freedom of inquiry, but we believe in those freedoms. We've exercised those freedoms ourselves, and uphold them
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 44 of 46
with unwavering commitment so I don't believe there was a violation of University's policies. Standard to procedures in this matter as agreed in adjacent that this I think has failed to meet the burden of present evidence of such a violation. There are a lot of assumptions, speculations, you're saying this interpretation of your saying, and we believe that we already provided Jay with the requested remedies that could be reasonably granted. We've publicly affirmed our commitment to academic freedom at least eight different times as I mentioned earlier. With this hearing we yet, again, provided Jay with an explanation of the events regarding the History 383 course.
He's received everything that could be entitled under this process so for these reasons we respectfully ask that you would find no adjustment in favor of the agreement is necessary at this point. That the matter be resolved.
Speaker 2:
I appreciate all your time gentleman.
Speaker 3:
I'd like to just add one.
Speaker 2:
Of course yes.
Speaker 3:
Just to clarify what I was trying to say about attitudes in south building. There not directed ... With the exception of this particular matter. They're not directed at you. I would say generally there's a suspicion about higher administration in general. I use south building to‐
Section 14 of 15
[02:10:00 ‐ 02:20:04]
Section 15 of 15
[02:20:00 ‐ 02:38:01](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
So I knew South Haven to is everything that South Haven represents to academics and humanities who would like to have a free hand unencumbered by bureaucracy I didn't want to suggest that this was [inaudible 02:20:19]
Speaker 2:
First of all, officers [inaudible 02:26:24] Officer [inaudible 02:26:24] Second half of it is the student services and then their other administration
Speaker 1:
Yeah, so the then on seconds
Speaker 2:
I appreciate that, thank you everyone for participating and the cooperation I'm grateful for that. Next steps will be that Camille will confer and make decisions whether or not any other parties need to be heard from any other witnesses, I should say, that need to be heard from. I will let you know if that the case I will give you the opportunity to attend we will do everything we can to schedule a
and the pro boss are as much targets at the suspicion
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 45 of 46
time you can attend and if you can not the courts [inaudible 02:26:24] again as transcripts are needed. Kathleen has spoken with everyone we think appropriate spoken for well go ahead and sit down together as a sub committee get recommendations of 12 and 13 faculty members will then vote on that., when that is finally approved we'll then share it with all of the parties. If after we convene today adjourn today if you have additional thoughts you wish to share certainly we all welcome to hear from you we look forward to sharing both sides whatever we hear make sure everyone's aware of what's been said. Otherwise, I'm assuming that we are adjourning the meeting for today?
Thank you very much everybody.
Can you get a copy of this last email so I can make additional copies? I can I'll share this with you all, the original email.
Section 15 of 15
[02:20:00 ‐ 02:38:01]
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your future orders
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 46 of 46
Katie Turner
Order #
TC0010748767
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your future orders
Need Help? mailto:[email protected] Get this transcript with table formatting
Section 1 of 15
[00:00:00 ‐ 00:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
[inaudible 00:00:05] America moves very fast, apparently.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:00:10] But the stuff that you had out there a couple weeks ago was really good.
Speaker 1:
It was like a two week frenzy, and now, until the next monument gets [crosstalk 00:00:18]
Speaker 2:
Something tells me that we'll be circling back.
Chris McLaughl.:
First of all, thank you everyone for joining us; I appreciate that. We are here to convene a public meeting of the Faculty Grievance Committee. We are here as a sub‐committee to hear an individual grievance filed by a faculty member because that involves confidential personnel matter. We need to go to a closed meeting. So do I hear anyone who might raise a motion to go into closed session?
Erika Ripley:
I raise a motion that we go into closed session.
Chris McLaughl.:
Do I hear any second? [crosstalk 00:00:48]
Neera Skurky:
Second. I'm sorry.
Chris McLaughl.:
Thank you. Committee members ‐ you vote in favor of going to closed session?
Erika Ripley:
Yes.
Neera Skurky:
Yes.
Chris McLaughl.:
Any opposition? Excellent, we are now in closed session. I look around; I do not see anyone who is not here as a part of the grievance process. So that's excellent. So that is a reminder that we are required to deal with these procedures as confidential, so I ask that you treat them the same as well, as much as possible. We should introduce ourselves ‐ also, I want you to know you see in front of the room, or the middle of the room, a recording device. We are recording this. We may be required down the road to produce a transcript, so we're happy to share this, either the audio recording with you all, or the general counsel's office will be very helpful in getting us a transcript made that can share that with you as well. And we'll do the same if there's a need down the road to meet with other individuals, especially if everyone cannot get together, which I know is difficult to do; make sure we share transcripts with you as well.
Because we are recording this, I want to make sure the transcript ‐ if we could go around the room and briefly introduce who you are and what your role is in
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 2 of 46
this proceeding. My name is Chris McLaughlin; I'm a member of the grievance committee. Erika Ripley:
I'm Erika Ripley, also a member of the grievance committee.
Beth Posner:
Beth Posner, also a member of the grievance committee.
Kara Simmons:
Kara Simmons, from the Office of University Council; I'm here to advise the grievance committee.
Jay Smith:
I'm Jay Smith, the complainant.
Neera Skurky:
I'm Neera Skurky from the Office of University Council; I'm advising the respondents.
:
Chris McLaughl.:
Thank you. And that is all the folks who are in the room right now. As I sent an e‐mail around yesterday, or earlier in the week, [inaudible 00:02:34] procedure, our main goal is to give all parties a chance to share information they believe relevant with this committee. I appreciate all the written submissions we've received from both parties. Our secondary goal is to keep this as non‐ confrontational and non‐adversarial as possible. And to that end, we will not be having parties question one another; I wanted to ask the attorneys in the room, here to advise our committee, or the respondents to do so privately and not be involved directly in the proceeding as well. With that, I think we're going to give the floor to Jay. We've asked you to take roughly 15 minutes to summarize your position, sharing new information with us. Please know we've read your submissions carefully, both the original ones with the e‐mail attachments and supporting documentation. Of course, you've read the respondent's written response, and then you [inaudible 00:03:28] complaint. So I don't think you need to summarize everything all over again, but do, if you could hit the most important points, or anything you think that needs to be emphasized or added to what you've showed us.
Jay Smith:
I haven't rehearsed, so I don't know exactly how long I'll take ‐ [crosstalk 00:03:42]
Chris McLaughl.:
We're flexible.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 3 of 46
Jay Smith:
I hope to keep it to ten minutes, actually, but yes, so I've submitted two pretty detailed complaints; at this point, everybody knows what's in those complaints, and so I don't plan to reiterate the timeline that I've laid out. I would like to make a few broad points, including a couple that haven't been made before, or haven't received sufficient attention before. The first one is simply a correlation that has gone largely unremarked upon, I think, in public commentary and in our own internal communications. That is, I just want to remind everyone that, you know, for the past five years or so, I have been battling UNC administrators over a number of issues, particularly with regard to the athletics scandal.
I became a bit of a lightning rod for Tar Heels fans everywhere through this five years of agitation, if I can call it agitation, and my course generated a great deal of discussion among Tar Heels fans out there in the public at large, many of whom, I have to assume, have ear, just because he's close to the athletic department. And so it is, you know, the idea that it would be a coincidence that it is me and my course that prompted this unprecedented intervention into the process of departmental courses scheduling is ... well, it's just, it would be hard to accept. You'd have to have been asleep in this community for the past five years to assume that there's no correlation there between those two things.
The other big point that I want to make is that I think the documentary record, as well as my own experience of what has happened to me and my many conversations with the departmental leadership, both since last fall, all show ‐ actually, since last summer ‐ all show that there is a ‐ has been a pattern of obstructionism and resistance toward this course from the very moment that South Building learned of its existence. This goes back to either late March or early April of 2016, when word got around that the department had created this course and scheduled it for the first summer session. I believe, can tell you that he received a call from, I believe, ‐ asking him to explain how this course had been created, to justify its existence, and to make a case for my teaching this course. That was from, you know, the first days of the course's official existence.
That continued ‐ that pattern continued through the summer when we made the decision ‐ and I made the decision to substitute 383 ‐ the sports course ‐ for a badly underenrolled honors course that was initially slated for the fall 2016 term. As you know from the timeline, when we made that decision, we immediately encountered resistance, and it took skillful negotiating on the part of and a bureaucratic quirk, which was that the course got onto the books and had students enrolled in it before South Building learned what had happened. It took those two things in order for that iteration of the course to survive. I taught it successfully, and I wanted to teach it again this fall; that's what I requested when the department sent out its course requests last fall and, as you know, that's why we're here: because there were efforts to suppress the course for the academic year, initially, and there
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 4 of 46
has been a recent reversal we can talk about at some point, if we need to, but the pattern is clear, in my view.
I actually have one additional bit of evidence that I didn't include in my initial e‐ mail submissions. If I may, I'd like to give it to you now. I've got extra copies ‐ everybody can look at it. This is a very curious thing that happened. Last May, early June, after the department had succeeded in getting South Building to acquiesce in my teaching the course in fall 2016, we set the enrollment cap at 35; well, I immediately attracted 19 students within the first week to ten days that the course was scheduled. And I kept checking back over the next week to 10 days to see how the enrollments were coming along, and the course was stuck at 19. 19. 19 ‐ for two solid weeks.
Finally, I e‐mailed our , who handles enrollment sizes in our classes, and I said, " what's going on here? We're stuck at 19" ‐ actually, I had received an e‐mail from a student who was trying to get into the course. Connect Carolina indicated that it was still open and it had 35 seats, but she couldn't enroll ‐ what's going on? Well it turned out, and I've got e‐mail proof of this, that someone, somewhere in the university had capped the course at 19, without the department's knowledge, without ever consulting the and I learned department. This, too, was an unprecedented move. When what had happened, she came to my office ‐ her hands were trembling. She said, "This has never happened before. I don't understand what happened here. I'm gonna try to find out what did happen."
In the end, she couldn't. She couldn't figure it out because the codes were so peculiar. But, again, departmental autonomy, departmental integrity, was violated in ways the department ...
Speaker 1:
Section 1 of 15
[00:00:00 ‐ 00:10:04]
Section 2 of 15
[00:10:00 ‐ 00:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Complainant:
Departmental integrity was violated in ways that the department was not even aware of. It was all because someone wanted to control enrollment into my course. So, here are some copies of that email. The pattern is clear.
The last big point I want to make is that I really was insulted by the letter that the respondents sent to you all, a few weeks back, when they asked you to drop this grievance. To claim that I have suffered no injury is, to me, just outrageous. I have had to invest untold numbers of hours and amounts of energy since last summer in fighting for this course and defending my academic freedom, and
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 5 of 46
defending the integrity of the history department's curriculum. I've had many discussions with , and my other history colleagues. I can't tell you how many hours I spent with the AAUP this past Spring, with fire, with local media, interviewing with local media. I have had to fight tooth and nail to get this recent reversal that they've granted to us, allowing finally the course to go on next Spring.
I've also, I'm not going to go into details but, I have medical issues today that I did not have a year ago, that are stress related. Doctors will testify to that fact, if they need to. I've spoken to lawyers about bringing action against the university for a pattern of harassment that stretches back at least two years. I have suffered serious injury through this entire process and I was insulted by the suggestion that there was no injury done in this case. And that the idea now that they've allowed us to go ahead with this course next Spring, the whole matter is settled, and there's no need for any further discussion is just silly. It is just silly.
We need to know exactly what happened, why it happened, what the sources or origins of this desire to suppress my course really were, and have a frank discussion about how we prevent this in the future.
Speaker 2:
Thank you, I have a couple of questions [crosstalk 00:12:24] so I understand the timelines as you see it. Could you explain the timeline for history 383 for the 17/18 academic year? As I read through it and you're telling the story, it was on, it was off, it was on, it was off. And so could you summarize that timeline, as you see it of‐
Complainant:
I think I can. There were a lot of steps in the process but ... so it all began, the story began on October 10th 2016, when I submitted my course request form to the . On that course request form‐
Speaker 2:
I'm sorry is
Complainant:
[ 00:13:03], that's right, yes. On that form I listed 383 as one of my two fall courses, and I can't even remember honestly what the other course was ... And probably the French revolution and a first year seminar for my Spring term. That was October 10th. On October 24th, I heard from I got She suggested to me that the department could a cryptic email from really use a new honors course, for fall 2017, and would I be interested in offering a new honors course. And she mentioned there's course development money available for this, suggesting there was ... Trying to entice me to develop a new honors course. And I responded that I would be happy to teach an honors course but it's easy enough simply to place an H next to an existing course, and my 383 course would be a wonderful honors course.
Indeed, it would because the resources available to our students doing research projects are so copious it would be a wonderful honors course. So I said "Why
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 6 of 46
don't we just do that?" And said "I hate to break it to you ..." I'm paraphrasing but, "We can't offer 383 next year." And that's what initiated my resistance to this entire process. I realized that, through conversations with and eventually with I realized I was told that South building didn't want this course taught. And, therefore, I was gonna have to come up with a substitute.
And, so of course, being the compliant colleague that I generally I, I came up with a substitute, and we proceeded with alternative plans for my teaching for 2017/2018. But, I continued my agitation around the issue through the end of the fall and into the early spring semester but, ultimately, I was told more than once, by that this just wasn't gonna happen. That 383 could not be taught next year. I asked him that in November, when he came to my office to tell me it wasn't gonna make it on to the books for next year, and then I asked him again early in the spring semester ... I forget exactly when this was, January, February, I went to see him and I said "is it definitive, it's just not gonna be on the books?" And he said "Yeah." And so that was my understanding. 383 was dead for this academic year.
And then, between late April and early July, my colleagues and the press and AAUP and fire began to put pressure on the administration about this issue. And I don't know exactly ... Obviously, I don't know what they were thinking, I don't know how they interpreted that pressure. I can only guess but, my guess is, that that pressure made them at least pause to reconsider what had happened in this instance. And, after [ 00:16:42] for the social sciences in early July, I found out a few weeks later that the course was gonna be back on the books.
And I'm grateful, I'm delighted to be teaching the course but there are a lot of mysteries hanging over this issue. A lot of unaddressed questions. Many things that have not been explained and the department's autonomy was violated, my academic freedom was violated. I was harassed and persecuted. I was singled out for monitoring because of that very first thing that I mentioned when I ... I believe, when I opened my, when I gave you my opening remarks. And I would like to hear an explanation.
Speaker 2:
I'm
Complainant:
[
00:17:38] was the‐ .
Speaker 2:
When the communicate to you that the course, did you understand that the course would not be offered in 2017/2018 at all?
Complainant:
Yes.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 7 of 46
Speaker 2:
And this was in the fall and early spring of 2016/2017? And I see there's, I recognize there's some email communication between you and the and maybe with the as well, what reasons ... What was your understanding of the reason why your course was not being offered in 2017/2018?
Complainant:
Well, I hesitate to put this this way because I'm putting my in a very difficult position because I'm sharing details of conversations that the two of us had that I think he expected would remain confidential. I feel terrible about that. But both made it clear to me that the reason we couldn't proceed with 383 was that the opposed the course. The didn't want me teaching that course.
Speaker 2:
When you say the
Complainant:
[ 00:18:53] and [ 00:18:53]. But what their thinking was, why they didn't want me teaching that course, I have no idea. I can guess. I can speculate but it was never communicated to me, why they didn't want me teaching that course. I mean there's a suggestion somewhere along the way that the was concerned about honors offerings and the history department needed to offer more honors courses, something like that. Even if you provisionally accept that rationale, there's no logic to the next step then. So why is it me and my course that has to get out of the way for history to offer more honors courses? Why is it me? Why is it my course that has to be shelved? So all I can say is that it was communicated to me, more than once, that the didn't want me ...
Section 2 of 15
[00:10:00 ‐ 00:20:04]
Section 3 of 15
[00:20:00 ‐ 00:30:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Complainant:
The didn't want me teaching this course. It was suggested at one point, and this is hearsay, so maybe I shouldn't even mention it but, it was suggested at one point that they didn't even want the course to exist. They hoped it would be deleted. Now maybe they'll deny that, that's fine but their opposition to the course was strong enough that, it was clear to me, that was the reason I couldn't do this.
Speaker 2:
I will likely have more questions for the grievant, but I think I'd like to hear from the respondents. I know that [ 00:20:41] has said that he does need to leave potentially earlier than the other parties, so I'll make sure we have a chance to hear from him, his response as well. But that's when we come back with more questions and the chance to have a conversation. So we give the response the floor, in whatever order or organization they want to do so.
[inaudible 00:18:51].
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 8 of 46
Respondant:
I will start and I thank the panel for being here, and for volunteering your time. It's important. But I think it's also important to recognize that we're sitting here today talking about a course that was approved by the college administrative board. It's been taught twice in the last sixteen months, and it's apparently going to be offered again this academic year. We're here talking about a claim that J Smith's academic freedom has been violated. So, I think, even if the course had been prevented from being taught this year, if he had been prevented from teaching it this year, with the statement of academic freedom that he produces even if protected, the answer is no, because there's no statement or recognition of academic freedom that gives an individual faculty member the unilateral right to teach any class that he or she wishes to teach, whenever they wish to teach it.
J Smith claims that he's never been told why this course was questioned, and why his decided not to offer it this semester. Yet he consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that the departments must ensure the course offerings meet the strategic priorities of the department and of the college. An effort to craft a strategic plan for the college began in February 2016, shortly after I became And that all chairs should make, be looking at the data that we were putting forth, for the first time, showing data in enrollment trends and budgetary trends so that they could make more informed decisions about the curriculum and furthermore justify their requests for resources.
History is one of the departments that has experienced a reduction in the number of Majors over the past decade, and yet it remains one of the largest faculties at the university, in terms of the number of overall faculty, and continues to request funding for more faculty. And, as I want to support all of our departments. I want to continue to support the history department, I actually ... We did this, this past year in agreeing in trying to recruit underrepresented faculty member in an area that their strategic plan is suggested is an area of need. But doing so can be challenging when a department looks over resourcing.
One way a department can remedy this issues is to show how it is contributing during these periods where there's decreased enrollments, can show ways in which they're gonna contribute to the broader mission of the college. For example, teaching more of these high demand courses, such as first year seminars, and honors courses. As for the scheduling and the role that the college administration plays, we're responsible, in a college offering sciences, for the general education curriculum, for nearly nineteen thousand students, eighteen thousand students.
And it's our responsibility to ensure we have adequate courses, for me, they're general education requirement, which includes offering every student an opportunity for at least one first year seminar and meeting the requirements for
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 9 of 46
honor students. This past year we had 1971, just shy of 2000 honor student, up 68% from just five years ago. The most honor students we've ever had on campus, ever. And, but yet we have a shortage of honor sections and of first year seminars. There's also been a growth ... We've seen a tremendous growth in several of our natural science departments, with this shift towards more interest in stem disciplines, and in some social science departments that has caused some of those departments to offer additional sections of larger courses in lieu of honor courses and first year seminars. They're traditionally smaller courses. Therefore, departments following undergraduate majors, such as history, can contribute to the overall success of our students in the college, by offering more honors and first year seminars. This has been made clear.
Last year we took a 2.2 million budget cut in the college, and we're now preparing for potentially an even larger cut this year. So the has every right, in fact an obligation I would say, to ask how courses fit within the broader curriculum needs of our students. We're fortunate to have four senior associated Deans that assist in this process. They work closely with the partners to piece together a rather complex puzzle, to make this all fit. And so I think the point I'm trying to make here is that, in fact I've had discussions with students in the past two weeks, as has and and about trying to help students meet these demands. So we're very involved in curricular planning, is the point I'm trying to make. I have plenty of examples where senior associate Deans and or the Dean, have to contact department leadership to enquire about select course, or request curricular changes to help meet the needs of the general education curriculum.
At the same time, in having these conversations and asking these tough questions, I learn a lot. In this particular case, I learned how J Smith's background as an historian qualifies him to teach a course like the history of big time athletics, and how historians often use historical methods to explore different or new topics. I had that conversation with both and with J. So, despite J Smith's statement that he's never received an explanation for why he's teaching a first year seminar this fall, which also to my understanding happens to have an honor designation to it, instead of the course he really wanted to teach, it's because he's teaching a course that's really needed by our students and that can meet our curricular needs.
He doesn't like that answer because it, perhaps, doesn't sound scandalous enough. It doesn't fit the narrative that he's crafted for so many people, including several media outlets over the past several months. But, this is the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 10 of 46
truth. Despite J Smith's assumptions, there were no grand scheme to prevent him from ever teaching history 383. As soon as the course was advertised on social media inquiries about the course, and specifically about J Smith's qualifications to teach such a course as an expert in European French history, certainly surfaced. And it was ... While he alleges that he was singled out for this treatment, he acknowledges that he is a lightning rod. He said it here, he's said it in the documents that he's produced.
And so we began hearing from a long line of faculty members, even students, about this. So, therefore, the advertisement of the course caused people outside the university leadership to suddenly begin asking questions. . So I asked , to reach out to gather some information about the course so we could be equipped to respond to those inquiries. I addition to learning more about, again, J's qualifications to teach in this area, I also confirmed that the course had been properly vetted and approved through our internal processes.
In the end, gathering this information actually helped us defend offering this course, given there are ...
Section 3 of 15
[00:20:00 ‐ 00:30:04]
Section 4 of 15
[00:30:00 ‐ 00:40:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
... offer in this course. Given that our process was properly followed, our concern with the course had nothing to do with the content or who was teaching the class. Instead, my discussions about the course focused on how it fit within the greater strategic priorities for the department and the college, and I've stated time and time again that I was specifically concerned about this course having replaced History 516 Honors, which was already on the books, and had students enrolled in it.
So, there are a number of inaccuracies, and really, mischaracterizations, in Jay Smith's grievance. In the time allotted, I can't identify them all, but I do want to clarify a few things, and address some of this.
Jay Smith claims over ten months he was harassed and persecuted as administrators singled him out. Again, I want to emphasize that it was approved, it's been taught twice. Chairs indicated it's going to be taught again. Some questions were raised about the course, in my office. It was to understand why History 383 was replacing an honors course three months before the start of a new semester, when students were already registered for it.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 11 of 46
Jay Smith has explicitly stated that he had no intention of offering this course every year. The , [ 00:31:30], said early on that there was no intention of this necessarily being part of regular course offerings every year. So, to make this ... but yet, Jay Smith still insists on making this an issue, despite clear evidence establishing that we have a significant demand for first year seminars and honors courses has been made clear.
Jay Smith claims that challenged to defend the creation and teaching of the course, asking, "How did this course ever get approved?" As in any way, about this course, but stated above, was not asking instead he was trying to simply gather facts that we could adequately respond to the questions that were being asked by the faculty, students, and some alums. This information was needed to explain and actually defend the course offering.
Jay Smith claims that the honors course was badly underenrolled in May of 2016, with only four students registered. That, too, has been debated, because our records show that there were six students registered for the course. Nonetheless, we do not always cancel honors courses because they're underenrolled. While most honors courses hold somewhere between 12 and 24 students, there are several that are taught to eight to ten students because of the appeal of the honors program, and its offering of small courses. In fact, if you go to the website, you'll see it says, "Honors Carolina. Come here to go anywhere." Then, the tagline says, "Small classes. Big ideas." So, there were still three months for students to enroll in this course, and I've been told that with the number of honors students seeking out courses, it would likely have hit its , , actually target. In fact, the questioned about this, and asked why was it taken off the books, and asked for it to be reconsidered.
Jay Smith alleges that successfully negotiated his right to teach the History of Big Time Athletics in the Fall of 2016. There was no negotiation, I can promise you. asked if Jay Smith's teaching assignment should be switched back. He came over to visit with and me, and asked if it should be switched back, after he had learned that it's on the books, switched back to the honors course. I think we made it clear that this is his decision, but pointed out that switching it back would potentially hurt more students who, as Jay's already indicated, were already enrolled at that point in this course. So, we felt that was going to just hinder more students, at that point in time.
This is when we began a conversation with about helping to meet the strategic needs of both the department and college, and trying to find a balance of how this approved course, one that, as Jay indicates, had received favorable ratings from students, could be worked into the curriculum, to find the balance. Jay alleges that was summoned by [inaudible 00:34:58] to this outbuilding to discuss this course on November the 4th of 2016. However, the truth is, had another meeting already planned, and we have
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 12 of 46
the documentation to show Then, it was at the end of that meeting, according to who communicated to that the course could be taught if it was best for the overall strategic priorities of the department, and if it was needed.
The message on this matter has been consistent throughout, been consistent with what I've shared with Jay Smith on the day prior to that meeting that apparently had. While Jay asked me about the course, and left, I think, with a different impression from what I've said, what I've said was specifically that if the course is needed, the course should be taught. Jay's exact statement to me, as he left, because it frustrated him, I think, was that, none of my courses are necessarily needed." It may be the case. That, in itself, worried me a bit. Through some of the email exchanges between him and the , it appears that at times they were having difficult finding courses for Jay to teach.
Speaker 2:
[crosstalk 00:36:16] I just want to interrupt for one minute, and say I recognize we're going past 15 minutes. That's perfectly fine with me. [inaudible 00:36:21] will make sure you will have time to respond, so we are going to extend the time here. You will have plenty of time to rebut. I'll make sure we hear [crosstalk 00:36:27].
Speaker 1:
I'll wrap this up. Again, Jay Smith claims that the Spring schedule was set months in advance, and that we finally relented under pressure in July to allow him to teach this course. If this is the case, how did he switch the History 516 course to the History of Big Time Athletics just a few months before the Fall of 2016 semester? So, he makes it sound as if the switch for him to teach the History of Big Time Athletics next Spring is an unprecedented change that shows that we gave in to pressure, and that a felt bad for him, but it's simply not true.
On May 30th, 2016, well before the filing of this grievance, I, and , met with‐
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:37:16].
Speaker 1:
I'm sorry, of 2017. I'm sorry. May 30th of 2017. We met with a subgroup of History faculty who had signed a letter regarding Jay Smith's History of Big Time Athletics course, in addition to reaffirming our commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the conclusion of the meeting, I was asked if the course could potentially be taught again in academic year 17/18. I said yes. If the department decided that it needed to be taught, then it should be offered.
Following this meeting, [inaudible 00:37:49], told ... Again, this is coming through communications with me and that once their transition was completed, that he would connect with about moving forward. This conversation
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
and
Page 13 of 46
occurred in the last week of July, as met with and I was later notified that had decided to offer the course in the Spring of 2018. So, nobody relented, and our message has been consistent all along.
I think the bottom line is that we have provided Jay Smith with everything within reason that has been requested as a remedy of this grievance. We've now affirmed our commitment to academic freedom on at least eight occasions over the past 18 months, [inaudible 00:39:09], and we have articulated this, so I think the message has been the same every time, that Jay Smith could teach the History of Big Time Athletics when appropriate and consistent with the needs of the department, the college, and of the university, and most importantly, our students. So, to suggest that I would suppress this as an area of inquiry on our campus actually pains me.
which was given by Hodding Carter, who at the time was working with the Knight Commission. As you well know, the Knight Commission is an NCAA watchdog with an eye toward reform of college athletics, particularly in regard to emphasizing‐
Section 4 of 15
[00:30:00 ‐ 00:40:04]
Section 5 of 15
[00:40:00 ‐ 00:50:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
To over perform with college athletics, and particularly with regard to emphasizing academic values, and so Bill Friday was also a part of that, and he, at the time, also had serious concerns about the influence of big time sports on academics, and the lecture that year, in 2006, was the proper role of intercollegiate athletics within higher education. I think it was important time, because it began a dialogue on our campus, and I believe in some ways empowered people to begin asking these important question that helped to uncover that which I know Jay Smith is so passionate about. It's as important to me as I believe it is to Jay. It's just as important, I think, to our leadership at the university, and I don't believe that anyone ... I would never try to suppress it, and I don't believe that our university leadership would, as well, so I would like to conclude by stating that we don't believe the grievant
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 14 of 46
bears the burden, of that we believe the grievant bears the burden in this process of presenting sufficient evidence of a violation of university policy that warrants an adjustment in his favor. Jay Smith has identified no such evidence to date, and I think when you listen carefully to the argument it becomes clear that the allegations are based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation. Speaker 2:
Do the other respondents like to add anything to that claim? Then that we'll do is, Jay, if there's anything you'd like to add or respond to that, and then I open it up to the community for questioning. Jay, the floor is yours.
Jay:
Just a few responses. These all strike me as red herring arguments, I have to say. The noted that he's responsible for the gen ed curriculum of 19,000 students. Indeed, that's a lot of students, but he chose to focus on my 30. This was a priority for him, focusing on my 30 students, when he's got 19,000 students to manage. That strikes me as a curiosity.
He claims that his real imperative here was to get the history department to offer more honors and first year seminar courses, because these are high‐ demand courses. I have a couple of responses to that. The history department always meets its obligations to the honors program, and to the first year seminars program, and occasionally even offers the extra honors or first year seminar course. We have always met our obligations. I know this from experience, having been associate chair in my department for eight years. We're very scrupulous about meeting our obligations to those programs, and we've never heard in the past any complaints about our failure to hold up our end of the bargain with our honors program and our first year seminars program.
If, indeed, this is the concern that drove these discussions about History 383, I can only ask why is it that it's only my course? Again, I come back to that. Why is it that I'm the only one who needs to be told that, "No, you need to teach another honors course, or another first year seminar course, rather than that course you want to teach?" Why am I the only one in the history department? Are other faculty in other departments being similarly instructed? "Yes, I know you'd like to teach this course, but no, instead you've got to offer an honors course next fall, or a fist year seminar course next spring." Really? That's happening on an individual by individual faculty member basis? I'd like some other examples of that, if it's true.
Finally, the suggests that his only concern about the scheduling of this course, well, his other concern in addition to the history department's failure to live up to its honors and FYS obligations, was that he wasn't sure it was strategic for the department to offer this course. What a vague and elusive term that is. What does it mean to be strategic? and I agreed that it was indeed strategic, we even used that term. It was strategic to offer the 383 in place of the 516, because students would flock to the 383, and our enrollments would get a boost. A course with four or six students enrolled after two months of pre‐registration doesn't seem to be such a high‐demand course, honestly, so we thought it was strategic to put the 383 in its place, and indeed this is one of
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 15 of 46
the strategies that our department and other departments follow regularly. We think hard about which courses are going to draw the most students.
Finally, I just want to correct one thing that the said about my course offerings in particular. When I said to him on my way out the door, " none of my courses are necessary," what I meant by that was that no single course in isolation is necessary in any given year. French history is necessary. I have no trouble filling up my French history classes. I'm going to make that clear. My French Revolution class, my old regime France class, my French micro‐history class that I'm teaching this semester, they all fill up regularly. I have no trouble. The department has no trouble finding courses for me to teach. I'm not sure why that even entered into the discussion.
383, however, is another course that I've developed that is also quite popular. I enjoy teaching it, my students love it, and I think it's a vital part of this curriculum right now, and yes, I did say in that one email to , "Look, I realize that I can't necessarily teach this regularly. We've got other things to worry about," but after I taught it last summer I realized, wow, the students really react to this course, and I get a charge out of it, too, and I think it's important at this moment in the institution's history for me to teach it regularly for the next couple years.
I don't accept any of the
Speaker 4:
I'd like to direct my first question to the because I know said you may need to leave slightly early. We've not heard discussions of any of your involvement, I don't think, so far today, and so the basic question to you is what was your involvement, if any, in History 383?
Speaker 4:
arguments.
I don't think I had any real involvement in it. I was aware that there were conversations going on, and that were talking to the Professor Smith about that, but other than knowing Professor Smith engaged with an attorney and came to speak to me, and in front of the sometime later, that was the only direct conversation we had about it. Prior to that point had you expressed any opinions about the course to any respondents or other individuals involved in the process?
No.
Speaker 4:
Questions from the committee for others?
Speaker 6:
Just for department [inaudible 00:47:50]. [crosstalk 00:47:52] I'm just curious about what happened to the possibility of turning 383 into an honors course, if that was one of the concerns, strategically, having more first year seminars or honors classes. Why floating that, why that didn't move any further?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 16 of 46
Well, that was never floated ... As far as I know that was never floated, and there is a process, but I don't think it's a lengthy process, to have a course converted from a regular course to an honors course. I think that there is a ... It goes through the and a small committee, is my understanding, and so I had not heard that as a suggestion, in that case. There are some criteria that they ask for.
Speaker 6:
To the
was that a suggestion that you were aware of, and a possibility?
Speaker 7:
has I honestly don't remember that, because I'll just explain. The broad discretion over course planning, because in a department of our size we have, if you do math, I assume we must have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 courses every semester, so the job is really to manage course size. I honestly don't remember having that conversation with her, and we didn't exchange any emails, so I don't ... An instance where having here would be helpful, because I don't remember that discussion. I believe she may have made the decision that that wasn't a solution.
Speaker 6:
We don't have a sense of why that decision would have been made without having her here?
Speaker 7:
Yeah. Honestly, I don't recall ever speaking to her.
Jay:
Look, maybe I can clarify one aspect of it‐
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I guess you ... Did you have any conversations about ... Was that ever pursued? The idea of changing to an honors course? Was that ever pursued?
Jay:
It was not, but for the fall 2016 version of the course, I did not assume that we could get an H suffix added to it.
Section 5 of 15
[00:40:00 ‐ 00:50:04]
Section 6 of 15
[00:50:00 ‐ 01:00:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
I did not assume that we could get an age suffix added to it. I didn't learn, definitively for sure, until late May that I would be allowed to offer the 383 in the fall.
Speaker 2:
Of 2016?
Speaker 1:
2016. I floated the idea. I mean, you may not remember, but when I ... when we met in your office, I did mention that 383 would be a great honors course, and that I would be happy to teach it as an honors course, but by then,
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 17 of 46
we were talking about the fall of 2017. So we had plenty of time to add the suffix, had we wanted to.
I didn't advance that conversation at the departmental level because, next thing I knew, I had been told by that that course wasn't being taught, period. There was no opportunity to consider that option.
Speaker 2:
I ... would you say that ... I think that it is a good suggestion to pursue that, and I would encourage you to do that. It was in one of your emails that you proposed that to go east. That's when I first saw it.
Speaker 3:
Jay, 00:51:19] shared with us a number of emails ... communications, and I think it's true that all, or most ... I think perhaps all of them are focused on the spring 2016 timeframe, talking about whether or not you would teach 383 for fall 2016 ...
Speaker 1:
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3:
... so you heard that, which eventually ...
Speaker 1:
Which is true.
Speaker 3:
... you did wind up teaching. Just to make sure I understand that and you ... correct. You taught in the fall.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. That's right.
Speaker 3:
I have some questions. I know that is not here and, in fact, you're suggesting that maybe [inaudible 00:51:43] we should talk with her. But there is some communication back and forth. And I'd like to ask Professor [inaudible 00:51:47] ...
Speaker 2:
Sure.
Speaker 3:
... your understanding or your involvement in those emails. In May of 2016, and this is on the handouts you're reading now, that shared with us, wrote: "Here's the situation. [ 00:52:05] does not want you to teach that course in the fall. specifically asked to let him know. does not want to be administration intervened. But, of course, you'll have to pay a price for scheduling the course." [inaudible 00:52:17] didn't write that email? Do you know anything about what she's talking there about intervening in this decision?
Speaker 2:
I think she is repeating her understanding of what was going on, the discussions about the course. The conversations being had that I had had with her was after the course was switched, I believe this is fall or shortly after the course was switched from your honors course to 383. There were questions about the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 18 of 46
course. Why was it being offered instead of the honors course? So, I think she's translating what I talked to her about. I would not have phrased it exactly that way, but it's within the realm of reason to translate what I said to her. Speaker 3:
Could you explain to us your conversation with for 2016?
Speaker 2:
I think there were two elements of it that were at issue. One was when Jay's assignment was switched from an honors course to 383, as mentioned. There was a social media blast thrown out there, which we always do when we add a course to the books. We send out a social media blast in hopes that it will promote undergraduate involvement flocking to the new course. My recollection is that wondered about why the social media blast was sent out and the decision about the course being moved. So, all of the details that I think had alluded to the general question about why the decision had been made. So, I explained that and my sense from the meeting was that there were concerns about this course being offered. So, to say that ...
Speaker 3:
What kind of concerns did [inaudible 00:54:54] have?
Speaker 2:
The probably speaking what has outlined that this was not part of the strategic plan. This wasn't clear how this fit in with the strategic goals for the department. That switching courses out of honors was not something that the college wants more honors courses. right to 00:55:21] who's . contacted me about moving course, so that's what I was referring to or that's what I explained. All of those forces were at work.
Speaker 3:
Did course?
Speaker 2:
I don't remember any occasion where ever said anything ... When you mean substance, I mean, I don't ever remember any occasion where questioned Jay's qualifications as an historian to teach the course. My sense was that it was about the appropriateness of that course for the college's strategic plan. And, again, this issue. I'm not trying to litigate your meaning there, except that I honestly don't remember ever raising a question about Jay.
There were comments made to me and, here I must admit, I may be combining things that said to me and said to me. There were discussions about the History Department being over‐resourced [inaudible 00:56:48] years. They have a large department, declining enrollments, in which we have a faculty member who, on the surface of it, appears to be teaching outside his or her I don't recall, ever area of expertise. But that's different from any ... making a specific comment about Jay's qualifications or the appropriateness of Jay teaching this course.
about this course
at that time, express any concerns about the substance of the
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 19 of 46
Speaker 3:
Do you know, that I've heard we probably should start on that conversation with you,
Speaker 1:
No, no, no, that's my ...
Speaker 3:
so if you could share your recollection of the conversations you had with [inaudible 00:57:21] about your concerns about this course.
Speaker 4:
OK. Great. First, just to explain,
I do want to just, if I could, go back to the summer of 2016 because I think that informed me may be when we and the as noted ... that he had received questions about the course. And he asked me to follow‐up with to find out about the course. And I should say that this happens sometimes that people outside the university or other faculty or students hear about a course and come to us with questions about it. So, in that situation, it is typical to reach out to their so that we can make sure that all the proper procedures are followed, and also to provide us with the necessary information that we can then explain why this course is being offered them.
So, yes, I did call and explained to me the course had followed the standard procedure and approved by whatever procedures the History Department has, and had gone to the administrative boards of the college and approved there. And, as I recall, at that point, told me that his understanding was that this was a course that would probably continue to be taught in the summer, but he did not think that it would be taught during the academic year. And I said, "Fine, if anything changes, please let me know." Then, I think what said is exactly right. The next thing ...
Section 6 of 15
[00:50:00 ‐ 01:00:04]
Section 7 of 15
[01:00:00 ‐ 01:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Well if it says, exactly right. The next thing, you know, is suddenly There's a social media blast of this new course being offered in the fall of 2016, replacing
Because the College of Arts and Sciences is so large, there's a Senior Associate Dean for Fine Arts and Humanities, there's a Senior Associate Dean the for Natural Sciences, , [ 00:57:45] is [ 00:57:55]. In some universities, History might report to the of the Humanities, but here History reports to . So, just to explain why I am the one talking to
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 20 of 46
an honors course. In other words, the honors course that had been on the books was canceled and was replaced by this course and to the best of my knowledge, the honors course had never been subject to a media blast or effort to boost its enrollments. But some of these were replaced and this new course was advertised and so yes, I did reach out to to ask him to explain the logic and I think that has summarized the key elements of our conversation before. Speaker 2:
Would you have had the same concerns about this course if it had covered any other topic? As long as it were still a non‐honors course?
Speaker 1:
I think that, as I noted, on occasion we get questions about courses and because of this ... The notion ... Because it was a social media blast and because it was replacing an honors course, [inaudible 01:01:22] and I had a conversation and decided it would be good for me to get more information from about the logic, particularly because originally, from what I recall from my first conversation with this was a course that typically be offered in the summer. And yes, it did seem unusual to cancel and honors course and replace it with this one but ...
Speaker 2:
Outside of the replacement of an honors course with an honors course, I understand your concern with that issue. Would you have the same concerns about that switching if the course had dealt with anything else other than UNC Athletics?
Speaker 1:
I ... Very possibly, yes.
Speaker 3:
Can you ...
Speaker 4:
Question ...
Speaker 3:
Sorry ...
Speaker 4:
No go ahead ...
Speaker 3:
Yeah. Can you elaborate on what you mean? A course that is ... That it was only appropriate for summer school?
Speaker 1:
No, I never said it was only appropriate for summer. Once courses are approved by the administrative voters of the college, it can be taught at any time. I'm just relaying my understanding or what I recall having told me about this.
Speaker 3:
Sure, no I just thought in your ... After your summary of that discussion, you in your last statement, you referred to it as a class that was going to be taught in summer school and so the idea that it would be taught in the fall term raised flags. What is it about ... It is a content thing that certain topics are traditionally
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 21 of 46
only taught in summer school or ... What is it about the move from summer school to regular term that catches attention. Speaker 1:
The ... Really the only issue ... As I said there were two issues. One was that we had originally been told, if I recall the conversation correctly, it was only going to be taught in the summer and then the other was that it seemed to be promoted much more assertively than an honors has been promoted.
Speaker 4:
So if I can just ask really a clarifying question, I ... Kind of in terms of the timing, it does seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, that initially this course came to your attention for scrutiny because of outside forces regarding the substance of the class. So initial, folks from the outside or somewhere, raised concerns with you as they may about any kind of controversial class, that this is undeniable that this could raise outside questions. Why is a French historian who is in the media a lot about athletics, an agitator about athletics, now teaching a course in athletics. Is that a good use of, you know, the state's dollars or, you know, people just might have concerns about that. So initially ... Whatever those concerns were, that's how all of this started. How this got your attention. Otherwise, classes don't generally, you know, especially in a large department, get up that high in terms of scrutiny.
But that would be the place it started and then from that, there was a question, kind of down the line, not to diminish your roles in this, but down the line, please find out for me what this is about. That kind of satisfied you with regard to Professor Smith's qualifications in teaching the class and satisfy you both in your ability to defend the class to people who were asking you question about it. Is that correct?
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Yes.
Speaker 4:
And then from there, the next ... So then, everybody's satisfied that this class is appropriate, at least at the summer and you feel like you've heard this is being taught in the summer. And then the next you hear about it is seeing the social media blast and so ...
Speaker 1:
Let me clarify. I'm not on social media, I did not see the social media, I was told that there was. So, again, you know, I can't state that there was one, I can state that I heard that there was one.
Speaker 4:
Okay. So we start with kind of substantive issue about the class that you feel is satisfied and then we move to the kind of, the structural issue. This is a class that is now replacing an honors class and from your perspective, when you talk about the strategic plan of the department or of the college, you're talking about the strategic plan that involves having more honors classes and more
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 22 of 46
first‐year seminars or something different in terms of substantive curriculum in your department?
Speaker 4:
No, was speaking I was speaking of the strategic plan as I understood it explained to me by the because the strategic plan was, at that point, in gestation and hadn't ... And certainly at the department level, we had not engaged in strategic planning so it was my understanding of what the evolving strategic plan was as was explained to me. So that's a, if you will, external force and that sounds wrong ... But I mean, that was external to the department considerations but I understood it that they were important to the college. And so, and ... That's what I'm trying to understand. What that ... What piece of that strategic plan? Was it more first‐years seminars and honors classes or more enrollment? Just across the board? Well, I ... I think this speaks to many layers of my understanding now, retrospectively, of what happened here, if I can put it that way. That there are complex principles involved here, there are complex goals involved here that were not shared and understood by all parties. And I realize that's a great abstraction but specifically with the strategic plan. It was evolving at the time. . What I heard, as major concerns, were we have very limited resources, and as a I've certainly experienced that, so I knew that. We have limited resources, we have, in some fields, including history, we have had a decline in majors. Not so much in the enrollments, given the resources we have. But nationally, I know, history enrollments have collapsed. Just dramatically. So it's of great concern to me because I know if our enrollments collapse, we're not going to get resources because we don't need them. We're not in [inaudible 01:08:08] we have.
So, listening to the talk about limited resources, departments especially with declining enrollments, and we have other departments like say, computer science or econ, that are holding. We need to marshal resources in the college appropriately. I hear that as one in which history better be doing everything it can to facilitate the college's larger goals as they are compatible with what the History Department can do. So that's what I heard and I realize I'm talking in broad abstract terms. So how that translates to this specific course, I can't articulate that. That, I think could do better than I. But that's what I heard. And so the message I heard was that it's very important for the History Department to do what it can to advance the broader college strategic plan at a time when the History Department otherwise, declining enrollments, declining majors, is perceived as being over‐resourced.
Speaker 6:
Can I interject?
Speaker 4:
Please.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 23 of 46
Speaker 6:
First of all, I agree with everything that just said and in February of 16, we became pretty ... February 3rd, I remember that date because we had a
One of them was, as said, was number of majors, number of credit hours taught, both at the graduate, undergraduate level. And let me just also say that, keeping the History Department strong is important to us. It's ... They're ranked 10th or 11th by US News and World Report ...
Section 7 of 15
[01:00:00 ‐ 01:10:04]
Section 8 of 15
[01:10:00 ‐ 01:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
... they're ranked tenth or eleventh by US News and World Report. As ,
Yes, they're majors may be dropping, but they do, and [ 01:10:31] is correct, I think that while the majors have dropped maybe 30 percent, the overall credit hours taught is not 30 percent, it might be 15 percent over the past ten years.
This conversation that we began was really about: how can you help me help you in thinking about this course? Which I also, while I haven't mentioned, I know it's in the documentation, but I quickly agreed to teach in this course, and I enjoy teaching in that course, and I said I would teach in the course again when it's taught.
In fact, that invitation and my acceptance to teach in that course came at some point in probably late summer before Jay was preparing to teach that course in the fall of '16. I didn't know at that point that it had replaced an honors course. It was even after I had agreed to teach in the course that I think the question was raised. I think it was whenever came and brought that to our attention.
But again, with people, I said, "I think to take it off the books at that point was his decision, but it didn't make sense. It would hurt other students." There are a number of metrics, going back to your question Beth, about how we're trying to look at what our 48 departments bring to the greater mission of the college. History does teach a high number of first year seminars and honors courses. That can't be disputed but we have departments in math, computer science, in
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 24 of 46
biology, in chemistry, where that's where we're needing to hire additional lecturers to fill the void for this shift in STEM. We have a couple department chairs that are teaching overloads.
When this issue hits the council of chairs meeting and they start, I mean, what I was told, I don't know if you were there, if you were there, but I wasn't in the council of chairs meeting when this issue was discussed. But there were concerned and in these other departments about boutique type courses being taught in these other departments.
So again, us learning more about this course, me teaching in the course, helps to again defend it. The conversation that and I had was more around, let's find a balance in terms of, when a course like that would be taught when it doesn't necessarily fit within ... maybe it will be part of a core within the history department. But I think at that early time as the course was being taught the first few times, it hadn't and it and it didn't look I think to many people like a one off when in fact we get all these other demands.
That's what I have been very consistent about talking about the strategic needs of the college broadly and of the departments. I remain confident that is confident, or is committed to finding that balance and having a continuing picture of even the way the history department is.
Speaker 2:
So does some of that balance though, and I think you've kind of alluded to this, really does have to do with perception as well. You talked about what the council of chairs says about some of the boutique classes and resources in other departments, which really aren't impacted by any decisions that your department makes about who teaches what in your department, because that money's not going to somebody else in some other department.
Speaker 1: Cause as I said, we had a budget cut, so those dollars are going to those departments that need to offer 24 additional sections of English 105 this year, we're needing to find 24 additional sections.
So there are faculty in that department that aren't able to teach some of the things that they might want to teach cause they're teaching these courses, or the intro math classes, 131 and 232, I think it is. We have senior faculty that would love to be teaching an upper level math class and they're being forced more or less to teach the entry level course. Those are just some examples. I'm sorry, I kind of interrupted you.
Speaker 2:
That's okay.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 25 of 46
So some part of it is perception and part of it is actual numbers. I'm just wondering in terms of the strategic kind of planning. When you look at courses like this, it sounds like they attract actually more bodies than some of the other classes. I'm wondering the role that places in decision making as well, and potential major as well. So somebody might take that course and decided to major in that course.
Speaker 3:
That is directly related to assignment for fall of 2016.
I'll just add a detail here, cause this does speak to something mentioned. had asked me to avert him if a decision was made to teach the course again. At the very moment ... And I didn't mention that to It was in the summer when this came up and it's one of those things. We don't regularly meet necessarily unless there's enough business to warrant her meeting with me.
I was coincidentally away the day in which she and Jay made this decision. I'm not, I only mention that because the consequence of that was, I came back from was asking, "What happened? This being away for two days and course is now on the books." There was a social media blast. Also, had sent me an email saying, "Oh, we just switched the course."
In any case, her decision was motivated strictly by the desire to, as we do, we're anytime we can substitute a course if somebody wants to teach, it will attract a higher enrollment in a course then we have on the books, we're willing to do that. Assuming it's not grievously inconvenient for any of the undergraduates. At this point with six or eight or whatever and at that point in the summer there was the assumption that they could certainly find other courses to take. If we could have a course we'd have 30, 35 students in it as opposed to course we'd have 12, while we were still meeting our honors obligation, let's seize that opportunity. Cause it was again, my gravest concern is that our history enrollments will decline the way they have nationally. And they have, yeah. But that's cause, then we'll be starved for resources.
Speaker 4:
Can I make two quick remarks. May I?
Boutique course. A course on the history of college athletics at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Is this some form of exotica? I don't think so. Students clearly love the course, I'm considering boosting the enrollment in the spring and teaching it with a TA. This is not some self‐indulgent form of curricular experimentation. This is a vital course for our curriculum. The person who used that term, "boutique", I happen to know who it was, knows nothing about the historical discipline or the humanities generally, how we develop our curriculum and how we teach our courses. So that notion that this a boutique course, no it is not.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
making a final decision to change Jay's
Page 26 of 46
The more important comment I want to make si that I hope you're hearing the subtext of the remarks that the and the have just shared with us. The is saying to the and it's the I guess, they're both saying to the "Hey, you're an over resourced department, and you want continued resources. Is it really strategic for you to offer this courses that people are asking questions about? That I'm having to field questions about? Is it strategic for you to do that?" That's what's going on here. The got pressured from outsiders, unidentified, I would love to know who some of them are. I would love to know some names. Who's putting pressure on him? He's getting questions. He would prefer not to have to put up with those questions, and he's suggesting to the "It would be strategic for you not to offer that course."
Section 8 of 15
[01:10:00 ‐ 01:20:04]
Section 9 of 15
[01:20:00 ‐ 01:30:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Strategic for you not to offer that course. Strategic is a term of art. Let's face it. It's a term of art. It can mean many things. One thing it can mean is that it's not going to be good for you if you do that. I think that's what happened here.
Speaker 2:
Can I respond to that?
Speaker 3:
Yes. Then I do want to state, I think we should take a break after this. We'll have some more questions, but I know that we do need to take a 10 to 15 minute break. So yes.
Speaker 2:
"I really enjoyed working on the strategic plan for our department". We're focused on being strategic, bold, and student focused.
I keep saying it's going to take resources to do that. But with a good roadmap on how to do that, we will get there. I have been using strategic long before this course was questioned by anyone. I just want to make that clear. It is, our university just finished for the first time in several decades a strategic plan. A strategic framework, it's actually called. I just want to make that point.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 27 of 46
Speaker 3:
Thank you. Let's take a 15 minute break. We understand that you may need to leave. Let you know, we will make the transcript available if needed. Obviously if there are followup questions you can reach out.
Speaker 1:
Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 3:
Thank you. Reconvene here at 10:40. There are more drinks in the cooler. There's coffee that's basically undrinkable, but it's free.
Speaker 4:
Who could pass that up?
Speaker 5:
We love coming here because of the drinks in the cooler.
Speaker 3:
I think we'll do this, let's go back into session, and this when we're comfortable, I think ...
Speaker 5:
And
Speaker 3:
We can go back to a closed session. Again, for the purpose of recording, to let them know that we can start transcribing from this point going forward. Some follow‐up questions from the previous discussion, [inaudible 01:22:37], you mentioned, I think the statement was that you had promised to tell if 383 was going to go on the fall, just the regular academic year schedule.
Why did he ... I assume, when did he make that request and why do you, why did he, in your understanding, why did he want to know?
Speaker 6:
I have no doubt has great notes on this, and I say that with great appreciation, he always took good notes of our meetings and in retrospect, i regret that I didn't take notes. So, li don't remember the first time he mentioned that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't very early in the discussions of when the first questions about the course arose.
And I don't recall, per se, explanation of why he wanted to know. He just asked me to let him know if the course was gonna be offered, and I said I would let him know if the course was gonna be offered.
Speaker 3:
Had or anyone else at that level ever made a similar request about any other course?
Speaker 6:
No, I've never had another conversation about another course, so. I don't have anything to compare it, to.
Speaker 3:
So, [inaudible 01:23:59]
will join us shortly after
gone, yes?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
‐
Page 28 of 46
Speaker 7:
Sure. Just to clarify, I don't have any notes. So. What I'm saying is not based on any notes; I don't have any notes, and it's based on my recollection and when I first asked him about the summer course, and for the reasons that we've already gone over, so I'm not going to go over them again, and as I recall, said, "Well, we expect that this course will normally be done in the summer and not during the academic year."
In order not to be surprised again, and just to be kept informed, given that [inaudible 01:24:45] come to me, saying there was ... that he wanted to know more about the course and that's why, in that conversation, I asked to tell me if anything changed.
Speaker 3:
But of thousands of courses that might be offered in a given semester, again, why the focus on this one specific offering?
Speaker 7:
Well, as I've already said before. There are occasional courses that [inaudible 01:25:14] attention and whether it's from faculty, other faculty, I had a faculty member ask me why is this course being offered, there are students who might ask about it, there are a number of people outside the university.
I've had similar issues with other courses in other departments. It's not common, but this is not the only case in which it occurred.
Speaker 3:
Did you in the spring, or previous to that, 2016, had you told or anyone else that you did not want this course to be offered in the regular academic year?
Speaker 7:
No, I never told
Speaker 3:
Other questions on that?
Speaker 8:
So, to be clear, just that you should be alerted if it was to be taught, for the purposes of being able to manage any kind of PR or optics issue about the class?
Speaker 7:
That was the key issue, yes.
Speaker 3:
Much of our discussion, the grievance focuses on the decision to offer the course in 2017/2018. Almost all of our discussion has been focused on the 2016 decision. I'd like to now turn to the specific issue of whether or not this course would be offered in 2017/2018, so, , if you talk about your process, I suppose that began in October of 2016, with Professor Smith submitting a proposal to teach this course in the 2017/2018 academic year.
Speaker 9:
So, as I said, normally, I have limited participation in those decisions, because the does that. And we talk at a kind of global departmental level about our needs, are we ... do we have enough large enrollment courses, and I can explain these matters to you, if you're interested, then. Do we have enough
that I didn't want the course to be offered at any time.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 29 of 46
courses in the various categories? Do we have enough fixed‐term faculty available to teach any course we need to have taught by fixed‐term, so we talk at the, as I said, the kind of global level and usually don't talk about a specific course.
But because this course has been an issue in the past, I was of course alerted to what Jay requested. When Jay's request came in, and I talked about it and my perception of the college's intent, desire, was to not offer this course.
So, and I talked about it and I, so to speak, kicked the can down the road, as long as I could before we'd have to finalize our course design for the following academic year, so that it gets entered properly. When I say I decided to kick the, I was mulling over how I'd deal with this issue.
Speaker 3:
I want to go back to your other statement. You said you understood that the university, the administration did not want this course offered.
Speaker 9:
My perception was‐
Speaker 3:
Why?
Speaker 9:
Because my understanding of what I was hearing was that this course did not mesh with the college's largest strategic plans. It was ... the department should be positioning itself to meet the needs that the college was identifying as part of its strategic plan, and, for example, more honors courses, all of the things that has discussed. So, my perception was that it was in the interest of the department collectively that .
Speaker 3:
Was your understanding at all based on the substance, the controversy, the potential controversy that might be connected to this course?
Speaker 9:
No. I've never ... if a course is, I must say, , I don't know that I've dealt with any controversial courses but I've always assumed that we offer a course and someone doesn't like it, they can take another course. I mean, that's not. Unless there was some grievous ....
Section 9 of 15
[01:20:00 ‐ 01:30:04]
Section 10 of 15
[01:30:00 ‐ 01:40:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
Unless there was some grievous mistake by the faculty member in what he or she signs, or what they've said, but if the substance of the course is approved, the person is qualified to teach it‐
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 30 of 46
Speaker 2:
I suppose my question is not on student reaction to it, but external reaction. That we've heard that there was interest, and questions asked by outside folks. Was your understanding, or your concerns, or your understanding of the university's concerns focused on pressure or input from folks outside the‐
Speaker 1:
Well, no. I understood there was pressure, because I myself had received an email from a faculty member as soon as that social media ... Actually, even before that, when the course was first approved, and this was when it was going to be offered as a summer course. I received an email from a faculty member in another department asking me why this course was being offered, and I was taken aback because I'd never received an email from a faculty member in another department questioning a course.
, because it was raising, of I replied to that and CC'd the course, a question about the and obviously I justified why I thought it was entirely appropriate for the courses we offer, and then there was one other email as I recall I received from an alum who was outraged that the I've gotten course was being offered. Periodically, in the time I've been emails about Jay and his activism, so I knew personally that there was external commentary on the course, but that didn't enter into my decision.
Speaker 2:
At that point, was your understanding that it was likely that course would never be offered in a regular academic semester, a non‐summer academic semester?
Speaker 1:
My understanding ... I'm not sure ...
Speaker 2:
Well, so we've heard before that the and others have said, "Well, we never said this course couldn't be offered again, and it's gonna be offered again in the spring. We never suggested it would never be offered again," but from what I'm hearing from you it was your understanding, this is now in the fall of 2016, that the university would prefer that it perhaps be offered in the summer, that's fine, but never during an academic semester.
Speaker 1:
I don't recall a conversation where there was a suggestion that the course would never be offered. Instead, the conversations tended to be much more tied to the specific circumstances of either the course was offered now, or will the course be offered this period of time, so I certainly don't recall ever having a conversation specifically where my understanding of the conversation was the intent was to never teach the course again. For example, in the fall of 2016, so a year ago, the conversation was I was asking when can, should this course be taught? When would it be appropriate to teach it? Not, of course, a question about will this course ever be taught?
Speaker 3:
And you mean a question you were putting to yourself, internally, in the department, or you actually asked that question?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 31 of 46
Speaker 1:
There were two occasions I can recall where I talked to about that, and so the proposal, the operative timeline I was working on was we would offer this course, I explained to that in the fall, or I should say in the fall of and I talked about, and 2018, and that was something accepted that, but for the academic year 2017/2018, the current academic year, I perceived that it would be compatible with the college's strategic plan, the college's vision for what history should be doing as part of a team player in the college, to not have the course taught.
Speaker 3:
Can you talk just a little bit about how you arrived at that perception?
Speaker 1:
Well, as I say, in retrospect ... Well, first thing, this is not something I'd ever engaged in before, so I was in uncharted waters for me, and I was trying to discern what the college wanted in a context in which I heard, and I don't say I heard secondhand, but I was participating not at the center of it, so we say on the margins of the college was involved in the strategic plan, so I was aware of the emphasis on the strategic plan, the emphasis on limited resources, the emphasis on aligning departments like history with the needs of the college at a time when STEM and other disciplines were in [inaudible 01:35:53], so that's the larger context in which I said, "Okay, we have" ...
Before this matter even came up in the history department, we knew we wanted to go after a target of opportunity hire. A target of opportunity hire at the full professor level. Well, we thought it was going to be at the associate rank, but full professor level. We also have a distinguished chair, a distinguished professorship that has not been filled for maybe four years now that we would like to fill, that would require state resources to make it possible. We have an urgent need for a modern Japanese historian, and then I thought it was likely, and it was true the case that year, that we had five retentions. We didn't know we were going to have five, but I though we were going to have three. We ended up having four that the college provided us resources for those retentions.
I knew this was that we were a large department that often needs to go to the college and ask for resources, and I was acutely aware that it was important for the department to be able to make those calls, make those requests for resources with the greatest likelihood of having access, so I was concerned about positioning the department at the time when I understand resources are going elsewhere in the university. That's the larger global context.
Speaker 2:
Did you ever feel that the department would be punished if there were opportunities to offer this course to people?
Speaker 1:
Based on my experience with , I had no reason to think that the department would be punished, so no, I did not think the department would be punished. I was still concerned with making sure that we could make the strongest possible case for resources. It's a different, that's a‐
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 32 of 46
Speaker 3:
But it does sound like ... Punished is kind of a negative term, but that you definitely felt that by keeping this class off the books, you were in a better position to be asking the for these things that you felt the department needed for the year?
Speaker 1:
Yes. That's‐
Speaker 3:
It was like a trade.
Speaker 1:
That's the decision I made, and that's how I looked at this as one in which the ... Find my words carefully here. I looked upon this as a situation in which my decision ... Let's put it this way: I was not certain what consequences there would be if I approved this course being taught.
Speaker 3:
Have you ever felt that way about another course in your time as
Speaker 1:
No.
Speaker 2:
I'd ask the to respond to that observation there, that there would be financial, I assume you're saying, consequences to the department if this course were approved for 2017/2018. Is that a true statement?
Speaker 4:
No. I mean what I would say is ... I mean, what I recall is that and I met, and we reviewed history's strategic planning, and all the things that were already repeated, and that if thought it was‐
Section 10 of 15
[01:30:00 ‐ 01:40:04]
Section 11 of 15
[01:40:00 ‐ 01:50:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Interviewer 1:
And that if thought it was in the strategic interest of the department to offer the course, and it was needed, to go ahead and do so. And that's also what I was going for in November. After had had a previously scheduled meeting with me and a fellow colleague to talk about another matter. And I should say that you know we had all kinds of ongoing work that we were continuing to do and I ... and at the end of that meeting [inaudible 01:40:37] I shared that further thought with and frankly I had no idea what was gonna do. I didn't know if he was gonna ... if the course was gonna be offered in 20 seven, 18 or not. But my clear sense was that the course was definitely gonna be offered again. And as far as I know the matter is closed. Did you have any input into the decision to offer it in 2017 or 2018?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 33 of 46
I had no input. Several weeks later told me that he had made the decision not to offer the course and I said, "Fine.". I had no input into it. And um, let me just ... I want to reiterate in the larger context, that said and that is that history is one of the stronger departments in the college. It's nationally ranked [inaudible 01:41:37]. It does have some challenges that has indicated. Could I just? I do want to affirm that at the end of every meeting that I can remember, said this as well, that I should make whatever big decision I thought was in the best interest of the department. But I definitely want to affirm that that was always said.
Interviewer 2:
So, and I hear that. I'm just wondering what kind of happened. The responses to hearing a say I made this decision because I felt like I had to be a team player here or else I might not get my target of opportunity higher. I might not get my fly of retentions, I might not get the modern Japanese historian or this distinguished professorship. Whether that perception was grounded in anything you said or did, I guess I think it might be helpful for everyone to hear what your thoughts are when you hear a say that. "That I dumped this one class out of all of them. I let go because I wanted to be a ... I felt like I needed to do that to be a team player.". Could I just say something that maybe you can, you talked about. But I ... We are in a really challenging time, as budget cuts are real. And I think every is trying to do just what described. Just use ... under different sit ... Every department has a different situation in terms of how they're trying to meet their core curricular needs, you know within their disciplines. And some departments have seven or eight specializations. They're trying to contribute to the general education that you know, domains that we have and so I think that every department chair is trying to be a good team player.
And so I think they're all jocking for those limited resources. And so and I wanna just add that I, what said was that he had no idea if the course would be offered next year, I had no idea if the course was gonna be offered, I mean this year. But yet, during all of this we responded I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, to every request that was asked. I didn't know if it was for our retentions but you know would come to me and say, "Here's another one.". I mean we had a lot.
But in a big department as said, you're gonna have that. But we responded to every one of them. I think we retained every one of them. And we fought like crazy to get this . At every step upping what we would put into it, so and that was all done not knowing what ...
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 34 of 46
Interviewer 3:
Interviewer 3:
How about you distinguish your comment that again every chair is looking out to try to be strategic and make sure that his or her department is supporting and pursuing university goals. But, when you have a department with over 100 courses, the thought that a chair would think that this one course in the mix I could have between this number of honors and this number of graduates class and this number of entry into our third courses. A course that has been taught before, has attracted what is a reasonably healthy enrollment. A professor who wants to teach it again, that that decision there would be potentially crucial to the financial fortunes of a large department ... is unique, it would be not normal. Is that a fair observation? Yeah, and again I ... he made that decision based on a lot of information and as I said, I think that we never said not to that course could not be taught and all intentions I think nor that it would be taught again. I think it was a matter of just balancing you know the curricular demands and contributions to the general curriculum. As a specific question ... So I don't know and I don't know if I interrupted the question you were trying to ask but.
Interviewer 2:
No, no that's fine. I think that kind of answers my question.
Interviewer 3:
More limited question on a specific meeting that I think occurred in November of 2016 between Professor Smith and . about this course. That Professor Smith says he left with understanding you would be able to teach the course in the spring of 2018. Can you ... do you recall that meeting? And if so, what was the substance and did you in fact leave that meeting with the understanding that the course would be offered in the spring of 2018?
I thought it was a good meeting in fact as I indicate earlier J. I think did a really good job in that meeting. Not that I was asking for it, but I think that he was trying to defend his right, cuz he knew that I had been asked about a French historian teaching this course and he gave me some good examples of how other faculty in that department over time have taught courses outside. Maybe their area that they use is historical methods which help me then if I was asked about to further defend the teaching of the course.
However, I was very consistent [inaudible 01:47:06] with the message about, "I'm not making this decision about whether or not you'll teach the course next year, the following year, or whenever.". That's a departmental decision. And I said it's very consistent with what we said all along. If it meets the strategic needs and priorities for the department then it should be taught.
And then we had, I thought it was a good meeting. We had this little thing at the end where I don't, I'm not sure J. liked the framing of need. But that, and what
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 35 of 46
he said is what he did say, which was that I don't necessarily need to teach any of the you know the courses so that. So, I thought we left on good terms. He did write me a summary of that meeting and I knew that ... I think maybe whenever he wrote that, that maybe a meeting had already occurred between and and I wasn't part of that meeting. So I wasn't gonna say ... I wasn't going to say, "Oh yeah this is exactly right. You can teach the course or you're gonna teach the course.". I hadn't heard what happened at that point. I wrote a very short email that was thanked for the meeting. I believe and are meeting or will be meeting soon. That was it. Interviewer 3:
So, to summarize you did not leave that meeting with the impression that you had approved or otherwise indicated that the course could be offered or would be offered in the fall of 20 ... of spring 2018. It wasn't ... No and it's not my ... I wouldn't do that. [00:08:39 unintelligible] who was in that, what faculty member was in there. I wasn't gonna go above the ... I wasn't gonna ... I have no idea what may have had in mind or what he's had in mind for next year, for ... yeah for the following academic year. I mean there are all sorts of issues. Faculty go on research and study assignments and sometimes people have to share their teaching loads because faculty would go on you know family personal leaves and so that's not for me ... if I had said, "Yes, absolutely you're gonna teach that course next year." And then some other plan had been made between and that wouldn't help anybody. I never left that meeting.
Interviewer 3:
Chris Smith did you have any additional comments you may want to share about that meeting?
Chris Smith:
Not about that particular meeting. I ... the subsequent meeting was very meaningful to me because I went to office. And I said, " you're not said it's okay with him. So long as it's consistent with our gonna believe it. vision of the department's needs if we offer the course next year. So apparently I can teach the course." And was stunned. He was genuinely stunned by that news. It took him a couple of seconds to get his composure.
Section 11 of 15
[01:40:00 ‐ 01:50:04]
Section 12 of 15
[01:50:00 ‐ 02:00:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
A couple of seconds to get his composure. And he told me that he felt a little angry about all of this, because this was inconsistent with the messages that he had been hearing, but that he was glad to know that it was gonna be okay for me to teach the course.
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 36 of 46
I mean, that was a great day for me. I was heading to Iowa to go to a conference. I was giving a paper. I thought, "Wow." You go to talk to the powers that be and sometimes they listen to. It was a great day. I got back Monday, I and within 24 hours, I'm hearing from that oh no, wrote that email to you're not teaching that course next year. I was told that they don't want you teaching that course.
Now, I don't know. I wasn't at that meeting. I don't know what words were exchanged. Maybe is making it all up; I don't know. But I know that I left town, the evening of the 3rd, thinking I was teaching the course. And the next time I was on campus, on the 8th, I was told I was not teaching that course. And in the intervening four days. I don't know. had had a meeting with
Someone tell me what that means. I know what I think it means.
Speaker 2:
I'm going to turn ... do you recall any meetings during that time frame that may have occurred? First of all, do you recall the conversation with Professor Smith about his understanding that the investigates have blessed the course for spring [inaudible 01:51:35]?
Speaker 3:
I don't ... but I don't. I just don't recall that conversation, but I don't question. It sounds very. I honestly just don't remember, but it sounds very plausible, as Jay describes it.
And I must confess, I don't remember the timeline as clearly as Jay does. But at that point in time, you say that was in October? That‐
Speaker 1:
November 3rd.
Speaker 3:
Early November, yes, that was exactly at the moment in time when I was making the decision, so if the meeting you're talking about must have been when I went over to and we had various things to talk about, and at the end of that meeting, I'm assuming that's the meeting where I said that I've made the decision that Jay's course. So, that must be the timing.
Speaker 2:
Follow‐up on that or any other questions?
Speaker 4:
So it sounds like what you heard was, "I was told you can't teach that course," and what you say most likely happened is that you felt like, your perception was, that it was a bad idea for him to teach this course this year, but it wasn't explicitly said to you, you just felt like that was the general tenor of things?
Speaker 3:
Yes. I don't ... there was no conversation where ."
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
said to me, "Do not
Page 37 of 46
Speaker 4:
And is it possible that the way you conveyed that might have led Professor Smith to believe that it was more explicit than that?
Speaker 3:
I think I recall, but again, I don't recall the specific meetings, but I think I recall how I conveyed it, and I don't think I ever conveyed the idea that I was ordered that the course shouldn't be taught. What I did convey was I had the perception that , or that scheduling the course was inconsistent with the college's strategic plan, etc.
Speaker 4:
But to be clear, not necessarily inconsistent with your department's kind of course offerings or curricular plans for that semester?
Speaker 3:
Right, and again, always said and did, on two occasions, I can recall talking about this course with said I strategic goals and curricular needs.
Speaker 4:
And at that time when you made the decision, you weren't making it based on the curricular needs of that semester, but you were thinking kind of long‐term in terms of what your department might need from the university?
Speaker 3:
I was thinking of long term, I was visioning the department to be as responsive to the larger goals of the college, since at the end of the day, all of our resources come from the college. We have no ... well, we have some endowment. And I'm was always very tenacious not suggesting, again, I want to affirm about getting those resources and I wanted to make sure we continued to have access to resources I felt were needed.
Speaker 4:
And so that last piece seems to indicate that you might not continue to have access to that kind of zealous advocacy if this class were on the books for the fall?
Speaker 3:
That's where I had to make, shall we say, a leadership decision and had to figure out, we're in a time of scarce resources, extremely scarce resources, how do I know what decisions will be made on basis outside of what I know?
Speaker 2:
Last question, I think, is, how do we get to the point where the decision was made to put the course on the schedule for spring 2018?
Speaker 3:
Well, I ... in conversations with subsequently, I don't remember specific conversations, but I always, this came up in no contrived manner, just as an issue that was continuing to, if you will, [inaudible 01:56:52] the department and be of concern to me as a and my role was trying , and there were just to provide the conversations about what we could do to improve the relations, if you will, between the faculty who were growing suspicious about [inaudible 01:57:13] and the particular occasion I can remember, as outlined, was every,
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 38 of 46
usually end of the spring term, even beginning of the summer,
coming to early faculty meeting to talk to We talked about, for example, the faculty and at the end of the meeting, we talked about re‐visiting this issue, and I think very ... actually, he might not even have, yes, I guess he had just taken over, came over to see me, talk with me about this, and I proposed to him that if I changed decision and the course was scheduled, I think that would be a wonderful way to begin to address some of the tensions, if you will.
So, that was how the decision was made. It was really ... a recognition, certainly, on my part, that this was a step that would be good for the department. And it's consistent with our curricular needs.
Speaker 2:
How would that ... if in the fall of 2016, your decision was this course was not consistent with the curricular needs, how did that ... the overall, oh, in that's curricular needs, but strategic plan? The overall plan? How did it change between then and spring‐
Speaker 3:
Section 12 of 15
[01:50:00 ‐ 02:00:04]
Section 13 of 15
[02:00:00 ‐ 02:10:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
In which he and I would work, without this course as being part of the ongoing discussion. So that's ... I don't know if that answers your question. That's the context in which we were talking about it.
Speaker 2:
This the first conversation?
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 39 of 46
Speaker 3:
So, it was never a question of the curricular needs for the academic year 2017‐ 2018, but in the Fall of 2016, when you were making a decision about 2017, you had these other concerns about being a team player and consequences for the department, the larger colleges admission and how it fit in. But now, those needs were met for department and we're at Fall 2017 and you see the department having some morale issues around this. And so the decision for 2018 is largely based on ... Since you don't really have curricular concerns. And now you no longer have the concerns about what the consequences are, you can meet the morale needs of the department?
Speaker 1:
Well I think it's also, this has been a ... I would say a learning curve because the always [inaudible 02:01:16] this issue. There is nothing in the that talks about a matter like this, there's nothing ... This was not a matter I was going to talk to other people about, I wasn't going to talk to about this, so it was ... I felt very isolated, thinking about how to approach this. In retrospect, I'd do things very, very, very, very differently. But it happened in history, I suppose, through retrospect and so I was, in retrospect and this I think, if you'll allow me a few minutes, this I think will address the change of mind. In retrospect, I would have done much more to try to educate on the culture of course assignment in the history department. Because it is very different than say, the math department. Or chemistry.
In history, you have certain obligations to teach certain courses. They're not courses by field nec ... well, they often are by field but they ... We are most concerned that every faculty, regardless of rank, teach one large course. We don't want senior faculty abandoning the large course to the assistant professor. And that hasn't always been the case, , we impose that on everyone now.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 02:02:42]
Speaker 1:
So once he ticks that box, everything else he teaches is up to him and a broad curriculum need, so he can't just go off and teach random courses but he has very wide discretion. That's different from some of these other departments and I could have done a better job of educating I think, and about that so that the questions about this course could be understood as violating the traditions of the department and curricular allocations. I think I also should have talked more strategically, and I mean that ... or tactically with and about how to address their concerns and why again, it was this course. But I also should have talked to faculty about it and that's where I should have been very ... I did not know how to talk to faculty about it, because of questions about the climate between our department and South Building that I think aren't unique to department at all, they're characteristic to departments in the humanities.
There is a great suspicion about the stem disciplines from consuming the university and we're being starved ... So some of those are not just tied to this
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 40 of 46
campus, they're sort of disciplinary‐wide in humanities disciplines across universities in the United States. And then I will say one thing that contributed a lot to this, changed my attitude was the election of Trump. Because it created an atmosphere in which, we have faculty can feel besieged by external forces. And so there are a lot of ... And I realized that seems, what does Trump have to do with this? But then when I have faculty perceive for example, that the civil rights center will be under threat, that virtually any ... anything that's matched a progressive or contrary thought might be targeted, that contributes to the anxieties about Jay's course. And so those all fed into my idea of it, well it's important to send a signal that this course will be supported. Regardless of whether I was right about reading the consequences for the department one way or the other.
And that was, as I say, there has been no ... The support from the college, for the history department, at has been consistently very strong.
Speaker 2:
Was there any input from any of the about that decision to add the course back, this is now in July, this is now‐ [crosstalk 02:05:51]
Speaker 1:
that was in the context of all this questions about the Well talking about climate and trying to, if you will, reset the conversation. But he wasn't, was in no way saying, you need to add this course or to the contrary. He was talking through how to address this matter.
Speaker 2:
And not really a question but I want to address it because it's part of the grievance, is again if you comment on any input, influence, pressure from the athletic department on this decision process.
Speaker 4:
None on me.
Speaker 1:
None on me, no.
Speaker 2:
You had no contact with anyone from that department about‐
Speaker 1:
No.
Speaker 2:
... History 383?
Speaker 1:
I mean there were questions about, early on, I don't know if it was in the summer or fall teaching of the course, it might have been fall of '16 about a tour of a Loudermilk. Which was a concern of ... but it was raised, they had wanted to give a tour of the Loudermilk Center, which is where the student athletes receive their advising, and apparently it was shut down or was ... The concern was raised that you can't tour students through there, that eventually that was ... I did not get involved in that but I think the worked a plan where you
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 41 of 46
could give a tour of the Loudermilk Center, that's the extent, that I was copied on some emails regarding ... Speaker 4:
Just one ... Actually it's a question to fix, I think meeting, where you and I kind of went over the course of previous year and possible future dis‐ I thought was in that meeting.
Speaker 1:
was. That's why then He was. Yeah, I meant to, yes. ... As you describe, he revisited the issue with me.
Speaker 5:
And if I could just add to that as well, was also in the meeting, which I thought was also a very good meeting that we had with three or four members of the history department in late May, just to answer questions that they had about it. With the follow‐up to a letter that they did send. It was and I that met with them and that it was a good meeting, and after that meeting I think as I said in one of the comments, the plan was for this transition to take place with and to circle back to and to come up with in mid‐July I a plan moving forward. And it was when I was meeting with guess, you know we were doing weekly check‐ins, just as he was getting ready the conversation was, was there a follow up on that, and he had just indicated ...
Had a conversation with him about what the plan was, but there was no, my frustration is that is as Jay presented, it sounds as if we relented under all this pressure. That wasn't the case. It was about when is the right time to teach the course and when it's needed, teach the course. And so he'd just check in with ... And I said as we were leaving, we'll remind him of that meeting we had with the history [inaudible 02:09:24], that we agreed at that meeting that if the right time to teach the course could be decided by the course. That's how that happened. I think that was the last week of July.
Speaker 1:
Any more questions?
Speaker 2:
I don't know, I don't have any more questions but I'm going to turn to both the parties to ask them to sum it up very briefly, if there are any‐
Speaker 4:
Yeah, I just have a couple of quick observations. has referred to the change in climate in the spring, summer, that led him to rethink the decision to offer 383 this year. I just want to point out that‐
Section 13 of 15
[02:00:00 ‐ 02:10:04]
Section 14 of 15
[02:10:00 ‐ 02:20:04](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 42 of 46
Jay:
... this year. I just want to point out that one important contributing factor to that change in climate was a fierce resistance by my colleagues to what had happened to my course. If there was a morale issue in our department around this course, it was because my colleagues learned all the details of what had happened, and they were pretty outraged by it. So that in addition to other pressure that was brought to bear in late spring and summer contributed to this changing climate that suddenly made the scheduling of my course more appealing than it had been.
The only other thing that I want to say is that there's a sentence in both of my complaints that has not come up today. It's a pretty serious allegation that I make in the sentence, and I want to revisit it before we leave. I want to leave everything on the table before we adjourn. I was told more than once that someone in South Building, I'm not sure who, communicated to [ 02:11:26], "I'm not threatening you, but ..." "I'm not threatening you, but ..." in connection with the scheduling of my course. That has not come up today. We haven't talked about that, and maybe this is all, maybe I was hallucinating, that this never happened at all. I'm pretty sure my colleagues heard much the same thing at our April department meeting, and I think if that is a misrepresentation on my part, it should absolutely be cleared up. But if it's not, I'd like to hear someone address it.
Speaker 2:
I'll turn to closing, and if you can as part of closing address whether or not, I suppose I think we'll start here, because you're suggesting that that message was delivered to you [inaudible 02:12:21] about a subtly veiled threat.
Speaker 3:
The phrase that I think [Jay's 02:12:32] referring to is ... I'm not threatening you, it was "This is not a threat, but ..." around the time ... I'm paraphrasing. Around the time of scarce resources etc, etc.
Speaker 2:
Could you explain who made that comment to you?
Speaker 3:
made that to me in the two occasions I met with him. It wasn't in context in which, I think Jay summarized that.
Speaker 2:
You have a comment on that?
Speaker 4:
I can't imagine. First of all, saying I'm not threatening you, but I would never use that phrase, or say that I'm threatened. We talked a lot about scarce resources. We talked a lot about over resource. We talked a lot about the timing of offering this course. I never said threatened. Threaten a or department. I have to refute that.
Speaker 2:
Any other closing thoughts?
Speaker 4:
Well first of all, just to touch on the point that Jay just made about the [inaudible 02:13:58] in the letter that they sent to us that was signed by a
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 43 of 46
majority of their faculty. I have since had a number of those faculty talk to me about what happened, and describe it as being somewhat sloppy with how that process was taken place over email. Debates whether it should be copied to the press or not. I think the people who ... Those that didn't sign that letter I think were ... Basically they apologized to me for that. Almost embarrassed with the department. Just have one individual described. I think that needs to be part of the record. This notion of the history department versus the south building it's the first I'm hearing of it. Maybe it was sort of said in, or joking that I ... One of the best meetings I had as the . I went around to meet with all of the departments, and we had a fantastic meeting. I heard a lot about the department, and went well over the time we had set aside. It was with [ 02:15:15], and his team.
I've never sensed a tension between a certain . Maybe when it's said about south building, maybe their rather talking about south building back certainly did not since then. I think just enclosing there was no conspiracy to keep history 383 from being taught. I think Jay would like people to believe that, but there was no grand scheme to prevent him from teaching this course again. Some people had strong feelings about Jay Smith? Yes. Did people on campus not just the administration, but students, and the fellow faculty members, and faculty you've heard today from a number of us raise question? There were questions raised about why I had to [inaudible 02:16:09] was teaching a course in big time athletics. Did the respondents personally have a problem with Jay teaching the course? No. After confirming that it was properly approved, my only concern again is that I've said repeatedly was it was replacing in that fall semester a course that we were desperately trying to find more sections of honors, and first year seminars courses. As I were to mention, as I guess lecturing that course, which I enjoy doing.
Would I really associate myself in a course in this way if I had an objection with the class, or the professor, or it's content. It's clear to me now that there was certain miscommunications, and just hearing this today, and misunderstandings that ... And perceptions here that in terms of the way information was passed along from person to person. I am disappointed. in fact you felt conflicted about how resources would, or wouldn't flow based on decisions that were made, because that was never the intention, but yes we had conversations about constraining resources, but we never prevented Jay from teaching the course. I think the thing that we need to realize is that we're all academics, and I think that Jay has this perception that administrators of south building are enemies of academic freedom. We're all academics.
and I value the importance of sharing governance with what academic freedom really brings, and the importance of it. We don't just acknowledge our faculties freedom of inquiry, but we believe in those freedoms. We've exercised those freedoms ourselves, and uphold them
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 44 of 46
with unwavering commitment so I don't believe there was a violation of University's policies. Standard to procedures in this matter as agreed in adjacent that this I think has failed to meet the burden of present evidence of such a violation. There are a lot of assumptions, speculations, you're saying this interpretation of your saying, and we believe that we already provided Jay with the requested remedies that could be reasonably granted. We've publicly affirmed our commitment to academic freedom at least eight different times as I mentioned earlier. With this hearing we yet, again, provided Jay with an explanation of the events regarding the History 383 course.
He's received everything that could be entitled under this process so for these reasons we respectfully ask that you would find no adjustment in favor of the agreement is necessary at this point. That the matter be resolved.
Speaker 2:
I appreciate all your time gentleman.
Speaker 3:
I'd like to just add one.
Speaker 2:
Of course yes.
Speaker 3:
Just to clarify what I was trying to say about attitudes in south building. There not directed ... With the exception of this particular matter. They're not directed at you. I would say generally there's a suspicion about higher administration in general. I use south building to‐
Section 14 of 15
[02:10:00 ‐ 02:20:04]
Section 15 of 15
[02:20:00 ‐ 02:38:01](NOTE: speaker names may be different in each section)
Speaker 1:
So I knew South Haven to is everything that South Haven represents to academics and humanities who would like to have a free hand unencumbered by bureaucracy I didn't want to suggest that this was [inaudible 02:20:19]
Speaker 2:
First of all, officers [inaudible 02:26:24] Officer [inaudible 02:26:24] Second half of it is the student services and then their other administration
Speaker 1:
Yeah, so the then on seconds
Speaker 2:
I appreciate that, thank you everyone for participating and the cooperation I'm grateful for that. Next steps will be that Camille will confer and make decisions whether or not any other parties need to be heard from any other witnesses, I should say, that need to be heard from. I will let you know if that the case I will give you the opportunity to attend we will do everything we can to schedule a
and the pro boss are as much targets at the suspicion
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 45 of 46
time you can attend and if you can not the courts [inaudible 02:26:24] again as transcripts are needed. Kathleen has spoken with everyone we think appropriate spoken for well go ahead and sit down together as a sub committee get recommendations of 12 and 13 faculty members will then vote on that., when that is finally approved we'll then share it with all of the parties. If after we convene today adjourn today if you have additional thoughts you wish to share certainly we all welcome to hear from you we look forward to sharing both sides whatever we hear make sure everyone's aware of what's been said. Otherwise, I'm assuming that we are adjourning the meeting for today?
Thank you very much everybody.
Can you get a copy of this last email so I can make additional copies? I can I'll share this with you all, the original email.
Section 15 of 15
[02:20:00 ‐ 02:38:01]
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your future orders
Faculty Grievance Hearing 08-09-17_combined
Page 46 of 46
