February, 2001                                     Editor: Patricia Brodsky                                   Vol. 2, No. 3


New Faculty Senate Budget Committee a First Step Toward Stronger Faculty Role, by Stuart McAninch

Food for Thought: The "Stakeholder Survey", by Patricia Brodsky

Frontal Attack on Faculty Governance at Maryville, by Linda Pitelka

Missouri State Conference Events

A Matter of PRIDE, by Patricia Brodsky

"Unless Legal can do a Whole Lot Better:" Death of Due Process at MU, by L. David Ormerod, MD, MSc

The Chancellor's Appointment to PCAST: Some Responses, by Patricia Brodsky

Teaching Tolerance IV: Civil Liberties after 9/11, by David Brodsky


Civil Liberties since 9/11 -- Selected References and Resources

"Education for Democracy" Papers Published

AAUP Chapter meeting March 28

AAUP Dues Information

Copyright Notice

Back Issues

New Faculty Senate Budget Committee a First Step Toward Stronger Faculty Role

by Stuart McAninch

        A Faculty Senate budget committee was organized during the Fall 2001 semester.  The chair is Michael Golden (faculty, Library Science), and current members are James Durig, Marvin Querry, and myself.  The charge of the committee is to provide information and data on the university budget and budget-making process to the Faculty Senate, recommend procedures for Faculty Senate participation in assessment and planning of the budget, and develop strategies for extending faculty involvement in the budget-making process.  Obviously, this project will require work over the next several years and would benefit from the work of more than four professors.  Those interested in serving do not have to be Senate members.

        What we have learned to this point is that faculty presently have very little influence on university budget-making.  We have also learned that, given the chancellor's public commitment to increasing budgetary decision-making at the unit level, strategies for extending faculty involvement will need to focus on both university-level and unit-level decision-making processes.  At the campus level, both the Faculty Senate and the AAUP chapter will need to be actively involved.  At the unit level, AAUP members and other faculty will need to make sure that the following provisions in the university faculty bylaws are followed:

Each school shall have an elected budget committee composed of representative Faculty.  The Budget Committee shall receive from the Dean in timely fashion all information regarding the budget process; shall share that information with the Faculty of the school, and shall advise the Dean regarding objectives and funding priorities as well as necessary allocations to achieve those objectives.
        Knowledge of the budgets for the university and individual units and knowledge of the budget-making process are essential forms of leverage for UMKC faculty.  Conversely, lack of knowledge perpetuates the political weakness of faculty.  Without knowledge of budgets and budget-making, we are dependent on what administrators tell us about the financial state of the university and of units, and we have very little basis for challenging their decisions on allocation of money or for challenging their assertions that there is no money for those items which faculty might consider important.

        In the short term, such knowledge is essential for framing the questions we need to frame about how reductions in the budget are allocated during a recession.  In the longer term, such knowledge is essential for faculty governance of academic programs and for just compensation of both non-tenure-line and tenure-line faculty.  Strengthening academic programs, raising the pay for part-time faculty, addressing salary compression among tenure-line faculty, and other priorities for UMKC faculty require money.  If we are serious about our priorities, we need to realize that achieving them requires effective strategies for in-fluencing allocation of funds, which is impossible if we remain ignorant of budgets and budget-making.

Food for Thought: The "Stakeholder Survey"

by Patricia Brodsky

        My last column ( "Some Thoughts on Bluespeak: Silos and Stakeholders," Faculty Advocate , December 2001 ) examined the administrative distortion of language.  The present column focuses specifically on its consequences in a document disseminated last semester.  The "Stakeholder Survey," coordinated by the office of the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, was created by an eleven-member Blueprint Team, consisting of nine administrators, one token faculty member, and one token staff person.  Its goals have been chosen in advance by the administration and its avowed priority, to "restructure and refine the budget process," serves the Blueprint.  Despite claims of openness, it is not concerned with strengthening faculty governance by making essential information accessible to all faculty.

        The "Stakeholder Survey" cites as a major goal "to establish general policy guidelines for budget allocation."  The first of the "essential features" of budget policy guidelines reads: "Incorporates a long-term perspective."  While no one can fault the need for advance planning, missing (not coincidentally) from the list of "essential features" of budgeting is the standard objective, "to meet the immediate needs of actual programs."  That is, the underfunding of current needs will subsidize future administrative priorities.

        Another "essential feature" is the promise of "effective communication with stakeholders."  But faculty are not small investors receiving an occasional financial report.  Top-down communication of "done deals" with at best marginal faculty "input" is no substitute for the major responsibility faculty should have for institutional budgeting and policy formation.  To motivate loyalty to administrative budget goals, one "essential feature" is "incentives to University management and employees."  Judging by the "Faculty Performance Shares", these "incentives" are unlikely to be idealistic ones.

        The terms "management" and "employees" found throughout the document are corporate substitutions for the really existing administration and faculty.  Additionally, the budget process, the survey declares, should create a plan "for the provision of services and capital improvements."  But teaching and research are not "services," like slinging fast food (a "service industry").  They are "services" only in the corporate lingo of international trade agreements (see Frank Neff's article, Faculty Advocate, April 2001).  This lingo reduces to the lowest common denominator a vast and highly differentiated range of non-manufacturing human activity.  Once flattened into abstract mush, the fundamental activities that define what a university is cease to exist.

        Finally, in the corporate calculus of the Blueprint, the student body is an invisible entity.  High student tuition, after all, helps fund their budget game.  To quote the title of UMSL professor Zuleyma Tang-Martinez' presentation at the "Education for Democracy" conference: "Higher Education and the Corpo- Corporate Paradigm: the Students are the Losers."

        In light of drastic cuts to the Missouri state education budget, the UMKC administration has turned to public meetings.  Public forums are to be welcomed, but only if they supply essential information and ample opportunity for discussion and debate.  However, at one meeting in late January pointed and relevant questions from the floor received evasive answers.  Thus the new forum system (to be bolstered by frequent e-mailings) appears to be a variant of business as usual.

        Given increasing underfunding by the State, the issues raised in the "Stakeholder Survey" are taking on increasing urgency.  Their discussion should not be confined to private communication between individual faculty and staff and the self-designated Blueprint "team."  Therefore, I am making public my responses to the most important questions, since budget information and the budgeting process should be public in a public institution of higher education.  Because the range of permissable responses in the survey is limited mostly to machine-processed multiple-choice, I am providing individualized answers in the form of rational discourse.  I am certain that my responses are shared by a large proportion of my colleagues.

        Question 1: "The process to develop this year's budget was clear."

        Answer: The A&S faculty, as reported in The Faculty Advocate (October 2001), doesn't even have the minimal information to understand budget decisions, much less make them.

        Question 3: "There are opportunities for people like me to participate in the current year budget process."

        Answer: Not that I know of.  Nor does the A&S faculty budget committee, or even the Dean's office or the University Senate possess the necessary information to participate intelligently (but see Stuart McAninch's article, "New Faculty Senate Budget Committee" above).

        Under the current process, faculty participation would be token at best, since almost all major budget decisions are traditionally made above the Dean's level.  And the recent administration move to decentralize budgetary decision-making will remain pointless unless and until adequate funding is made available.  In the meantime, delegating budget responsibility when major cuts are being called for merely shelters the upper administration from criticism by making Deans their hatchet men.

        Question 7: "I had input on budgetary decisions in my responsibility center for this year."

        Answer: Translating "responsibility center" as unit or department, yes, I was consulted.  However, my faculty colleagues and I had minimal control over allocation, and none at all over the really important allocation decisions, such as filling vacant faculty positions, which are made by the upper administration, or, under the new "decentralization plan," by Deans who don't have the funds to fill positions.

        To questions #4 and #6 , concerning whether I was informed of budget deadlines and decisions, and #12, whether my department has sufficient funds, I reply: "Of course not!"

The entire contents of each issue of The Faculty Advocate (except for public domain material) is copyrighted. The Faculty Advocate, February 2002, Copyright 2002 by the UMKC Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.  All rights returned to authors upon publication.  AAUP chapters, state conferences, and the national organization have permission to reproduce and distribute.  Permission for other non-profit publishers is a formality, but UMKC AAUP asks them for the courtesy of requesting it.  Contact the Editor, Patricia Brodsky: 816-235-2826, e-mail:

        Question 5: "I have accepted ownership of resources allocated to me."

        Answer: If offered "ownership," I must refuse it on legal grounds.  UMKC is a public institution, employees are public servants, and they do not "own" public property in any sense of the word.  It belongs to the State of Missouri, which holds it in trust for the people.  Resources are allocated to us to be used for education and research in the public interest.

        Question 8: "Identify the communication device by which you were communicated information related to budget preparation..."

        Answer: Translation--"Where did you get your information?"  We were asked to check all that applied.  Mine came from 1) the grapevine (because when administrations hoard information, the default source is gossip); 2) the KC Star (what an insult, faculty are the last to know); and 3) "Other", e.g. A&S faculty meetings, where discussions frequently concern--the lack of information.

        Question 9: "I know the goals of the current budgetary process."

        Answer: Indeed, I do.  Judging budget priorities by accomplished facts, sports, privileged disciplines, administrative salaries, the Blueprint, corporate ads, lavish public ceremonies, the chancellor's residence, etc. are well fed, while unprivileged disciplines are kept on a subsistence diet and full- and part-time faculty are now told to compete for the table leavings.

        Question 10: "Budget allocations are generally sufficient to achieve and support 'excellence' in our academic programs."
And Question 11: "The current budget process rewards program excellence."

        Answer: Perhaps for privileged disciplines, certainly not for the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education, etc.

        Question 18: "The budget obstacles facing my department are---"

        Answer: underfunding, understaffing, and involuntary ignorance of the budget process.

        Question 17 asked for the three most important criteria in setting budget priorities.

        Answer: Only three?  There are so many things at UMKC needing improvement, from salaries to staffing to working conditions to the bookstore, from library collections to scheduling to the ever lengthening academic year to the shabby physical plant for unprivileged faculty.

        Question 15: "I received adequate internal training and support for the preparation of the FY2002 operating budget from the budget office.  (For business/fiscal officers only.)"

        Answer: My case rests.  Faculty are not envisioned as worthy of receiving training and support, much less enough information to do their jobs.

        In addition, a quick look back at the list of faculty-generated concerns published in the first issue of The Faculty Advocate (September 2000) shows that not much has changed after three semesters.  These concerns included: arrogant and counter-productive top-down administrative processes; administrative failure to make creative use of the vast body of collective expertise among faculty; and corporatization of the university, including attempted debasement of the tradition of liberal education.

        The idea of surveying faculty and staff about the budget process is a good one.  But given the survey's source and agenda, faculty would be wise to continue reading between the lines and, as AAUP guidelines state, insisting on our central role in determining the course of the University.

Frontal Attack on Faculty Governance at Maryville

by Linda Pitelka

        Today I attended the first full faculty meeting at Maryville University under a new system of governance.  Prominently in attendance were not only faculty members, but also several vice presidents and all the deans.  These administrators now have faculty status and voting rights, although it seems that voting will happen rarely now.  While the meeting was chaired by a very upbeat new president of the faculty, the purpose of the meeting, it seemed, was for the administration to inform the faculty about what decisions had been made and what was going to happen: new dorms being built, a new web page design.  What had once been an active, hard working, deliberative (and yes, often messy) body of the whole that voted on new programs, curricular issues, and other serious matters of shared governance has become a sham--simply a way for the administration to pretend that the institution still has shared governance.

        In October 2001, at the request of the local chapter, AAUP sent a team to investigate alleged violations of faculty governance at Maryville University.  We don't know what the outcome of the investigation will be, so I won't comment on it here.  Instead I will try to explain how we arrived at the scenario described above.

        The issues stem from initiatives on the part of administrators to improve enrollment at the tuition-driven university.  The administration had been frustrated by the faculty's unwillingness to pass some of its proposals, such as a revised core curriculum. In an effort to "streamline" the development and acceptance of new programs, to revise the core curriculum as it pleased, and to take power away from those who asked too many questions, the university administration launched a preemptive strike at the  heart of shared governance.

        On March 17, 2000, President Keith Lovin called a faculty and staff meeting to announce sudden and shocking changes for the university that drastically reduced the role of the faculty in the governance of the university and violated several principles of AAUP.  Among other things, the president suspended entire parts of the policy manual and abolished three important faculty committees (undergraduate academic policies, graduate academic policies, faculty planning and priorities).  He gave the Vice President of Academic and Students Affairs the additional title of "Dean of the Faculty."

        In the future, faculty meetings will be convened by the Dean of the Faculty and the Faculty Assembly President jointly, and the Dean of the Faculty sits on faculty committees.  He gave the College of Arts and Sciences a new name: the School of Liberal Arts and Professional Programs.  This name clearly symbolizes the direction the university is taking and speaks also to the fact that most problems have been blamed on the Liberal Arts faculty.   He fired the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and appointed an interim dean without consulting the faculty.  He also did away with the positions of faculty chairs within the College of Arts and Sciences, although the directors of two professional programs were later reinstated after the situation proved unworkable.

        In place of the faculty committees, the president created a kind of super committee, which includes about half faculty and half administrators.  From the members of the super committee, five faculty members were chosen (new and untenured whenever possible) along with two administrators to form a committee to design a new system of governance very quickly.

        The governance committee eventually produced a new constitution based on the President's directives.  Most outrageous was the process imposed on the proceedings by the administration.  The Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs and Dean of the Faculty informed the faculty that there would be faculty meetings for "input" on the new governance structure, but not debate.  Each person would have three minutes to speak and would be required to submit all comments in writing at the end of the meeting.  One vice president actually brought an egg timer to the meeting, adding a note of surrealistic hilarity to the otherwise contentious and sad proceedings.

        One of the most painful aspects of this attack on faculty governance is the way it has divided our faculty.  Since March 17th, 2000, the AAUP chapter has grown in size from eleven members two years ago to thirty-five members today.  But what of the other fifty-five faculty members?  Most just want peace.  Few are willing to speak publicly and some do not make their AAUP membership public for fear of reprisals.  Others believe the administration' s accusations that professors in the College of Arts and Sciences are "obstructionist" and unwilling to change and innovate.  In our institution, these debates often break down into a duel between professional programs and the liberal arts, a division that pits faculty members against one another and is highly detrimental to the faculty's ability to protect itself.

        Around the country colleges and universities under pressure to increase enrollments are facing challenges similar to those we confront.  What is happening at Maryville is the seizure of the faculty's proper role in governance and in curricular decisions in order to promote a corporate model of management.  This power grab is intended to take control away from those faculty who criticize administrative excesses, and those who wish to uphold academic standards and to keep curricular matters in the hands of faculty.

        The theme for the upcoming annual meeting of the Missouri Conference of the AAUP is "The Corporatization of Higher Education."  I know that Maryville is not the only institution in Missouri that is experiencing such problems.  Please join us in Kansas City to discuss this very timely topic.

Linda Pitelka is Associate Professor of History at Maryville University in St. Louis and President of the Missouri State Conference of the AAUP.  All emphases are the Editor's.

Missouri State Conference Events

        It's vital for higher education in Missouri to develop a strong and persuasive presence in Jefferson City, particularly in times of severe financial pressures.  To this end, the Missouri State Conference of the AAUP held its second annual "Lobby Days" on February 4th and 5th.  Participants attended a workshop on lobbying at Lincoln University and then spoke with legislators about our issues.

        On Saturday, March 9th, the Annual Meeting of the Missouri State Conference will be held at Rockhurst University.  Main topics will be "Corporatization of Education" and "Contingent Faculty Issues."  The keynote speaker will be Rich Moser from the National AAUP in Washington, D.C.  Chapters from the Kansas Conference have also been invited, so there will be opportunities to share information and strategies with colleagues from Missouri and Kansas institutions.  We urge local chapter members to take advantage of this year's location and attend the meeting.  For detailed information see the online state newsletter-- .

A Matter of PRIDE

by Patricia Brodsky

        For nearly two years a number of faculty members have been meeting under the acronym PRIDE to craft a new document redefining categories by which candidates for promotion and tenure are judged.  This document has been described as an expansion or a replacement of existing policies, including Chancellor's Memoranda 35 and 77.  According to committee members, the impetus for the project lay in concerns about the current rewards system, expressed by participants in focus groups convened shortly after Chancellor Gilliland's arrival on campus.

        In November 2001 a partial draft was made available to the faculty.  Committee members readily admit that important items  such as the procedures for application and decision-making have not yet been addressed.  Since the beginning of WS 2002 faculty have been invited to discuss the draft document at a number of public meetings.  The few faculty who attended brought up a number of questions regarding both the substance of the changes and the process by which the committee was formed and the document came into being.  Members of the committee, who have invested considerable effort in the document, have been cooperative and forthcoming in their answers, but it is clear that serious reservations exist among the faculty.

        Questions were raised about the contents of the new regulations--for example, the rationale for dividing the traditional category of "scholarship" into four subgroups (the scholarship of teaching, discovery, integration, and community engagement).  Another concerned the distinction between the "scholarship of community service" and the separate category of "citizenship," and the difference between these two and good old fashioned "service."  Some faculty suggested that the new categories would result in lower standards for tenure, while others questioned the need for a new document at all.  Its ratification process was also questioned.  At one meeting the committee stated that the Faculty Senate "might be consulted again," but there seemed to be no intention of taking the document to the faculty at large for discussion, revision, and a vote.  Final approval was said to rest with the Chancellor.

        While the committee consists of faculty, they were not elected or in any way chosen by the faculty as a whole to pursue this project.  Whatever one may think about the substance or direction of the document, the fact that its creators are self-appointed and apparently not answerable to the faculty at large places the whole process in doubt, since it seems to bypass the basic rights of the faculty in matters of governance.  The AAUP "Red Book" (Policy Documents and Reports , 1995) states that "faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal.  Scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues..." (p 184).  A suggestion made at one of the public meetings was that any campus-wide Promotion and Tenure document ought to consist of a simple framework, with specific details created by and residing in departments or schools.  Whether or not we should take a new look at existing promotion and tenure regulations is a legitimate question, but one that should be addressed through existing faculty institutions.  And it is crucial that whatever decision is made, it should be a product of the whole faculty.

        At press time the Faculty Senate was still awaiting further information it had requested from the PRIDE committee.  However, there have been strong reactions in other quarters, questioning both the legitimacy of the process and the direction in which the draft document seems to be moving.  The first one is an excerpt from a letter sent to the editor of the Kansas City Star.  It was written by a non-tenure track employee who addresses the crucial issue of academic freedom.  The protection of academic freedom, after all, is the ultimate rationale for the existence of a tenure system.

        "... Given the importance and timeliness of [the] topic [of tenure] to events occuring at UMKC, I hope you will print my letter in its entirety.  In fact, I invite your reporters to further explore the proposed revisions for Promotion and Tenure at UMKC....

        I began my non-tenure track career at UMKC ignorant of the implications of tenure, and shared the perception held by the general public that tenure merely served as an obstacle to removal of non-performing faculty.  There are, however, mechanisms for post-tenure review, including dismissal for cause, to ensure satisfactory performance.  Most importantly, tenure guarantees academic freedom.  In the drive to corporatize our universities, it is tenured faculty who can speak out in defense of academic and research integrity.  There are benefits and perils to university-industry alliances, and a strong faculty body is crucial to ensuring quality within our universities.

        Tenure works best when rigorous criteria are enforced in order to win award.  This is, ultimately, the best defense against poor faculty performance.  There is a proposal at UMKC to seriously weaken Promotion and Tenure standards.  The faculty of the School of Biological Sciences has taken a stand against these proposed revisions.

                Carol M. Johnson, Coordinator, Research Projects
                School of Biological Sciences, UMKC"

        The statement to which Ms. Johnson refers was sent by Professor Lindsey Hutt-Fletcher, Chair of the Faculty in the School of Biological Sciences, to John W. Killip, team leader of the "Breakthrough Project PRIDE team."  Copies were also sent to the Faculty Senate and to Provost Ballard.  We present the complete text of the memorandum.

        "The faculty of the School of Biological Sciences met on Friday, January 11, [2002] and passed the following resolution by a vote of 33 for, 0 against.  I was asked to send a copy of the resolution to you and request that you share it with other faculty by posting it on the PRIDE Web site.  Thank you.

        The development and implementation of guidelines for Faculty Promotion and Tenure are the responsibility of the regular faculty and/or its duly elected representatives.

        For this reason, the Faculty of the School of Biological Sciences does not recognize the proposed Faculty Promotion/ Tenure Guidelines developed by the P.R.I.D.E. team or any other entity not representative of the regular faculty."

        In a February 12 discussion of the PRIDE document, the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences rejected two resolutions: to adopt verbatim the statement of the School of Biological Sciences, and to ask the Provost to form a faculty committee to examine the current Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. But the tone of the discussion was generally critical of both the document and the process of its creation.  It is essential that faculty in all academic units should discuss not only the content of PRIDE proposals but also the legitimacy of the PRIDE committee.  UMKC faculty should insist on an open faculty debate on the draft document, with the opportunity to amend and then vote the resulting document up or down.  Future issues of the Faculty Advocate will report on further developments.

"Unless Legal can do a Whole Lot Better:" Death of Due Process at MU

by L. David Ormerod, MD, MSc

        It is understood at major universities that their business is defined principally by the multifarious endeavors of faculty in teaching and research.  Contrary to conventional business models, the component parts are much better understood at the classroom and laboratory level than in the administrative tower.  But when university administrations react to increasing complexity by centralizing all decision-making in their own, unaccountable, hands, political shenanigans are not far behind.  Shared faculty governance as enshrined in the Curators' Regulations is now routinely disregarded at the University of Missouri-Columbia.  This article will relate events following actions of one MU chairman, and disinformation and attempted cover-up by the University.

Imperial Infallibility and Dirty Tricks

        After I joined the Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, as an Associate Professor in 1996, it soon became clear to me that my Chair evaded most decisions, delegated responsibility but never power, and allowed the burgeoning number of poorly prepared "administrators" to fill his governance vacuum.  In October 1998, the Chair illegitimately seized research leaderships for his own ends and systematically undermined my research.  The School of Medicine and Provost remained silent.  As an alternative to tenure consideration, University Legal Counsel advised him that I was employed "at will" and his problem could be managed by issuing a terminal contract without faculty involvement.

        In July 1999, the Chair blocked my tenure application and issued me a terminal nonrenewal--without faculty consideration and in an untimely manner.  No tenure regulation had been followed, there had been no prior warning, and the action was unsupported by previous annual assessments.  Remarkably, the Chair quoted academic failure, although I have published 80 papers, 58 as first author.  Simultaneously, out of the blue, unspecified charges of surgical misconduct were generated that might have resulted in my demise by easier means.  With the advice of University Legal Counsel a capricious and arbitrary process ensued, which violated 20 articles of federal law.  Charges were absent, conflicts of interest multiple, and procedures were highly irregular.  I was given no opportunity for a defense.  Finally, despite much machination, external experts avowed that all standards of care had been observed.

University Complicity

        The School of Medicine at this time had an illicit policy contrary to University Regulation 310.020 for the summary dismissal of tenure-track faculty; in fact, all MU contracts enshrine the protections afforded by the Curators Regulations.  Vice Provost Markie confirmed University Legal Counsel's advice to the Chair (from his spouse!) which had violated the tenure regulations, and also refused to accept the ensuing academic grievance on this issue--when this is a matter exclusively for the Faculty Hearing Committee.  Vice Chancellor Middleton and Chancellor Wallace confirmed these decisions.  In deposition, the Chancellor admits that he was aware of the lack of due process, but did nothing.

        The grievance was suppressed directly for 7 1/2 months, as the nonrenewal notice was deliberately run down until finally merged with two additional grievances.  A long informal resolution was fruitless, with matters being "taken out of my hands by Legal Counsel."  Chancellor's e-mail reveals that the grievance process was suspended secretly and my terminal contract run out.

        I had also submitted charges of Faculty Irresponsibility against my Chair under Regulation 300.010.L; this procedure has been suppressed illicitly by Provost Deaton for two years, without comment.  Deposition evidence shows it was his intention to consider the issue at the Campus Committee on Faculty Responsibility, but no such action was taken, presumably on the advice of University Legal Counsel.

        I was otherwise in good standing and my University personnel file was free of critical material.  An Associate Provost said my Chair had advised I was behaving "in an exemplary manner."  E-mails from Chancellor and Vice Chancellor 9 and 10 months into the nonrenewal admitted the absence of due process, without evidence of any other considerations, "unless Legal can do a whole lot better."

University Cover-up

        By systematically ignoring the Regulations concerning tenure and grievances, the University was impaled upon the horns of its own dilemma.  MU responded by deception--true to hallowed practice.  Twelve months after the nonrenewal was issued, new, unsubstantiated allegations of behavioral problems and clinical incompetence were first presented to the Chancellor--as MU "did a whole lot better."  Deposition evidence includes the agenda of an extraordinary meeting on March 26, 1999 between two departmental staff members and a staff member answerable to Legal Counsel, after which, over the next 18 months, false innuendo and gossip were developed and collated in secret staff files for a disinformation campaign.

        I attempted to enforce University tenure laws by injunctive action in Federal Court.  Indeed, I would have been quite unable to determine the truth of what had transpired without extensive depositions.  In the meantime, my Chair torpedoed an endowed chair at a leading institution with self-justifying allegations, each of which he could not sustain in deposition under oath.  There were procedural delays.  Twenty-two months into the nonrenewal (and 7 months after its enforcement), to avoid a court date, MU showed up with its grievance process.  Regulation 310.020 stipulates the entire process be finished in 6 months!

Grievance Process Abuse

        The University subverted the Grievance Hearing by violating due process.  MU disregarded the stipulated grievance issues in their entirety.  I had to present my case first, without knowledge of the University issues.  MU refused to provide documentary evidence in advance as stipulated by Regulation.  Instead, they presented verbally an orchestrated campaign of disinformation that I was deliberately prevented from challenging.  The Grievance Hearing Committee refused to accept the lack of peer review and the lack of corroboration.  In their Report of June 2001, they condemned strongly the wholesale abuse of the tenure regulations and the absence of faculty consultation in the nonrenewal.

Corruption at a 2-Year "Peer Review"

        Chancellor Wallace clearly needed a pretext--so he submitted the lost grievance case to an irregular, secret, ad hoc process, undertaken 2 years after the event.  This time, the deck was stacked, the circumstances were hidden, there were misrepresentations and unsubstantiated evidence, contemporaneous documentation was suppressed, and all evidence and documentation obtained in deposition under oath (public documents) were avoided.  My participation was prevented.  Due process was absent.  I was told this process was "agreed [to] by all the lawyers."  The departmental P&T committee requested balanced information, and was then ignored.  The school P&T proceeded in ignorance.  Yet again, I was given no opportunity to answer unsubstantiated allegations.

        During a visit from an AAUP Associate Secretary, Chancellor Wallace apologized profusely for the due process violations in this latest procedure, acknowledged it was a serious mistake, and he promised it would never happen again.  On December 16, 2001, he received a strongly worded letter from the AAUP advising him to reinstate me to my position and permit my access to tenure consideration.  I received notice from the Chancellor the next day that overturned the 6-month-old decisions of the Grievance Hearing Committee--based upon a secret result obtained in this same illicit process.  I presently await President Pacheco's deliberation in this grievance charade of 29 months and counting, although he has almost invariably failed to respond in the past.

Time for a Change

        MU has attempted to destroy my career because I requested a good-faith grievance of administrative malfeasance by a Chairman to whom Rules and Regulations did not apply.  A vicious cover-up has followed, with a deliberate campaign of misinformation.  Deposition evidence suggests that University Legal Counsel has consistently misinformed the process and Counsel's substantial conflicts of interest are unacknowledged.  Obligations to faculty under the Curators' Regulations have been systematically disregarded whenever and wherever expedient.  Nine MU Faculty Council resolutions have been ignored.  Chancellor Wallace admits freely to the MU Faculty Council that his responsibility in upholding the Curators' Regulations in this grievance has been superseded by Legal Counsel.  The buck does not stop.  This Administration is unaccountable.

        Due process and shared faculty governance no longer exist at MU under Chancellor Wallace.  All faculty are threatened by such fundamental violations of the rule of law.  Lying and cover-up cannot be tolerated.  Justice delayed is justice denied.  It is time for a fundamental re-evaluation of administrative practices at MU and of the absence of administrative accountability.

David Ormerod is former Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at University of Missouri, Columbia

The Chancellor's Appointment to PCAST: Some Responses

by Patricia Brodsky

        In December 2001 Chancellor Gilliland was appointed by President Bush to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).  In the January 14 University News the Chancellor expressed her conviction that her membership on the Council would benefit scientific research in Kansas City.  While it is undoubtedly an honor for the Chancellor, some have expressed skepticism about the significance of the appointment for UMKC.  The January 22 issue of University News published a brief summary of a survey conducted by columnist Fatimeh El-Sherif, in which she asked members of the university and scientific communities for their reactions to the appointment and to the Chancellor's statement that it would benefit the life sciences in Kansas City.  Because we feel the viewpoints expressed in the responses deserve a fuller hearing, we are devoting space to them here.

        The survey's first question asked whether respondents agreed with the Chancellor's assessment of the importance of her appointment in making UMKC a leader in scientific research.  The second asked whether it was merely a "political appointment," while the third addressed the adequacy of the Chancellor's experience and background to serve on the council.

        Several respondents felt that the appointment would benefit the Chancellor but have little effect on UMKC, and did not see her as uniquely qualified.  Dr. Marino Martinez-Carrion, former Dean of the School of Biological Sciences, believes that UMKC's role as a leader will depend on our ability to "attract and retain faculty talent ."  He suggested that the drain of scientists away from the University beginning last July reflects poorly on the Chancellor's leadership in this endeavor.  Professor Alfred F. Esser, also of Biological Sciences, concurred.  He compared the situation at UMKC with that at University of California-San Diego, which has become "one of the top ten universities in research and teaching in the country," thanks to the fact that the chancellors at UCSD "provided competent leadership, selected outstanding faculty and administrators, maintained scientific excellence ... and early on prevented political interests from turning UCSD into a training school for the local work force."  In addition, he notes, "using scarce funds in difficult times to pay for congratulatory banners on Oak Street will not help the life sciences in Kansas City a bit."  Lynwood Yarbrough of Kansas University Medical Center (KUMC) wrote, "The appointment of Chancellor Gilliland to PCAST has nothing to do with the development of life sciences in Kansas City and will have no effect on it."  Professor Yarbrough felt the appointment was political, an attempt "to try to give the Chancellor credibility for what she is doing at UMKC."

        My own response to the survey focused on the nature of the Council itself.  In a December 13 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Albert H. Teich, director of science-policy programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is quoted as saying, "The fact that the membership is so heavily weighted toward information technology suggests that they will not do a lot on environmental or biotechnology...."  Nor is academic science significantly represented on the council.  Martinez-Carrion notes that John Marburger, White House science advisor and co-chair of PCAST, remarked in Science magazine that "the dearth of scientific expertise [on the council] is deliberate."  As the author of the Chronicle article, Jeffrey Brainard, points out, the "sole member of the panel who is an academic laboratory scientist is Charles J. Arntzen, a professor of plant biology at Arizona State University."  Prof. Arntzen has "developed genetically engineered crops that secrete vaccines"--that is, his research is in a field fraught with controversy and ethical ambiguity, potentially endangering the biosphere and driving local farming economies out of business.

        Judging by their titles, six of the remaining twenty-three members are academic administrators, two are managers of NGO's, one is from a government agency, and fourteen are CEO's or top managers in industry, including Dell Computers, Intel, and Lockheed Martin.  Most of the latter group, according to Mr. Brainard, "are also political supporters of Mr. Bush: eleven of them each donated $1,000, the legal maximum, to his 2000 election campaign."  Erich Bloch and Dr. Bernadine Healy, members of the council who, Chancellor Gilliland says, "have led national organizations engaged in science and technology exploration," are also former "top science managers from the administration of President Bush's father" according to Brainard.  John Marburger, the President's science adviser, is "a partner in a technology venture-capital firm based in California and a founder of National Semiconductor."

        Thus fostering independent scientific research is not likely to be a high priority of the current membership of PCAST.  Rather it is heavily weighted toward furthering the corporatization of science and its indenture to private industry.  Neither President Bush nor Chancellor Gilliland makes any secret of this agenda.  In her U-News column the Chancellor cites as one of the Council's goals "transferring research breakthroughs into product development."

        That the Council will even address major science policy issues of our era, such as global warming, species and habitat destruction, pandemics, and a crisis in nuclear waste disposal, appears to be only a remote possibility.  Mr. Marburger states in the Science article that "the goal is to get advice from leadership in higher education and industry and not necessarily at the scientific level."  That is, scientific problems and criteria are at best a secondary consideration in formulating science policy.  Objectives like basic--as opposed to applied--research, the furthering of science education, or science in the public interest are probably not on the radar screen of this council's agenda.

        We can only speculate as to why Chancellor Gilliland was selected to be on this committee.  She modestly attributes it to the "efforts of many, many people in UMKC."  But people do not get appointed to presidential advisory boards because of an anonymous joint effort in their institutions.

        The December report in the Chronicle stated that one of the four focus areas of the Council was "using technology to prevent terrorism," and a later Chronicle article (Feb. 8, 2001, pp. A22-A24) confirms that the highest priority of White House science adviser and Council Co-Chair, Marburger, is "the fight against terrorism."  One NPR commentator, at least, attributed the Chancellor's appointment to the fact that she was "an expert on terrorism."  No evidence was provided for this claim.  But it could refer to the infamous article in which Gilliland referred to the members of a university community who dissent from administrative policy as "terrorists" who "need to be removed."

        Do you feel safer now?

Teaching Tolerance IV: Civil Liberties after 9/11

by David Brodsky

        The fourth in the series of Teaching Tolerance forums, co-sponsored by the Executive Committee of the AAUP chapter at UMKC, took place on Friday, January 25 and attracted attendance of 40-50.  Other co-sponsors were the Education for Democracy Network, SHIFA International UMKC, Muslim Students Association UMKC, and TEA Society UMKC.

        Presenters leading off the discussion were Dr. Andre Moenssens, Douglas Stripp Professor of Law at the UMKC School of Law, Paige Nichols, a criminal defense lawyer in the Appellate Defender Office of the State of Kansas, and David Brodsky, AAUP member and coordinator of the Education for Democracy Network.  Moenssens presented salient points about the USA Patriot Act, Nichols described the effect of recent legal changes on lawyers' practice, while Brodsky discussed their political context and consequences.

        A fundamental AAUP policy is academic freedom, which is based on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and to Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.  Academic freedom protects members of the campus community from retaliation for expressing dissent from prevailing opinion and policy, both on and off campus, and is a crucial safeguard in times of crisis and stress such as we are experiencing today.  Since one prominent target of the current nationwide--in fact, global--assault on civil liberties is the academy, academic freedom occupied a significant part of the discussion.

        While previous teaching tolerance forums countered xenophobia, the fourth one dealt with an attack on the basic laws of our country that affects citizens and non-citizens alike.  Because this assault on the Constitution has received minor and uncritical media attention, the teach-in on January 25 and this report constitute attempts to redress the imbalance.

        The major legal assault vehicles are the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in late October of last year, and executive orders by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, all in the name of the "War on Terrorism."  Equally important has been a media campaign producing an atmosphere of public fear and suspicion.

        A brief search of informed and critical legal and political opinion turned up eight articles that applied the term "police state" to post-9/11 US society and four that applied the term "fascist."  Other frequent terms in these sources included "dictatorial powers," "totalitarian state," "coup d'etat," and "The New McCarthyism."  The secret arrests and incarceration of over 1100 people have been termed "the Ashcroft raids" (cf. Palmer Raids of January 1920), "disappearances," and a "pogrom" scapegoating Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent.  Far from being used metaphorically, these terms were based on concrete citations of historical precedents and patterns.

        The new police state is based on the overly broad definition of the newly invented crime of "domestic terrorism," replete with a centralized political police agency (Office of Homeland Security), pressure to suppress free speech, press, and assembly, paid informers and secret denunciations, guilt by association, unrestricted surveillance and secret searches of the population (including by the CIA), indefinite detention of legal immigrants, military courts, legalized torture, in short, the end of constitutionally protected civil rights.

            The fundamental legal issues involved in this crisis are violation of the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution and multiple violations of the Bill of Rights.

        The claim to extraordinary powers granted to or seized by the executive branch (e.g. President, Attorney General, Defense Department, Federal police agencies) violates the doctrine of separation of powers and the checks and balances it affords, because it marginalizes the judicial and legislative branches of government.  For example, only Congress, not the President, has the constitutional right to establish special courts (e.g. military commissions).

        The most significant violations of the Bill of Rights authorized by new laws and executive orders include:

            1) violations of First Amendment rights of free speech, press, and assembly: intimidation, silencing, or outright suppression accomplished through e.g. arbitrary targeting of dissenting individuals and organizations as "terrorist," including forcing them out of their jobs (teachers, journalists, other professionals), indiscriminate mass surveillance (e.g. of voice and internet communications, reading matter), spying, searches, seizures, and interrogations by police agencies, and state terrorism (e.g. arbitrary secret detention and arrest, secret evidence, secret military tribunals, and the death penalty).

            2) violations of the Fourth Amendment: unreasonable searches and seizures, issuing of warrants without specifying probable cause and the place, persons, and things in question.

            3) violations of the Fifth Amendment: death penalties issued by military commissions, defendants de facto testifying against themselves (Ashcroft's executive order permitting wiretapping of attorney-client communications), and deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (indefinite detention/incarceration of non-citizens, military tribunals for civilian offenses without civilian due process protections or judicial review).

            4) violations of Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime was committed, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against the defendant, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel: accomplished through the use of secret evidence and secret military tribunals held anywhere in the world, Bush's executive order suspending "the principles of law and the rules of evidence."

            5) violations of Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment: through indefinite detention and torture.

        The more important violations of civil liberties since 9/11, compiled from various news sources, include:

        Violations of civil liberties in other countries include:
        In the face of this global onslaught, civil liberties are being defended in various quarters.

            1) Practical help is being offered by the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild: Know your Rights pamphlets and free legal advice or services offered by their local chapters.

            2) Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Philadelphia) provides free legal help for victimized faculty.

            3) Numerous statements of support and legal actions defending civil liberties and academic freedom by:

                a) AAUP ( )

                b) faculty at Evergreen State College ( )

                c) Human Rights Watch ( )

                d) over 300 law professors criticizing military tribunals

                e) ACLU and other organzations, filing FOIA requests and lawsuits concerning 1100 detainees

                f) ACLU testimony before Congress 1/24/02, calling for monitoring the USA Patriot Act and criticizing the administration for misinforming the public after 9/11

                g) a broad coalition of civil liberties groups holding a rally at Town Hall in New York to celebrate Martin Luther King day and to deal with current threats to civil liberties

                h) a conference at New York University Law School 1/26/02 entitled "Rights on the Line: Consequences and Implications of the USA Patriot Act and Other Anti-Terrorism Laws"

            i) ultra-conservative journalist, William Safire, who, while supporting Bush's other policies, denounced the President's military tribunals as "kangaroo courts" giving the President "dictatorial powers"

            j) local police departments in Detroit, MI; Portland, Hillsboro, and Corvallis, OR; Richardson and Austin, TX; San Francisco and San Jose, CA, refusing to interrogate people based on ethnic profiling ( )

            k) Robert Meeropol, attorney and son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed during the McCarthy period for allegedly passing A-bomb secrets to the Soviet Union: "We have learned from prior episodes of repression.  We know that the best defense is to be outspoken, and for communities to rally around those who are targeted" (public letter, Dec. 8, 2001).

        Teaching Tolerance Forum attendees received a handout with the Bill of Rights on one side and a selected reference list on the other of websites and articles adressing our Constitutional crisis.  See directly below, or contact Patricia Brodsky (Dept. of Foreign Languages, 218 Scofield Hall, UMKC, Kansas City, MO  64110; ) for printed copies.


First Ten Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Teaching Tolerance IV: Civil Liberties since 9/11 -- Selected References and Resources


American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) --
        * also search under "Recent press releases", "Fact Sheets on the USA Patriot Act", and "Legislative Documents"
        * "Know Your Rights!" pamphlet in English, Arabic, Spanish --

National Lawyers Guild --
        * "Know Your Rights" pamphlet in English, Spanish, Farsi, Arabic
        * Post-911 project --

ACLU of Illinois --
        "Know Your Rights if you are approached by law enforcement"  pamphlet in English, Spanish and Arabic
            soon to be in Farsi, Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi

Center for Constitutional Rights --
        search under "The USA-Patriot Act"

Human Rights Watch --

Znet/Z Magazine --

The Progressive Magazine --
        McCarthyism Watch [violations of civil liberties] --

The Public Eye.  Political Research Associates --
        "Security for Activists.  Overcoming Repression" [provides broad array of resources, links, reading]


Chang, Nancy.  [Senior Litigation Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights].  "The USA PATRIOT Act: What's So Patriotic
    About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?" --

Cohen, Nick.  "Who needs 12 when one will do?"  New Statesman (London) (3 December 2001).   [England planning to
    cut jury trials by two-thirds]
        Online --

Kaminski, John.  "Are You a Patriot?"  Z Magazine (Dec. 2001): 9-12.
        Also online --

Petras, James.  [SUNY Binghamton, distinguished sociologist, author of 30 books, adviser to governments.]  "Signs of a
    Police State are Everywhere."  Z Magazine (Jan. 2002): 10-12.
        Also online --

Ratner, Michael.  [Center for Constitutional Rights, and International Human Rights lawyer]  --
        1. "Moving Toward A Police State or Have We Arrived?  Secret Military Tribunals, Mass Arrests and Disappearances,
                Wiretapping & Torture."
        2. "Building Post 9/11 Security: Permanent War Abroad and Permanent War At Home"

Rogge, Malcolm.  "Rule of Force v. Rule of Law: The Global Lock-down on Civil Liberties."  Canadian Dimension
    Magazine (December 16, 2001). --

Rothschild, Matthew.  "The New McCarthyism."  The Progressive (Jan. 2002): 18-23.
        Also online --
    "Assault on the Constitution."  The Progressive (Jan, 2002): 8.

Valentine, Douglas. "Homeland Insecurity."  Counterpunch online (November 8, 2001) [comprehensive background] --

"Education for Democracy" Papers Published

On February 19 the online e-journal, Workplace: a Journal for Academic Labor, will publish a cluster of 16 articles under the title, "Education for Democracy: Fighting the Corporate Takeover."  Edited by David Brodsky, Patricia Brodsky, and Ali Zaidi, the cluster includes 13 articles from the AAUP-organized conference held last March at UMKC, three essays about campus-related labor activism, and David Brodsky's introductory essay.  The issue also includes other material of great interest.  The address for Workplace is

AAUP Chapter meeting March 28

The AAUP chapter will hold its spring membership meeting Thursday, March 28, 3-5 PM, in Room 307 Education Building (Faculty Lounge).  On the agenda are: nominations for election of officers, university budgeting, grievance procedures, part-time issues, the Blueprint, reports from academic units, assessment of activities during the past two years, and setting priorities for the future.  All members are urged to attend and participate.

AAUP Dues Information

Local UMKC chapter dues

$10 per academic year.  Send payment to Treasurer, Tim Thomas, 109B Spencer Chemistry Building, 816-235-2297, or .  Please make checks payable to "UMKC-AAUP Chapter."  Also please send Tim your preferred mailing address(es), phone(s), and e-mail address(es).

National dues

Go to the AAUP chapter home page-- and click on the direct link to the national dues web page; or go to the national dues page--

Back Issues

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 3 (February 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 1 (October 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2001)

AAUP chapter home page