Remarks for Sept. 22 Faculty Meeting

What I'd like to talk to you about this afternoon is where we are and how we got there. The issues involved are difficult and sensitive, all the more so because they involve our own colleagues. So, while much of what I say may sound a bit formal, there's a human side that I want to talk about, too.

Let me start with some background on College procedures.

The College has four procedures available to it for dealing with a complaint about a faculty member. The one for a discrimination grievance is typically triggered by the person filing the complaint deciding to characterize it as a matter of discrimination. If the filer does not characterize the complaint as one of discrimination, the administration must then decide which of the remaining procedures to initiate. The remaining ones are those for dismissal, for suspension (or other sanctions of similar severity), and for all other sanctions.

These structures are essentially those of the American Association of University Professors.

This complaint was not filed as a discrimination grievance; so it was up to the College to determine which of the other procedures to initiate. This decision was informed by discussions with faculty present at the event and senior members of the department, by consultations with the President, the Provost, and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions [CAP], and by an examination of the personnel record of the faculty member who made the remark

In addition it was necessary to become familiar with the College's history of dealing with faculty complaints to obtain a sense of our "local case law"; this helps to give a historical context for approaching new cases. Also, it was helpful (for me, at least) to get a sense of the position of the American Association of University Professors [AAUP] (the source of our procedures) on issues involving speech as opposed to other forms of behavior. As I said in my letter to the community, the conclusion eventually was that the remark went beyond a simple matter of speech since it represented behavior that would clearly be provocative and hurtful to the African-American colleague who was present.

During this period we used the information we had gathered to inform our thinking about several questions, among them:

Should steps be taken to restrict the faculty member's professional interactions with colleagues?
Should steps be taken to restrict the faculty member's professional interactions with students?
Should the faculty member be permanently removed from the College or the department?

It was only after this that a decision could be made as to which procedure to initiate. Based on all the research and consultation I've just mentioned, we decided that the proper procedure was the one for sanctions other than dismissal or suspension.

We then directed our efforts towards the goal of determining the most appropriate sanctions.

I can't enumerate the sanctions here but I can say that they were designed to address the concerns raised by the incident:

Concerns about the faculty member's ability to participate in departmental work;
Concerns about her ability to interact appropriately and professionally with colleagues, especially non-tenured colleagues;
The concern that such behavior not recur.

At the same time it seemed important to provide her an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to become again a fully participating member of the department.

We carefully considered whether to restrict her engagement with students. Based again on the information we had gathered, including a number of staffing reports, which contain a range of information on a faculty member's teaching, we concluded that she could fulfill her teaching duties responsibly.

When, finally, a set of sanctions was specified that we believed met these requirements, I reported them to the faculty member who had made the remark. At that point, she had a period of time to consider whether to informally or formally appeal them. At the end of that period, the sanctions were put into effect.

The incident occurred in mid-May. The faculty member communicated to me that the sanctions would not be challenged in early August.

Towards the end of this process, more attention was focused on questions of whether and how to communicate information about the incident to the larger campus community. Normally, individual personnel matters are not communicated publicly, for reasons of confidentiality that are both legal and ethical. The decisions of whether, and then how, to communicate publicly about this event were difficult ones.

In making them there was much to balance: ethics, College policies, law and local precedent on the one hand, and on the other the concerns and understandable curiosities of people we care about. There was an expectation of confidentiality and there was some need to know.

An easier decision was one of timing. August, when most of the campus is scattered, seemed an inappropriate time. So we communicated as soon as possible once the community had gathered for the year.

Since then, one of the faculty members most directly involved has said publicly that another internal procedure regarding this matter has begun. The other faculty member most closely involved had asked me to publicly announce that fact. The internal procedure currently underway is a discrimination grievance. The College's policies stipulate that such procedures be conducted as confidentially as possible and I ask that we all respect that.

I can imagine that what I've said here so far may sound too measured or unfeeling or like some poorly written law school assignment.

There's a way in which it needs to be. But I want to close by talking a little about the human side of this. That side is very real and very powerful and it never leaves your mind when you're dealing with a situation like this.

I'm deeply aware of how painful this has been for the people most directly involved. How painful it has been for their colleagues in the department and across campus. For those who have been targeted by unhealthy speculation. For those who've had personal experiences of exclusion. In fact, painful for all of us who care about this faculty.

It's important that we acknowledge how much emotional hard work this has been for many within this faculty and for others on campus. Be sure: I'm not talking about myself. This is my job.

Bureaucratic structures, at their best, serve the community well and I think the College has thoughtful structures in place for dealing with an incident like this. But at Williams we also place a high value on caring for each other as individuals, even when carrying out such procedures.

We have tried to do that in dealing with the individual people involved in this matter, who, after all, are our colleagues. And I and other administrators have tried to keep in mind the emotional stake of those individuals and of all of us in the College community when thinking hard about what and how to communicate about this. As a result, we have said more about it than about individual personnel matters in the past.

But let's acknowledge that this is hard. And when we talk about this incident, as you may well want to do this afternoon and in the future, let's recognize that we're talking about real people-we're talking about our colleagues.

Thanks.