Report

Academic Freedom and Tenure:Tiffin University (Ohio)1

I. IntroductionThis report is concerned with the dismissal of ProfessorDavid A. Shevin from the faculty of Tiffin University, anindependent, coeducational institution located in a smallOhio town of the same name, some ninety miles north ofColumbus and sixty miles south of Toledo. The universitywas founded in 1888 as Heidelberg Commercial College onthe Heidelberg College campus and incorporated separatelyas Tiffin Business University in 1918. During a reorganiza-tion in 1939, the institution's name was changed to its pre-sent one. In 1956 Tiffin University purchased a building,now on the National Register of Historic Places, and movedto its present location.

From 1918 until 1985 Tiffin was accredited by theAssociation of Independent Colleges and Schools and itspredecessor organization. In 1985 it became accredited bythe Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of theNorth Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

Tiffin University, governed by a seventeen-member boardof trustees, awards the associate, bachelor's, and master'sdegrees, emphasizing programs in business and criminal jus-tice. The institution enrolls some 1,500 undergraduate andgraduate students (about one-third of them part time), whoare served by a full-time faculty that numbers approximatelythirty-five. Some graduate and undergraduate programs areoffered at satellite campuses (known as "degree completioncenters") in Lima and Elyria, Ohio.

George Kidd, Jr., became the president of TiffinUniversity in 1981, having previously served as vice presi-dent for finance at Mercyhurst College in Pennsylvania. Dr.Raj V. Pathi, who joined the Tiffin faculty in 1989 andlater became director of graduate studies, was named actingvice president for academic affairs in November 1997, andwas appointed to the permanent position the followingFebruary.

1. The text of this report was written in the first instance by the mem-bers of the investigating committee. In accordance with Associationpractice, the text was then edited by the Association's staff, and, asrevised, with the concurrence of the investigating committee, was sub-mitted to Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. With theapproval of Committee A, the report was subsequently sent to the fac-ulty member at whose request the inquiry was conducted, to theadministration of Tiffin University, and to other persons concerned inthe report. In light of the responses received, and with the editorialassistance of the staff, this final report has been prepared for publication.

II. Factual BackgroundSince at least the 1996-97 academic year, there have been con-troversies at Tiffin University concerning the appropriate role offaculty in the governance of the institution. Conflicts betweenofficers of the administration and members of the faculty eruptedduring spring 1997 over the faculty role in an ultimately unsuc-cessful search in the Department of Fine Arts and a dispute overgrade changes for students enrolled in a computer-science coursethat were made without the knowledge or the permission of thecourse instructor. This latter incident led to a faculty request foradvice and assistance from the American Association ofUniversity Professors.2

That May, a group of faculty members, joined by the execu-tive director of the AAUP's statewide Ohio Conference, met offcampus to discuss the possibility of forming an AAUP chapter forthe purpose of addressing what one of them later described as the"disintegration of governance" at Tiffin. In the fall the chapterwas organized, and its formation was acknowledged by PresidentKidd. Much of the conflict between the faculty and the adminis-tration (which included the then newly appointed vice presidentfor academic affairs, Dr. Pathi) over the ensuing two years cameto be focused on the chapter. Its officers publicly opposed admin-istration policies on several occasions, thereby incurring themounting displeasure of President Kidd and Vice President Pathi.One of the most outspoken critics of the administration's actionswas Professor David Shevin, the chapter's secretary-treasurer.

THE CASE OF PROFESSOR DAVID A. SHEVIN

David Shevin received his Ph.D. in English literature from theUniversity of Cincinnati in 1986. In 1987, after serving a year

2. Grades of B, C, and D that the instructor had assigned werechanged to Pass. President Kidd, responding to a draft text of thisreport sent to him prior to publication, has stated that the decision toconvert the grades was made by seven faculty members. Facultymembers who communicated with the Association on the matter,however, have insisted that the change in the grades was an "unam-biguous instance of administrative fiat." The only way it can beargued that it was a "faculty" decision, according to one facultymember, is to count as faculty the president and three other adminis-trative officers whose appointments also carried faculty status.President Kidd was quoted in the local newspaper, the Advertiser-Tribune, on May 31, 1997, as stating that changing C's and D's to Passis "just putting a slightly different value on the same grade. 'D's' and'C's' are passing; 'P's' are passing. It's almost a no harm, no foul."Members of the faculty have stated in response, however, that lettergrades figure into a student's grade point average, while P's do not.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 53

as a visiting assistant professor at Miami University in Ohio, hetook a position as assistant professor of English and communi-cation arts at Tiffin University, where he remained for the nexttwelve years. In 1992 he was promoted to the rank of associateprofessor, and five years later, in 1997, he was promoted to fullprofessor. (Tiffin University does not have a system of aca-demic tenure; faculty members who have reached the rank offull professor serve on three-year contracts renewable at theadministration's discretion.) From 1996 to 1999 ProfessorShevin also served as humanities coordinator. During his ser-vice on the Tiffin faculty, Professor Shevin taught courses inliterature, composition, creative writing, and speech commu-nication. A widely published poet, David Shevin has long beenactively involved in local, regional, and national literary circles.

In an account of his appointment history at Tiffin that hewrote in May 1999, Professor Shevin observed that during thefirst decade of his employment with Tiffin University therewere occasional faculty-administration disagreements, but theissues were resolved by and large "in a spirit of collegial enter-prise." During the spring 1997 semester, however, accordingto Professor Shevin, the "real unpleasantness" began, with aconflict over the appropriate qualifications of candidates for afaculty position in the fine arts department, as mentionedabove. (Professor Shevin served on the search committee andtook sharp issue with the decision of the administration not toconsider the candidacy of the incumbent, who was then serv-ing in a one-year position.3) He reported a growing antago-nism between himself and the Tiffin administration, which inhis view escalated after Dr. Pathi became vice president in fall1997. From that point on, according to Professor Shevin, thetwo clashed repeatedly over a series of issues, mostly relating tocurricular matters and the proper role of faculty in academicdecision making generally.

For Professor Shevin, perhaps the most contentious of thedisputes between himself and Vice President Pathi concernedthe issue of enrollment limits, termed "caps," on particularcourses in English and mathematics. Professor Shevin spear-headed the opposition to the administration's decision toremove the limits that had been established by a vote ofTiffin's faculty. "When in his judgment intramural efforts tosecure a reversal of that decision proved unavailing, ProfessorShevin wrote to the chair of the Committee on Governance ofthe AAUP's Ohio Conference, seeking her assistance in thematter. He was especially interested in clarifying the respectiveroles of the faculty and the administration in creating and

3. On the surface, the conflict over the appointment in art was littlemore than whether all candidates had to hold a Ph.D., as Dr. Pathi'spredecessor as vice president for academic affairs, Dr. Debra Israel,argued, or whether an M.F.A. would suffice, as Professor Shevin con-tended. The latter view would have permitted the person then hold-ing the position as a visitor, who was a friend of Dr. Shevin, tobecome a viable candidate.

structuring the curriculum, including any educational standardsset by particular professional disciplines. The chair of the con-ference's governance committee responded by writing a seriesof (unanswered) letters to the Tiffin administration duringsummer 1998 about perceived infringements of the faculty'srole in institutional government. In reaction, President Kiddand Vice President Pathi criticized Professor Shevin, not onlyfor involving the Ohio Conference in an internal dispute, butalso for using university letterhead in doing so.

During this time, the administration does not seem to haveraised any concerns about Professor Shevin's performance ofhis academic duties. As noted above, he had been promoted tofull professor in 1997. In fall 1998 he began the second year ofhis first three-year contract. In mid-November 1998, VicePresident Pathi, in his capacity as acting dean of the School ofArts and Science, visited one of Professor Shevin's Englishclasses, after which he wrote a generally negative evaluation,focusing on the "low attendance" and the "indifference andrudeness" the students showed toward their instructor. He for-warded a copy to Professor Shevin, who responded by takingsharp issue with the vice president's evaluation. With regard towhat he termed Dr. Pathi's "dismay with student attitudes insome of our lower-level classes," Professor Shevin asserted that"this is an issue that you may well wish to take up with admis-sions. . . . I share some of your concerns about our recruitmentstandards—in the meantime, we do the best we can with whatwe have."

In early January 1999, Professor Shevin wrote a letter to thevice president for finance, David Boyd, thanking him forunderwriting student submissions for a college poetry competi-tion. In the course of the letter, Professor Shevin expressedregret that he himself was "in a less advantageous position thisyear than in previous years to attract poems," owing to theadministration's decision to cancel an upper-level poetrycourse he periodically taught. He continued: "The reason forthe course cancellation, Dr. Pathi explained to our NovemberSchool meeting, is that he sees no need for senior-level classesin the School of Arts and Science."

In a handwritten note to Professor Shevin soon thereafter,Vice President Pathi challenged Professor Shevin's last state-ment, calling it a "complete fabrication." He went on to add:"I won't even go in[to] . . . some of your other mischaracteri-zations in this memo copied to me, but never received byme." He ended by asking Professor Shevin to "stop by sometime and explain what happened here."

On February 25 Professor Shevin met with Vice PresidentPathi in the latter's office and was informed that the adminis-tration did not intend to renew his three-year contract after itsexpiration in spring 2000. Professor Shevin reports that Dr.Pathi offered no reasons for this decision. Although he subse-quently asked for a written statement of reasons for the admin-istration's action, setting forth "any deficiencies in my perfor-

54 ACADEME

mance of my contractual and professional responsibilities," henever received such a statement.

On March 1 Professor Shevin delivered a letter to VicePresident Pathi (with copies to President Kidd, to ProfessorMiriam Fankhauser, his department chair, and to the membersof the Faculty Welfare Committee, challenging the actiontaken against him). Responding in a memorandum of thatsame date, Dr. Pathi confirmed that the administration "has noplans to renew your current contract with the university." OnMarch 5 Professor Shevin wrote directly to the members ofthe Faculty Welfare Committee, conveying concerns about theaction against him and asking for the committee's assistance inappealing the matter.

On March 6, citing his "substantial accomplishments" inteaching, campus and community service, publications, lec-tures, and public education, Professor Shevin asked PresidentKidd to reconsider the decision, conveyed to him that day, notto award him a salary increase for the 1999-2000 academicyear. The president subsequently wrote that, "when one isnotified that he will not be offered a new contract, one cannotexpect a raise."

Faculty colleagues and members of the student body soonlearned of the administration's decision. On March 23 a stu-dent in one of Professor Shevin's classes asked for, andreceived, the professor's permission to address the class abouthis situation. Professor Shevin reports that he did not partici-pate in the brief class discussion that ensued. The followingday, students began to exchange e-mail messages withProfessor Shevin and with one another about the situation.That same day, students held a campus rally and circulated apetition in support of Professor Shevin. A reporter and pho-tographer from the local newspaper were present at the rally,and the appearance of the resulting story and photographadded to the campus controversy.

On April 2 Professor Shevin attempted to invoke the univer-sity's "problem resolution procedure" to address his situation.He wrote to his "immediate supervisor," Professor Fankhauser,to initiate the process. She then wrote to President Kidd onApril 6 to request that he "appoint an impartial intermediary inthe matter of Dr. Shevin's contract renewal . . . in accordancewith the [problem resolution procedure]." Two days later,however, President Kidd denied her request on the ground thata nonrenewal of contract does not fall under the problem reso-lution procedure. Further, he wrote, "it is not the university'sintent to give employment decisions to a third party."

On April 6 the Faculty Welfare Committee convened in anopen meeting with Professor Shevin in attendance. It agreed toProfessor Shevin's request to "examine his current situation withthe university" and to consider whether it "may be able to inter-vene on his behalf." The committee charged two of its memberswith drafting a policy governing contract termination proce-dures, and agreed to meet the following week.

When the committee reconvened on April 13, Vice PresidentPathi questioned the meeting's timing on the ground that, sincehe was an ex-officio member, he should have been consulted onits scheduling. After he left the meeting, the committee agreedto call a "special" faculty meeting to present a proposal forchanging the procedure for dealing with the dismissal of a facul-ty member for cause.

The special faculty meeting was held on April 27 to consideran amended version of the committee's proposal. In pertinentpart the proposal read: "If there is a weakness or problem withthe performance of an employee, then this weakness or problemmust be addressed. . . . The university will not terminate anappointment or administer a sanction less severe than termina-tion without adequate cause." President Kidd declared his strongopposition to the proposal, stating, as Professor Shevin recalls,"The university must maintain its right to terminate anyone forany reason." The proposal was defeated by a vote of 9 to 14 to 1.

On May 5 Professor Shevin was summoned to Vice PresidentPathi's office. Expecting problems, he asked a colleague toaccompany him. Once there, Dr. Pathi demanded that ProfessorShevin turn over his office key and then handed him a letter,which Professor Shevin proceeded to read. The letter stated that"Tiffin University is dispensing with your services effectiveimmediately. You shall not have any service obligations to theuniversity." It went on to state that Professor Shevin was beingdenied further unsupervised access to his own office or to anyother part of the campus. Arrangements were to be made for hissalary and other benefits to be paid until August 31, 2000, whenhis three-year contract was due to expire, subject to three con-ditions: "(1) You will not come to campus without prior per-mission from the president or me. (2) You will not attend anyuniversity-sponsored event. (3) You will not do anything orcommunicate anything to anybody that will cause harm orinjury to the university."

After reading the letter, Professor Shevin left the vice presi-dent's office along with his colleague to try to schedule a meet-ing with President Kidd, but he was away from campus that day.An appointment was arranged for the following day. In themeantime, Vice President Pathi had Professor Shevin's campuscomputer removed and then escorted him to his car.

The next morning Professor Shevin returned to campus tomeet with President Kidd in an effort to learn the reasons forhis peremptory dismissal and to seek reinstatement. The presi-dent provided Professor Shevin with an oral statement of rea-sons. According to Professor Shevin, President Kidd chargedhim with having leaked the grade-change story to the localpress, taken the issue of class size and "caps" to the AAUP,politicized his classroom to discuss his own termination withstudents, told the local press of the administration's threats tohis teaching contract, and "badmouthed the university all overtown." The president emphasized that the decision to dismisshim was final.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 55

Professor Shevin subsequently consulted with a Toledoattorney. In late August 2000, after he had received the lastof his severance salary payments, his attorney initiated whatturned out to be an unproductive exchange of correspon-dence with university counsel, in which she argued, unsuc-cessfully, for Professor Shevin's reinstatement to the Tiffinfaculty or for the trustees to agree to investigate his treatmentby the administration. In February 2001, the attorney filedsuit in county court, alleging that the president and the vicepresident had engaged in retaliation and harassment againstProfessor Shevin.

THE ASSOCIATION'S INVOLVEMENT

Members of the Tiffin University faculty initially approachedofficers of the AAUP's Ohio Conference and staff of theAAUP's Washington office in spring 1997 as a result of thegrade-changing dispute mentioned above. The office staff pro-vided comment on the issue of academic freedom and gradingin connection with that dispute. The further involvement ofthe Ohio Conference, both in the formation of the local chap-ter in 1997 and in the class-enrollment controversy the follow-ing year, is described briefly above.

Professor Shevin first contacted the Association'sWashington office in early May 1999, following his dismissalfrom the Tiffin faculty. Based on its review of the documentshe had provided, the staff was prepared to write to the admin-istration about issues of academic freedom, tenure, and dueprocess that his case appeared to raise. Concerned that anyannouncement by the Association of its interest in his casemight be viewed as a breach of the conditions established bythe administration for continued payment of his year of sever-ance salary, Professor Shevin requested that the staff delayapproaching the Tiffin administration until another academicyear had passed. During that year, the local chapter, with theencouragement of officers of the Ohio Conference, sought theAssociation's assistance regarding infringements of the facultyrole in the governance of the university.

On September 25, 2000, based on information and docu-mentation it had received from Professor Shevin and othermembers of the Tiffin faculty, the Washington office staffwrote to President Kidd. The letter conveyed concerns aboutseemingly serious departures from AAUP-recommended prin-ciples and procedural standards in connection with the dis-missal of Professor Shevin, and about conditions of academicgovernment at the university. The staff urged the administra-tion to rescind the notice of dismissal issued to ProfessorShevin. Responding on October 30, President Kidd assertedthat the description of the university contained in the staffsletter did not reflect the reality of the institution, its system ofgovernance, or its faculty. He declined to address the case ofProfessor Shevin. Subsequent exchanges of letters reflected nochange in his position.

With matters remaining unresolved, the general secretaryauthorized an investigation, and the staff so advised PresidentKidd by letter of January 25, 2001. Responding on January 30,the president wrote as follows: "The American Association ofUniversity Professors has no standing to review decisions madeby the University nor does it have any authority over the uni-versity's employment practices. David Shevin is no longeremployed at Tiffin University. The university fulfilled its con-tractual obligations to Dr. Shevin. As a result, the AAUP is notan appropriate forum to reconcile his concerns."

On February 14, President Kidd, in Washington on otherbusiness, met at his request with members of the AAUP staff todiscuss the decision to undertake an investigation. During themeeting, the president spoke about the situation at Tiffin andabout the administration's reasons for dismissing David Shevin.He made it clear that he had no intention of reinstatingProfessor Shevin, but that he would consider other possiblesteps to resolve the case. Following the meeting, the staff spokewith Professor Shevin about a potential settlement. He report-ed that his attorney had been having discussions with universi-ty counsel but that no resolution had been achieved.

Under the circumstances, and given the other unresolvedissues of Association concern, the staff wrote to President Kiddon February 27 to advise him of the decision to proceed aspreviously announced, and informed him of the compositionof the undersigned investigating committee and the datesplanned for the visit. President Kidd informed the staff that,owing to the pending litigation, the administration, on adviceof counsel, would not cooperate with the investigation. Whenthe chair of the investigating committee telephoned the presi-dent on the day before its scheduled visit to ask about a meet-ing, the president declined that invitation. He also declined tosuggest the names of administrators, faculty, or students whomthe committee might usefully interview.

The investigating committee, after examining available doc-umentation on the matters of concern, met (or spoke by tele-phone) on March 15—17, 2001, with a dozen current and for-mer Tiffin faculty members, one of them a former administra-tive officer, and a former student. The committee convened ata motel some thirty miles away from the Tiffin campus becauseof indications the committee had received that some currentfaculty members feared reprisals if it became known to theadministration that they were speaking with the committee.The committee regrets not having been afforded an opportu-nity to meet with current officers of the administration andhaving to rely primarily on documentary evidence for theadministration's positions on the matters covered in this report.The documentary record on Professor Shevin's case is exten-sive, however. Despite the lack of cooperation from the TiffinUniversity administration, the committee believes that it hassufficient information to assess the issues of concern, makefindings, and reach conclusions.

56 ACADEME

III. Issues1. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenurecalls for a maximum period of probation not to exceed sevenyears of faculty service, with retention beyond that period tobe with tenure. The regulations governing faculty appoint-ments at Tiffin University do not provide for a system of aca-demic tenure. All full-time faculty members serve on termappointments of varying lengths, indefinitely renewable at thediscretion of the administration.

On April 2, 1999, Professor Shevin, having been notifiedthe previous February 25 of the administration's decision toterminate his services effective at the end of the 1999—2000academic year, sought, through his department chair, ProfessorFankhauser, to invoke the university's "problem resolutionprocedure," as set forth in Tiffin's Personnel Handbook.According to the handbook, the procedure

provides a process for employees to discuss issues of con-cern with management and to receive careful considera-tion and a prompt resolution of their problems in a can-did, constructive manner. It should be used to address anysituation that is perceived by an employee to be unjust orinequitable.

Each employee is encouraged to discuss work-relatedconcerns or problems with their [sic] immediate supervi-sor. If a problem cannot be resolved informally at thislevel, the employee may put in writing the details of hisor her concern and submit the written document to theimmediate supervisor. The written statement will bereviewed by the president, who will appoint a person todecide the matter. The employee and his or her supervi-sor will request a hearing with the appointed person forresolution of the problem. Final resolution of the problemwill be made by the appointed person and discussed withthe employee and supervisor.

Despite the foregoing, stated as applicable to "any situa-tion," President Kidd, by letter dated April 8, declared that"nonrenewal of contract does not fall under the [procedure].It is not the university's intent to give employment decisionsto a third party. . . . The [procedure] was designed to handleconflict between the supervisor and the employee aboutwork-related concerns—not about employment or nonem-ployment." Similarly, Professor Shevin reported that counselfor the university, responding on November 6, 2000, to let-ters from Professor Shevin's attorney, reiterated PresidentKidd's position as follows: "All of the concerns raised by Dr.Shevin to date pertain to the decision of termination and/ornonrenewal and are not within the purview of independentreview. That decision remains solely within the discretion ofthe president. . . . Dr. Shevin was an employee at will and could

be terminated for any reason or no reason at all." (Emphasisadded.)

The administration has adhered to the position that theaction it took on February 25, 1999—when Vice PresidentPathi notified Professor Shevin that his services were being ter-minated at the end of the 1999-2000 academic year—was anonreappointment. The Association's recommended standardsfor faculty members who have been issued notice of nonreap-pointment, set forth in its Statement on Procedural Standards inthe Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments, call for theperson or body that has decided against retaining the facultymember to provide the individual, upon request, with a writ-ten statement of the reasons in explanation of that decision.These standards provide further that the affected faculty mem-ber should have an opportunity to seek review by a representa-tive faculty committee not previously involved in the matter,which would entertain a complaint that inadequate considera-tion had been given to the faculty member's qualifications, orthat impermissible considerations—violations of academic free-dom or discrimination—figured significantly in the negativedecision. In cases of nonreappointment, the policies of TiffinUniversity provide neither for a written statement of reasonsnor opportunity for independent faculty review. Indeed, deci-sions on nonretention are said by the president and otheradministrators to be subject to no form of intramural reviewbut, instead, left to the unfettered discretion of the presidentand the vice president for academic affairs. Even if theFebruary 25 action against Professor Shevin were to be con-strued as a nonreappointment, by not having been providedeither a written statement of reasons or an opportunity for fac-ulty review, he was denied basic safeguards of academic dueprocess called for in a case of nonreappointment.

The investigating committee finds, however, that theFebruary 25 action against Professor Shevin should not beviewed as merely a notice of nonreappointment. ProfessorShevin was completing his twelfth year of full-time teaching atTiffin when he was notified that his services were being termi-nated, and thus he had served well beyond the permissibleseven-year period of probation under the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples. He was accordingly entitled under this document tothe protections against termination of services that accrue withcontinuous tenure.

However one interprets the action the Tiffin administrationtook on February 25, the investigating committee finds thatthe action the administration took the following May, when itsuspended Professor Shevin from ongoing academic duties andbarred him from the campus, effectively constituted a dismissalfor cause. The 1940 Statement of Principles calls for the follow-ing safeguards of academic due process in cases involving dis-missal for cause:

Termination for cause of a continuous appointment or thedismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 57

of a term appointment, should, if possible, be consideredby both a faculty committee and the governing board ofthe institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute,the accused teacher should be informed before the hear-ing in writing of the charges and should have the oppor-tunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodiesthat pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should bepermitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or herown choosing who may act as counsel. There should be afull stenographic record of the hearing available to theparties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompe-tence the testimony should include that of teachers andother scholars, either from the teacher's own or fromother institutions.

With respect to Professor Shevin's suspension, InterpretiveComment Number 9 on the 1940 Statement provides that "asuspension which is not followed by either reinstatement oropportunity for a hearing is in effect a summary dismissal inviolation of academic due process."

These due-process requirements are elaborated upon in thecomplementary 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings of the AAUP and the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities, and are further amplifiedin Regulations 5 and 6 of the AAUP's RecommendedInstitutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Of spe-cial relevance are the requirements of (a) a written statement ofcharges, framed with reasonable particularity, of the groundsproposed for the dismissal, and (b) an adjudicative hearing ofrecord before a committee of faculty peers, in which the bur-den is on the administration to demonstrate adequacy of cause.

The investigating committee finds that the Tiffin adminis-tration, in failing to provide Professor Shevin with a writtenstatement of the charges against him, and in denying himopportunity for a faculty hearing at which it would assume theburden of demonstrating grounds for its actions (both those inFebruary and those in May), thereby denied Professor Shevinhis rights under the 1940 Statement of Principles and derivativeAAUP-supported standards.

2. SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS

While Professor Shevin was not provided with a written state-ment of the reasons for his removal from the Tiffin faculty, ontwo very different occasions President Kidd orally set forth hisreasons.

In a meeting with President Kidd on May 6, 1999, one dayafter Vice President Pathi had notified him of his suspensionand banishment, Professor Shevin asked why this was occur-ring. The president, according to Professor Shevin, "stormed aseries of accusations at me. These were that I had leaked thestory of the change in [a faculty colleague's] grades to the pressin 1997, taken the issue of class inflation to the AAUP, politi-

cized my classrooms to discuss my own case with the students,and to advocate on my own behalf, taken the story of threatson my contract to the local press, [and] 'badmouthed the uni-versity all over town.'"

In February 2001, at his meeting in Washington with mem-bers of the Association's staff, President Kidd stated that,among other grounds for issuing Professor Shevin notice oftermination of services in February 1999, the principal one hadto do with long-standing concerns about his teaching perfor-mance. President Kidd asserted that, going back to 1993,Professor Shevin's performance in the classroom had graduallydeteriorated, that he was repeatedly warned about teachingdeficiencies, and that he failed to address the problems. Askedto explain the administration's action in May to suspendProfessor Shevin from further academic duties and banish himfrom the campus for the remainder of his three-year contract,the president cited concerns about his possibly disrupting thecampus if he were allowed to stay on until the contractexpired. In support of his explanation, President Kidd (as hehad stated to Professor Shevin in May 1999) alleged that, inthe weeks following the issuance of notice of termination,Professor Shevin used his classes to gain support for his rein-statement, encouraged a student rally on campus on his behalfto which he invited the local press, and in other ways acted todivide the university.

Informed by the staff of President Kidd's statements allegingdeficiencies in his academic performance, Professor Shevinstated that no question had ever been raised with him abouthis professional fitness to continue on the faculty, nor anywarning issued that he needed to improve the quality of histeaching or face possible dismissal.

Specifically with regard to the president's allegations of dete-rioration in Professor Shevin's teaching performance datingback to 1993, the investigating committee notes that in 1997,four years after the alleged beginning of his decline, ProfessorShevin was promoted to the rank of full professor followingreview by a three-person faculty committee in which teachingcompetence was the principal criterion. While the facultycommittee questioned the sufficiency of the "initial documen-tation" that he "submitted as proof of satisfying effective class-room instruction," it recommended his promotion afterreviewing "additional survey results and classroom observationssubmitted by Dr. Shevin." Its letter of recommendation raisedno concerns about his teaching performance that might havewarranted denial of promotion.

The investigating committee has found little substantivesupport for President Kidd's assertion that the quality ofProfessor Shevin's teaching had declined, or even that it hadbecome a matter of significant concern. There is the negativeNovember 1998 evaluation written by Vice President Pathi, inhis capacity as acting dean of the School of Arts and Science,but most of the teaching evaluations by students, as the investi-

58 ACADEME

gating committee has been able to interpret them, and virtuallyall of the classroom visitation reports prepared by Dr. Pathi'spredecessors as dean are quite positive. Former colleagues ofProfessor Shevin, in correspondence with the Association's staffand in interviews with the investigating committee, havedescribed him as an outstanding instructor. Indeed, nothing inthe abundant documentation reviewed by the investigatingcommittee suggests that, the Pathi evaluation aside, any majorconcerns had ever been raised about Professor Shevin's teaching.

With regard to President Kidd's allegation that ProfessorShevin encouraged students to rally to his cause and used hisclassrooms to that end, the investigating committee found noevidence to support the charge. Professor Shevin sharplydenies he took such actions. In addition, one of ProfessorShevin's former colleagues who met with the investigatingcommittee reported that a student leader who discussed herpersonal views about Professor Shevin's situation with that col-league stated that she herself had notified the local newspaperof the situation and the students' intended rally. Another leaderof the student protest was quoted in the local press as havingstated that "[t]here ha[d] been no coercion from . . . profes-sors" in connection with the petition drive, that the effort wasentirely student driven.

While Professor Shevin maintains that he did not involvehimself in the student efforts on his behalf, he does acknowl-edge having acceded to a student's request to permit her toreport on overall student concerns about his situation duringthe final minutes of one class. Professor Shevin also told theinvestigating committee that he responded to e-mailed ques-tions about his situation that he received from students andfaculty. While in hindsight Professor Shevin, or any other fac-ulty member in similar circumstances, might have chosen torespond differently, the investigating committee found no evi-dence that Professor Shevin's own actions or words in any wayinflamed the campus. Nor is there reason to believe that thecampus situation would have eased had Professor Shevinignored questions about his circumstances that were put to himby faculty, staff, and students and distanced himself from theinquiries and concerns of the university community. Thoseinquiries and concerns were conveyed by others, who wereprotesting what they believed to be wrong in the administra-tion's handling of Professor Shevin's case. The investigatingcommittee finds that the actions by Professor Shevin cannotreasonably be construed as having been so divisive or disrup-tive—or having threatened to become so—as to warrant hissummary dismissal from the faculty.

With regard to the other stated grounds offered by PresidentKidd for Professor Shevin's dismissal, Professor Shevinacknowledges that he had indeed approached the AAUP'sOhio Conference on the class-size "cap" issue after internalgovernance processes had brought no result, and the investigat-ing committee considers what he did in seeking advice and

assistance from the conference to have been perfectly proper.Professor Shevin flatly denies having gone to the local pressabout the 1997 grade-changing controversy or about his ownsituation in 1999, or having "badmouthed the university allover town." More to the point, the investigating committeefinds that none of those charges, individually or collectively,even taken at face value, constitutes sufficient grounds for dis-missing Professor Shevin. Faculty are entitled, and indeedshould be encouraged, to involve themselves in efforts tostrengthen their institutions as best they can, in accordancewith their professional responsibilities. Professor Shevin'sactions lie within those precepts, so far as the investigatingcommittee can determine, and the committee finds that theadministration's reaction was grossly disproportionate to theconduct by Professor Shevin that ostensibly provoked it.

3. ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONSIDERATIONS

The Association's 1994 statement On the Relationship of FacultyGovernance to Academic Freedom recognizes that "[t]he academicfreedom of faculty members includes the freedom to expresstheir views . . . on matters having to do with their institutionand its policies," and that academic freedom is an "essential[condition] for effective governance. . . . The protection of theacademic freedom of faculty members in addressing issues ofinstitutional governance is a prerequisite for the practice ofgovernance unhampered by fear of retribution." The docu-ment goes on to state that "it is . . . essential that faculty mem-bers have the academic freedom to express their professionalopinions without fear of reprisal." Regulation 5(a) of theAssociation's Recommended Institutional Regulations on AcademicFreedom and Tenure further provides that "adequate cause for adismissal will be related, direcdy and substantially, to the fitnessof faculty members in their professional capacities as teachersor researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain facultymembers in their exercise of academic freedom or other rightsof American citizens."

In Tiffin University's mission statement, printed in its1999—2000 catalogue, the institution proclaims its goals to"[o]ffer a setting for our faculty that is collegial and conduciveto the creation and dissemination of knowledge and compe-tence," and further to "[f]oster high ethical standards, love forlearning, [and] feeling of community . . . among our students,our staff, and our faculty."

From the information available to the investigating com-mittee, it seems clear that Professor Shevin, during his lastyears on the Tiffin faculty, repeatedly incurred the displeasureof the administration as a result of his outspoken challenges toseveral of its actions. He told the investigating committee that,in his mind, the search to fill a position in the Department ofFine Arts, with competencies in both studio art and art histo-ry, was the beginning of "the real unpleasantness" for him atTiffin. Despite this incident and his purported involvement in

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 59

publicizing the grade-changing dispute around the same time,Professor Shevin was notified of reappointment for a three-year term and promoted to the rank of full professor at the endof the 1996-97 academic year. Evidendy, however displeasingsome members of the Tiffin administration may have found hisconduct and attitude at that time, they were not seen as war-ranting denial of his reappointment and promotion. (Theinvestigating committee notes that, although it has seen thepositive recommendation of the faculty committee, it has notseen any documents from the administration relating toProfessor Shevin's candidacy for promotion.)

During the next two years, and especially after theappointment in November 1997 of Dr. Pathi as academicvice president, clashes between Professor Shevin and theadministration recurred. Of particular note was the previouslydescribed hostile reaction of President Kidd and VicePresident Pathi to Professor Shevin's involving the AAUP'sOhio Conference in the dispute over course-enrollment capsduring the summer of 1998. Soon after that episode, Dr.Pathi withdrew payment of the modest stipend that ProfessorShevin had been receiving for several years as humanitiescoordinator. The vice president also assigned ProfessorShevin, the highest-ranking member of the English depart-ment faculty, a full teaching load of introductory first-year-level courses for the fall and spring semesters.

President Kidd, in discussing with members of theAssociation's staff the administration's grounds for dismissingProfessor Shevin, made it clear that he held Professor Shevinresponsible for purported leaks to the local press about variouscampus matters that had brought adverse publicity to the uni-versity. In addition, the president described Professor Shevin ashostile and divisive in his dealings with the administration. Asnoted in the previous section of this report, President Kiddalso alleged that Professor Shevin had politicized his classes.

The investigating committee finds that, perhaps with theexception of the charges, contested by Professor Shevin, thathe involved students in his conflict with the administration,most, if not all, of the conduct for which the university's chiefadministrative officers criticized Professor Shevin fell withinthe ambit of academic freedom. The investigating committeefound no evidence that Professor Shevin encouraged oractively induced any students to petition or demonstrate onhis behalf, and it has seen no corroborative evidence support-ing President Kidd's claim that Professor Shevin's teachingwas below the university's standards or otherwise inadequate.The investigating committee accordingly finds that theadministration's actions against Professor Shevin in Februaryand May 1999 were based significantly on considerationsviolative of his academic freedom, and that the administrationthus acted in violation of the academic freedom as well as thetenure provisions of the 1940 Statement of Principles in ProfessorShevin's case.

4. CLIMATE FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Current and former members of the Tiffin faculty have com-plained about an inhospitable atmosphere at the university forcriticizing the administration and its operation of the institu-tion. The investigating committee found during its visit thatthe climate for academic freedom at the university, whilenever particularly supportive, has become so chilled that somemembers of the faculty have a sense of concern that they willbe punished, or even dismissed, in retaliation for customarilyprotected speech or conduct. The absence of a tenure systemexposes and promotes the vulnerability of the faculty. Theinvestigating committee was told that members of the facultyregard the termination of Professor Shevin's appointment as anexample of what the administration will do even to experi-enced, well-performing faculty members who voice dissentingviews.

In spring 1997, during the campus grade-changing contro-versy, several faculty members interviewed by a reporter forthe Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune apparently insisted on anonymity,citing fear of possible retribution. The university, the reporterobserved, "does not provide tenure to professors." That fall,when another article appeared in the same newspaper, thistime relating to the removal of Dr. Debra Israel as vice presi-dent for academic affairs, President Kidd indicated his greatdispleasure with the media coverage. According to the minutesof the October faculty meeting:

He was emphatic that he disapproved of what appeared tobe an "underground PR department," and that suchbehind-the-scenes activities were not in the best interestsof the university. Rather, open, collegial communicationshould be the norm. The newspaper had received aphone call from someone at TU and had been briefed onthe matter. Responding to [a faculty member's] questionas to whether speaking to the press was grounds for dis-missal, President Kidd indicated that it was not. Rather,from his perspective, the issue was with someone whowas apparently trying to ruin an institution which facultyand staff had worked so hard to improve. He appealed toall to deal with internal matters internally. He objected tothe A-T story because it "was about a colleague, not abouta policy of the institution. He concluded his commentson this topic by calling for a positive refocusing of collec-tive energies on accomplishing the goals the university hasset for itself.

The investigating committee observes that the attitudetoward faculty extramural speech critical of the university thatthe president displayed in these remarks is consistent with someof his charges against Professor Shevin, as discussed above.

The harmful consequences of the lack of a system of academictenure at Tiffin University are compounded by President Kidd's

60 ACADEME

assertion—echoed by university counsel—that Tiffin faculty aremerely "at-will" employees who can be dismissed for any reasonor no reason at all. The Association has long emphasized thatretaining postprobationary faculty members on indefinitelyrenewable term appointments is inimical to academic freedom.Tiffin University had (and has) a considerable number of long-serving faculty members who, under the institution's policies,can be issued notice of nonreappointment at any point withouthaving recourse to any appeal or hearing process. Such proce-dures jeopardize the faculty's exercise of academic freedom.

The investigating committee wishes to emphasize the inten-sity of the concerns voiced to it by both current and formermembers of the Tiffin faculty over the unhealthy current cli-mate for academic freedom at the institution. In the last fewyears, senior professors who had been long-standing leaders onthe faculty have resigned and accepted positions elsewhere,stating to the investigating committee that they based theirdecision to leave on their feeling that their criticism of theadministration put them at risk. Professors still on the facultymade clear to the committee their belief that, should theircooperation with this investigation become public knowledge,their dismissal would be a likely result. Current Tiffin facultymembers who agreed to talk with the investigating committeerequested that the interviews be conducted at a site some dis-tance from the campus. Others declined to meet with thecommittee even out of town. Those who did speak with thecommittee were anxious about doing so. One person com-mented that "the level of fear is intense." The anxiety of thefaculty, in the absence of tenure and academic due process, wasall too evident to the investigating committee.

Concerns about academic freedom have not been limited tomembers of the faculty. According to a local press report onthe student rally in support of Professor Shevin that took placein March 1999, one student protester indicated that some ofher fellow students feared reprisals for speaking out on behalfof Professor Shevin: "[A] lot of people are afraid to say or doanything; this campus has ways to do something about it."Indeed, one student leader who circulated e-mail messages tothe rest of the student body to alert them about the administra-tion's action against Professor Shevin and about student effortsto rally support reported that the administration suspended hiscampus e-mail account. A second student, who elected totransfer to another institution, wrote to the investigating com-mittee about an occasion when students met to complainabout curricular changes at the university only to be told bythe administration that "[t]here are people in this room whocan make or break your future." The student wrote that sheregarded that as "a violation of [her] personal freedom."

5. FACULTY ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

Generally accepted standards of academic government areenunciated in the Association's 1966 Statement on Government of

Colleges and Universities. That document rests on the premise ofappropriately shared responsibility and cooperative actionamong governing board, administration, and faculty in deter-mining educational policy and in resolving educational prob-lems within the academic institution. It also refers to "aninescapable interdependence" in this relationship whichrequires "adequate communication among these components,and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort."It further asserts that "the interests of all are coordinate andrelated, and unilateral effort can lead to confusion or conflict."

Section V of the Statement on Government defines the partic-ular role of the faculty in institutional government, stating inpertinent part:

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamen-tal areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods ofinstruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects ofstudent life which relate to the educational process. Onthese matters the power of review or final decision lodgedin the governing board or delegated by it to the presidentshould be exercised adversely only in exceptional circum-stances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty.

The particular authority and primary responsibility of thefaculty in the decision-making processes of the academic insti-tution in these areas derive from its special competence in theeducational sphere. It follows from this proposition that thefaculty should play an active and meaningful role in the devel-opment as well as in the revision of institutional policy in thoseareas in which the faculty has primary responsibility.

As one facet of the "interdependence" emphasized in theStatement on Government, Section V of that document assertsthe expectation that

[a]gencies for faculty participation in the governance of thecollege or university should be established at each levelwhere faculty responsibility is present. An agency shouldexist for the presentation of the views of the whole faculty.The structure and procedures for faculty participationshould be designed, approved, and established by jointaction of the components of the institution.

Implicit in the foregoing passage is the expectation that thefaculty will play a primary role in the establishment as well asin any subsequent revision or modification of the institution'sgovernance structure.

Faculty members at Tiffin University have complained aboutwhat they perceive as a pattern of administrative indifferencetoward or disregard for the legitimate role of the faculty ininstitutional decision making over the past several years and a lackof sensitivity to faculty needs and concerns. Among the mattersof particular concern that they have cited are the following:

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 61

a. After the incident in spring 1997 (described above)involving the unilateral administrative change of a facultymember's grades, the faculty adopted a student grade-appealpolicy, which the administration declined to implement,substituting its own policy without faculty review orapproval.

b. In summer 1998, the administration, without consultingwith the faculty, made several important changes in the universi-ty catalogue with respect to academic policies and programs—areas in which the Statement on Government calls for the faculty tohave primary responsibility. These apparently included substan-tive revisions in the mission statement of the general-educationprogram, alterations in the requirements for the bachelor of artsdegree, the deletion of faculty-approved courses, and changes incourse descriptions. The administration, as noted earlier, subse-quently uncapped enrollments in English and mathematics class-es, contrary to policies established by duly constituted facultybodies.

c. On May 1, 1999, the board of trustees, at PresidentKidd's request, terminated the existing Constitution of the Bodyof Tiffin University, a document that afforded the faculty aforum in which it could discuss any issue concerning the gen-eral welfare of the university and make recommendations tothe president and the board. The document also provided fornormal parliamentary process. A new entity called the "facul-ty" was created through a board-mandated Academic GovernanceStructure. Faculty members have complained that this new doc-ument has further centralized the administration's authority byeffectively stripping the faculty of all control over its own busi-ness, including the conduct of its own meetings and its author-ity over the curriculum. They have further complained thatthe document makes no provision for any formal rules ofprocess, including basic parliamentary procedure, and that fac-ulty meetings now consist largely of reports of administrativeofficers with little opportunity for faculty debate and delibera-tion. They state that these changes had been proposed to theboard of trustees without any prior consultation with the facul-ty, and that the changes were carried out without recourse tothe university's established governance mechanisms and indeedin contravention of the Constitution's stated provisions foramendment.

The investigating committee finds that the changes in TiffinUniversity's system of governance enacted by the administra-tion, and the manner in which these changes were instituted,are fundamentally at odds with principles of academic gover-nance set forth in the Statement on Government and with previ-ous governance practices at the university. The committee hasseen no evidence that the administration supports by word ordeed the concept of "shared governance" in educational policyor process. Effectively all academic authority on the campusappears to lie directly and immediately in the hands of theadministration. Reports of recent faculty quiescence suggest

that the administration's reputation for punishment of inde-pendent faculty has served its purposes.

IV. Conclusions1. The administration of Tiffin University acted in violation

of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure in dismissing Professor David A. Shevin without havingprovided him with a written statement of the charges againsthim and without having demonstrated cause for its action in ahearing of record before a faculty committee.

2. The administration violated Professor Shevin's academicfreedom, in notifying him of dismissal and then suspendinghim from any further teaching and banishing him from thecampus because of its displeasure with conduct that shouldhave been protected under principles of academic freedom.

3. The absence of a system of academic tenure at TiffinUniversity inhibits the faculty's exercise of academic freedom.

4. Tiffin University's official policies and the administra-tion's practices are seriously deficient in meeting the standardsfor faculty participation in institutional governance under prin-ciples of shared authority, as enunciated in the Statement onGovernment of Colleges and Universities.

HIRSCHEL KASPER (Economics)Oberlin College, Chair

GEORGE E. LANG (Mathematics)Fairfield University

JEAN WILHELM (Theater)Goucher CollegeInvestigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has by voteauthorized publication of this report in Academe: Bulletin of theAAUP.

JOAN WALLACH SCOTT (History),Institute for Advanced Study, Chair

Members: JEFFREY HALPERN (Anthropology), RiderUniversity; LAURA KALMAN (History), University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara; CANDACE C. KANT (SocialSciences), Community College of Southern Nevada;STEPHEN LEBERSTEIN (History), City College, CityUniversity of New York; ROBERT C. POST (Law),University of California, Berkeley; LINDA RAY PRATT(English), University of Nebraska-Lincoln; DONALD R.WAGNER (Political Science), State University of WestGeorgia; JANE L. BUCK (Psychology), Delaware StateUniversity, ex officio; MARY A. BURGAN (English), AAUPWashington Office, ex officio; MARTIN D. SNYDER

62 ACADEME

(Classics), AAUP Washington Office, ex officio; BERTRAM University of Virginia, consultant; LAWRENCE S. POSTONH. DAVIS (English), Florida State University, consultant; (English), University of Illinois at Chicago, consultant; GRE-MATTHEW W. FINKIN (Law), University of Illinois, consul- GORY SCHOLTZ (English), Wartburg College, liaison fromtant; R O B E R T A. GORMAN (Law), University of Assembly of State Conferences.Pennsylvania, consultant; ROBERT M. O'NEIL (Law),

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002 63