|
Fred Glaysher - A Response to Dr. X's "Summary of Evaluation
Conference January 31, 1994"
PART I: GENERAL
I met with Dr. X on 31 January 1994 in her office. Mr. Y, Associate
Dean of Liberal Arts, was present. Dr. X began by citing what she referred
to as the Illinois Community College Act law and stating she had decided
not to put my name forward for a third year toward tenure at Lewis &
Clark. She mentioned that in her opinion there was not sufficient evidence
that I was an exemplary candidate.
I listened very carefully and heard her repeat three times other
reasons were she believes I am diffident and aloof, students feel they can
not come to talk to me, they don't feel they stand a chance of meeting my
expectations in order to pass my classes, and I do not provide enough
encouragement to them. Other concerns were that I had not done enough with
the composition program and I was not happy and excited about coming into
Lewis & Clark. One of her closing comments was that we must get rid of
this adversarial relationship.
I expressed perhaps three times or so that I understood what she was
telling me though I did not agree with nor accept her evaluation of me as
an educator. I pointed out a number of shortcomings in the portrait she
painted of me. Some of those include the following.
The first stated goal of my Faculty Performance Objectives of 30 April
1993 was to "Retain more students." I pointed out that I had
achieved greater retention, and, in the case of two tenured English
faculty last fall who each had a class in which only five to six students
finished, I had three times as many students (18) finish my 131 class, the
same one which Mr. Y had observed and his former student had dropped out
of (discussed later).
I pointed out that my evaluations for all of my fall 1993 courses were
stronger and markedly so in some classes. My strong evaluations were
ignored.
I pointed out that she had made no effort to inform me of the
seriousness of her concern about my teaching, had made no effort to work
with me, and there had been no due process.
I pointed out that Mr. Y had accused me of being "aloof" in
early September of 1993, three weeks or so after having become
Associate-Dean. He said to me that that is the impression he keeps getting
of me. How, after only a few weeks, was left unexplained. The occasion for
his comments was over a former student of his in the same earlier
mentioned 131 class. She had taken 131 in the past with Dr. Z and received
a D. She was therefore repeating the class with me. She was consistently
late and seemed to have an attitude problem. I made a general appeal to
the entire class that we all arrive on time, asked her twice after class
to come on time, and then, as a last resort, asked her in front of her
peers to please have enough respect for other students not to walk in ten
to fifteen minutes late and disturb them. She complained to Mr. Y. Other
than attacking my character as "aloof," he told me I was not
"student-centered." I pointed out to both Dr. X and Mr. Y the
injustice and inadequacy of such a reason for my dismissal. I might add
I'm quite happy teaching at Lewis & Clark and believe there is nothing
wrong with my character. Students will have to live and work in the real
world where not everyone is the same as themselves.
Dr. X had mentioned an incident that occurred in a 111 class I had
last Summer I. She cited it as an example of my students not coming to
talk to me. At the time I had asked her if she or anyone had advised them
to come to me. No one had done so, including her. Two students, as far as
I know from them, complained a reading was too difficult. At the time that
I was teaching the reading, I had in class realized it was too hard.
Because the next reading I had already given them, by the time Dr. X
called me, was from The Readers' Digest, I had self-corrected. She said
that in fact several of my students had complained about the reading and
she wanted me to meet with Ms. C and Ms. D, neither of whom are members of
the English Department, on how to choose readings. I consulted Mr. T, then
Chairperson of the Liberal Arts Division. I expressed to him my concern
about going outside the English Department for such a meeting, especially
since Mr. W was teaching a 111 that semester too. Mr. T suggested I
discuss the choice of readings with Mrs. A, which I did. He also offered
to go with me to the meeting, essentially on my behalf as representation,
and other English faculty members expressed concern (cf. phone message
transcription). Dr. X was quite annoyed and emotional when she heard this
suggestion of my being accompanied and represented by Mr. T and said
something to the effect that a meeting was pointless. I recall saying that
the issue (over closing the Writing Center) was bigger than I was and I
did not want to get in the middle.
In retrospect I believe Dr. X's anger over the 111 incident suggests
perhaps an inability to have anyone stand up to her and even respectfully
express a point of view contrary to her own. She seemed at the end of the
31 January meeting to accuse me of furthering an adversarial relationship
between the faculty and administration. I quietly stated I do not believe
I am adversarial. If disagreeing with Dr. X in any way whatsoever
constitutes contentiousness, I then fear for the survival of Freedom of
Speech and academic integrity here at Lewis & Clark. Her mentioning
this 111 incident to me in the meeting in which she abruptly dismissed me
leads me to wonder if I am being let go partly out of revenge.
Dr. X also mentioned three students dropping out of a 131 early in
Spring 1993 as an example of students not coming to me. They had gone to
Dr. Z and asked him to allow them into his class. Dr. Z had gone to Dr. X,
and she permitted him to take them. Mr. T told me that Z should have come
to him and was undermining his own authority by going to Dr. X. In
retrospect I believe Mr. T would have supported me against Dr. Z's action.
At the time no one had encouraged my students to come back to me, the
instructor, and discuss the situation. I pointed out to Dr. X at the time
that she had failed to support me as an educator and should have sent the
students to me first. I told her the same thing during the 111 incident
because Ms E, Ms. C, and Ms. D in the Support Services failed to send my
students directly to me in order that I myself might benefit from their
criticism and make any necessary corrections.
In terms of students not coming into my office to talk with me or
their feeling that they can't meet my expectations, I pointed out that I
have plenty of students who come into my office all the time, surely as
many as any other English faculty member, and definitely more than some.
Since Dr. X's office is on the second floor and mine on the fifth, I can
only assume she has failed to observe students routinely in my office. I
mentioned that, given the fact some full- and part-timers give out A's and
B's in bucketfuls, some students may be surprised in my classes by the
fact that I actually expect anything whatsoever of them. Dr. X had herself
once shown me during the first few months I was here the computer grading
sheet for a part-timer named Ms. U who had handed out 17 A's in a 131
English class. I respectfully submit that in the entire history of the
community college no educator of integrity has ever had 17 students who
all merited A's in an English 131 composition course.
I also pointed out that I had done a great deal in my opinion in
regard to composition given the lack of interest among some of the English
faculty for newer developments. I mentioned I was responsible for
initiating discussion that led to the adoption of a required dictionary in
all 131 and 132 sections, debate about new composition textbooks, grading
standards, and a computer grammar program. I emphasized that a number of
faculty at times showed no interest in looking at composition articles or
textbooks I gave them. Because of a number of incidents, I pointed out I
have had to minimize attempts to improve the composition program so that
reasonable working relations might be maintained between myself and some
of my colleagues whom I nevertheless respect.
I believe the exemplary criterion is a mere excuse to dismiss me. Most
of my colleagues do not believe there is any validity to the charge. Under
such a broad expectation of perfection, Dr. X herself and everyone else at
Lewis & Clark could be replaced. Numerous colleagues in and out of the
English Department have pointed this out to me.
Dr. X partly hired me to develop a new course in Non-Western
Literature which has been an outstanding success with full enrollment this
semester. My composition courses last semester and this semester have been
going very well.
Dr. X has repeatedly sent me mixed signals. In the fall of 1993, I
asked her once about grading standards and expressed my concern about
them. I mentioned I had heard Dr. V had a class in which only four
students finished. She emphasized that she was interested in students
truly possessing the academic ability they should have and not merely
passing through the system. She went on to say that SIUE wants people who
are the best and high standards ensure that only the best are going
forward. Dr. X also mentioned once that many of our students are neurotic
and that she herself could never teach them English. She mentioned
sometimes trying to take their heads in her hands to talk some sense into
them. This type of remark led me to think that she realized how difficult
teaching community college students can be and that many drop out for
emotional and social reasons that have nothing to do with the instructor.
I've never had a class finish with fewer than nine or ten students. Many
tenured faculty members, including English, finish some classes with low
enrollment.
Dr. X repeatedly approved my attendance at four different ICISP Asian
Workshops, which led me to believe she saw me as continuing with Lewis
& Clark. As recently as late September and November of 1993, she wrote
a letter of recommendation for me to apply for a Fulbright-Hays Group
Project Abroad Grant to China for the summer of 1994 and approved my
attendance at another conference on Asia. Neither her evaluations of me
nor Mr. Y's express the slightest trace of the justifications for
dismissal they gave me on the 31st of January, 1994. Mr. Y also gave me
the mixed signal of signing for my attendance at the fall conference and
told me in October, when the institutional fee for China was raised from
$250.00 to $500.00 that it was no problem. Dr. X’s husband, Dr. XX,
President of Lewis & Clark, also signed a letter on my behalf for the
Fulbright-Hays grant in October.
Nothing has ever been unambiguously conveyed to me in or out of
writing to lead me to believe that there were issues serious enough that
tenure might be denied. My colleagues and former supervisor Mr. T
consistently suggested the opposite would be the case.
I stated at one point that I was afraid I would be caught between two
administrations, that of T and a new and inexperienced Y, for no fault of
my own. Every English faculty member, except apparently Dr. Z, felt the
scheduling of a meeting with them at 2:00pm on the 31st and then a meeting
the same afternoon with me at 4:00pm showed the decision to let me go had
already been made and they were just called together for the sake of
appearances.
As a former Oakland Community College student in Michigan for two
years, one who studied hard, I do not believe I am expecting my students
to do the impossible.
PART II: DETAILED
Dr. X's criteria of "exemplary" and the idea of advertising
for someone better qualified are not in the Illinois Community College
Act. In general, Dr. X attempts to characterize me as angry, embittered,
and uncivil. My colleagues, who have known me for nearly two years, can
vouch such qualities are not part of my character, though I was surprised.
It is to be noted that there was no representation present for me.
If we use retention of students as a measurement, my "general
teaching effectiveness" is as good as any member of the English
faculty and, I respectfully submit, better than some.
My "institutional contributions" have been highly regarded
by my colleagues, both this year and last. The first year at Lewis &
Clark I served on two committees instead of the minimum requirement of
one. They were the Minority Affairs Committee and the Learning Resources
Center Committee. For reasons that had nothing to do with me, my
involvement with the first committee was not as active as the latter, but
I attended meetings when notified and attempted to develop genuine
relations with other committee members, relations that have born more
fruit perhaps only during this year. On the LRC committee, I was an
outspoken advocate of increasing the holdings of the library from 17,000
to a goal of approximately 60,000 volumes. I worked closely with the
Director of the LRC and her assistant who compiled an impressive array of
statistics to document the need for augmentation of the holdings. Many
faculty members, in and out of English, applauded our efforts.
In terms of "Inter- and intra-divisional cooperation," I
have bent over backwards ever since I first arrived at Lewis & Clark
to cultivate human relationships with colleagues in and out of the Liberal
Arts. My colleagues in English can especially attest that I have not been
a prima donna, adolescently stamping my feet in furor every time someone
doesn't agree with me or adopt my point of view. Cooperation is one of my
highest democratic ideals.
My "Contributions to curriculum development" were initiated
by Dr. X herself and, by her own admission, are outstanding. I, the very
same person, have devoted the self-same energy and ability to the teaching
of composition in my classrooms and achieved the self-same success there
that I have in curriculum development.
My "Contributions to community service" have involved my
patient cultivating of a relationship with the Elijah P. Lovejoy Memorial
Society. During the last year and a half I have attended several annual
public functions of the Lovejoy Memorial. As someone who has edited the
poetry and prose of a leading African-American poet, lived in Japan and on
an Indian reservation for two years, I sincerely respect the praiseworthy
efforts of the Lovejoy Memorial to develop understanding and cooperation
among people of different races. My own good intentions have been
sufficiently recognized that Mrs. C. C., Trustee, invited me at the 10th
of February 1994 Board Meeting to become a member of the Advisory Board.
When it comes to "faculty advisement," I have always tried
to share my advice and perspective with colleagues as candidly and
straight-forwardly as possible though respectfully listening to the views
of others and realizing others might know more than I do. While basically
a humble, self-effacing, unassuming person, I am not afraid to speak out
with colleagues and say what I think. It is the very essence of democracy
and real education that the viewpoints of people of goodwill shall at
times differ. I respect the ideas of my colleagues and relish the free
exchange of ideas.
Dr. X attempts to create the image of me as a scholar in non-Western
literature but one therefore who knows nothing and has done nothing about
composition. Such an image is utterly false. The allegation that I have
done nothing in composition fails to acknowledge that I initiated after my
first few weeks at Lewis & Clark the discussion that led to a required
dictionary for all 131 and 132 classes beginning my second semester here;
it fails to acknowledge that I created the discussion about using a new
131 multicultural textbook and showed various copies to every member of
the English faculty, some of whom barely glanced at the titles before
scorning them and handing them back to me; it fails to credit me with
sharing current composition articles with English colleagues, some of whom
also dismissed them as trash; it fails to recognize that I requested the
Director of the LRC early upon my arrival here to take out a subscription
to Composition and Computers, the leading composition journal on the use
of computers; it fails to recognize that I contributed to the efforts to
replace the old inefficient and unusable LAN network in the computer rooms
and that I made numerous suggestions regarding what was desirable in a new
one; it fails to note I repeatedly, gently, tactfully kept asking English
colleagues to use the computers for a CAI grammar program since I believe
computers are ideal for such remediation and yet only after more than a
year of begging and persuading was something done last fall and then the
computer support person incorrectly installed the program and failed upon
my request to get the thing to run properly; it further neglects to notice
that I attended the part-timer conference this January at which I sought
along with my colleagues to improve the current composition standards; it
fails to pay recognition to the fact that I spoke with Dr. X herself on a
number of occasions about my desire to have grading sessions of sample
student papers for both tenured and part-time faculty, an idea she always
seemed to agree with while encouraging me not to give up on doing so
despite the lack of enthusiasm on the part of some members of the English
faculty. These are only the most obvious of my efforts to improve on the
teaching of composition at Lewis & Clark.
Dr. X's account of the February 1993 meeting between her and me prior
to her meeting with the English faculty fails to recall that she stated to
me in that meeting that she believed anyone coming into an English
Department that had been together for twenty years without a new person
would have had the trouble I had been experiencing. Far from expressing to
me her belief that I had failed in terms of composition, she conveyed that
I was doing well and should not give up because she understood the
situation and supported me.
I myself am a former community college student, and I am as successful
with community college students as anyone else in the English Department.
Just this week before the Spring break I walked the halls during class
time and noticed many classes taught by both tenured faculty and
part-timers had ten students or fewer in them. My composition classes all
still have at least a dozen to eighteen people in them. My classes are not
out of line with my colleagues' classes. In some cases, with all respect,
I believe I'm doing better. At the beginning of this Spring semester I had
a former student of mine come to me from Mrs. B's English 132 and ask me
to allow her into one of my classes of English 132. She felt Mrs. B was
too hard and that she could not pass the course. I assured her that she
could and told her to stay in the class and study hard. I did not permit
her to enter my class. I also had two other students who came to me early
this semester who told me they were dropping out of Mr. K's English 132. I
urged them to stay in his class but they insisted they would drop even if
I refused to let them into mine. I therefore allowed them into my class. I
do not believe either Mrs. B or Mr. K is less of an educator because a
student or two has left their courses and come to me. Yet it is precisely
on the basis of a few such commonly experienced student complaints, in
required English courses, that Dr. X has decided to dismiss me.
Dr. X's characterization of me as responding "bitterly" is
false and the words she attributes to me are not mine. I did point out as
quietly and objectively as I could that the situation has not always
improved but that what has changed has been my approach to my colleagues.
Because there was little interest at times in "firing up" the
composition program and hostility to me and whatever efforts I did make I
had changed my approach in order to attempt to maintain good working
relations with them while hoping that in the long run things would slowly
change for the better. Dr. X was visibly surprised to hear this from me
and was obviously struck by the news that I had changed my behavior by
making fewer requests to improve the composition program. I might add here
that one of the reasons I became involved in the non-Western course was
because it seemed I could do something new and worthwhile there while
waiting for people to come around in terms of composition.
In the 31st meeting, as far as I can recall, Dr. X did not make the
following statement: "I have given you more hours of support than I
have other probationary faculty." If she has given me support, it has
often been vague and ambiguous. As I mention in "PART I," I
twice have told her on different occasions, once in regard to the same
February meeting she refers to, that she as a dean had failed to support
me by referring my students directly to me. Since she also failed to work
with me in regard to my Faculty Performance Objectives last April, I
further feel this claim of hers is not true. If she has "not seen the
improvements" in my performance, it is because she has not been
looking for them and is not dealing fairly with me. Her continually
unsubstantiated claim that she has huge numbers of complaints about my
teaching rests on nothing but her groundless accusations. The Division
Chairperson of Liberal Arts once allowed to me that she is encouraging
students to make all kinds of charges against faculty members by the way
in which she always automatically and uncritically takes their side. He
further stated a number of times to me, as have many faculty members, that
the reason for Dr. X's unprofessional handling of student complaints is
that she has never spent a single day as a classroom instructor. Given my
eight years of classroom experience, I believe that that may be the case.
Her claim of a "pattern of complaint" appears to be merely a
stratagem since she can not produce credible evidence against me as an
educator. Her claim that students have characterized me as
"diffident" is obviously false to anyone who actually teaches at
Lewis & Clark and realizes at what a low level the usual student
vocabulary is.
She herself had suggested to me after her second observation of me
last Spring 1993 that I ought to play students off against one another
more. I had told her I felt community college students could not bear up
under the pressure of being pitted against one another in class and was
reluctant to do so. Far from "belittling" students, I respect
them and even a cursory reading of my student evaluations irrefutably
demonstrates that. I can only assume she has not read all of my student
evaluations or has read them with only a predisposed notion in mind.
The failure to allow a faculty member to know the identity of his
accuser is a violation of democratic right and due-process procedure.
Again, I have repeatedly told her this. Dr. X's approach is typified in
her unsubstantiated anecdote about some unnamed "adult man" who
went to her early this semester after receiving a passing grade. Her
quoting him as describing me as "diffident" is once again
suspect and unproven. The claim that I told them to "look it up"
in the book fails to note that probably I had assigned the relevant
chapter for reading, gone over it on the board, gone over it in the book,
and marked it on their papers. I always emphasize to my students that if
they don't understand something they should ask and we can go over
whatever it is again. If Dr. X would pay me the professional courtesy of
sending my students to me, I would patiently go over the same thing for
even a fourth or fifth or tenth time. At some stage, though, there must be
consequences for students and either they have been studying and listening
or they have not. Dr. X appears to want to remove from student life and
experience that reality.
The allegation that I "duck out" of the classroom so that
students can't ask questions is so absurd I am appalled. I can only
suggest that Dr. X visit the second and third floors when I am teaching so
that she may observe for herself that I do not "duck out" of my
classes instead of believing every disgruntled student who makes his way
into her office looking for consolation. I might add that during the
nearly two years I have taught at Lewis & Clark I have never once seen
her near my classrooms to observe for herself my so-called "ducking
out." Although Dr. X states this "adult man" is
"earning good grades," her concealing his identity suggests
otherwise and all his commitment to "learning and achieving" is
mere hearsay without asking me precisely what has been his performance in
my classroom. Whatever his grades might be in other classes, the crucial
point is his performance in my class. It is intolerably unethical and
unprofessional that she should be allowed to dismiss my professional
evaluation of any student simply on the basis of his whining and
complaining to her.
Dr. X misquotes me and attributes words to me that I never uttered
when she alleges I said, "I didn't have any idea about these
problems. You never talked to me about them before." The long
conversation she had with me before her conversation with the full-time
faculty last February, 1993, was largely supportive of me and left me with
the impression that she understood what I was up against with a faculty
who had been together for so very long without anyone new entering the
circle. She did not convey to me then the seriousness of the situation and
appeared to be my ally in navigating through some stormy water that she
seemed to suggest she would get me through. Her characterization of the
February 1993 meeting with me is entirely rewriting events to fit in with
what she now wants to happen.
In terms of the "particularly difficult period" she refers
to last May 28 to June 2, it should be noted that it was apparently
"particularly difficult" for her, not me. The following is a
transcription of the phone message from Dr. X which began the incident:
"Message one from X at extension 4010 was received at 8:40am May
27th":
Good morning, Fred, it's X calling. In the last
two days, ahm, well, three days, actually, Monday Tuesday,
Wednesday, ahm, about eight of your students have brought
their complaints about the class to the writing center and
to a counselor ahm down here in, ah, student support
services. The two people who have heard these complaints
are Ms. C and Ms. D. Both of them have
taught [emphasis on taught] English 111 before. I would
like to try, ahm, if it's all right with you, a conversation
with you and the two of them so that we can talk about the
nature of the complaints. Ahm mostly it has to do with the
level of the readings that are being presented to them. The
readings appear to be more appropriate to an English 131
group than to this 111 group. What I'd like to do is make
this a more collegial conversation and ah, and ah, take a
look at what you're doing in terms of giving students
something to read and then asking them to respond to it in
writing, which strikes me as a very good idea for, ah, all
levels of writing students but that perhaps the writing/the
reading material itself is too high a level for
developmental writers. Ahm, do you want to give me a call
and we'll set up some time to get with you and me and
D and C which may be more, ahm, helpful. Thanks.
"Message two was received at 11:10am June 2nd":
Hi Fred, this is A. I talked to B yesterday about
the incident and she thinks too you should not be in that
meeting alone. Ah she thinks if it gets serious the whole
English Department ought to be there. That ah, really, well
you just should not be there. First place the whole meeting
should not take place. The students should come and whine to
you if they don't understand the assignment and you should
explain it to them until they do. It is not for C to
explain your assignment to them. Ah, nor worse yet, for her
to say "Oh poor baby, poor baby, let me go beat up that
teacher for you," which is what seems to be happening. But
at least ah beg T to go. So I talked to T too
and said if that you think, if T thinks, he thinks the
English Department needs to be there, that ah, he should
just call us up and some of us will be there. Nobody leaves
town we're too poor for that. These people are all
scattered around. Most of them would come to a meeting if
they thought they needed to be there. So ah, anyway, he
says he's not even sure a meeting is scheduled. Ah, so he
didn't know the time or anything, but he is willing to go
and willing to explain for probably the upteenth time, the
purpose of 111, the purpose of English 131, etc., etc. Bye.
The blatant fact that Dr. X's message fails to note is that she as
well as the "Support Services" never followed proper academic
procedure by advising my students to come to me and discuss whatever might
be a problem for them. Since I have been a faculty member at Lewis &
Clark, she has never once, that I can recall, told me the name of a
student who had gone to her to complain about something. Again, in my
opinion, this violates my constitutional right to confront my accuser,
especially if my livelihood and career hang in the balance.
Despite Dr. X's claim of "about eight" of my students
complaining, as far as I know, there was only one student who complained
in the Support Services office. The one student had established herself
among the other students as an irascible, confrontational, unstable
personality whom they themselves clearly felt uneasy about. By chance, my
wife, who was teaching ESL that semester, was at the copy machine on
Wednesday, May 26th, in the Support Services office unbeknownst to either
the student or the secretary. She heard the student say, "I've got to
get out of that class. We all think he's anemic." Not a single word
was spoken on my behalf by S, the secretary, who's unqualified to advise
students in terms of their writing. Rather the secretary told the student
her son had taken 111 with H at night and had liked her and had gotten a
good grade. Not a single academic reason was given by the student for
wanting out of my class--nothing but character assassination. I complained
at the time to Dr. X about the secretary's improperly advising this
student and failing to send the student to me. I further pointed out to
Dr. X that Ms. C, Ms. D, and she herself had each failed to support me
properly. While student complaints readily find a hearing with Dr. X, I
find it perplexing that my valid, politely phrased complaints are
summarily swept aside.
If there were complaints in the Writing Center, no one ever presented
me with evidence of them or had the professional courtesy to send my
students to me. I pointed out the fact to Dr. X that Ms. C in the Writing
Center had not sent me the requisite follow-up form stating the nature of
the consultation with any student. This procedure was mandatory at the
time. It had not been done. Dr. X assured me she would discuss the matter
with Mrs. C and see to it that she would send me a form on each student
who had complained. Ms. C never sent me a single one. I doubt now whether
there ever were eight students who had complained in the first place. At
one point I had told her I felt the real issue was about the Writing
Center and bigger than I was and I therefore didn't want to get in the
middle of it. It was at that time that she angrily hung up the phone on me
upon learning that I preferred attending the proposed meeting with Mr. T
present.
Upon receiving the above (transcribed) message from Dr. X, I had
immediately gone to Mr. T for his advice. I told him I thought there was
more to the situation than met the eye. It did not make sense to me that I
should be called upon to meet with two individuals who are not even
members of the English faculty. Clearly it was really about the Writing
Center or some other political battle of sorts. Although the words Dr. X
attributes to me are not recognizable as mine, the idea is true: T seemed
surprised and suspicious at her suggestion that persons outside English
should advise me. Mr. T, however, told me I could not refuse to meet with
Dr. X and therefore I never did refuse to meet with her. If memory serves,
I do believe he stated or suggested that I had the right to have someone
else accompany me. He advised me to speak with Mrs. As, who is a member of
the English faculty and teaches reading. She and I discussed, as Mr. T and
I had, the readings I had assigned. Mrs. A made several useful suggestions
for which I was grateful.
The Writing Center, it should be noted, was not part of the English
Department. It was separately funded and staffed at the time. The
reference to Mrs. C as my colleague by Dr. X is one that exists only in
her mind, not in any formal, professional relationship. As a non-tenured
staff person, paid through grant money, Mrs. C was neither my colleague
nor sufficiently competent as judged by my true colleagues to advise me on
the selection of material for my classes. The proper procedure for my
receiving communications from the Writing Center was the earlier mentioned
reports on student consultations, which Mrs. C never sent me even after
Dr. X herself had assured me she would. Dr. X writes: "he raised his
voice saying: 'They are not my colleagues. I don't even know them.'"
During the 31st January meeting I never uttered these words, and
especially not angrily, though I do readily own the ideas they express. At
the time I knew Mrs. C but was not even sure who Ms. D was. After my
teaching then at Lewis & Clark for a full year, Dr. X was insistent on
my meeting with a stranger who could not even properly advise my students
to come and speak with me when necessary. It should be noted that my
colleagues in English were all perplexed at why Dr. X would ever have
requested me to meet with Mrs. C and Mrs. D, as Mrs. A put it, in the
"first place."
Dr. X's "pattern of student complaint" is an undocumented
one. It rests solely on her claim that such a pattern exists. One of the
most numerous, favorable comments on my student evaluations is that I
treat students fairly and equally. For some reason, Dr. X appears to
choose to distort the image of me as an educator. I am "first and
foremost" a teacher, and my students, as evidenced on their
evaluations of me, have high and consistent praise for me.
It appears to me that Mr. Y is only echoing the opinions of Dr. X and
is not evaluating me fairly and objectively. The words Dr. X reports as
mine were never spoken during that meeting by me: "Teaching
effectiveness?" queried Fred. "How can you measure my teaching
effectiveness?" I never said these words to Mr. Y. I did say he had
been on the job for no more than a few weeks and was already telling me
that the impression he kept getting of me was that I was "aloof"
and not "student-centered." If not from Dr. X, from where did he
get this "impression"? I further feel Dr. Z may have contributed
to this "impression" by, in my opinion, unjustly attacking me on
a number of occasions for reasons of his own.
The words as reported by Dr. X are not mine but the ideas essentially
are in regard to my feeling very concerned when Mr. Y was appointed
Associate-Dean because I did fear his lack of experience and possible lack
of self-restraint in the use of his new power as it might affect me. I
believe events justify my concern.
I do not recall Dr. X ever saying that she thought I "had
received guidance and advice." I know that I do not believe I
received proper professional guidance and advice as a non-tenured member
of the faculty. Last Spring, for instance, I went to T with a rough draft
of my Faculty Performance Objectives seeking further guidance and advice
because I felt I had not received sufficient feedback from the
administration to complete the form. He made several suggestions for
improvements which I added to my Faculty Performance Objectives before
sending Dr. X the final copy. It was during this meeting with Mr. T that
he assured me that he thought I would have to mess up in a big way in
order not to get tenure.
I pointed out to Dr. X that she and Mr. Y were ignoring my having
fulfilled the teaching objectives of my Faculty Performance Objectives. I
mentioned my numerous outstanding student evaluations from the fall
semester of 1993; I mentioned the favorable to highly favorable
observations of my teaching by both her and Mr. Y; I mentioned the support
of my colleagues, many of whom have been reassuring me that I'd get tenure
for quite some time. I must emphasize that Dr. X's approach appears to be
vague accusation: ". . . our own interactions with students and
faculty many of whom were critical." Who are these students? Who are
these faculty members? My student evaluations paint a very different
picture of me as an educator. All of my colleagues with only one exception
also paint a very different picture of me. Everyone of my colleagues in
English has signed the Petition supporting me and calling upon the Board
of Trustees to reconsider and rescind its Februrary 8, 1994 decision to
dismiss me.
Dr. X states that my colleagues "offered no comments on teaching
effectiveness." Many of them have stated to me that that was because
they had never observed me in the classroom, which only stands to reason,
since it is not their role at all to observe me in the classroom. Dr. X
essentially asked them a question which they could not have possibly
answered. A number of faculty members have pointed this out to me. Then,
when she had apparently received the desired response, she seems to have
interpreted it by giving it a meaning that they did not intend. It is now
this reinterpreted meaning that she is using as "evidence"
against me. This "evidence" is used while sweeping aside any
real evidence to the contrary. Her own classroom evaluation of me on
February 17, 1993, which may be found in my Personnel File, suggests, if
anything, that I am an "exemplary" educator. I quote the closing
paragraph in which she sums up her observation of my English 132 class in
COMPOSITION:
This class involved most students in discussion.
Students felt free to express ideas, even when the
ideas were not fully formed. There was laughter in
the classroom and in the exchanges with Fred. There
seemed real pleasure on the parts of teacher and
students. The four or five adult students tended to
begin most discussions but four younger students
were almost as active in their participation.
Such words of evaluation from Dr. X herself never led me to believe
that there was anything so seriously wrong with my teaching of COMPOSITION
that less than a year later she would have felt a just cause existed for
my dismissal.
What am I to make of her statement that there were "moments of
silence and staring"? Is one not allowed to sit silently before his
accuser and contemplate what might be the true motivations behind one's
arbitrary and capricious dismissal? "Staring" also seems
pejorative as Dr. X uses the word. I would describe my reaction at times
as merely waiting for Dr. X to empty herself out in hope that she might
eventually tell me the truth.
As provided for, at the very least, in 1993-1994 Catalog, under
student grievances, in the Faculty Association Agreement, Section 6.2, and
in the Illinois Community College Act, Section 103B-3, I believe that,
whatever few and normal student complaints there may have been about my
teaching in required English courses, they have not been handled properly;
that I have not been evaluated properly; and that I have been treated in
an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Fred Glaysher
Dr. Z:
The night of 1 February 1994 a tenured member of the English faculty
called me at home to express his concern that I was being let go. Among
other things, he told me that approximately a year ago Dr. Z had said
"Fred Glaysher's days are numbered," had put together a position
paper against me, and had tried to recruit him. Apparently, this occurred
after three students had dropped out of my 131 class and Dr. X had allowed
him to take over my students, one of which eventually also dropped out of
his class. This faculty member asked me if I knew why Dr. Z was after me
and if anything had ever happened between Dr. Z and me, perhaps during the
night I had dinner at his house. Until that moment I had never known for
certain that he was after me. Such a question came as quite a shock to me
and confirmed my worst fears.
I was interviewed on 3 August 1992. The night of the interview Dr. Z
graciously took me home for dinner and showed me that evening his Bible
and Book of Common Prayer. He later drove me past a couple of churches for
which he plays the organ. I felt I was repeatedly being given a religious
test.
Early in September, 1992, I borrowed his computer. I copied a
wordprocessor on to the hard drive. At the time I didn't think about the
word "Baha'i" being in a few of my address files.
Late in September, 1992, someone placed a poster announcing a Baha'i
meeting in Alton outside the Liberal Arts Office. It was there for about a
week. I had nothing to do with it. Mrs. B told me on 3 February 1994,
"We assumed you put it up." Mr. Z asked her what Baha'i was.
In early October, after the poster had been up for a while, I recalled
that Baha'i was in some of my computer files. Given the religious test I
felt I have been put to, I eventually figured out an excuse to borrow the
computer back from Mr. Z and deleted them.
Dr. Z informed me very early on that he had invested a great deal of
energy in selecting me. He told me he had personally read every single one
of the 188 applications. Because several of my published articles appeared
in Christian intellectual journals, I became concerned that he may have
assumed I was a Christian and therefore put my application further ahead.
I was very worried that there might be a backlash if he discovered I was a
Baha'i. Without Mr. J yet knowing I was a Baha'i, I cautiously asked him
early on if my publications in Christian journals had anything to do with
my having been hired.
In October I met for the first time local Alton Baha'is, good, simple,
decent people, as in any religion. I soon learnt that they had begun
placing ads in the religious section of The Telegraph for the first time
in late August. Again, given what I felt was a religious test and after
the poster appearing outside the Liberal Arts Office, I was further
concerned that I might be connected with the ads and it would lead to
repercussions. In retrospect I wonder if Dr. Z might have noticed the ads
with displeasure. Having lived in a large Baha'i community of intelligent
people, at The University of Michigan, I know I viewed the ads with
displeasure. If I've been judged through guilt by association, I then
resent it deeply. Like any religion, the Baha'i Faith embraces people from
all walks of life.
At the 31 January 1994 2:00pm meeting with the English faculty, A
mentioned that I was a Baha'i. Some discussion took place regarding
whether or not I am involved with the local Alton Baha'i community, which
I am. Under the Constitution of the United States I am supposed to have
the right to Religious Freedom.
Dr. Z spoke out against me and stated that I had not done anything to
fire up the composition program since I've been at Lewis & Clark. Yet
he himself was not always receptive to doing anything, and he never showed
any interest in getting to know me as either a person or colleague. In my
meeting with Dr. X, she herself repeated Dr. Z's allegation that I had
failed to do anything significant in terms of composition. Apparently,
previous to the 31 January meeting, Dr. Z had looked up the tenure law
stating that a non-tenured faculty member could be dismissed at any time
and stated so. In my meeting with Dr. X, she herself had begun by quoting
the tenure law as justification of what was to follow. I believe these two
facts, composition and tenure law, clearly show his influencing her
decisions and actions in regard to me.
That I am a Baha'i is the only reason I can think of to explain Dr.
Z's enmity.
Further, I believe Dr. Z's religious discrimination against me has
negatively affected Dr. X's perception of me as an educator and influenced
her decision not to recommend me for a third year.
copyright (c) 1994 FG
|