מכל מלמדײ השכלתי (duchifat) wrote,
מכל מלמדײ השכלתי
duchifat

http://traveller2.livejournal.com/380760.html?thread=5778776#t5778776
У уважаемого traveller2 обсуждают, может ли в Америке начальство уволить за неподчинение профессора с tenure. Уважаемый traveller2 говорит, что уволить могут только за уголовное преступление, связанное с насилием, вроде изнасилования.

Воображаемая ситуация примерно такая. У профессора давние разногласия с дeканом и администрацией, перерастающие в конфликт. Профессор считает, что он может уехать на месяц за границу на школу-семинар. Администрация командировку не подписывает, потому что считает, что профессор нужен на рабочем месте (например, читать лекционный курс). Профессор не согласен с аргументацией администратора и все равно уезжает. Администрация пытается уволить его за прогул. Вопрос - что будет дальше в Америке в такой ситуации?

Мое мнение (но я не претендую на то, что знаю истину в последней инстанции): администрация сможет сначала сделать официальное предупреждение, а потом и уволить за прогул. Профессор сможет подать аппеляцию, сначала - в аппеляционную комиссию, затем канцлеру и в попечительский совет. Но если правила не на его стороне (что скорее всего), то он проиграет. Он может подать в суд за нарушение трудового законодательства, но, опять же, если закон на стороне университета, то профессор проиграет. Если он белый мужчина, то он не может подать в суд на дискриминацию, поскольку отсутствует признак, по которому ощуществлена дискриминация (принадлежность к официальному меньшинству).

PS. В нашем университете, в Policies & Procedures (а это типовой докумeнт, во всех университетах похожий, и я не думаю, что миннесотский университет отличается от висконсинского или мичиганского), эта ситуация регулируется статьями 5.21-5.29 Dismissal for Cause:

5.21 Dismissal for Cause: Tenure Appointments
A faculty member who holds a tenure appointment as defined in 5.10 may be dismissed only by the Board of Regents and only for just cause and only after due notice and hearing.

5.23 Dismissal for Cause Procedures
Dismissal proceedings are initiated by the Chancellor or his designated officer. Within a reasonable time after receipt by the Chancellor of a complaint against a faculty member, verified by the complainant, which the Chancellor deems substantial and which, if true, might lead to dismissal under 5.21 or 5.22, the Chancellor conducts an investigation. If the investigation appears to support the complaint, the Chancellor offers to discuss the matter informally with the faculty member. If the faculty member refuses to discuss the matter or it is not resolved by discussion, the Chancellor prepares written charges, and causes the same to be served upon the faculty member personally or by certified mail.

5.24 Just Cause
A faculty member is entitled to enjoy and exercise all rights and privileges of a United States citizen, and the rights and privileges of academic freedom as they are generally understood in the academic community. This policy shall be observed in determining whether just cause for dismissal exists. The burden of proof of the existence of just cause for dismissal is on the administration.

5.25 Fair Hearing
The faculty member addresses a written request for a hearing to the chairperson of the Dismissal Hearing Committee. A fair hearing includes:
(1) Service of notice of hearing with a specific charge in writing at least twenty (20) working days prior to the hearing.
(2) A right to the names of witnesses and of access to documentary evidence upon the basis on which dismissal is sought. Adjournments shall be granted to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.
(3) A right to be heard in his/her own defense by all bodies passing judgment.
(4) A right to counsel or other representative and to offer witnesses.
(5) A right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against a faculty member.
(6) A stenographic record of all hearings and transcripts thereof, at no cost to the faculty member.
(7) A finding of just cause based on clear preponderance of the evidence.
(8) Findings of fact and a decision based on the hearing record.
(9) The admissibility of evidence is governed by Wis. Stats. 227.45. The burden of proof of the existence of just cause for dismissal is on the administration.

5.26 Dismissal Hearing Committee
The Dismissal Hearing Committee conducts the hearing in compliance with 5.25. This hearing is a closed hearing unless the person concerned requests a public hearing. The Dismissal Hearing Committee consists of: The chairperson of each of the executive committees of the faculty divisional committees and the chairperson of the Codification Committee. Should any member of the Dismissal Hearing Committee be disqualified, the committee of which such person is chairperson shall designate from its membership a substitute, in consultation with the University Committee.

5.27 Recommendations: To the Chancellor: To the Board of Regents
(1) The Dismissal Hearing Committee shall send to the Chancellor and to the faculty member concerned, as soon as practicable after conclusion of the hearing, a verbatim record of the testimony and a copy of its report, findings, and recommendations. The committee may determine that, while just cause for discipline exists, some sanction less severe than dismissal is more appropriate.
(2) Within twenty (20) working days after receipt of this material, the Chancellor shall review it and afford the faculty member an opportunity to discuss it. The Chancellor shall prepare a written recommendation within twenty (20) working days following the meeting with the faculty member, unless the proposed recommendation differs substantially from that of the committee.
(3) If the Chancellor's proposed recommendations differ substantially from those of the Dismissal Hearing Committee, the Chancellor shall promptly consult the Dismissal Hearing Committee and provide the committee with a reasonable opportunity for a written response prior to forwarding the recommendation.
(4) If the recommendation is for dismissal, the recommendations shall be submitted through the President of the University of Wisconsin System to the Board of Regents.
(5) A copy of the Dismissal Hearing Committee's report and the recommendations shall be forwarded through the President of the System to the Board of Regents along with the Chancellor's recommendation. A copy of the Chancellor's recommendation shall also be sent to the faculty member concerned and to the Dismissal Hearing Committee.
(6) Disciplinary action other than dismissal may be taken by the Chancellor, after affording the faculty member opportunity to be heard on the record, except that, upon written request by the faculty member, such action shall be submitted as a recommendation through the President of the System to the Board of Regents, together with a copy of the Dismissal Hearing Committee's report and recommendation.

5.28 Board of Regents Review
(1) If the Chancellor recommends dismissal, the Board of Regents shall review the record before the Dismissal Hearing Committee and provide an opportunity for filing exceptions to the recommendations of the Dismissal Hearing Committee or Chancellor, and for oral arguments, unless the Board of Regents decides to drop the charges against the faculty member without a hearing, or the faculty member elects to waive a hearing. This hearing shall be closed unless the faculty member requests an open hearing.
(2) If, after the hearing, the Board of Regents decides to take action different from the recommendations of the Dismissal Hearing Committee and/or the Chancellor, then before taking final action, the Board of Regents shall consult with the Dismissal Hearing Committee and/or the Chancellor, as appropriate.
(3) If the faculty member whose dismissal is sought does not request a hearing, the Board of Regents shall take appropriate action upon receipt of the statement of charges and recommendation of the Chancellor.

То есть декан пишет жалобу на прогульщика канцлеру, тот ее рассматривает и передает в Попечительский совет, тот рассматривает; при этом все права гражданина США должны быть соблюдены и слушания должны быть проведены по закону и "справедливым образом".
Subscribe

  • Pierce’s Abduction of Science: Is Anti-Intellectualism of American Universities Rooted in Pragmatism

    Пишу злобную анти-американскую статью про измерение науки деньгами. Выложу-ка сюда кусок черновика, может, у кого какие замечания? Я, в частности,…

  • (no subject)

    На мой взгляд (это я все про трактат Аркадьева думаю), бесконечность возникает не в языке (с его потенциальной возможностью бесконечной рекурсии) а…

  • (no subject)

    Правильно ли я понимаю, что слово "Европа" происходит от финикийского слова для Запада, однокоренного с эрэв, маарав, Магриб и т.п.?

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 23 comments

  • Pierce’s Abduction of Science: Is Anti-Intellectualism of American Universities Rooted in Pragmatism

    Пишу злобную анти-американскую статью про измерение науки деньгами. Выложу-ка сюда кусок черновика, может, у кого какие замечания? Я, в частности,…

  • (no subject)

    На мой взгляд (это я все про трактат Аркадьева думаю), бесконечность возникает не в языке (с его потенциальной возможностью бесконечной рекурсии) а…

  • (no subject)

    Правильно ли я понимаю, что слово "Европа" происходит от финикийского слова для Запада, однокоренного с эрэв, маарав, Магриб и т.п.?