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

Одна из вещей, которую я не могу понять

Для того, чтобы уволить профессора или доцента с теньюром, существует довольно сложная процедура. В нашем университете она рассмотрена в параграфах 5.21-5.29 P&P
https://uwm.edu/secu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2014/06/PP-Chapter5.pdf


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.

5.22 Dismissal for Cause: Non-Tenure Appointments
(1) A faculty member having a probationary appointment as defined in 5.12
may be dismissed prior to the end of the term of appointment only by the
Board of Regents and only for just cause and only after due notice and
hearing.
(2) Non-renewal of a probationary appointment is not a dismissal for cause
under the provisions of this section.

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 verbatim record of all hearings, which might be a sound recording,
provided at no cost.
(Document 3150, 5/10/18; UWM Administration approval, 6/18/18)
(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.

5.29 Suspension from Duties
Pending final decision as to dismissal, the faculty member shall not normally be
relieved of duties; but if, after consultation with appropriate faculty committees,
the Chancellor finds that substantial harm to the University may result if the
faculty member continues in the position, the faculty member may be relieved
immediately of duties, but on salary until the Board of Regents makes its decision
as to dismissal. A decision by the Board of Regents ordering dismissal shall
specify the effective date of dismissal.

В каких случаях это происходит? насколько я понимаю, если, например, человек перестал ходить на работу без уважительной причины, или если виновен в каком-то серьезном проступке этического характера или в преступлении связанном с аморальностью (например, в краже).

То есть процедура примерно такова. Канцлер проводит расследование по жалобе против профессора или доцента и, если данные подтверждаются, проводит неформальный разговор. Если проблема не решена, канцлер готовит письменные обвинения, при этом burden of proof на администрации университета. Дальше дело рассматривается в Dismissal Hearing Committee. В комитете судят-рядат, увольнять провинившегося или применять менее серьезное наказание. Кенцлер рассматривает рекомендацию комитета, снова обсуждает ситуацию с наказываемым. Если принято решение об увольнении, то материал передается в Совет Попечителей. Совет попечителей снова его рассматривает, если увольняемый того хочет, то устраивает аппеляционное слушание, и наконец увольняет его. Процесс на много месяцев. Процедура не зависит от того, есть ли у профессора теньюр или нет (просто когда теньюра нет, проще не продлить контракт).

Это теория. На практике я слышал о трех случаях увольнения, один из СМИ, два из жизни нашей кафедры.

1. В СМИ, увольнение Ами Бишоп, которая застрелила четверых коллег в университете Алабамы в 2010 году. Ясное дело, она попала в предварительное заключение и больше не могла вести лекции. Вот как описано в Википедии ее увольнение: "Bishop was suspended without pay retroactively on the day of the attack. In a one-paragraph letter dated February 26, 2010, she was fired.[34][35] Bishop received a letter of termination from Jack Fix, Dean of the College of Sciences, which did not state a reason for her dismissal.[34] Her termination was effective February 12, the day of the shooting."
Какое право декан имеет кого-либо увольнять? Где все эти комитеты и слушания? Или в Алабаме их нет?

2. У нас был человек (который, вероятно, не получил бы теньюр), у которого примерно ко времени получения теньюра истекла виза, а гринкарту он оформлял, но та задержалась. Ясно, что без визы работать нельзя. Казалось бы, должно произойти следующее: его отстраняют от работы из-за отсутствия визы. Он прогуливает несколько лекций, возникает дело о dismissal for just cause. дело попадает к канцлеру, канцлер передает его в комитет по увольнениям, там после всех аппеляций принимают рекомендацию, канцлер передает дело в Совет Попечителей, и тот его увольняет из штата, снимает из номенклатуры госслужащих. На деле его уволили письмом помошника декана (!) без всяких комитетов и попечителей.

3. Наш бывший зав и декан стал деканом на Аляске, но там проворовался. Летал из Аляски в Милуоки и получил компенсацию за билет ($200) дважды - из Аляски и из Милуоки. Его вызвали к ректору (канцлеру) и уволили. Все.

Как понять разрыв между теорией и практикой?
Subscribe

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • Из сегодняшних диалогов

    1. На работе, центр собрался на корпоративный пикник, в программе спортивные активности, озеро, лодки и баня! - А что, у вас в Америке грибные

  • (no subject)

    1) Еще вспомнил из вчерашних партнерок. С уроками танцев в нынешнем количестве (в Питере офигенное количество бачаты и сальсы, я беру уроки почти…

  • (no subject)

    Любопытная статья про то, что скорость звука в твердых материалах ограничена величиной 36 км / с, точнее, V/c= alpha (m_e/2m_p)^1/2, где alpha -…

  • 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 

  • 4 comments