The Faculty Council discussed a proposed statement Thursday that would denounce Chancellor Brady Deaton’s decision to re-examine the case of Greg Engel, a suspended College of Engineering associate professor.
Engel was charged in December 2010 with faculty irresponsibility following student complaints of discrimination. Faculty members of the College of Engineering also lodged complaints against Engel, accusing him of inadequate teaching.
The Campus Committee on Faculty Responsibility cleared Engel of these charges, using “clear and convincing” evidence as the burden of proof in reaching their recommendation.
Council Vice Chairman Joe Parcell wrote to Deaton on Feb. 24, recommending that Deaton accept the committee’s decision.
“As the UMC faculty bylaws do not stipulate a burden of proof, the Committee on Faculty Responsibility acted in good faith to establish the level of burden of proof in this case,” Parcell said in his letter.
In a letter back to Parcell, Deaton said the committee’s ruling that cleared Engel did not use a low enough standard when analyzing the evidence.
“In significantly less serious cases of faculty irresponsibility with less severe recommended remedial action, a preponderance of evidence standard is, in my view, appropriate,” Deaton said in his letter, which was sent Feb. 29.
The chancellor’s letter was received with criticism at the Faculty Council meeting Thursday.
“We can say the chancellor can do what he wants to do,” Faculty Council member Gordon Christensen said at the meeting. “But we as faculty do not have to honor it if we think what he is doing is wrong.”
Christensen, along with council members Sudarshan Loyalka and Eddie Adelstein drafted a council statement in response to Deaton’s letter.
According to the proposed statement, the chancellor’s decision to reconsider the charges against Engel has the appearance of prejudicial action and is a violation of fair play by subjecting Engel to a second investigation.
“(Deaton and administrates) don’t play by the rules,” Adelstein said at the meeting. “The process was carried out fairly and this is a cheap legal trick. This is a deceptive process and we should condemn them vigorously.”
Parcell said he was confused and disappointed by the chancellor’s response.
“There was ample opportunity for discussion of burden of proof to take place from the beginning,” Parcell said. “The issue here is why the heck is (Deaton) doing this.”
The current faculty bylines do not define a standard of proof that is necessary to dismiss a faculty member, and Engel is the first MU professor to have reached this point in the process since the bylaws were written in 1974.
Deaton’s request to use a preponderance of evidence standard in faculty responsibility proceedings raised concerns from Christensen that the bylaws would be amended without consent of the faculty.
“When we take our faculty bylaws, introduce new things and then have people repeat the process based on those new things, we’ve shredded the bylaws,” Christensen said. “If (the committee and Engel) meet again, I don’t see how that can be legitimate. We as a faculty need to say that.”
The council will take two weeks to revise the statement, and will vote on it at the next meeting March 22.
In addition, the council also discussed the recommendations of the Online Academic Programs Task Force and unanimously voted to change the Faculty Council Rules of Order. The rules of order change placed responsibility of faculty reviews with the vice chairman, rather than with the Faculty Affairs Committee. Council members will vote on the recommendations of the task force at the next meeting.
