Adding a new chapter to the ongoing appeal of sanctions imposed on Prof. Donald Hindley (POL) for allegedly racially insensitive remarks, Provost Marty Krauss last month rejected a ruling from the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities that supported the embattled professor and criticized her actions in the case.The CFRR issued a ruling in late November that deemed the penalties against Hindley "excessive" and questioned the fairness of the inquiry into his alleged statements. The committee wrote that the sanctions should be withdrawn.

Krauss rejected the committee's recommendations in a 10-page memo dated Dec. 10, citing "numerous errors, both factual and legal," in the group's analysis. The provost also questioned the CFRR's authority to issue a valid ruling in the case, referring to its decision as an "advisory opinion."

On Dec. 19, the committee countered with a supplementary ruling rebutting Krauss' assertions and expressing concern over what it said amounted to a weakening of the faculty's power to examine penalties imposed on its members.

"It is a curious feature of the faculty dispute resolution process that the Provost, in cases of this sort, essentially becomes the final judge of her own actions," the committee stated.

The exchange is the latest in a series of clashes between the CFRR and administrators over the University's response to complaints by three students against Hindley, a tenured professor in his 47th year at the University. Krauss informed Hindley on Oct. 30 that he had violated the University's nondiscrimination policy for comments he made in POL144a, a Latin American politics course. Krauss assigned Assistant Provost Richard Silberman to monitor Hindley's classes and ordered the professor to attend anti-discrimination training, threatening termination if he failed to comply. Hindley has said he will not attend any training and has maintained his innocence throughout.

Both the faculty and the CFRR have expressed concern over the precedent such penalties could set in limiting academic freedom.

In her reply to the CFRR, Krauss wrote that accepting the committee's recommendations "would undermine the community's faith in the integrity of the University's policies, chill future students, faculty and staff from coming forward with complaints, place the University at significant risk of violating state and federal law, and potentially lead to retaliation against those individuals who have the courage to speak out against discrimination."

Krauss also defended the investigation conducted by the Department of Human Resources, which the CFRR criticized for failing to interview any members of the class other than the complainants. In her memo, Krauss wrote adamantly of the offended students' legal rights to anonymity. "I find the absence of concern about the students who protested a faculty member's speech deeply troubling," she wrote.

Krauss did not address in her memo CFRR assertions that Hindley's sanctions should be lifted while his appeal is pending, which the Faculty Handbook states should happen.

In an interview this week, Hindley said he had received a letter "very recently" from Krauss concerning the issue. Hindley said the letter came "out of the blue," but he declined to elaborate on its content. "It needs considerable thought as to how to reply to it and I have not yet made up my mind," he said.

Krauss declined to comment Monday afternoon, citing the matter as a confidential, personnel issue.

Hindley's case has triggered a dispute over how discrimination appeals should be conducted. Krauss wrote that the CFRR had "exceeded its jurisdiction" in ruling on the appeal, and that the committee is limited to interpreting the Faculty Handbook. But the committee has maintained that the handbook requires the CFRR to hear faculty appeals of penalties imposed by the administration.

On Nov. 8, the Faculty Senate also adopted a resolution accusing Krauss of violating the Handbook's policy that she confer with them regarding any possible dismissals.

In a statement to Prof. Marc Brettler (NEJS), chair of the Faculty Senate, CFRR Chair Prof. Richard Gaskins (POL) wrote that faculty "must face the possibility that our faculty dispute resolution process is breaking down."


"There is something very serious that is now broken, and the Senate may be the only route for restoring some sense of order," he wrote.

Rachel Marder contributed reporting.