Memo

Thank you for your memo of November 2, 2000, regarding my grievances against personnel evaluations as conducted by this department. Judging by the latest round of evaluations, the situation still has not been resolved.

In the Conclusion section of your memo, you say that "my conclusion and assessment of the situation is that you have a pedagogical philosophy and teaching practices largely inconsistent with the philosophy and practices valued by your department and this university." Similarly, my department chair says in his latest evaluation of my work that "... [your name] has not shown any interest in reconsidering and restructuring his approach to course organization, presentation, and style." These remarks make it clearer than ever that the several punitive actions against me in recent years have occurred primarily because a few members of this institution are attempting to force on me a pedagogical philosophy that conforms to the alleged local norms, and I have been labeled a deviant and a recidivist. Forced conformity to a given set of professional standards cannot be tolerated unless it has been demonstrated conclusively that "practices valued by your department and this university" are superior to all other practices. This has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, the situation in my department, as I have stated several times and as I shall show again below, involves continuing threats to my civil rights. These threats arise from a constant harassment that attempts to manipulate the content of my lectures and class discussions. Beyond that, "colleagues" past and present have made several allegations about my professional conduct that are clearly slanderous.

In my estimation, what we have in this instance is a de facto post-tenure review in which the "department chair and/or dean" already have developed a "rehabilitation plan to address the area/s of deficiency," and they have tried to impose it on me; further, they have concluded that I stubbornly hold to my established, non-conforming ways, failing to implement what has by now become a definitive rehabilitation plan. The central feature of this plan is that (1) it attempts to force me to abandon the use, in several courses, of five or six unannounced examinations during the regular semester; (2) it attempts to force me to stop "pursuing lectures and discussions that seem to have little or nothing to do with the course or the topic of the course." I have long since entered a plea of guilty to the first of these charges, regarding my use of large numbers of unannounced exams; but, alas, I also have made it clear that I have no remorse and no intention of changing. The second charge, regarding relevance of material I present in class, is unmitigated balderdash. Anybody who bothers to listen to my tape-recorded lectures, to attend a class session or two, to read my syllabi and coursepak documents, etc., will quickly realize that the nonsense about course content is nothing more than an assault on academic freedom. Course content does not become irrelevant simply because it is difficult.

Conclusion

In my estimation, a post-tenure review has already been conducted in my case, I have not complied with the "rehabilitation plan," and I have already been punished. I therefore demand an AAUP-style hearing (search "Liberation Ichthyology") under the auspices of the Faculty Grievance Committee; or, perhaps more appropriately, under the auspices of IX.D.17.30.30 of the Faculty Handbook.