Why We Must Teach What We Know

My friend Alan Bean, one of the first activists to break the story of the Jena 6, has written a story about the struggle to continue to teach the Civil Rights Movement and civil rights advances in a generation which cannot remember how significant the small steps were in this struggle. In his article, "The Face of White Supremacy," Bean describes an actual argument going on in the development of history courses for public education. Old prejudices die slowly, even when people hardly ever say them out loud anymore. Those who remember must tell the story.

Mike Broadway

Due Process Requires Unity

One faculty member is terminated on June 20, months after the University failed to notify him by December 31 as required in the Faculty Handbook and even after he signed a reappointment agreement in April. Also, during April, the President gives a secret appointment to a resigned employee to serve as Dean during the same time that the official areas of the University give a legitimate appointment of Dean to another person that the President also signs. The University honors the secret arrangement but waits to tell the standing Dean until June 29, one day before her appointment ends.

One of these faculty members has served an illustrious career at Shaw for a number of years; but of this, no account is made. The other has a wife and child who depend on him for food; but of this, no sympathy is deserved. The rights of the accusing supervisors to their prey are far superior to sordid values like kindness, compassion, and truth.

Let it be clear that the complaints of an irrational supervisor are frequently enough to endanger a faculty’s employment. The faculty’s testimony means nothing. They can bring no witnesses for themselves. As a result, Shaw’s system of discipline typically hears only one side, and that side is the side of the accusing supervisor.

We must not allow these two gallant employees to be forced into lengthy legal remedies challenging the right of any President to dismiss people in certain circumstances. Our issue is mostly a moral one affecting the integrity of Shaw University. Our administrators must not continue to endorse practices that mistreat our employees by targeting them unfairly for dismissal, by tormenting them during their stay, and by allowing them no processes to defend themselves. These disgraceful practices undermine employee morale, sap the willingness of employees to help Shaw University, and keep us all in perpetual states of distress.

When the voice of faculty is ignored and unappreciated, when the rights of faculty to due process and appeal are irrelevant, and when cruel, insensitive treatment to employees is tolerated, then it is incumbent on each of us to reflect on the meaning of a compassionate life. Faculty must unite now to end the shameless disregard for Professor Russell Robinson and Dr. Elvira Williams. By doing so, we take a step towards assuring all of us have chances for compassionate lives.

James Nelson, Jr., Professor, College of Arts & Sciences

Following Due Process

Conversations among the faculty concerning a recent termination have raised great concerns about due process. Can a faculty member accused of poor job performance answer the charges? Is there an appeal process? Do faculty have any place to turn to express grievances? What are the conditions of faculty employment, and are they being respected?

These conversations reiterate the concerns I wrote about in late June ("Secrecy and Morale"): the university must make documents such as the faculty handbook and its grievance policy available to the faculty. Delaying year after year in getting approval on such documents makes it seem that they just do not matter to the administration and trustees. I really don't think that is their view.

This situation concerning a faculty member seems to have ignited a fire to get action on these matters. We need to have a faculty handbook available. We need an approved grievance policy. We need to have access to a personnel policy manual. Even if the documents are in draft form, we need them now. It cannot be good for the university to be lacking easy access to such basic documents.

Mike Broadway

How Does Shaw Rank as an Employer?

The Durham Herald Sun reported on a survey of employment satisfaction done by the Chronicle of Higher Education. The brief article says that Duke is making strides to becoming a good place to work. Having been associated with Duke for some time, I can confess that they have had a long way to come; moreover, I will not believe this too seriously until I hear from a range of folks at various levels who work there.

I recently talked with a laundry worker who said that he was getting pressure to retire--I'm guessing it is to allow them to hire someone at a lower wage. Universities easily fall under the pejorative description of "the plantation." I've heard it used of Duke, and I've heard it used of Shaw.

So what did the article say about Duke as an employer?

Duke Ranks High as Employer
By Neil Offen, The Herald-Sun
Jul 7, 2009

DURHAM -- Despite tough economic times and some belt-tightening, Duke University remains a good place to work.

In fact, it remains one of the best colleges to work at in the nation, according to a new survey released Monday.

The Chronicle of Higher Education surveyed 41,000 employees -- administrators, faculty and staff members -- on 247 campuses across the country and ranked Duke as one of the top 10 large universities in the nation.

UNC Chapel Hill also was recognized in the Chronicle's second annual Great Colleges to Work for survey, receiving note in four categories: teaching environment, facilities and security, connection to institution and pride, and respect and appreciation.

Duke was cited for special recognition in 14 of the 26 categories evaluated, including

• Job satisfaction
• Healthy faculty-administration relationships
• Overall satisfaction with benefits
• Compensation and benefits
• Vacation or paid time off
• Work-life balance
• Confidence in senior leadership
• Internal communications

Last year, in the first survey done by the Chronicle, Duke was cited in only five categories.

"We're certainly thrilled with the recognition," said Kyle Cavanaugh, Duke's vice president of human resources. "Having an outside organization assess how we are doing on so many dimensions and finding out that we are one of the top places in America to work is gratifying. It reinforces the fundamental belief in the values Duke supports."

The Chronicle singled out the university particularly for the benefits it offers its employees. Maintaining those benefits during a recession has not been easy, Cavanaugh acknowledged.

"It's been incredibly challenging given the current economic environment," he said. "But compared to our peer institutions, Duke has been doing incredibly well these last six to eight months."

Unlike many other employers, including universities, Duke has not made significant changes to its benefits program during the economic downturn, and expects to continue most of its benefits through at least next year.

And while Duke had to suspend its pay-for-performance policy, under which employees and their supervisors set goals and evaluate their progress annually, the university this year did give a one-time raise of $1,000 to employees making under $50,000 while freezing the salaries of all other employees.

Cleo Proctor said she understands how fortunate she is to be working at Duke.

A histologic technician in the pathology department, Proctor has worked at Duke for eight years. Standing outside the medical school building on a muggy afternoon, she talked about how Duke is a good place to work -- "particularly given the present economy."

"Despite all the problems, they've kept things pretty much the same here," Proctor said. "When you consider what's happening in other places, that's good. And I also like the flexibility in my department."

While there's been belt-tightening, said Stephen Nowicki, the university's dean of undergraduate education, it's been gradual, not abrupt.

"It's far less than at Stanford and Harvard, where they've had to lay people off," said Nowicki, strolling across the quad in front of Duke Chapel. "Nobody has been laid off here. I think that's kept the morale up."

While pleased with the recognition, Cavanaugh said Duke still has much work to do.

"We want to be the premier employer in this area and in the nation," he said. "And that's incredibly challenging given the balancing act of trying to maintain morale and make the changes that need to be made. So far, though, we've hit a very good balance."

I can see some things in that list that Shaw needs to work on. When I can get access to the Chronicle, I will update the link or provide more information.

Mike Broadway

The "At-Will" Principle: Legal, but Not Right

I'm not a lawyer. The following paragraphs are not certified legal opinions. They are my attempt to make sense of court opinions and legal essays on employment law.

The doctrine of "at will" employment appeared historically in the years after the emancipation of slaves in the U.S. It is first asserted in 1877 in a law treatise discussing "master-servant" relations. In an imagined free market in which the master and servant enter into an employment relationship, nothing limits the ability of either, but especially of the employer, to terminate the relationship. This assertion came to be Incorporated into the late nineteenth-century understanding of the rules of employment, unless a written contract specifies otherwise. From the perspective of our time, it is not hard to see the residue of the slavocracy being repackaged at the end of the era of Reconstruction.

Since workers and employers are not by any careful analysis "equals," the result was a growing body of juridical decisions and traditions of employment practice by which the employer became the sole determinant of the conditions of employment for the vast majority of workers. North Carolina is one of thirteen states which does not accept the idea of an "implied contract." However, all states subject the concept of "at will" employment to certain limitations.

The most prominent hindrance to unilateral termination by the employer is a written agreement specifying the term of employment and the permissible causes of termination, a contract. In addition, the arbitrary and unilateral power of an employer also can face limits when an employee handbook describes conditions of employment, limits on causes for termination, and processes for termination and appeal. Such employee handbooks are among the expectations that accrediting agencies expect of institutions of higher learning. For example, the Faculty Senate and Dean's Council recently completed a collaborative effort of revising the Faculty Grievance Process. Not many years ago, the trustees had adopted the policy now being revised as a requirement imposed by the accrediting commission for the Divinity School.

North Carolina and forty-one other states acknowledge that public policy favoring justice and fairness demands that some reasons for termination must be unlawful: an employee may not be punished for refusing to do something unlawful; an employee may not be punished for exercising rights; and a "whistleblowing" employee cannot be punished for speaking up about unlawful conduct. Furthermore, some specific laws, primarily at the federal level, place limits on dismissal: anti-discrimination laws, family and medical leave laws, worker adjustment and retraining laws, and occupational health and safety laws. Finally, a range of case law, common law, and constitutional interpretations may impact the "at will" principle.

In discussions about employment and dismissals, it is common to hear the statement, "North Carolina is an 'at-will' state." So much for stating the obvious. The next step in reasoning is to examine the ways in which North Carolina employment law revises and limits the "at-will" principle.

But there is a far more important consideration for a liberal arts institution founded and grounded on Christian faith. Now I am moving into my specific training as a scholar of theological ethics. Certainly the laws of North Carolina allow employers to have a great deal of unilateral power over employees. But that does not mean that our moral convictions should be lowered to the least common denominator. Everything that is legal is not right. It is no surprise to any of us that people with the power to interpret the laws do not necessarily look out for the interests of others. Just because something is allowed, or possible, does not mean that we should do it.

Built on humane ideals, aspiring for the betterment of those who have been denied access, our institution should aim for a higher standard of treatment of its employees. The legacy of inequality and arbitrary exclusion that required the founding of HBCUs must not be allowed to remain the rule of their operation. The "at-will" principle deserves to go the way of the slavocracy which gave birth to it. Let us take the lead in this over the majority institutions who are our neighbors. We must be a community who treats its members better.

Mike Broadway

David Goatley Writes About the Lott Carey Youth Seminar

Rev. Dr. David Goatley put his own thoughts together on the Lott Carey Youth Seminar that was held last week at Shaw University's campus in Raleigh, NC. I read the article on EthicsDaily.com. This article reveals Dr. Goatley's insight and commitment to the right kinds of priorities for keeping the church from becoming a museum of our past. Those of us who work with young people should be encouraged to know of his perspective. Shaw can greatly benefit from continuing our relationship to him and the Lott Carey Foreign Mission Convention.

Read the article at this link.