Poge Six THE MICHIGAN DAILY Thursday, May 15, 1975 I Report on the Cobb affair: At the beginning of ts month, the University's Affirmative Ac- tion Committee released a 46- page report on the literary col- lege (LSA) deanship crisis. The report provided a detailed ac- count of the so-called "Cobb af- fair", and reaffirmed The Daily's accounts of the admin- istration's rejection of Jewel Cobb, the black woman educa- tor unanimously selected by the Regents last January to head LSA. Unfortunately only limited edi- tions of the report have been made available. In the inter- est of providing the campus with complete information on the deanship crisis, The Daily has excerpted the major por- tions of the so-called "Cobb re- port" for reprinting here. Not included are the report's events, chronology and appendices, due to space requirements. Both sec- tions, we believe, are adequate- ly summarized in the report's findings and recommndations. Today's issue includes the re- port's findings. Tomorrow's Daily includes the recommenda- tions. REPORT ON THE LSA DEANSHIP SEARCH, SELECTION, AND NEGOTIATIONS April 4, 1974-January 31, 1975 prepared by the AFFIRMATIVE ACHION COMMITTEE FINDINGS 1. The LSA Deanship Advis- ory Search Committee The Deanship Advisory Search Committee was created on April 4, 1974 by President Robben Fleming. This Affirmaiv Ac- tion Committee believes that the four-part charge to the Search Committee was excllent, and that response of the Sarch Committee to all aspec+s of its charge was essential. However, the Affirmative Action Commit- tee has received no evidence that the charge was carried out fully. No written response to the four elements of the charge was ever made. ONE OF the charges given to the Search Committee at t h e time of its creation was to "pre- pare specifications of qualities and experience to be sought in the new dean." Professor Burks advised this Committee t h a t "President Fleming gave us his criteria for a good dean of LS&A" at the time when t h e Search Committee first conven- ed to commence its work. The Affirmative Action Committee did not receive information as to the specifics of the unwritten criteria which President Flem- ing discussed at that time. (Search Committee ch irman) Prof. (Arthur) Burks said to the Affirmative Action Committee that he did not recall whether President Fleming said a n y - thing about "research and schol- arship" at that meeting. Pro- fesorship Burks stated, "Presi- dent Fleming said that on r Committee (the Search Com- mittee) should not look into the tenure question, but should leave it to him to approach the de- partment involved." The Af- firmative Action Committee does not know whether Presi- dent Fleming mentioned a cri- terion concerning administrative experience in a complex institu- tion as necessary for the dean- ship. Subsequently, after its meet- ing with President Fleming, the Search Committee developed a list of eleven criteria to be used in considering nominees for the appointment to the deanship. One of the criteria agreed upon " 'It would appear that from Cobb's perspective, she was never accorded the courtesies that traditionally ac- company professional negotiations of these sorts. When Cobb was first con- tacted by Vice President Rhodes, she was not told that she would be wel- comed or given his support if she came to Michigan . . . Neither Flem- ing nor Rhodes appeared to Cobb to be genuinely interested in successfully completing the negotiations.' Jewel Cobb Frank Rhodes by the members of the Search Committee was that a nominee "must have had class oom ex- perience, and interest is and un- derstanding of research a n d scholarly work." Professor Burks stated that these criteria along with the others agreed upon, were essentially the same as those previously stated by President Fleming to the mem- bers of the Search Committee during their first meeting. THE SEARCH Committee de- cided, pursuant to its list of criteria, that any of th. three final candidates, (Connecticut college) Dean Jewel Cobb, Dr. David Danelski (of Cornell), or Acting Dean Billy Frye, "would make a good dean of LSA" and they were accordingly recom- mended on the final list submit- ted to President Fleming. It is difficult to understand how the Search Committee could feel that it had fulfilled its charge without submission of a written report, and how the President and Vice President for Acaden- ic Affairs could have accepted a non-written report from the Search Committee. This is es- pecially true in relation to the criteria which were used as a basis for the search and mea- surement of the candidates against these criteria. Neither President Fleming nor V i c e President Rhodes was ever made aware of the criteria used by the Search Commi'tee to measure the qualifications of the prospective candidates for the LSA deanship position. In fact, neither the President nor the Vice President ever inquir- ed of the Search Committee members about the list of cri- teria that had been used to judge the nominees for the dean- ship position. These facts are important because they suggest that there was no cleat and common understanding between the President and Vi.e Presi- dent for Academic Affairs and members of the Search Commit- tee with respect to the criterion of "research and sciolarship" and that of administrative ex- perience in a complex institu- tion. The "research and scholarship criterion is significant because Dean Cobb was subsequently denied tenure in the Zoology De- partment because of alleged de- ficiencies in her research and scholarship. - More importantly it was this tenure denial which eventually caused the Univer- sity to discontinue its negotia- tions with Dean Cobb. The ad- ministrative experience criter- ion is important because t i the factor that President Flem- ing relied upon in recommend- ing Acting Dean Frye over Dean Cobb and Dr. Danelski. In view of the lack of clarity and the lack of mutual agree- ment with respect to the criter- in used by the Search Commit- tee to judge the nominees, it is difficult to understand why the President and Vice President for Academic Affairs failed to in- quire about the list of criteria being used by the Search Com- mittee. One explanation could be that President Fleming as- sumed that his criteria were the same as those used by the Search Committee. ANOTHER possible explana- tion is that the President asn d Vice President for Academic Affairs had a predispositio: to select Acting Dean Frye a n d viewed the Search Committee's role as purely advisory. In this connection, it is significant to note that although both the Pre- sident and Vice President for Academic Affairs had had con- versations with Dean Cobb in June 1974, neither the President nor the Vice President had a thorough interview with Dean Cobb in an efort to measure carefully her qualifications for the position of dean during the time she was a serious candi- date for that position. These facts suggest that both the Pre- sidetn and the Vice President for Academic Affairs were strongly in favor of Acting Dean Frye. This conclusion is made sore plausible by the evidence show- ing that the Presidentand V'ce President both felt that Acting Dean Frye was doing an out- standing job as acting dean; that both men knew Acting Dean Frye; that Vice President Rhod- es had previously appointed Acting Dean Frye to serve as an asociate dean of LSA and had strongly urged him to as- sume the position of acting dean; and that both the Presi- dent and Vice President felt that there was strong support for Acting Dean Frye among many members of the faculty in LSA. On the basis of all the evi- dence, this Committea suspects that neither the President nor the Vice President for Academic Affairs seriously considered the candidacy of the outside nom- inees. It should also be noted that Vice President Rhodes briefly considered resigning from h is position after the Regents se- lected Dean Cobb over Acting Dean Frye. This Committee dif- fers on its interpretation of this behavior. Some members be- lieve it supports the lack of ser- ious consideration of D e a n Cob's candidacy; some feel that it is not a surprising reaction to the Regents' rejection of Mr. Rhodes' first major recommen- dation. With regard to the third ele- ment of the charge to the Search Committee, Professor Burks stated that: "The Committee (te Search Committee) began its task by soliciting names m various ways: by advertising, send- ing open letters to faculty and students, writing to m a n y friends of the University, and by meeting with McKeachie in his capacity as Chairman of the last Advisory Commit- tee for the Rackham Dean- ship." This committee believes that more could have been done by the Search Committee to identi- fy the views of the LSA faculty with respect to the deanship se- lection. For example, the Search Committee could have consulted with the Executive Committee of LSA or the various depart- ment chairpersons and the like. This Committee has no evidence to indicate that such consulta- tion occurred. 2. The Tenure Request Letter On January 23, 1975, Vice Pre- sident Rhodes setn a letter to Professor Carl Gans, Chairman of the Department of Zoology, which read in its en:irety as fol- lows: "I am writing in connection with Dr. Jewel Cobb, a copy of whose curriculum vitae I enclose. I should be most grateful to know whether, if she were to asume an admin- istrative appointment in the University, Dr. Cobb w o u l d qualify for a tenured faculty appointment in the Depart- ment of Zoology. This would, of course, involve no charge against Zoology Department budget. I hope that you, and your colleagues who may be involved in the review of this, will respect the need for con- fidentiality in this matter An early reply would be m o s t helpful." A similar letter was sent to Dr. John Gronvall, Dean of the Medical School, inquiring about the possibility of tenure fort Dean Cobb in the Medical School. In response to Vice President Rhodes' letter the Medical School responded one way and the Zoology Department re- sponded another. The Medical School considered it a serious, yet hypothetical inquiry; t h e Department of Zoology viewed it as a request for a tenure decision. Vice President Rhodes said he was essentially asking for a tenure decision to be made and, therefore, that Professor Gans" interpretation was cor- rect. From these differing re- sponses a majority of this Com- mittee concluded that the letter of inquiry was ambiguous. If the Vice President was actually asking for a tenure decision, he should have insisted upon rig- orous and scrupulous attention to procedures which assure due process. This was all the more important because Vice Presi- dent Rhodes recognized the fact that the Cobb case was a hot one that was out in The Michigan Daily. Procedures can be streamlined but they should not be significantly changed unless proper procedures are assured. University procedures must be able to stand up against the heat of the real world. University ad- ministrators, just as they con- tinue to support concepts of academic freedom, including departmental control and peer judgment of such things as ten- ure eligibility, must at least as vigorously support and streng- then appropriate procaQures. 3. The Tenure Review Process Procedures used in the ten- ure review process to judge Dean Cobb's competence were seriously deficient. It is no: ne- cessary for this Committee to pass judgment on Dean Cobb's qualifications as a zoologist in order to reach this conclusion. The facts in this case reveal that the entire tenure review process was completed within 24 hours. Professor Gans told the Affirmative Action Committee that some members of th3 Zool- ogy Department had copies of some of Dean Cobb's articles in their files. However, this Committee re- ceived no indication that these were the bases of the decision made by the Executive Commit- tee or that they were used in the evaluation of Dean Cobb. Ac- cording to the testimony of Pro- fessor Gans, the Executive Committee in the Zoology De- partment selected only a few of Dean Cobb's articles for re- view and excluded others - without consultation with Dean Cobb - which Dean Cobb con- siders to be significant works of scholarship. Dean Cobb was never contacted by any mem- ber of the Zoology Department. She was never asked to give a seminar or make a personal ap- pearance before the faculty members in the Zoatogy D e - partment as has bee-i done in the past with other persons be-