Thursday, May 15, 1975 THE MICHIGAN DAILY Page Seven SA deanship crisis probed ing considered for tenure in that Department. THE FACTS reveal in addition that four faculty perso-ns on the Executive Committee of the Zoology Department were as- signed to read and julge five of the 33 publications which ap- peared on Dean Cobb's curri- culum vitae. These faculty per- sons accomplished this task of reading and evaluatiot during the period between 7:10 p.m. on Thursday, January 23, 1975 - after the five aricles were xeroxed - and 2 p.m. on Fri- day, January 24, 1975, when the Executive Committee convened to vote on the tenure question. The evidence revals further that Professor Morris Foster who was one of the faculty members from the Zoology De- partment assigned to read the five articles authored by Dean Cobb, was specially selected to serve on the Executive Com- mittee because he was a cell biologist. The evidence provided by Pro- fessor Gans indicates that Pro- fesor Foster did not read the ar- ticles written by Dean Cobb un- til one-half hour before the Executive Committee met on Friday to decide the tenure question. We do not know how much previous familiarity Pro- fessor Foster had with D e a n Cobb's work. THE EXECUTIVE Commttee also solicited the oral com- ments of three persons working at medical schools other than the University of Michigan who apparently were familiar with the work of Dean Cobb. Accord- ing to the evidence this Com- mittee received, these three out- side persons reported that Dean Cobb's work did "not represent the most significant articles in the field," and it was for this reason in part that the Zoology Department voted against ten- ure. Only one person at the Univer- sity outside of the Zoogy De- partment was contactol during the tenure review pra.:ess. This person, a professor at the Uni- versity of Michigan Medical School, gave a favo-able re- port about Dean Cobb, but his appraisals were either inaccur- ately interpreted by the Execu- tive Committee or they were simply minimized when the ten-' ure decision was made. In summary, Dean Cobb was denied tenure: (1) even though she was assumed to be a good teacher; (2) because three per- sons from outside institutions, whose names were held in con- .fidence, purportedly asserted that her work was not "among the most significant" in t h e field; (3) because five of her thirty-three publications, which were read by thr-P faculty per- sons between the hoitrs of 7:10 p.m. (Thursday) and 2 p.m. Friday), were not deemed to be "the most significant articles in the field"; (4) despite the favorable comments given by a professor in the Medical School who knew Dean Cobb person- ally and who is familiar with her work; and (5) even trough no one on the extended Execu- tive Committee - wi-h the ex- ception of Professor Foster - had ever met her or talked to her. THERE IS at least one addi- tional fact whiih suggests that the tenure decision could not and should not have been made in twenty-four hours. This fact is that the Dean of the Medical School in response to an inquiry from Vice President Rhodes did not make a tenure decision in twenty-four hours, but instead within twenty-four hours ren- dered the following opinion about Dean Cobb: "We have reviewed her cur- riculum vitae with the Chair- man of our Advisory Commit- tee on Appointments, Promo- tions and Titles, and it is his judgment that she would eas- ily qualify for a tenure level faculty appointment in the Medical School. It is possible to make this judgment from the review of the curriculum vitae and bibliography, since she has a number of publica- tions in national journals that have a rigorous editorial pro- cedure." Given the facts above, it is difficult to believe that the Zoology Department could have made a valid judgment about the qualifications of D e a n Cobb in twenty-four hours. The fact that the Executive Com- mittee of the Zoology Depart- ment met briefly on January 29 and affirmed its previous con- clusion does not alter this Com- mittee's opinion that the +en- ure review process was inade- quate. This Committee believes that no person who is being con- sidered to serve in a top admin- istrative position in this Univer- sity should be given such sum- mary treatment in a tenure re- view proceeding. At the same time, it should be clear that our criticisms a r e purely procedural. This 1ommit- tee is not qualified to j u d g e Dean Cobb's qualifications as a zoologist. Indeed, this Commit- tee was instructed by Presi- dent Fleming not to concern itself with this issue. Evidently, the information which t h e Search Committee and t h e Eoology Department received regarding Dean Cobb as a scien- tist was mixed. The procedures used to evaluate her were man- ifestly inadequate. 4. Tenure for Deans The facts in this case make it clear that the Zoology Depart- ment failed to consider D e a n Cobb's proposed administrative appointment as a significant factor in the tenure decision. Some members of this Commit- tee believe that such failure was inappropriate. In other words, the fact that a person has been tentatively selected to assume an impotant adminis- trative position should be a weighty consideration in t h e subsequent tenure review p r o- ceeding. Others do not bl:eve that a proposed administratve appointment should be a signi- ficant factor in the te aure de- cision and that tenure should be awarded on academic merit alone. In addition, the President and Vice President for Academic Affairs failed to pursue the posibility of securing tenure for Dean Cobb in the Medical School after inquiring about such a possibility and despite t h e fact that the Medical School Dean responded that Dean Cobb "would easily qualify for a ten- ure level appointment irb t h e Medical School." Some mem- bers of this Committee believe that the possibility of a tenure appointment for Dean Cobb at the Medical School snould have been pursued as a viable option. These members believe the grant of tenure from either the Medical School or the Zaclogy Department should have been adequate for her appointment to an administrative positi>n. The majority of the Commit.ee does not believe that a grant of Med- ical School tenure would h a v e solved the tenure proolem in this case. S. The Regents The ultimate authority of the Board of Regents over the af- fairs of the University, as de- rived from the state constiut- tion, is clear. However, unwrit- ten past practices may become unclear and confusing with turn- over in the membership in the Board of Regents, execntive of- ficers, and other staff who are responsible for the administra- tion of policies, practices, and procedures. Deans are an essential part of the administrative line of the University; they work directly for the President and Vice Pre- sident for Academic Affairs. On whatever basis Vice Presi- dent Rhodes and President Fleming made their decision in favor of Acting Dean Frye to fill the deanship position, the role of the Regents shoulI have been to push them very hard to explain and justify procedures, processes, reasons, pras a n d cons. Under normal circum- stances and if appropriate pro- cedures have been followed, se Regents ought to give substan- tial weight to the recommenua- tion of the President. If in this case, after such ques- tioning, the Regents were still unwiling to accept the recom- mendation of the President, they should have told President Flem- ing and Vice President Rhodes to think about it some more and return after due deliberation. In any event, the dean selec- tion decision by the Regents should not have been made has- tily as it appears may have hap- pened in this case. THE SUGGESTION for a two- year contract, this Committee was told, originated with the Regents; whether it did or not, they should not have made it or accepted it. The evidence given to this Committee reveals that most persons who have been appointed to deanship posi- tions at the University of Michi- have been given either indefin- gan during the past two decades ite or five-year term appoint- ments. More importantly, every person who has been brought in from an "outside" insti ution to assume a deanship position at the University of Michigan has been given either a five-year term or indefinite term appoint- ment. Therefore, the Regental offer of a two-year term appointment to Dean Cobb was at variance with the practice heretofore fol- lowed with "outsiders" who have asumed deanship positions at the University of Michigan. This Committee can only con- clude that the Regental offer of a two-year term app utment was inappropriate under tie cir- cun'stances of this case. 6. The Process of Negotiations with Dean Cobb The process of negotiations with Dean Cobb were confused because of multiple contacts, both oficial and unoffical, be- tween various University sourc- es and Dean Cobb. These in- cluded The Michigan Daily, con- tacts with parents of a student, contacts with Regents (some of which were initiated by Dean Cobbs), and contacts with both President Fleming and V i c e President Rhodes. In the con- versations between Dean Cobb and Vice President Rhodes ar- rangements for a time to meet could not be consummated. An additional aspect of he problem was the manner in which the negotiations were handled by the President and the Vice President for Academ- ic Affairs. In would appear that from Dean Cobb's perspective, she was never accorded the courtesy that traditionally ac- company professional negocia- tions of these sorts. When Dean Cob was first contacted by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, she was not told that she would be welcomed or giv- en his support if she came to Michigan. To the best of this Committee's knowledge, neither the President nor the V e Pre- sident for A :ndemic Afairs of- fered "congratulations" or "welcome' to Dean Coub. Nei- ther appeared to Dean Cobb to be genuinely interested in successfully completing the ne- gotiations. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that, at the time when Dean Cobb first heard from Vice President Rhodes, he had just come from a couple of days of difficult discussions about the Cobb matter. He was apparently having some diffi- culty in deciding how to handle the negotiations with Dean Cobb. The situation was apparently distressing for Vice President Rhodes because he was going to have to tell Dean Cobb that she was not his first choice; he was concerned about the problems that might follow from that ad- mission. It may have been be- cause of these difficulties, and because he did not know that Dean Cobb had been told by friends and The Daily that she was the Regents' choice, that Vice President Rhodes seem- ingly did not perceive (as he should have) Dr. Cobb's expe- tant state of mind, and he there- fore appeared to Dean Cobb to be discourteous when he first spoke to her. THIS COMMITTEE believes it is unfortunate that an early meeting between Dean Cobb and Vice President Rhodes and Pre- sident Fleming was not arrang- ed. Vice President Rhodes should have been mors diplo- matic in his initial conversation with Dean Cobb, and he should have been more flexible in of- fering alternative times for them to meet. On the other hand, Dean Cobb should have been more flexible and should have pressed for an appropriate time for them to meet. ' 7. Disclosure to the Press We recognize that the publica- tion by the Michigan Daily on Sunday, January 19, that Dean Jewel Cobb "will be appo'ited as the new Literary College (ISA) dean," took the Univer- sity officials by surprise. It is clear that the President and Vice President for Adadem.c Af- fairs were not prepared for the publicity and had not an oppor- tunity to consider their proced- ures as to how to consult or ne- gotiate with Dean Cobb in the light of the Regental decision not to accent the President's recommendation. The Daily's disclosure resulted in an atmos- phere which made calm and ob- jective evaluations, decisions, and negotiations more difficult. The Committee beliees that the press had the right to re- port the news concerning the Re- gental action on the deansi,) se- lection. Certain membe s of the Committee believe that the per- son or persons who leaked the information to The Daily acted unwisely and irresponsibly. Two members of the Committee strongly dissent; they believe the news leak to The Daily was simply untimely. 'An additional as- pect of the problem was the manner in which the negotia- tions were handled by the President and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.' 0 - President Fleming