On Jan. 28, 2002 the University's Faculty Senate Assembly unanimously passed the following resolution:

"WHEREAS, the current faculty grievance procedures were recently adopted, with only minor unit specific changes, by the Schools and Colleges in 1998, and WHEREAS there is now some practical experience with the grievance procedures, and WHEREAS there are many strong indications that faculty do not avail themselves of the procedures because of a lack of confidence in 1) the non-determinative nature of the grievance decisions and 2) the lack of objectivity in the designated decision-maker;

THEREFORE be it RESOLVED that: The Chair of Senate Assembly request the Provost to form a joint faculty and administration committee, comprised of three faculty-appointed and three administration appointed members, to draft a modification of the grievance procedures to address these apparent shortcomings."

This action served notice that the freely elected faculty representatives might be inching toward a vote of "no confidence" in the present system of appeal for redress when administration actions leave faculty aggrieved.

Faculty at the University are in the same boat as members of the Graduate Employees Organization when it comes to appealing administrative fiat, despite what you think. GEO President Cedric DeLeon has said that his union's previous contract left the University administration as both "judge and jury." His organization sought independent arbitration in grievance appeals for future contracts and for protection of its members.

We of the American Association of University Professors try to focus sharply on principles that affect faculty and the vitality of higher education. We pay heed to academic freedom, faculty governance, and procedural fairness. Current grievance procedures at the University provoke us on the latter two points; but because fair process is at the heart of our societal liberty, even academic freedom is potentially at risk.

The response from central administration to the alarm sounded by elected faculty representatives has been predictably stonewall-like. In lieu of a working group proposed by the assembly, administrators were dispatched to the Senate Assembly Committee on University Affairs to express satisfaction with present procedures. On Feb. 11, 2002, they made their points in earnest: Of the last 15 grievances filed under the existing policy, every one had been concluded in favor of the administration. What could possibly be wrong with that, they asked?

Under current conditions, an aggrieved faculty member faces intolerable odds under American concepts of fairness. To understand the perversity, it is important to know that many grievances are lodged against deans or department chairs who themselves are appointed by the deans. Aggrieved individuals plead to tribunals of three - two of whom are likewise subordinate to the dean or chair. These Grievance Review Boards can do no more than make a recommendation to the dean. A former vice chair of SACUA reported that in cases he personally studied, recommendations were always rejected when they did not agree with the administration.

Individuals in the Human Resource office who administer the grievance process admit that, as employees of the central administration, their obligation is to those administrators. In that role, they meet with and advise GRBs, appeal boards, and the deans and associate deans in the grievance decision process in asymmetrical "closed door" sessions that exclude grievants.

Faculty representatives pointed out that independent attorneys have pronounced the existing process "a stacked deck." Because GRBs make only recommendations it is not worth the risk of opposing a dean. One chair of a recent GRB even acknowledged that despite evidence that "inappropriate harm" may have been done to a faculty member, the dean's own faculty were unmoved because "maybe they had to worry about subtle and not so subtle reprisals."

The current faculty appeal process is flawed by conflict of interest. Provost and dean, and dean and chair, are allied by the implicit contract of mutual loyalty between them. That this affront to procedural fairness is thriving at an institution devoted to training the future generations of America's leaders should alarm every citizen.

(Please consult the minutes of SACUA and Senate Assembly at www.umich.edu/~sacua for additional information and for the quotations listed above.)

The AAUP is the union that represents university professors. Read more about the grievance procedure and the problems that faculty have been having with it in David Enders' page one story, "Profs who sue 'U' allege retaliation"