John Lewis Denied Tenure at Ashland University

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

I think the best thing a university can do is spell out specifically their objective and ideological requirements for tenure prior to appointing someone to a tenure track position.

Absolutely.

This would be the best practice even if tenure were replaced with a different system, like a series of multi-year contracts.

At Clemson University, the administration is currently pushing the departments to clarify their expectations for tenure and put them in writing. There is a huge wave of retirements going on--it's expected to reach 450 or more by the end of the decade, which means a turnover of nearly half of the faculty. We had over 100 new professors arriving in 2005-2006, and are expecting more than that next year. Many of the new arrivals want to see the expectations for tenure spelled out.

The Psychology Department has done a pretty good job of making expectations clear, though some of this has been done through offline communication between the Tenure and Promotion Commitee Chair and junior faculty members, instead of in letters that get read by the Department Chair, the Dean, and the Provost. We will soon be putting even more detail in our departmental by-laws. I've heard of other departments that may have some catching up to do (like the one that maintains a secret tenure and promotion committee...)

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Not too surprisingly, a discussion of Dr. Lewis's case has been taking place on SOLOP.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2728#comment

Most of Mr. Mazza's analysis of the situation comes across as a tendentious effort to make the Christian Right out as the biggest political threat on the horizon.

However, he cites a couple of Dr. Lewis's own statements on the Harry Binswanger List (a place where I doubt anyone here is likely to venture, on account of the "loyalty oath").

Lewis has blamed his tenure denial, in part, on the new "evangelical" university president. This confirms Michael's take on the situation.

However, Lewis also blames unspecified "neocon" professors who wanted him out for reasons apparently not tied to religion.

It would be nice to know who these folks are and see documentation of their animus, but I don't know whether Lewis provided these specifics, and I can't visit HBL to find out whether he had more to say.

Robert Campbell

PS. Mr. Mazza claims that Bradley Thompson was offered tenure at Ashland under a pre-Finksian regime. If so, he didn't take it. It would be interesting to know why.

[Neil Parille]

As far as the threat of the Christian Right goes, there are dozens of Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries that wouldn't even give someone such as Prof. Lewis an interview, much less tenure. No one comments on this. But when one university (Ashland) reclaims its religious roots (actually an ersatz "Judeo-Christian" religion), some want to make it an example of a sea change in education. One school is hardly an example of a trend (in one direction or another).

Actually, in the last 30 years there have been a couple denominations (Southern Baptist and Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) that have become more conservative. Perhaps this has had a change in their schools, but I don't know enough to comment.

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

The conservative turn by the Southern Baptists eventually led to Furman and Baylor disassociating themselves from their state Baptist conventions.

I would assume that the colleges that have stayed with the Southern Baptists have become more conservative.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Prof. Campbell,

And with the LCMS, the liberals/moderates formed Seminex ("seminary in exile") which eventually was absorbed by the liberal ELCA.

Also, Fuller Seminary was started as a semi-fundamentalist school in 1947, and is now rather middle of the road.

So only someone who hasn't studied these issues in depth or hasn't been around too long (such as Mr. Mazza) would think that the Ashland brouhaha is all that significant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

While looking up Omar Altalib's talk on outreach to Muslims scheduled for this year's TAS summer seminar for another thread, I came across the first talk he will give: My Use of Objectivist Literature in Sociology Classrooms. Here is the lecture description:

Sociology professor Omar Altalib will discuss how he used Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness in his Social Theory course at Ashland University, as well as his use of Atlas Shrugged in his Social Problems course at the University of Mary Washington. The key factor here is that when Rand’s works were assigned in class they generated the most enthusiasm and the most interest from among students when compared to other works. Professor Altalib argues that Rand is especially needed in Sociology classrooms due to the traditional dominance of socialist thinking among American sociologists.

Omar Altalib is a visiting assistant professor of Sociology at the University of Mary Washington. He has B.A. in Sociology & Economics from George Mason University and obtained his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Chicago in 2004. He was an assistant professor of Sociology at Ashland University from 2000 to 2003.

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

My view of this whole mess is very simply stated: he who lives by the sword (judgmental, intolerant, purging philosophy) dies by the sword (judgmental, intolerant, purging philosophy).

REB

[Dragonfly]

They get a taste of their own medicine and shouldn't whine while it doesn't taste good. There are even idiots who think this is evidence for the imminent threat of evangelical Christians. What a bunch of losers.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Since Omar Altalib, like Bradley Thompson, used to be at Ashland but left well before John Lewis was denied tenure, it does make you wonder why he and Thompson left.

The explanation in Altalib's case may not be terribly exciting. Barring a misprint, it appears he didn't finish his PhD till he'd left Ashland. Most universities will not hire someone without a Ph.D. as an assistant professor in a field like sociology, though they might hire someone with that background as an instructor. Instructor is a non-tenure-track position. Altalib was most likely never on the tenure track at Ashland.

Robert

[Chris Grieb]

I have already posted about Omar. He was one of the real finds at this conference. More later.

[Protagoras6]

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has just posted the facts of the John Lewis/Ashland case and their involvement in his defense. It now seems clear that Ashland U. violated its own standards of academic freedom, and it clearly violated their contractual agreement with Lewis.

The article and all of the relevant documents can be found at:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8226.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Welcome to OL. I hope you find value here. Thank you for the link.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

Thank you for the link to The FIRE's site.

I'd just seen the piece and was about to post the link.

The FIRE says what we've heard in general terms from a number of sources, namely that the new President at Ashland intended to crack down on irreligion at the university:

increasing restrictions on academic freedom could be the product of Ashland’s turn toward evangelicalism. This past year, Frederick Finks, formerly president of the Ashland Theological Seminary, was appointed president of the university, and the Board of Trustees authorized amending the mission and identity statements this past March to emphasize that Judeo-Christian values are at the center of the university’s social and academic environment.

Sources with connections to the Leonard Peikoff Institute keep asserting that unnamed "neocons" on the faculty also had it in for Dr. Lewis. So far I've seen no corroboration from an independent source.

Robert Campbell

[Protagoras6]

The FIRE documents are incredibly revealing. First, it's now absolutely clear that Lewis was required by his Ashland University contract (via the Anthem Foundation grant) to research and write on Ayn Rand. Had Lewis failed to do so, he would have been in violation of his contract. In other words, he was contractually obliged to do exactly what he did. Futhermore, Ashland's public commitment AAUP standards of academic freedom are now a sham given the Lewis case.

I don't understand why he didn't sue them. It seems to me that he has a solid case.

There have been suggestions all over the blogosphere that a (non-religious) neoconservative cabal were behind Lewis's denial of tenure. This much is publicly known: A quick look at the Ashland political science/history dept. suggests that the dept. is dominated by third-rate Strausseans and that they all have connections to the Ashbrook Center at AU.

I know some people who know some people at Ashland, so I hope to know some more very soon.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

With no connections of my own at Ashland, up to now I've had no way to evaluate the claims that "neocons" were trying to run John Lewis out of there. I put scarcely any credence in blanket statements made by a junior acolyte at the Leonard Peikoff Institute who claims as his source some remark made on a closed email list with a loyalty oath. What you have to say about the ideological allegiances of some other folks in the History/Poli Sci department at least lends some plausibility to the charge.

Even so, were departmental colleagues at Ashland able to get anyone below the Provost to recommend against tenure for Dr. Lewis? (I don't know their system--do they have a department tenure committee, for instance? Does the Department Chair write a tenure letter?) Did departmental faculty ill disposed toward Dr. Lewis have the ear of Provost Suggs and President Finks, enabing them to prevail despite support for his tenure bid at lower levels?

I look forward to whatever you are able to discover.

Meanwhile, the documents made public by The FIRE and they are indeed damning. They confirm that President Finks lied to the Chronicle reporter about the nature and scope of the Anthem Foundation grant.

I know a little bit about tenure and promotion issues, having been chair of my department's tenure committee for 7 years. We try to do things by the book in our department, but I see ugly stuff being done on occasion in other parts of the university. I also have served a couple of terms on Clemson's Faculty Senate and am reasonably familiar with the range of character and conduct to be found among upper administrators. I blogged for over a year at Liberty and Power on the incredibly difficult struggle to replace one of the worst university presidents in American history, at the University of Southern Mississippi; his actions included firing two tenured professors on the spot because they had produced evidence that one of his Vice-Presidents had lied on her résumé, and "forgetting" to send an applicant's tenure documents to USM's board (which has to give final approval for tenure) because his daughter wanted the applicant out of "her" deparment.

My experience tells me that Ashland's upper administration played some really dirty pool in Dr. Lewis's case, but what it did is a long way from unique.

I also understand perfectly well why Dr. Lewis did not sue. It is hard to win a denial of tenure case, even when the violations of announced institutional standards are blatant. The result, if one wins, is usually not being awarded tenure at the institution, and Dr. Lewis, for obvious reasons, wouldn't be eager to stay at Ashland if a judge ordered the university to keep him. There are delays, multiple sources of aggravation, bills piling up, and none of this activity is going to help the plaintiff further his academic career.

Nor would winning the case restore the toehold that the Anthem Foundation thought it was getting at Ashland University.

Finally, Dr. Lewis's alignment with the Leonard Peikoff Institute might not hurt his chances of prevailing in a lawsuit, but it is definitely a public relations liability.

After the Ashland University debacle, and the turndown at Texas State, I hope the folks at the Anthem Foundation are thinking long and hard about the wisdom of maintaining their alliance with the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert Campbell

[Protagoras6]

Here are some more facts that are being discussed on different discussion boards and blogs and which are emerging from people at Ashland. Lewis is also apparently making publicly available all the letters of evaluation concerning his tenure application.

1. A university-wide faculty committee that heard Lewis's appeal ruled unanimously in favor once all the facts were made known. Here's what they found.

2. During Lewis's first year at Ashland six years ago, Peter Schramm, the most senior member of the political science dept. and director of the neocon Ashbrook Center, was formally reprimanded by a dept. personnel committee for violating Lewis's academic freedom. It turns out the dept. chair, David Foster, put Schramm on Lewis's dept. tenure committee. The committee, by majority vote, supported Lewis. Schramm did not. Better yet, it turns out that Schramm is also the only Ashland University faculty member on the university Board of Trustees. Mmmm!

3. Dept. chair, David Foster, is said to have written annual evaluations of Lewis that were highly favorable about his teaching and scholarship every single year until the year Lewis applied for tenure. Foster's tenure letter is said to be a "hit job" against Lewis despite years of very favorable letters. Foster, it turns out, is an adjunct fellow at the Ashbrook Center.

It sounds to me that the whole thing was set up by the neocons from the beginning of the process. Apparently there are Muslims teaching at Ashland and many secular liberals who have publicly stated that they are not religious. My guess is that Schramm started the ball rolling in the dept., Foster wrote the first official letter against Lewis, and then Schramm finished the job as a member of the Board of Trustees. The atheist Strausseans used and manipulated the more pious people at Ashland.

The big question for me is not why the religious people at Ashland wanted Lewis out, but, rather, why the non-religious Strausseans wanted Lewis out.

[Chris Grieb]

This is getting interesting.

Does anyone who is running the Ashbrooke Center? The center is named for a very conservative GOP congressman deceased.

If what you are reporting is true then neo-cons have taken the Center over.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

This is indeed getting more interesting.

Which means it raises a bunch more questions.

1. What was Peter Schramm reprimanded for doing to John Lewis, specifically?

2. Since Dr. Schramm had been reprimanded by the department personnel committee for some kind of improper action toward Dr. Lewis, what the hell was he doing on Dr. Lewis's department tenure committee? (And... The department chair decides who will be on a department tenure committee, when he will be making his own tenure recommendation? What kind of system is that?)

3. Since Dr. Schramm was on the Board of Trustees, which has final governing authority at Ashland, how could he also be serving on a department tenure committee without creating a major conflict of interest? Why wasn't he required to recuse himself?

4. How was the department chair, David Foster, prevailed on to write a negative recommendation for tenure when he had given John Lewis five years' worth of favorable evaluations? (This kind of pattern--a series of favorable, even strongly favorable, annual evaluations from the department chair, followed by a negative recommendation for tenure or promotion--happens a lot more often in academia than you might think. It, of course, also regularly leads to grievances and lawsuits.)

5. Why, exactly, did Peter Schramm have it in for John Lewis, apparently from Day 1? Ideological reasons? Personal?

6. This in no way detracts from the institution's responsibility, but... if Dr. Lewis knew that Dr. Schramm had it in for him, and was well connected at Ashland, didn't he anticipate that Dr. Schramm would seek to block his bid for tenure, and that Dr. Schramm might be able to get away with it? Why did Dr. Lewis stick around? Junior faculty members who see a roadblock to tenure where they are generally try to move to another institution where their prospects will be better.

Robert Campbell

[Protagoras6]

I don't know the answers, Robert, to your questions relative to the Schramm and Foster.

With regard to John Lewis, one can only assume that he naively assumed that his teaching and publication record were so superior that they couldn't possibly deny him tenure. The evidence clearly suggests that he had good reason to think so.

The whole thing seems to have gone down something like this. Lewis assumes that he's a slam dunk for tenure and promotion and doesn't object to Foster putting Schramm on the commitee. Schramm then votes against tenure with the rest of the committee supporting tenure. Foster then, despite years of strong letters, rummages through all of Lewis's published writings and digs up a few passages that suggest that Lewis thinks that Aristotelian morality is superior to Christian morality, and recommends that he not be given tenure. Meanwhile, Schramm is working the upper administration and the Board of Trustees.

[Protagoras6]

Any thoughts on why neocons would hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism so much (more so, possibly, than even the Christians)?