From The Sophian, Smith College's student newspaper:

James D. Miller, assistant professor of economics, believes that the decision earlier this year to deny him tenure was based at least in part on his political beliefs. Other economics professors argue that the department remains committed to academic freedom. Recently students have circulated a petition in support of Miller.

Miller, who has taught economics at Smith for seven years, was reappointed in April 2000. Because his reappointment letter was "purely positive," Miller said he was shocked by the decision earlier this semester not to grant him tenure. By a vote of five to three with one abstention, members of the department recommended that the Committee on Tenure and Promotion deny Miller tenure. The Committee affirmed that recommendation, and the Grievance Committee has since decided to consider Miller's appeal.

The College's "Policy of Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure" states that decisions on reappointment, promotion and tenure are based on teaching, scholarship and service to the college.

"My belief is that I was denied tenure because I am a conservative Republican," Miller said.

Faculty members write letters to the Committee on Tenure and Promotion explaining their votes. Letters by faculty who voted against recommending tenure for Miller say that he has not done enough scholarship. Miller has written a book, Game Theory at Work, and six scholarly articles, one of which he wrote prior to his reappointment. Miller said he would understand this reason "If they said in April 2000 'Jim needs 10 [articles].'" Because the reappointment letter was positive and because "what has happened since then is that I basically came out of the closet as a conservative," he suspects the tenure decision was based on his political beliefs.

Two of the letters explaining no votes in Miller's case refer to criticisms he has made of academia, though neither gives this as a main reason for a no vote. One letter cites part of his book Game Theory at Work, and the other cites an article he wrote for National Review Online entitled "Campus Colors."

The latter states, "I would also refer the committee to a piece included in Jim's 'Journalistic Articles' packet: the Guest Comment on NRO entitled 'Campus Colors,' in which Jim says, among other things, that 'professors are mostly left wing,' that '(t)he large number of non-U.S. citizens in American colleges necessarily makes these schools less patriotic,' and that '(p)ractically the only way for a women's-studies professor to get a lifetime college appointment is for her to contribute to the literature on why America is racist, sexist, and homophobic.' I find it extremely disturbingly [sic] that this could be Jim's image of academia."

"The person wasn't disturbed that it was poorly written or illogically argued, but rather she was disturbed by the conservative political views expressed in the article," Miller said. "This article is criticizing colleges for being politically correct. ... This was used as a reason to fire me. I consider that an absolute violation of my academic freedom."

These excerpts from Miller's tenure file are admittedly just that: excerpts. It would be helpful to see how they fit into the wider context of his file. But they are suggestive indeed, and raise serious questions about the integrity of both the authors of the letters (would that Stoll had published their names!) and the overall integrity of the tenure process at Smith. The charge that academic departments stack their faculties with liberals and discriminate against conservatives--that one must effectively pass a series of ideological litmus tests in order to get hired into a tenure-track job and then to get tenure--has been countered by academic scions such as Stanley Fish with the argument that the relative absence of conservative faculty in American academe has nothing to do with institutionalized bias and everything to do with the fact that conservatives simply are not interested in being academics. Cases like Miller's challenge such simplistic dismissals. This will be one to watch.

Thanks to Mitch at Gum for Thought for the link.

UPDATE 6/6/03: A reader who wishes to remain anonymous informs me that the Smith College Grievance Committee has unanimously agreed that Miller's academic freedom was violated. The decision to deny him tenure has thus been invalidated and he'll come up for tenure again--but the details of how that will work and when it will happen remain to be seen. I'll post more as I find out more.

UPDATE 6/9/03: James Miller writes to confirm the update above:

I have had some good news since the Sophian Article was written. Smith's 5 member Grievance Committee unanimously agreed that two members of my department violated my academic freedom during my tenure review and they recommended that I be reconsidered for tenure. Smith's President has accepted their recommendation so I will be coming up for tenure again this coming academic year.

UPDATE 6/12/03: SCSU Scholars has much more on the case, and on tenure review in general. Just keep scrolling.

Assuming he's a competent scholar and teacher - and it sounds as though he is - I fear this is another long tedious destructive scandal in the making. And at the end of all the bloodshed, Smith will have to give him tenure. The comments from the colleague who writes about how 'disturbed' she is by ideas about academia that this fellow has every right to hold are particularly damaging to the department and any commitment it pretends to have to freedom of thought and dispassionate judgment. It's not Miller's job to keep narrow-minded colleagues from being disturbed by ideas that are different from their own.

The more I think it, the circumstances that give rise to situations like the one here and KC Johnson are complex and probably require a Gordian knot type solution.

Here are what I think are the conditions that lead to circumstances like these:

1. The probationary/tenure conditions of employment endorsed by the AAUP and accepted more or less by consensus of the universities (except when they aren't, as in the case of adjuncts) creates an unreasonably high decision threshold. Although the job market is apparently better in economics than the humanities, the perceived value of a tenure decision in this job market is so great that it acquires a political dimension, even for an economist (who should be relatively marketable even without a favorable tenure decision).

2. The tenure decision, on one hand, is clearly so momentous that various forms of hysteria and dissimulation appear to attend it. On the other, the decision criteria are simply not clear. There seems to be a substantial democratic component to the decision among the faculty, which may or may not be good, though by definition the decision becomes political in these circumstances. The other criteria for a favorable decision, as described, are simply not clear. Should he have had two books, eight articles, and two teaching awards? We simply don't know, and he says he doesn't either.

3. The combination results in something approaching life-or-death controversy over unclear criteria. This is, I think, because universities appear to operate in a pre-Enlightenment environment of behind-the-scenes decisions, unwillingness or refusal to adopt publishable and consistent policies in important areas, and political machination. A short synonym for such an environment would be "Byzantine", but Renaissance Popes also come to mind.

The more I see cases like this, the more I think they are not products of individual sets of circumstances but the result of tacit, consistent approaches to university governance. Normal left/right political divides, it seems to me, have little to do with this; while the number of institutions where conservative views prevail is relatively small, the example of Hillsdale College shows that the approach to governance is the same.

If administrators and professors make heavy use of university resources to advance their personal political views, it seems to me that they are engaging in a kind of theft--morally if not legally. Many of these people don't seem to grasp that they are not *owners* of the institution--just like certain corporate CEOs "forgot" they were not sole proprietors and thought it was okay to appropriate corporate cash for personal use.

Stanley Fish may be right that conservatives are not interested in academia. Then again, he may not be.

It seems to me that receptivity to conservatives varies greatly by discipline. Overall, I would think economics was a discipline where conservatives were welcome. Certainly, leftward leaning economists argue that they are marginalized within the discipline, that they cannot get their work published in the major journals, and so on (the Chronicle had an article on this a couple of months ago). I think it a bit disingenuous, however, to suggest, as Fish does, that disciplines such as English lit. or anthropology are as receptive to conservatives as to liberals.

The problem is, given the way the current system works, there's no way to test Fish's claim against the actual process of tenure-granting. As John Bruce points out, the whole process is too secretive. I agree that this is more a question of the system of governance and procedures than of specific ideological/political content (eg, where conservatives are in charge of the very same set of systems and procedures, they do try to shut out liberals). The point should be to reform the system to make it more transparent, more accountable, and more open (ie, let conservatives into the English department if there are conservatives who wish to be there, but by the same token, also let liberals into the econ department...).
(Not saying there aren't econ departments that are more liberal -- eg, perhaps the one at Smith -- but in general I don't think this is the case).

I have a question (or two or three).

My question is general and is not in any way meant to apply specifically to Miller or K.C. Johnson.

When I read this line:

"My belief is that I was denied tenure because I am a conservative Republican,"

I hear echoes of "My belief is that I was denied a promotion/job etc because I am black (or Latino, or female etc.)"

Are we predisposed to believe the first and have doubts about the second?

Do we have a knee-jerk reaction to the second and assume it is pretext and await proof of discrimination while at the same time have the opposite reaction to the first and await proof that it is NOT discrimination?

I have no doubt that such discrimination exists on both levels - but suggest that academia is less developed (at this point) in terms of masking its motives.

Again - this question is not aimed at Miller or meant to imply that his claims are in any way pretextual.
His statement did get my thoughts flowing in that direction however.

I wonder if Stanley Fish would agree that the lack of minorities at elite universities has nothing to do with institutionalized bias and everything to do with the fact that they are simply not interested in attending said universities?

Let's agree that it is still early in the data gathering but the oddest thing is:
Smith College (certainly not a Ph. D. granting school) is firing Miller for his lack of resarch when he has six articles and a book. Now there might be a quality issue (sadly, NRO is not high quality academically) but it appears that Miller has an excellent research record for an individual at primarily teaching institution.

Books mean almost nothing for economists, and some liberal arts schools demand as much research from their faculty as research universities.

For the other comment, I suspect that Fish would be confused the incorrect factual premise of your question, though there's really no reason you shouldn't ask him questions like this if you want to know his response.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that it is a fact that minorities aren't interested in attending elite universities. I was attempting to highlight the Left's hypocrisy inasmuch as they gladly accept the arguement that disproportionate representation of minorities at elite universities must be prima facie evidence of bias, but refuse to accept that lack of ideological diversity in academe is anything other than coincidence.

stolypin--He doesn't just *say* he was denied tenure for political reasons; he presents what is to my mind *convincing evidence* of this, in the shape of two letters from members of the tenure-granting committee.

David, thanks.

I understood, and the article made it clear, that Miller had documentary support for his statement. That is why I tried to make it clear that my question was a general one, not one related to the merits of Miller's case.

My question, I think, was about comparing my instinctive reaction to Miller's statement: "yup, sounds like par for the course"; with my sometimes (and I emphasize sometimes) more sceptical instinctive reaction when I hear a statement about racial, sexual or other "more mainline" forms of discrimination: "just another prextual case designed to coerce a nice settlement check."

I was indulging myself in a bit of self-critical analysis and was wondering if anyone else had thoughts along those lines.

For John Bruce: I work in a university where the rules are written down and enforced by a unionized faculty contract. What you get as a result is a race-to-the-bottom, where each department tenures someone who's "collegial" and their minimal performance becomes the new standard for others. And when the administrators wave these people through because they fear the grievance procedure that will surely follow denial of promotion or tenure, you end up with absolutely no standards whatsoever.

"So hire administrators who aren't cowards," you might say. Well yes, sure, and good luck finding one.

With a morning's reflection on this issue, I think it's great that I have an opportunity to answer kb's post soon after he's made it.

As I was occupied with other matters, it kept coming back to me that "tenure is not a basic human right." I see a certain problem if various Millers, Uttls, and Johnsons present themselves as, in effect, poster-victims for flaws in the tenure process. Rosa Parks made an example of herself for a basic human right. However, assistant professors who are denied tenure and make a point that it was somehow a flawed system due to considerations of collegiality, or because they wrote for NRO, or whatever, are not scoring any points at all for basic human rights.

They are, instead, using whatever publicity tools are available to them to get reconsideration of decisions that will, if reversed, place them in lifetime jobs, with a lack of accountability that is normally reserved for the elder children of aristocrats. While KC Johnson seems to be the most attractive member of the current group, like many professors, by and large these guys do not come off well. To some extent they are claiming an entitlement that is simply not available to all but a tiny number of the population, and they are claiming that some type of injustice has been done. If such is the case, I think the injustice is relative indeed.

It reminds me in some ways of Samuel Jobnson, who undertook to save a condemned criminal from hanging -- the fellow may or may not have been innocent, but Johnson volunteered his offices to write appeals and letters on the condemned man's behalf. In the end, the efforts were unavailing, and Johnson wrote the guy explaining that, and telling him that at least, unlike nearly everyone, he knew when he was going to die, and as a result might perhaps spend the next week or so in prayer and reflection.

I can't help but think a reaction something like this is the best in this case. Most people don't have as much notice of layoff as these guys are getting, and perhaps they might reflect on this.

To kb, the problem I see in all such cases is that in fact the major philosophical and religious traditions suggest that human beings are not made for a risk-free environment. The more I think about the AAUP statement on tenure and academic freedom, the more it occurs to me that it is completely incoherent. It insists that tenure is necessary for academic freedom, and says students are entitled to academic freedom -- when students don't have tenure, and the AAUP apparently is not insisting they should. (Who wrote this?) Not only that, but if you reflect for a moment, innovation always carries a component of risk. Insofar as academic freedom suggests innovation (I can't imagine that it would not), then removal of the risk component seems contradictory -- a nice idea, but contradictory.

I think more and more as well that a false idea of a risk-free, lifetime job is what draws so many graduate students to glut the Ph.D. market. So in all these cases I find my sympathy limited and indeed, declining.

John B...interesting analysis. It's true that "tenured professor" represents a level of privilege that few people will ever attain. This doesn't mean, however, that people who are treated unfairly in applying for these positions don't have a moral right to complain.

Suppose a person hopes to become CEO of a major corporation--also a position that few will ever attain. Assume also that he is exclued from consideration because of his racial background...and that there are *actual letters* from members of the board, stating that his race was a major reason they voted against him. Should he complain, or should he simply say, "Well, it was a position few people get anyway..and I am already a Senior VP, so I should be happy with what I've already got..." ?

The analogy isn't perfect, but it is suggestive. A major reason for raising the issue (in both cases) is not just to protect your own interests, but to preserve the integrity of the process.

David, you're right that it's hard to draw a parallel, in part because, as Invisible Adjunct has pointed out, a denial of tenure or a period spent as an adjunct can be damaging to an academic career in ways that don't happen in the "real world".

First, in the "real world", leaving aside lawsuits under employment or civil rights law, or civil service rules, layoffs or terminations are typically final, that's it, sorry, you're gone. There may be extenuating circumstances, he said, she said, it didn't happen that way, but when you're out, you're out. There may even be reconsideration, but basically such decisions aren't reversed.

In fact, if you sue, you typically aren't taken back in, but instead get monetary damages if you prevail. The assumption, which is correct I think, is why on earth would you want to be back there? So in part I wonder -- especially reading the accounts of some of the personal conflicts involved in these cases -- why would Johnson or Uttl or Frederick Lang or any other such WANT to go back to this environment? Why not shut up and sue for damages? (Probably because you don't have a caze is the short answer).

Same thing if corporate managers are so obtuse as to allow a solid case to be built for passing over someone due to race, religion, national origin, gender, or whatever else -- they've already said they don't like Uzbeks, why would I want to work with them if they don't like me?

The issue is the extremely high deciion threshold associated with tenure, it's a life-or-death decision, partly I think because it involves this utterly unreal entitlement to a lifetime of risk-free "employment".

I'm haunted by kb's description of the "race to the bottom" you get (or at least his/her university gets) when unions and grievance procedures step in. At the same time, I think it's implicit in some of what John Bruce says that the mysterious nature of the tenure decision process, plus (what he doesn't say) the increasing difficulty of legitimating knowledge in (just to use short-hand) a postmodern time, results, in many cases, in a similar recourse to stuff like "collegiality" (which I assume to be the lowest common denominator invoked at kb's university as well). A bad situation, in short, either way.

There's an interesting related piece on this in the online Journal Inquirer at

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8151077&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

A quote from two of the CCSU faculty, expounding on the "academic freedom" and "diversity" currently enjoyed there:

"The protests against reparations stand on the same platform that produced apartheid, Hitler, and the KKK," their statement says. "Unfortunately, many of these individuals clothe themselves in academic gowns and hold their 'intellect' as the standard bearer of enlightenment."

These are professors who, one would think, can tell the difference between a valid statement and Informal Fallacy, but they continue:

"It is unfortunate that the blind rage of hatred against black skin holds so many minds captive both in academic gowns and pinstripe suits, as well as white hoods."

So according to these learned two, opposition to the flawed notion of 'reparations' makes one a Nazi. I don't care about their politics, these two simply are not INTELLIGENT enough to be teaching at any level, let alone university! But that seems to be the lay of the land these days.

Regarding the update and the grievance committee's reversal of the decision, it seems to me that we could then say that by definition the process was not corrupt, since within the due process of Smith's own procedures Miller had his case heard.

I had a chance to discuss this and situations like Uttl's and Johnson's with an attorney who specializes in employment law, who thinks my later take on the situation is the correct one. The bottom line from a legal position, in this view, is that there is a discretionary component to the process. If the university's hiring procedures have some type of democratic component (and why shouldn't they?), even if this component runs out of control, if the university is following its procedures consistently and the result isn't some consistent pattern of discrimination against protected groups, then there really isn't an identifiable problem with the procedure, at least that could be attacked from a legal standpoint.

The problem with life is that sometimes bad things happen to good people. There's nobody you can sue if a child dies of an incurable disease, for example. And it is much, much less of a tragedy if a popular assistant professor is turned down for tenure.

But if the problem has been working its way through Smith's internal system, and the result wasn't as bad as initial conjecture, might Critical Mass wish to consider what kind of standard it might apply to posting these situations? It seems to me there may be a temptation for any assistant professor to stress some perceived injustice in his tenure process and start creating publicity in the blogosphere.

I suspect Dorothy Rabinowitz went to considerable lengths to get all the relevant information on KC Johnson's case before going public with it in the WSJ. The problem is that the Johnson case may encourage many others, with proportionally less justice on their side, to try to agitate the blogosphere into crying "wolf". The twofold problem would be insufficient real facts (an issue kb raised on his site, clearly with some basis), and the simple fact that whether someone gets tenure or not is a question of extraordinary privilege, when you get right down to it, and perhaps not something we should be assisting very often.

A good example of a college policing itself, and very heartening. As to the danger that every person who fails to get tenure will begin hysterically blogging - so what? It'd be better if they did that than what they do now, which is to sue everyone in sight. Blogging is a lot less expensive and a lot more fun for all of us. And if it's openness you want, rather than the darkness of traditional tenure procedures, you can hardly complain about the democratic blogvistas opened up by this trend.

I think we're capable much of the time - even with less than total information - of distinguishing at least in a rough way between deserving and undeserving candidates for tenure. The more quantifiable the matter becomes (however you feel about the trend toward quantifying), the easier for the rest of us to judge, of course. It was in fact pretty easy in this instance.

Cut chantal, what would this do for the credibility of the blogosphere, or more specifically a site like this one? As a practical matter, every disappointed assistant prof with personality issues will not only argue his case here and elsewhere if given the opportunity, but also continue to sue everyone in sight (the one doesn't exclude the other, especially as the one is free).

It seems to me that high-quality discussions like the current ones on Invisible Adjunct have the possibility of elevating key issues into greater visibility in the public discourse.

This was done by the function of the blogosphere in doing things like focusing attention on the credibility issues in the New York Times (and the point was made, it was doing this long before the Blair affair). But it was doing this because individual bloggers were adhering to high standards of discourse and picking their battles carefully, not crying "wolf" at every perceived instance of liberal bias.

If a site like Critical Mass publicizes "possible" corrupt tenure cases without reference to key facts (such as the fact that the Smith process wasn't completed at the time of the initial post), it won't have the reputation for credibility that has allowed the Reynoldses, Sullivans, or Kauses to influence debate and events the way they have.

There are influential blogs and there are all the others.

I meant "But chantal", not "Cut". No threat or slight intended.

Oh, I don't know - catching this one early was fine, I think. The other influential blogs you mention have made questionable calls on occasion themselves, following stories that weren't worth following, or where there wasn't much information to go on - it's the nature of the quick-paced blog universe. When you're wrong, you apologize and move on. Those influential blogs seem to have survived their bad calls....Okay, I've said enough...so...CUT!