Members of the Brandeis community are speaking out regarding the administration's botched effort to "implement policy" (read: destroy the teaching environment for teachers and the learning environment for students by getting all Orwellian in the name of sensitivity). From The Hoot:

Dear Editor,

I was distressed to read that the administration is assigning human apparatchiks to monitor Brandeis classrooms to assure linguistic conformity and political orthodoxy. Surely, the administration knows that the technology of authoritarian surveillance has advanced far beyond the primitive methods employed by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and Erich Honecker.

A laptop and a webcam can do the job far more cheaply and efficiently. Just position one unit per class in the back of the room, then patch the feed into a mainframe system located in Bernstein-Marcus. This simple expedient would not only provide an accurate audio-visual record of conversational malfeasance by faculty and students, but the real-time surveillance would allow the administration to dispatch agents immediately into the classroom to stop the utterance of verboten words or ideas

-Prof. Thomas Doherty (AMST)

At its Nov. 8 meeting, the Faculty Senate unanimously adopted a motion expressing concern with the way the administration has responded to complaints about Prof. Donald Hindley (POL).

Earlier this month, Hindley was charged with violating the University's Non-Discrimination and Harrassment Policy for alleged "inappropriate, racial and discriminatory conduct."

The Faculty Senate's motion states that the administration violated a section of the Faculty Handbook when it threatened to suspend or dismiss Hindley without first bringing the issue before the Faculty Senate council.

The motion was sent to The Hoot by Prof. Marc Brettler (NEJS), Chair of the Faculty Senate.

Brettler did not elaborate about the Faculty Senate's choice to adopt a motion. A copy of the Faculty Senate minutes could not be acquired because they had yet to be released to the faculty.

The motion states, "the Provost's letter to the professor includes reference to 'termination' as a possibility if the professor does not accept the suggested remedies," and goes on to cite this as a violation of Section VIIC2a of the Faculty Handbook. Section VIIC2a reads, "when considering suspension or dismissal, the Provost will first consult with the Faculty Senate Council." According to the Faculty Senate "no such consultation occurred" before the Provost's letter was delivered to Hindley.

The motion makes no mention of the time between when the complaint was filed and when Hindley was notified by the administration, or of the apparent secrecy of the investigation into his allegedly racist remarks -- two issues of concern for Hindley as reported in the Nov. 2 issue of The Hoot.

Additionally, the motion does not mention the monitor placed in Hindley's classroom by the Provost.

Hindley did not respond to requests for comment regarding the motion.

Prof. Gordon Fellman (SOC) remarked, "I support the Faculty Senate resolution and believe it is within its responsibilities and obligations to make it."

He added, "I believe the administration of our university is not handling itself well or wisely in its part in the Hindley case."

Student response to the Faculty Senate resolution varied. Eben Cotrelle '10 felt the resolution was too weak. "If this is [the Faculty Senate's] response, then that's not enough. It doesn't even mention his name," he said.

Ryan McElhaney '10 said, "the Faculty Senate is trying to posture itself ... to establish its role in this process ... instead of protect a member of the faculty."

He added, "[the motion] doesn't comment on Hindley being investigated without knowing it."

Ilana Silverstein '11, however, agreed with the faculty's statement. "I think that's a legitimate argument for the faculty to make," she said. "It doesn't say the faculty agrees with what [Hindley] did, but that the administration has to abide by procedure. If the administration didn't, it’s fair for there to be an outcry."

Loren Chen '10 also felt the faculty's action was warranted. "I guess if it's in the Faculty Handbook, if it's clearly stated like that, I would agree with [the faculty] releasing a statement."