Dismissal of professor an unjust, unwarranted act

All of us who care about a quality university should take a hard
look at the East Asian Languages and Cultures Department. The
department’s Chinese language program dismissed one of its
best lecturers this year in a manner disgraceful to the
department.

When Huey Lin was hired as a Chinese language lecturer in fall
2003, she came with strong qualifications, including a doctoral
degree in East Asian languages and literature from Ohio State
University.

She served the Chinese program well. Her student evaluations
were consistently outstanding. She designed and administered the
Chinese language placement test taken by all students enrolling in
the program.

In May, Lin was stunned to learn she would not be reappointed
for the 2005-2006 school year. The department wouldn’t tell
her why.

Chinese program coordinator Hongyin Tao wrote in an e-mail that
he was on leave for the quarter and “didn’t participate
in any departmental discussions.” Department Chairman Gregory
Schopen offered no clue in another e-mail when he wrote, “All
I can really tell you is that this was a decision made with regret,
but one (that) represents the best judgment of the
department.”

With the help of her union, Lin obtained a copy of the review
letter that the department faculty committee had sent to Schopen.
The letter praised Lin’s teaching performance but recommended
her contract not be renewed due to “several incidents of
unprofessional conduct.”

This surprised Lin, who was unaware of any misconduct on her
part; the department had never discussed any such incidents with
her. The review letter offered no detail about the alleged
incidents.

When the union filed a grievance and held a series of meetings
with the department’s management and Campus Human Resources,
the department refused to provide any information about the alleged
incidents and would not explain its decision to deny Lin’s
reappointment.

All evidence in this case points to dishonesty and
irresponsibility on the part of the department. If Lin had at any
time behaved unprofessionally, why was this never brought to her
attention? Why didn’t the department, prior to its decision,
provide Lin with a copy of the faculty committee’s review
letter and give her an opportunity to respond to allegations before
the committee ““ as required by the department’s
procedures? Why does the department still refuse to explain the
basis for its stripping Lin of her livelihood and stripping the
Chinese program of a proven outstanding instructor?

The department’s action has wider impact as well. What
message does this send to its lecturers in other programs when a
teacher with a strong performance record is dismissed for unknown
reasons? What message is being sent to the students?

Dozens of students and parents have written letters of protest
to the administration. Sadly, this travesty of justice appears to
have been endorsed by all of the department’s senate faculty,
who authorize such personnel decisions by vote. Not one faculty
member has since stepped forward to question the decision.

More culpable for the failed process, however, are the faculty
members of the review committee, Tao and Schopen. Schopen has since
been replaced by returning Chairman John Duncan, who has the
ability and the responsibility to correct the decision and return
Lin to her teaching position.

Howard Ryan is a field representative for University
Council-American Federation of Teachers, which represents
University of California lecturers.