Scandal Proves It’s High Time for Academia To Change
By: Tina L. Smith
Tags: USA, Higher Education, Culture, Scandal, Leadership

HIGHER ED LEADERSHIP

Scandal Proves It’s High Time for Academia To Change

Salacious report on Big Ten provost highlights need for changes in faculty evaluation and promotions

Photo by Tobias Rademacher on Unsplash

On July 31, 2020, the University of Michigan released an independently produced 88-page report detailing the sexual misconduct of its recently dismissed provost, Martin Philbert. It wasn’t pretty.

The report, compiled by the WilmerHale law firm, indicates that Philbert had, among other things, engaged in sexual relationships with multiple female employees — often women in the same department during overlapping time periods. His behavior began as inappropriate flirtation early in his academic career at the university and escalated over time. By the time his escapades were uncovered, he’d had sex with six women in his employ, sexually harassed many others, solicited or taken explicit photos of paramours (stored on his university devices), engaged in sexual activity in his office regularly, and threatened to destroy careers of women who indicated they would report his behavior.

It’s worth noting that most of the women harassed, solicited, and abused by Philbert were staff, not faculty.

How could this happen? Easy. The academic system is set up in a way that enables faculty to abuse power, manipulate subordinates, and nurture narcissism.

A speedy, undeterred rise to power

Philbert arrived at the University of Michigan in 1995 as an assistant professor of toxicology in the the School of Public Health. By 2004, he was a full professor and associate dean for research for the school (an administrative position often seen as a stepping stone for ambitious faculty). Six years later, he became dean of the School of Public Health.

In 2017, he became provost for the university — a position of enormous power. A provost acts as the chief academic officer of the university and has responsibility for academic and budgetary affairs across campus, working closely with the university president.

While there had been complaints about Philbert dating back to 2003 and throughout his University of Michigan career about inappropriate behavior, women declined to participate in investigations because they were afraid of repercussions. Ann Arbor, after all, is a small town, and well-funded faculty considered to be rising stars are not to be trifled with.

With no formal investigations completed, the complaints were not considered by fellow faculty as part of Philbert’s evaluation for roles of increasing responsibility (and power).

A flawed system

Academic institutions rely on a muddled system for advancing faculty. Junior faculty must produce a varying combination of publications, teaching experience, and grant funding to be promoted to senior faculty positions (which confer valuable tenure benefits, including “lifetime employment”). Every university has a different version of the process, but most rely almost solely on scholarly accomplishments and evaluation by fellow faculty.

Once promoted, most faculty have little or no acumen for managing the business aspects of their research or (later, if promoted further) department, and they rely on staff to manage these aspects. Many have never had any leadership or personnel management training.

They advance and take on increasingly responsible leadership roles with their sole qualification being academic or research excellence.

A caste system

By the nature of university funding and structure, faculty hold substantially more power than staff. Faculty are seen as the stars who bring in research dollars — the lifeblood of research-focused universities. And many have huge egos that demand subservience by non-“lettered” staff members who are mere mortals.

The culture of Faculty First is toxic.

The Philbert case is a microcosm of a larger problem. The power differential between faculty and staff enables sexual misconduct and other abuses of staff.

In researching this story, I spoke with several employees from universities. One seasoned manager at a Big Ten school recounted how she had been publicly humiliated by a faculty member after pushing back on a directive. She was subjected to ongoing vindictive behavior and then held back professionally with no recourse. A senior administrator of the department pressured her to “let it go.” Another staff person told me how his career was derailed following a dust-up with a senior faculty member at another university. He was unable to find another position in the university and had to leave, as his professional reputation had been destroyed.

Senior faculty hold significant power. Staff have none. Unless and until this power differential is diminished, abuses will continue.

It’s time to change the way faculty are evaluated

The narcissism, abuse of power, and manipulation displayed by Philbert are often the very traits rewarded by academia’s structure and longstanding faculty-focused culture. Faculty at many universities are promoted because they are great researchers or, perhaps more importantly, well funded by grants, not because they are effective managers or attuned to the needs of a larger organization, let alone fellow team members. Focusing on their pet, niche work — not staff development, team collaboration, or interpersonal skills — is what brings them success. Inward focus is rewarded, not outward.

Philbert, like others, preyed on staff (not faculty) because he fully understood that there are no effective safeguards for staff. He held all the power in the relationships. He also knew that staff have no voice in faculty evaluation or promotion, thereby making them expendable and powerless.

As we absorb the horror of the Philbert report and its implications, now is the time to pursue measures to counteract the opportunity for abusive faculty behavior, both sexual and other forms of abuse.

These five changes would change the dynamics

Here are five changes academic institutions should adopt to address this issue:

Require leadership training for all faculty. Develop programs to promote people management skills that engender respect and equal treatment for staff. Don’t allow faculty to advance to an administrative role without solid, proven leadership, demonstrated respectful treatment of others, and interpersonal skills.

Develop programs to promote people management skills that engender respect and equal treatment for staff. Don’t allow faculty to advance to an administrative role without solid, proven leadership, demonstrated respectful treatment of others, and interpersonal skills. Create safe reporting practices for staff to register complaints about faculty misconduct. These procedures must ensure job security, protection, and anonymity for those who report. And the reports must be made part of future evaluations of the faculty implicated.

These procedures must ensure job security, protection, and anonymity for those who report. And the reports must be made part of future evaluations of the faculty implicated. Solicit and incorporate feedback from staff in faculty evaluations. Faculty are largely siloed. Staff usually work much more closely with faculty than fellow faculty or deans and have a unique perspective on their performance, skills, and deficiencies. Their insight goes well beyond funding levels and number of publications. They have a much better concept of how the faculty person would perform at a higher level.

Faculty are largely siloed. Staff usually work much more closely with faculty than fellow faculty or deans and have a unique perspective on their performance, skills, and deficiencies. Their insight goes well beyond funding levels and number of publications. They have a much better concept of how the faculty person would perform at a higher level. Reduce the weight of individual academic and research accomplishments and increase the weight of team accomplishments in evaluations and promotion consideration.

in evaluations and promotion consideration. Compensate and reward staff as legitimate team members who contribute greatly to faculty academic and research success. Professional staff should be treated as equals to faculty; increased compensation and recognition would make that guiding principle completely clear to everyone.

Without a doubt, the University of Michigan will pay a hefty price — financial and reputational— for Philbert’s exploits. Only a serious reckoning of the way faculty are trained, evaluated, and rewarded will prevent similar damage to other universities.