Opinion ID: 1043112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Frederick’s Second Application

Text: Dr. Frederick applied for promotion the next year. This time she included two sets of Management Department Guidelines: those in effect in 2004-2005 and those that took effect in 2006. Between her first and second applications and with regard to -5- professional development, Dr. Frederick neither published nor submitted for publication any papers in peer-reviewed journal articles. She did, however, make two peer-reviewed presentations, started work on some chapters of a book, and collected some “arbitration cases [that she intended to] rewrite . . . to use in [her] Labor Relations class.” Id. at 605. At level one, and although the vote was not unanimous, the Department Committee recommended promotion. The Department Chair at level two, however, did not. He wrote: “[Dr. Frederick’s] performance in teaching and professional development are inadequate for a positive recommendation for promotion to professor. . . . I reached this conclusion based on the contents of the dossier and performance levels of other professors in the department.” Id. at 189. The School Committee likewise did not recommend promotion. It cited Dr. Frederick’s “somewhat wide teaching evaluation variation,” and the lack of a “sustained record of publications.” Id. at 190. At level four, Dean Cochran did not recommend promotion. He wrote: “I must concur with the decision not to recommend from the school committee, the department chair (and two members of the department committee who did not recommend promotion).” Id. at 192. He acknowledged significant improvement “in both teaching effectiveness and professional development,” and commended Dr. Frederick “for her efforts in 2006 and 2007.” Id. Dean Cochran reminded her, -6- however, “that the effort must be sustained and consistent over several years to meet the standards and expectations for promotion.” Id. The Faculty Senate Committee also did not recommend promotion. It wrote: “Your dossier shows recent improvement in professional development and the Committee encourages you to continue on this track so that you may meet the level of sustained performance expected by your department chair, the dean, and the School of Business.” Id. at 193. At level six, Provost, Linda S. Curran, Ph.D., did not recommend promotion. She explained that her “role in reviewing dossiers was not to re-create what other levels of review had done, but [to] . . . make sure that the conclusions reached at each level were supported by the dossier.” Id. at 200. She denied speaking with Dean Cochran or relying solely or even primarily on his comments or those of any other individual or group. Instead, she “considered the dossier and the comments of the various levels of review, as a whole.” Id. at 204. There were two things at play. . . . [O]ne, [Dr. Frederick] appeared not to be undertaking substantive new intellectual activities, and two, there was no substantive follow-through evident for those efforts she had initiated, some of them first begun years earlier. I looked for evidence that she had submitted some of her previous work for peer review, that had not yet been published, but there was no such evidence. There appeared to me to be a flurry of recent activity to get above what she perceived to be the bar for promotion. It appeared that she had a serious misperception of those requirements. Id. at 200-01. Provost Curran observed that in light of the process for AACSB accreditation, “the School of Business had to emphasize the professional -7- development of its faculty[,] [and] [a]s a result, all of the departments within the School of Business revised their department guidelines to incorporate this goal and focus more specifically on the publication of scholarly papers in peer-reviewed journals.” Id. at 201. To her mind, Dr. Frederick did not meet the guidelines. More to the point, Provost Curran stated that Dr. Frederick did not meet the criterion for sustained growth as required by the Handbook, which had not been changed. At the final level of review, the President Stephen M. Jordan, Ph.D., decided against promotion. He addressed several reasons for the decision in an affidavit. First, he explained that “Dr. Frederick had the obligation to submit materials that met her department’s current standards. . . . She may not live in the past and have her contributions ‘grandfathered’ under out-of-date guidelines. . . . What she submitted did not meet the standard for promotion, i.e., a demonstration of sustained growth.” Id. at 1399-40. Second, he stated that although “Dr. Frederick’s contributions were sufficient to maintain her employment[,] . . . [p]romotion requires an effort greater than merely maintaining [and] Dr. Frederick’s contributions were not sufficient for promotion to [p]rofessor.” Id. at 1400. Last, President Jordan said that he “agreed with the levels of review that did not recommend promotion but [he] did not merely ‘rubber stamp’ their decisions.” Id. He “did not rely exclusively on Dean Cochran’s comments – or anyone else’s.” Id. Instead, he “independently review[ed] [Dr. Frederick’s] dossier and [] ma[de] [his] own assessment and decision regarding the merit of [her] application.” Id. at 1401. In the final analysis, “[w]hat caused -8- [him] not to promote Dr. Frederick was the evidence in her dossier that she lacked sustained growth in her professional development and that she was inconsistent in her teaching evaluations. The facts were as they were.” Id. at 1400-01.