Opinion ID: 2982559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: External reviewers

Text: In August 2008, Nahata, as the chair of Plaintiff’s Division, contacted Plaintiff to assemble a list of possible external reviewers. Although University procedures permitted Plaintiff to suggest names, Plaintiff declined. Moreover, Plaintiff told Nahata that the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Nahata and others made an unbiased tenure review process impossible. Nahata would ordinarily play an important role in preparing Plaintiff’s dossier, but given Plaintiff’s allegations, Nahata recused himself from the process. Dr. Robert Buerki, a tenured professor in the Division and a member of the COP’s tenure committee, took over Nahata’s responsibilities. Buerki assembled a group of professors in the Division to come up with a list of external reviewers. Nahata attended the meeting of these professors, but did not offer any suggestions. The meeting ended with a list of fifteen professors who were asked to provide letters of review. Only five responded initially, and their reviews were mixed. -5- No. 13-3029 Daniel Mullins of the University of Maryland, who had previously worked with Plaintiff, spoke positively about Plaintiff’s scholarship. Plaintiff had a good balance of work, a reasonable number of publications, and Mullins forecasted that Plaintiff’s rate and quality of scholarship would increase in the future. Mullins noted that Plaintiff had fewer and smaller funding grants than his peers, but chalked this up to Plaintiff’s lack of experience in applying for funding, and possibly to his not needing as much funding as others in his field. Marvin Shepherd from the University of Texas also had positive things to say. According to him, Plaintiff had produced exceptional research on limited funding. Both Mullins and Shepherd reconmiended granting Plaintiff tenure. John Brooks from the University of Iowa had a more measured response to Plaintiff’s work. Brooks observed that Plaintiff had published several papers recently, suggesting more to come in the near future. But Brooks commented that Plaintiff’s research lacked a compelling theme. Even Plaintiff’s own description of his research interests could not weave its disparate topics into a single thematic arc. Brooks also believed that Plaintiff had produced too many unpublished reports compared to published peer-reviewed papers. Brooks concluded that Plaintiff’s work compared favorably to his peers, but could benefit from focus. Two of the reviewers had distinctly negative opinions about Plaintiff. Joel Hay of the University of Southern California commended Plaintiff for the number of peer-reviewed publications he had produced, but found their content to be lacking. The articles Hay had received were descriptive, not analytical, and therefore failed to show any expertise or innovation in Plaintiff’s self-proclaimed area of research. David Kreling from the University of Wisconsin—one of the professors who had provided a letter for Plaintiff’s fourth-year review— was even more negative. Plaintiff had no main focus to his work, and had not published in the -6- No. 13-3029 journals most associated with his field. The articles were not innovative or creative, and scattered over too wide of an area. In sum, Plaintiff’s body of scholarship was mediocre at best—possibly below par compared to his peers. Once these five letters had been received, Buerki wrote a letter to Dr. Anthony Young, chair of the COP’s tenure committee. Buerki principally summarized the external reviewers’ letters, but also briefly noted Plaintiff’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service. In addition, several faculty members had discussed Plaintiff’s dossier, and noted that Plaintiff had not made substantial progress in meeting the expectations set forth in Brueggemeier’s fourth-year review letter. Buerki’ s letter included a sentence or two containing these thoughts. Nahata cosigned Buerki’s letter, as the chair of Plaintiff’s Division, but did not contribute to its substance. After Buerki had completed his letter, he received two more letters from external reviewers. Abraham Hartzema of the University of Florida wrote positively about the number of publications, and believed Plaintiff’s papers were clearly focused and of high quality. Hartzema also noted that few sources of funding were available in Plaintiff’s area of expertise. Overall, Hartzema believed that Plaintiff had developed his own brand, been productive, and had produced important work. Caroline Gaither, of the University of Michigan, also had some positive things to say. Gaither believed that Plaintiff had produced a sufficient number of papers and that his area of research was valuable. However, Gaither found the quality of the work somewhat wanting. She noted that Plaintiff’s papers were largely descriptive, but observed that Plaintiff had used a variety of methods in these papers. In the end, Gaither thought that Plaintiff compared favorably to his peers, and suggested that he select a few areas in which he could focus his research. -7- No. 13-3029