("It's a Lack of Respect", She Replied. -- continued)
Whether chairs realize it or not, they too are evaluated by faculty members, and decisions about where to teach are seriously affected by the faculty-to-chair relationship. Mutual respect and trust are essential.
Moreover, in my experience, in 15 years of teaching, every single complaint ever lodged against me was by a student seeking revenge for a low grade, seeking to force me to lower standards, or seeking to place the blame for the student’s own shortcomings onto me. If a chair does not act to prevent this, the student can anonymously damage the faculty member’s reputation, avoid any personal responsibility for the results, create an atmosphere of apprehension, and seriously damage the relationship between the faculty member and the chair..
Process: Fair and Unfair Procedures
At one school where I taught, a complaint against a student had to be in writing, with copies to the student, the faculty member, the chair, the dean of students, and the academic dean. It was adjudicated by a senior faculty member at a meeting where the faculty member, the student, and a parent if desired were present. It worked well. It was not used frivolously and it was respected.
Similarly, if there is a complaint against a faculty member, it should be in writing and similarly addressed. Openness and accountability are key. Students have ample protections against wrongful retribution.
At still another school, a complaint against a student was investigated by a faculty member, whose being an investigator was generally unknown, using his own discretion in following Student Code of Conduct standards. That approach can be influenced inappropriately by any member of the administration. Who knows who said what and whether it was true or what weight it was given? The investigating officer was not present when the situation occurred and is not in a good position to determine whether someone is telling the truth. Even if his or her own integrity is unquestioned, the process does not lend itself to an unquestionable result.
Such a “disruptive student” process also does not lend itself well to enforcing behavioral standards in the classroom. Classroom standards need to be so clear and so well enforced and so well known to be enforced that they do not require such an investigation in the absence of truly exceptional facts. “Disruptive” needs to be very clearly defined if a faculty member is to place his or her authority on the line in filing a complaint.
PREVIOUS PAGE