Some Pauses Are Not Refreshing

Maybe not every job

UCOP has proposed a change in APM-016 dealing with faculty discipline procedures to allow a chancellor or chancellor's delegate to impose a "pause" on an academic advancement case (promotion, merit) in situations where faculty misconduct has been alleged. The pause apparently could be imposed before there has been any formal hearing or procedure to determine the validity of the alleged conduct.

It is unclear what incident(s) may have led to this proposal. There appears to be no definition of how serious the alleged misconduct has to be nor whether there is to be any standard for judging the credibility of the allegation.* At some point, if the pause were found to be unwarranted, the academic advancement case would proceed retroactively.

Not surprisingly, there has been concern and opposition expressed to this proposal by faculty at UCLA and other campuses due to the lack of recourse for affected faculty. There is some indication that such pauses may have been occurring on an ad hoc basis, even in the absence of a formal process, and thus another view is that there should be formal guidelines. But even in that view, the issue of definition in the current proposal remains.

Well over 200 ladder faculty have signed a letter to UCOP objecting to the proposal as it now stands:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSewFbgVmKssQoEapf-Nf8h-KzrI_CSt8WEPAg1O_1DgCyXNEA/viewform. 

The University Committee on Privilege and Tenure did not oppose having pauses but recommended various amendments to the proposal: 

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/sc-kn-request-for-apm-language-to-address-simultaneous.pdf.

Again, yours truly wonders if some embarrasing case or situation developed somewhere in the UC system that has triggered this development.  Back in 2011, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have fined parents $25 for letting their kids ski without a helmet saying "not every problem deserves a law."** One wonders whether every situation that develops at UC, even if it is embarrassing, needs an amendment to the APM.

====

*https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/apm-016-senate-review-2024.pdf.

**https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/09/08/jerry-browns-veto-messages-not-every-problem-deserves-a-law/. It's worth noting that the author of the proposed helmet law, state senator Leland Yee, later went to prison for something far more serious. Yee was no particular friend to UC when he was in office. But, then again, neither was Jerry Brown.