University of Washington chapter
American Association of 
University Professors
  

Home
Up
Officers
AAUP mission
Chapter history
Membership
Listserve
State of the Faculty Reports
Collective bargaining
Affirmative action
Gender & family
Part-time faculty
Distance education
Grievances
Meetings
Chapter bulletins

Bulletins from AAUP-UW Chapter

What to Do If You Are Accused of Misconduct or Violation of University Rules

By Dan Luchtel, Professor, Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences

(March 2011)

 

The UW Faculty Code provides any faculty member accused of “violat[ing] University regulations or state or federal laws pertaining to the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties” with important procedural rights.[1] Unfortunately, the Faculty Code does not require your department chair, your dean, or the Provost to inform you of what those rights are. Accordingly, accused faculty must take the initiative to learn their rights and insist that they be respected.

 

Perhaps the most important right accused faculty have is the right to a hearing before the University can find you guilty or punish you for any violation of University rules or state or federal law.[2] The type of hearing to which the accused has a right depends on the nature of the alleged violation. “Minor” matters—“cases involving a limited number of persons, simple factual issues and minor impact on the persons involved”—are resolved by “brief adjudications” in front of a “hearing officer.” [3] All other matters are resolved by “comprehensive adjudications” in front of a panel of faculty, or in some instances, a panel of faculty, staff, and/or students. [4] Faculty members can of course waive their right to either sort of hearing, and agree to a negotiated settlement of the charge, but even then the knowledge that you have a right to a hearing before you can be found guilty or punished can help you bargain for a more reasonable result.

 

Accused faculty also have rights that become important during the investigation stage, prior to any hearing. Generally, Faculty Code section 25-71(B) –(D) requires department chairs and deans to “meet and confer” with the accused faculty member, and consider negotiated resolution of the matter, before recommending that the matter be adjudicated. The precise nature of these pre-hearing procedures depends on the nature of the alleged violation (e.g., discrimination or scientific misconduct), and perhaps on the choices made by the person complaining. [5]

 

The Faculty Code is complicated, but not incomprehensible. Its current form is the product of thousands of hours of work by faculty like you, concerned to preserve academic freedom. If you are accused of violating University rules or state or federal law relevant to your job, take the time to familiarize yourself with the relevant sections of the Code, and relevant Administrative Policy Statements and Executive Orders, as cited above. If you need help, consult the Secretary of the Faculty, Marcia Killien, at the Faculty Senate office, 36 Gerberding Hall, 543-5939. You are also welcome to contact the UW Chapter of the AAUP, at http://depts.washington.edu/uwaaup/. The head of the chapter is Janelle Taylor, jstaylor@u.washington.edu.

 


[1] The quoted passage comes from the UW Faculty Code, Chapter 28-32(A), available at http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH28.html#2832

[2] http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH28.html#2832. This right is disputed by the current administration. In the Aprikyan matter, then-President Emmert took the position that in cases of alleged scientific misconduct, the responsible dean determines the accused’s guilt prior to any hearing. The faculty adjudication panel, according to President Emmert, only serves to determine the punishment to be imposed on professors previously determined to be guilty. The administration has also taken the position that in any sort of case, deans can decide guilt and impose punishment prior to a hearing provided only that the punishment falls short of dismissal or suspension for more than one quarter. The UW Chapter of the AAUP believes that both of these interpretations are contrary to the clear language, structure, and history of the Faculty Code.

[5] For example, under APS 46.3 (http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/APS/46.03.html) it is clear that a person who complains of discrimination or harassment may go directly to UCIRO (the “University Complaint Investigation and Resolution Office”), and bypasses both the department chair and the dean. It is unclear how and whether the “meet and confer” requirements of Section 25-71(B) –(D) apply in this case. In cases of alleged scientific misconduct, pre-hearing procedures are specified by Executive Order 61 (http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/PO/EO61.html). In scientific misconduct cases, the required pre-hearing procedures may also be governed by federal regulations, if the relevant regulations contradict University policy.