University of Virginia Library

Murky Groves

The temptation to conclude that the resignation
of Mr. England of the Mathematics
Department was brought about for political
reasons by certain administrative members of
the faculty is a strong one. Here was a man
whose academic credentials seemed impeccable.
On two separate occasions his colleagues
in the department recommended that
he be promoted to fill an existing vacancy.
But here also was a man whose differences
with University policy and many of those who
formulate it were frequent and acerbic. He
made embarrassing motions at faculty
meetings. He refused to limit his attention to
higher mathematics and he refused to keep
quiet when he wanted to make his often
unpopular opinions known. He did unprofessorial
things like making speeches at student
demonstrations.

He was rejected twice for the promotion
that he and his department sought by an
anonymous committee appointed by Mr.
Bowers, Dean of the Faculty. Only Mr.
Bowers and the members know who sat on
that committee, and only they know the
reasons for Mr. England's rejection. Perhaps
the committee made an entirely apolitical
decision based on substantive academic
grounds. Two other math department personnel
with strong recommendations were
denied promotions by the committee. Perhaps
the committee members were better able to
judge these mathematicians' credentials than
the members of the math department. But it
is also possible that Mr. England's annoying
(to some people) tendency to take unpopular
and public positions was in the back of the
committee's mind when it considered his case.
The point is that nobody knows why Mr.
England and the other members of the department
who were recommended and rejected
failed to please the promotions committee.
We can only speculate about what seem to be
probable reasons.

It seems that every year this archaic
promotion system provides the fuel for a new
controversy. Two years ago, it was the English
Department and supposed pressure to publish
or perish. Last year there were charges that
promotions in the Economics Department
were withheld for political reasons, in that
case at the expense of men who were allegedly
judged too conservative. Nothing ever came of
those cases. The anonymous committee
remained anonymous and its standards
remained secret. But this year, perhaps due to
the renaissance of critical thinking the
Grounds has witnessed, it's apparent that this
time the issue will not die.

The American Association of University
Professors has never been known as a radical
or subversive group except by those who
regard academic freedom as a subversive
idea. Some of that element will probably lump
the AAUP with the SDS after its Thursday
meeting. Not only did the members request
that Dean Bowers make a statement clarifying
the composition and promotional criteria of
the committee; the AAUP had the audacity to
allow a member of the student press to attend
its meeting and report on what was said.

It seems a bit odd for students to support
the action of faculty "radicals", rather than
the other way around. But for what its worth
to those in power, we feel that the AAUP
resolution is the first ray of light to pierce the
murky academic grove of promotions in some
time. There are many problems concerning
tenure decisions that require a certain amount
of secrecy and subjectivity. But we see no
reason why the criteria for entrance to the
committee and the standards to be used for
promotion cannot be made a matter of
record.