Ohio University President Roderick McDavis has upheld the reprimand of an embattled professor despite a faculty committee suggesting his name be cleared.
In a letter, McDavis told journalism professor Bill Reader that he would deny Reader’s appeal of the reprimand because the process for the decision was not flawed.
“I have reviewed the prior proceedings of the Report of the Faculty Senate Professional Relations Committee and have concluded that appropriate procedures were followed and that the Professional Ethics Committee’s decision was reasonable given the evidence presented,” McDavis said in a letter. “To that end, I deny the appeal and reinstate the recommendations of the Scripps College Professional Ethics Committee.”
In January, Reader appealed a reprimand he received from OU charging him with bullying and unprofessional conduct related to his tenure battle in 2009–10. Reader successfully fought for tenure against allegations that he harassed colleagues.
Faculty Senate’s Professional Relations Committee sent a report to McDavis on Feb. 15. In the report, the seven-member committee voted overwhelmingly to recommend the charges against Reader be dismissed “on grounds of serious procedural irregularities.”
In a statement, Reader disparaged the entire process that resulted in his reprimand.
“Shamefully, this decision is just another in a long line of injustices committed by administrators against rank-and-file employees at Ohio University,” Reader said in his statement. “It is, I believe, another flagrant nose-thumbing toward our elected Faculty Senate and an attack on our employment contract, the Faculty Handbook.
“At Ohio University, and certainly in the current College of Communications, blind obedience is demanded, principled dissent is punished, and McCarthy-style witch hunts have just been given the president’s blessing,” he said.
Becky Watts, McDavis’ chief of staff, said Reader has no further options to appeal the reprimand.
“It was (McDavis’) finding the Professional Ethics Committee followed the processes that were set forth,” Watts said.
The president could only review the reprimand on the basis of Reader’s two complaints that the process was mired in “arbitrary or capricious decision making” and that appropriate procedures were not followed, she said.
“The president reviewed the process with only those two things in mind and found the Professional Ethics Committee had followed procedure.” Watts said, “(The proceedings were) a detailed process that followed all procedures.”
Sherrie Gradin, chair of the Professional Ethics Committee, expressed disappointment in the findings.
“I stand behind my committee’s report that there were enough errors in the process.” Gradin said. “… The irregularities were enough that they should have worried anybody in terms of due process.”
Gradin particularly criticized the protracted timeline of Reader’s tenureship battle that lasted through 2009 and into 2010. She said the committee had nothing to say about Reader’s guilt or innocence, but the process was tainted.
“The PRC really believes there was information that came into the process that never would have happened if things had moved forward when Reader requested,” she said, adding that she hoped lessons could be drawn from the event.
“I hope what it brings to us … is being very diligent in the way we treat each other. In hopes that next time, there is a better process,” Gradin said.
tn336706@ohiou.edu
@ThePostCampus
