To the Editor:
As chair of the AAUP’s investigation of Hamline University and principal author of the draft report on the case, I feel compelled to comment on Chronicle Review editor Len Gutkin’s latest contribution to the ongoing discussion of recent events at Hamline prompted by Professor Berkson’s compelling essay of September 21. In what follows, I write solely on my own behalf and do not claim to speak for the AAUP.
In reference to the Hamline administration’s unfounded claim that although the committee’s draft report did not find a violation of academic freedom, yet the final report did, Gutkin may well be correct that “the first version sounds less confident than the second” in its claim, a “rhetorical difference” with little, if any, substantive effect. But that refers only to a single sentence in the report’s conclusion. In its extensive discussion of the issue, however, the full draft report was more than clear in detailing a series of violations of academic freedom, as is the final published version. I recommend readers who wish a more complete understanding of this case read the entire report before reaching any conclusions.
The published report was edited by AAUP staff in response to an extensive and aggressively hostile response to the draft submitted by the Hamline administration. That response did offer a few useful factual corrections (as did other responses from interested parties) and was treated more than fairly by the staff editors. Most important, however, nowhere did the response suggest that the draft had not found violations of academic freedom. If anything, it took umbrage at the draft report’s conclusions and demanded their withdrawal.
It is true that evidence in support of the claim that Professor Lopez Prater was not reappointed, as previously promised, in violation of her academic freedom is circumstantial, if powerful. But that claim remains unrebutted. If the Hamline administration wishes to refute the charge, it could simply provide what it has so far refused to provide to the public, to our investigating committee, or, as far as I know, to Professor Lopez Prater herself: a simple explanation of why the university withdrew its offer to rehire her shortly after the incident that was the subject of our investigation. Lacking such an explanation, it is all but impossible even to imagine how the university’s behavior did not involve a violation of academic freedom. Moreover, Hamline could simply repair the injustice by offering Professor Lopez Prater another opportunity to teach at their institution.
The investigating committee did not, at the time we prepared our report, recommend to the AAUP’s Committee A that Hamline be placed on the AAUP’s list of administrations censured for violations of academic freedom because we were hopeful that promises made by the Hamline Board of Trustees to hold substantive campus “conversations” about academic freedom could prove fruitful. We were also cautiously optimistic that our report’s recommendation that the board “formally endorse the principles articulated by the Hamline faculty in its January 24 resolution” might be accepted. Sadly, the recent events recounted in the pages of The Chronicle suggest our optimism was largely unfounded.
We also recommended that the AAUP “closely monitor developments at Hamline University.” In that light, I would suggest that at its scheduled meeting later this month, Committee A should review these recent events and reconsider its response.
Henry Reichman
Professor Emeritus of History
California State University, East Bay
Hayward
