UW Gazette, November 20, 1996 As "the Westhues case" moves into its fourth year, the original dispute over events in UW's sociology department, and the resulting controversy over discipline meted out as a results, have been joined by harsh words over the way UW handles such affairs and whether the faculty association makes things better or worse. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has now published in its Bulletin a report - which in fact has been available since early this summer - from its academic freedom and tenure committee, which carried out an investigation into the affair last winter. It makes strong criticisms, of a kind that have been heard before, about what it calls "severely flawed" grievance and discipline policies at UW. In response, the president of UW has accused CAUT, as well as UW's own faculty association, of "a regrettable absence of both good faith and fair dealing". And Dr. Ron Lambert, who was chair of the sociology department during most of the events of the Westhues case, has issued a long statement charging the faculty association with "callous indifference" and "mischievous" tactics. The controversy dates from November 1993, when Dr. Adie Nelson of UW's sociology department chaired a PhD oral examination for a student who was supervised by Dr. Ken Westhues, also of sociology. The student failed the examination, and Westhues wanted to know why. Exactly what was said in face-to-face and telephone conversations between him and Nelson - and in what tone it was said - was at the heart of the original dispute. "I did indeed address her angrily, reproachfully, and offensively," Westhues said in a letter of apology in December. Nelson said that she, as a young and untenured faculty member, felt threatened by Westhues, a long-established professor who had formerly chaired the department. As the recent CAUT report expresses it, "These attempts at an apology did not sit well with Nelson or Lambert since they cast further aspersions on Nelson's competence and in tegrity and added criticism of the chair of the department and the third member of the examination committee." Various conversations, meetings and letters followed. And in February 1994, Lambert, the chair of the sociology department, officially imposed three punishments on Westhues. He was given a letter of reprimand; he was re moved from graduate program responsibilities at least until 1998; and his "unsatisfactory conduct" would be reflected in his 1993 performance review. Westhues filed a grievance against those disciplinary measures and against members of the sociology department who had urged Lambert to take action against him. He also distributed a long letter about the affair, from his point of view, to dozens of sociologists and other friends across Canada. Nelson then filed a complaint under UW's ethics policy: "Professor Westhues attacked my personal integrityÉ far beyond the bounds of proper and allowable behaviour." Eventually the ethics committee recommended to UW's provost, Dr. Jim Kalbfleisch, that Westhues be required to make a statement of apology. Kalbfleisch upheld that recommendation, and Westhues did issue a letter of apology, which was posted on the Internet and published in the Gazette. However, he accompanied it with an explanatory letter which the provost said publicly seemed to weaken the apology and contradict what he had agreed to do. "You haveÉ done me unspeakable injury" by requiring a public apology, Westhues said in a letter to Kalbfleisch. Then the faculty grievance committee began to look at Westhues's complaint against Lambert. Its work bogged down in procedural complications, and the committee gave up in November 1994. Finally there was an attempt to bring in a mediator, but in September 1995 UW president Dr. James Downey said that was not practical because there was no "support" in the sociology department for the kind of mediation that would be necessary. In the same month, at the request of the UW faculty association, the CAUT set up a "committee of inquiry" into the Westhues case. Its findings were passed on to the AF&T committee, which has now issued its report. The CAUT report says the case was handled through "a seriously flawed process, the effect of which was to deny Westhues a considered, fair hearing of his grievance.É A recurring theme has been that nobody knew what they were supposed to do, how they were supposed to do it, or what the rules were supposed to be." "Was he properly disciplined?" asks the report. "The answer is no.É "It does seem that Westhues' behaviour towards Nelson after the examination was improper.É His apologiesÉ simply added insult to injury, repeated his offenses, and attempted to justify them in terms of Nelson's alleged failings. Thus, it was probably appropriate that this aspect of Westhues' be haviour should have resulted in some form of disciplinary action." The report says strongly that "the University Administration's resort to publicity, even if it was in response to Westhues' own use of publicity, was inappropriate and unfair.É "Just as Westhues was insensitive to the power balance between him and Nelson, so too was the university administration insensitive to the power that it held over Westhues. We believe that it was entirely inappropriate for Professor Kalbfleisch to retaliate against and punish Westhues by broadcasting his views on his case on the Internet and elsewhere." The CAUT recommends that Westhues's suspension from the graduate program be "lifted immediately", and that information about the case that UW's administration has caused to be posted on the Internet should be removed. "It is absolutely imperative," the CAUT report also says, "that Policy 63 and 33 be replaced by a comprehensive agreement between the FAUW and the administration that clearly lays out a fair and detailed grievance process, establishing procedural protections for all the parties in a dispute, and providing for the final and binding resolution of these matters." Policy 63 is the faculty grievance procedure, and 33 is the ethical behaviour policy. These policies, the CAUT says, "have proven to be problematic in the present case and in other disputes", especially because it's difficult in most disputes to decide what is an "ethical" issue and what isn't - but the two have to be handled in very different ways, by different committees. "It has become the practice, we understand," the CAUT says, "for the two committees to hold joint hearings, but there are no formal written guidelines that say how this is to be done.É "In our view there are very real dangers in requiring people to develop ad hoc procedures in the middle of complex and emotion-laden disputes. Even reasonable, fair-minded, and intelligent people can do the strangest things when they or their colleagues are in turmoil.É "There are significant restrictions on a complainant's right to counsel.É "There is great confusion with respect to appeals and how a final decision is arrived at.É "All of these deficiencies (and others) have been brought to the attention of the faculty and administration at Waterloo on previous occasions. Now againÉ a case has arisen that demonstrates how far these policies have failed to provide proper and fair procedures for the redress of a grievance - with significant damage to the careers and reputations of a number of parties involved, wittingly or un wittingly, in the dispute, and to the reputation of the University of Waterloo itself." In response to the CAUT report are a few paragraphs from each of four main figures in the case. The responses, invited by CAUT, appear in its Bulletin following the report itself. The first, from Downey, shows little patience with the report: "No one who bothers to consider the facts of this case will mistake the AF&T Report for an impartial review. The disregard for fairness and natural justice in a body so free with advice to others on these matters is distressing but increasingly unsurprising.É "The AF&T Report offers no reason to believe that Professor Lambert erred in imposing sanctions, or in his method of doing so.É "While the University remains willing to explore with the Faculty Association alternatives to the current grievance policy, it must be recognized that the collegial resolution of disputes will always depend on a measure of good faith and fair dealing by the parties. In this particular case, there has been a regrettable absence of both good faith and fair dealing on the part of the FAUW and the CAUT." In her response, which has previously appeared in the Gazette as a letter, Nelson describes Westhues as a "bully" who "will never wonder, in those quiet moments of the early dawn, whether the Overreacting Colleague [that is, Nelson] could possibly have been right." Westhues himself says the affair demonstrates "the current panic regarding gender.É The evidence it reviews does not fit a picture of academics confused by faulty policies, doubtful about how to proceed, and therefore stumbling into unfairness. The evidence shows academics shot outside the orbit of policy by a woman's cry of intimidation and chilly climate." The other response is from Lambert, who concentrates his attention on the way the faculty association and CAUT have dealt with the case. "FAUW invited CAUT to intervene on Westhues' behalf precisely because it represents his interests, and not the interests of his colleagues, the Department of UW," he writes. "In laying blame, CAUT has refused to pass judgment on FAUW cronyism and FAUW's mischievous role in the Westhues case." Lambert expands on those points in his long "Statement of Fact" about the case, which is available on the Internet through UWinfo's "Documents" listing. "Not once," he writes there, "has the UW Faculty Association or its senior officers shown the slightest interest in the problems that Westhues posed." He says Dr. Roman Dubinski, who was the chair of the UW faculty association's academic freedom and tenure committee until his recent retirement, somehow shifted from presenting himself as "an impartial mediator" to being "colleague/advisor" to Westhues. And he says the faculty association "has demonstrated the worst form of cronyism by siding with Westhues, a member of the FAUW executive, against the interests of colleagues in the Department who did not enjoy Westhues' privileged position in the FAUW hierarchy". He goes on to say that the CAUT committee also "represents Professor Westhues' interests, and his interests alone, in his attacks on Nelson, myself, his other departmental colleagues and the senior administration.É "Members of this Department and the senior administration have devoted a great deal of time and energy to this case, and not a little care in protecting Westhues' rights. The sole contribution of CAUT and FAUW has been to encourage Westhues to believe that he is not governed by the same rules that govern others, and that he is entitled to special benefits and treatment."