Email Response from Chancellor Yang, 4/16/09
Chancellor Yang responded with a curt, 7-sentence email. The only substantive point he offered was to claim that he cannot now influence the charges process since he serves as the ultimate decision-maker on the matter. He referred Professor Robinson’s inquiry, instead, to Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas.
Email Response from Vice Chancellor Lucas, 4/18/09
On April 18, 2009, Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas responded with the following information.
He quoted pertinent passages from the Academic Personnel Manual of which Section 010 delineates the university’s policy on academic freedom. The statement commits the university to protecting “the freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of teaching, and freedom of expression and publication.”
V.C. Lucas then asserted that faculty members are still bound by the Faculty Code of Conduct despite their rights to academic freedom. Of course, Prof. Robinson argued nothing to the contrary.
V.C. Lucas cited the following provisions from the Academic Personnel Manual.
“The exercise of academic freedom entails correlative duties of professional care when teaching, conducting research, or otherwise acting as a member of the faculty. These duties are set forth in the
Faculty Code of Conduct.” Section 015.
“Academic freedom requires that teaching and scholarship be assessed by reference to the professional standards that sustain the University’s pursuit and achievement of knowledge. The substance and nature of these standards properly lie within the expertise and authority of the faculty as a body…. Academic freedom requires that the Academic Senate be given primary responsibility for applying academic standards, subject to appropriate review by the Administration, and that the Academic Senate exercise its responsibility in full compliance with applicable standards of professional care.” Section 010.
From these provisions, V.C. Lucas stated his conclusion that the charges process that is underway is meant to determine whether Prof. Robinson’s conduct met professional standards. V.C. Lucas did not acknowledge that the right to academic freedom should be applied initially to determine whether said process is properly instigated in the first place. Nor did V.C. Lucas offer any acknowledgment of the perversions and violations that have corrupted the process from its very commencement with Charges Officer Scharlemann as described by Prof. Geoff Raymond here.