I still haven’t gotten around to finishing my parsing of the previous set of articles, so I hesitate to dive into these right now. (Hold back those bitter tears of frustration and disappointment, faithful EphBlog readers!)
None of the articles mention this line from the faculty handbook.
If the respondent [Laleian] chooses not to appeal, the executive officers shall then act to remedy the harm done to the complainant [Ali], to protect the College community, and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent.
In other words, as part of the formal grievance procedure — unlike the sanctions process that Dean Lenhardt completed over the summer — the possibility of a “remedy” is explicitly provided for. What can the College do for Ali to “remedy the harm” done to her? If I were her, tenure would be the answer.
“One of my concerns is that she might leave,” [Professor of Political Science ALex] Willingham said of Ali. “That’s almost my Number One issue.”
James G. Kolesar, director of Williams’ office of public affairs, said the procedure allows for the possibility of a resolution of a complaint that is mutually agreeable to the parties involved.
“It is important to create an environment in which this possibility can be explored productively,” said Kolesar. “Engaging in pubic discussion of aspects of the complaint does not help to achieve this goal.”
I think that we are seeing hints of a (partially) public negotiation between Ali [along with her friends/supporters] and the College over what it is going to take to keep her happy.
Now that I know — if four Factrak entries count as knowledge — that Ali ’91 is a good teacher, and given EphBlog’s longstanding support of hiring and tenuring alumni, I am in favor of this solution.
The College should tenure Ali. She should drop her grievance complaint and assent to the sanctions already imposed on Laleian. And then we can all move on . . .