After months of negotiating, in federal court and within the confines of Oberlin, the College and Associate Professor of Neuroscience David Holtzman have reached an agreement that both sides find satisfactory. (see related story, page 1)
Both sides spent a lot of time and energy trying to work things out for almost a year, often meeting with little success. Since the beginning of the academic year, two temporary restraining orders have been denied, three hearings on a request for a preliminary injunction were held (though no decision was ever made), two sets of professional conduct complaints were not heard or investigated, one Professional Conduct Review Committee (PCRC) proposal was rejected, one faculty proposal attempting to close a perceived procedural gap was voted down by the General Faculty (GF), and many discussions amongst General Faculty Committee (GFC) members took place in an attempt to find a way to move the case forward.
Much of the case's hold-up stemmed from the hearing panel of the PCRC's decision that it could not hear Holtzman's charges against former acting dean of the College James Helm or dean of the College Clayton Koppes because they were acting in their capacity as administrators. Months were spent trying to determine what body should hear the complaints.
Now, Holtzman says he is happy to resign, drop his charges, take his equipment and leave Oberlin. But what has changed in a year? None of the processes underway ever concluded. After the College finally decided to allow the PCRC and Sexual Offense Review Committee (SORC) processes to move forward with all the complaints, including those against Helm and Koppes, Holtzman filed a second request for a temporary restraining order and a complaint with the Mediation Committee -- after finally getting the outcome he wanted all along. If granted, the temporary restraining order would have prevented College processes from moving forward.
Throughout the year Holtzman maintained that the faculty guide states that the PCRC is supposed to review complaints against any individual holding a faculty appointment, which includes Helm and Koppes. He also complained that "SORC has never seen this."
Sources have pointed out that shortly after Holtzman's request for a temporary restraining order was denied and it was clear that College processes were set to move forward, Holtzman agreed to resign.
Sources speculate that had Holtzman agreed to resign in the fall none of the processes would have been persued and that, by persuing them so publicly, he effectively ruined his career.
But some members of the faculty have felt all along that Holtzman has legitimate complaints regarding due process.
Professor of Biology Richard Levin, Holtzman's adviser throughout the process, said he was disappointed with "the willinginess of some members of elected councils to indict, without seeing a shred of evidence, and later to be offended when called to accountability."
Levin said that Holtzman chose to fight back against the College, and "it takes a lot out of a person to do that."
At a faculty meeting in February Levin said, "Five months is too long for an issue to be left hanging. I don't think it is appropriate, fair or decent." Last spring Helm presented Holtzman with the option of resigning or undergoing a Professional Conduct Review Committee (PCRC) review last spring. By August, not much had changed. Holtzman still continued to refuse to separate from the College, and the College refused to accept Holtzman's terms for resignation.
In late August the College decided to suspend Holtzman and remove him from the classroom, a decision that was made with the advice of the Association of American University Professors Council and ratified by the College Faculty Council and General Faculty Council (GFC). Classes began, and Holtzman attended the sessions he was originally scheduled to teach, though they were postponed as a result of his presence. Finally, Dye granted Holtzman a paid leave at his request, agreeing not to levy the suspension if Holtzman agreed not to attend class.
These informal attempts to resolve the conflict were followed by the filing of charges in federal court and within the College.
The PCRC's investigative report, which was finalized in November, gives examples of times when the College did not exactly follow the processes correctly. For instance:
*On Helm's offer of resignation or PCRC scrutiny, the report states: " ... asking a faculty member who does not have another position on offer to resign is not mediation. It is delivering an ultimatum. Further, Prof. Helm stated that he thought it was appropriate for him to ask Prof. Holtzman to resign before he, Prof. Helm, had made up his mind about Prof. Holtzman's guilt or innoncence. The panel finds neither logic nor justice in that position."
*On Koppes' labeling Holtzman's behavior incorrigable, the report states: "At the same time, it does not seem accurate to describe a faculty member as incorrigable if his colleagues have made no attempt to correct his behavior or to alert him to the possibility that it is problematic. Also, although acting dean Koppes did have names and specifics in hand at the end of August, he did not release this information to Prof. Holtzman, making it impossible for him to respond to the allegations involved. And, despite Acting Dean Koppes' stated conviction that Prof. Holtzman represented a threat to the safety of his students, he made no effort ot terminate or control the relations between Prof. Holtzman and the students he taught and supervised in his laboratory during the summer."
*The report also said that because Holtzman did not receive the note from Dye telling him he could not teach until Sept. 5, two days after classes began, it was not unreasonable for Holtzman to attempt to teach class. The report states, "The allegation by acting dean Koppes that Prof. Holtzman was adding to his list of delicts by disrupting classes in Neuroscience sounds disingenuous. For it would have been unprofessional conduct for a faculty member not informed otherwise to have failed to meet his classes.
Secretary of the College Bob Haslun said earlier in the year that this case is the first time charges have been brought against administrators. Different interpretations of the PCRC legislation amongst faculty and PCRC members also prevented the PCRC from hearing charges earlier, and all parties agreed on the record that the hold-up was inexecusable. "It's a procedural glitch," President Nancy Dye said in February. "It doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to go forward with a complaint."
In the end, the final agreement is similar to something the College would have liked to work out informally months before, but Holtzman's conviction and procedural hold-ups and misunderstandings dragged the process out.
What the College has learned is a whole lot about college procedure and the language of the faculty guide. In the meantine, many members of the College are reeling after an intense legal year.
Related Stories:
