Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Reasonable doubt allows open mind

Washington Post

Dear Carolyn: Last March, I went up for tenure at my university. My candidacy came at the normal time, and while one faculty member has made his dislike for me clear, I thought I would be OK with some articles out and a book with a highly respected university press.

At the meeting, the one faculty member was joined unexpectedly by three others, all of whom engaged in a ritual blood bath: They told lies about me, made groundless charges against me and attacked my book, and the people who had written letters in support of my case. After that, four votes went against me. Voting is confidential, but it seems pretty clear who cast them.

Ultimately, I was awarded tenure. People asked if it would be hard to work with these people. I assured all that no, I could of course maintain collegial relations.

And now I am finding out that yes, it IS hard to work with them! They tried to steal away a career that means everything to me! No matter how much redemption I can draw from being given tenure, when I see ANY of these four, I feel sick. I want so badly to scream at them my real opinion of them.

How can I get past this, and find a comfortable place to do my work, live my life, where they do not intrude?

– Anonymous

Not to sound dense or delusional, but you don’t know they cast all the “no” votes.

It’s possible that you defended yourself persuasively to one or more of them, and that they discredited you persuasively to one or more of the spectators to the blood bath. Newsrooms are full of people who will argue a point they don’t themselves embrace, just to see how well you argue against them. I have to think academia is as well.

Speculation, all of it, sure. But confidential voting allows for such reasonable doubt, and that leaves you room – maybe just enough to settle in, and certainly enough to view these colleagues with a slightly more open mind.