Consider these situations. Each involves the U-M faculty grievance procedures, which aim to address employment disputes between faculty and the university.
(1) A senior clinical-track professor is given a letter of non-renewal by the department chair and dismissed from leadership roles without cause, transparency, or due process. Although the dean advises the professor against filing a grievance, the faculty member does so anyway. Following a grievance board finding that the department’s actions lacked due process and were “manifestly unfair,” the chair reinstates the professor but only under a “non-negotiable” performance improvement plan overseen by the very members of the department who issued the non-renewal termination.
(2) A professor is denied tenure and files a grievance. The grievance board learns that his tenure application was sent for a secret re-review within his own unit, senses possible discrimination, and unanimously recommends a new proper tenure evaluation. Though neither party appeals the grievance board’s finding, the Provost refuses to implement the board’s recommendations. The professor is terminated and left with no recourse but to sue the university.
(3) Following her reporting of sexualized and racially insensitive comments by the dean, a professor is harassed, then sanctioned, in apparent retaliation. She conveys the problem to the university administration, but no investigation follows. She considers filing a grievance, but because that unit’s grievance process fills a majority of the hearing board seats with appointees from that unit who may feel beholden to the dean, she concludes that no recourse remains but to sue the university.
These examples, among others shared with the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) and its Committee on Oversight of Administrative Action (COAA), expose serious failures in the University’s faculty grievance process. Stories like these reflect a broken system that does not serve faculty seeking fair adjudication and equitable resolution of their concerns. Any of us faculty could be affected. In fact, a 2023 study by the U-M ADVANCE program reports that conflicts with department leadership are a major factor for 42% of associate professors and 64% of assistant professors who leave the university. COAA continues to welcome reports from faculty who wish to share their experience of the University’s myriad grievance procedures.
With alarming frequency, faculty who undertake grievances are left without remedy. Even when a grievance board finds unanimously in favor of a grievant, the board’s recommendations are non-binding; the dean or provost may choose to disregard them or interpret a finding in such a way as to vitiate any proposed remedy. Meanwhile, administrators named in grievances can draw on the University’s substantial legal and HR resources for their defense, while faculty grievants must largely go it alone or pay for independent legal representation.
What happens when faculty find no relief through a university grievance? They often have no recourse but to turn to the courts: an arduous, costly, and protracted legal trek that is rarely helpful for anyone. The University typically hires expensive outside counsel to defend its stance, on top of its in-house counsel – costs ultimately borne by taxpayers and student families. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the University to seek actual justice within its community whenever possible?
Even the legal process itself is stacked against faculty. Federally, the University invokes qualified immunity as an arm of the State of Michigan, insulating itself even when university policies and procedural obligations have not been followed. University attorneys have argued that faculty lack legally enforceable contracts, thus contending that administrative failures to follow bylaws or policies do not amount to legally enforceable breaches of contract. Faculty grievants thus face overwhelming odds even when they seek remedies through the courts.
It doesn’t need to be this way. COAA has issued a set of recommendations for reform that were shared with Provost McCauley together with recommendations from SACUA and faculty who have been through a grievance process (summary). The Provost has appointed a working group to review those recommendations. We ask the Provost to follow precedent from the last time significant changes were made to grievance policies, in 2008–2011: that SACUA and the Provost’s office be equal partners in developing changes, with SACUA and the Senate Assembly approving the final recommendations to ensure approval by the faculty.
Our highest priorities are that: (1) there should be a joint process involving the Faculty Senate Office and the Provost’s Office that provides for fair, reasonable and effective attempts to resolve issues before they reach a grievance; (2) that faculty should have their own legal representation provided by the University; and (3) that grievance board decisions should be binding, when not in conflict with applicable laws. We call on Provost McCauley to partner with SACUA to implement these long-overdue changes.
— Committee on Oversight of Administrative Action (COAA)
— Wayne C. Petty, COAA Chair, Associate Professor, SMTD
— Faculty Perspective is provided by The University Record as a forum for U-M faculty representatives to comment on university issues. Opinions presented are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Record or the University of Michigan. Submissions are coordinated through the Faculty Senate Office.
