Editor’s Note: Alex Lichtenstein, a professor at IU and a member of the Bloomington Council’s Faculty Misconduct Review Committee, sent a letter to IU Provost Rahul Shrivastav and BFC President Colin Johnson on April 26 outlining why he is resigning from the FMRC. The letter is provided below, with minimal edits for style and clarity.
IU Provost Rahul Shrivastav and BFC President Colin Johnson:
It is with profound regret that I must resign my position as a member of the Bloomington Faculty Council’s Faculty Misconduct Review Committee (FMRC).
Because I take this step after a great deal of thought and with the utmost seriousness, I feel compelled to explain my reasoning. In short, I can no longer serve on a committee that has no function. For whatever reason, the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs (VPFAA) and Provost Rahul Shrivastav’s interpretation of campus policies — ACA-33 and BL- ACA-27 — leave no possible path for the FMRC to carry out its prescribed function of conducting hearings in cases of severe sanctions imposed on faculty.
VPFAA Carrie Docherty, to her credit, has at our request begun to hold regular informational meetings with the FMRC to keep us apprised of potential misconduct cases. That has been helpful for the committee, at least now making us aware of such disciplinary proceedings against faculty. Yet the existing campus policies (BL-ACA-27) are quite clear: in certain, narrowly construed cases of the VPFAA imposing severe sanctions, as defined by university-wide policy ACA-33 (including suspension) on faculty members accused of misconduct, the case must be brought to the FMRC for a hearing.
As everyone on this campus knows, this is a particularly pressing issue in the case of Professor Abdulkader Sinno, who on December 15, 2023 was “formally prohibited from engaging in any and all teaching responsibilities for the Spring 2024 and Summer 2024 semesters,” to quote directly from his letter of sanction. If that is not a suspension, I am not sure what is. In my view, then, this sanction clearly fell into the defined category of “severe” under existing policy, yet the Sinno case was never brought to the FMRC (indeed, to this day the FMRC has never been officially made aware of the case or the imposed sanction). I can only conclude that the Provost and VPFAA Docherty interpret existing policy differently than I do, and therefore did not feel obligated to bring the Sinno case to the FMRC or even to share the details of his sanction with us.
When confronted publicly with this disagreement over existing policy at the Bloomington Faculty Council meeting of January 16, 2024, the Provost informed us that the proper place for a hearing on the Sinno case was the Faculty Board of Review (FBR). He further pledged then and there that if the FBR recommended that the Sinno case be remanded to the FMRC, he would act on that recommendation. The FBR made such a recommendation on March 28, 2024. Yet, to this date, the FMRC has not even been alerted by the Provost to this recommendation, let alone had a chance to schedule a hearing on the case.
As a member of the FMRC, I have dutifully followed procedure, and awaited the action of the FBR as advised. I have, as is appropriate, not pre-judged this particular case, nor have I taken a public position on it, despite ample opportunities to do so. Such procedural discretion and neutrality as a member of the FMRC is rightly predicated on the expectation that clearly stated policy on the operations of the committee and the principles of shared governance with the faculty will be followed. Instead, these policies and principles are being violated by the administration, and an express promise by the Provost to follow the FBR’s recommendation is being ignored.
For me, the final straw was a recent FMRC meeting with VPFAA Docherty. I bluntly asked if there was any potential misconduct case that, under existing policy, she could imagine bringing to the FMRC for a hearing, as spelled out clearly in BL-ACA-27. The language of that binding, campus-level policy is unambiguous: in the case of a contemplated imposition of severe sanctions on a faculty member, the FMRC should conduct a hearing, make a finding and recommend sanctions if appropriate. Unfortunately, I did not receive a straightforward answer to that simple question. I have concluded that there is, in fact, no circumstance under which we as a committee will be permitted by this administration to carry out the deliberative role our colleagues have entrusted us with.
I hope I am wrong, but I am no longer interested in sitting around waiting to find out.
The process outlined in the campus policy is no doubt imperfect. Yet it is the current policy, binding on administrators and faculty alike. The spirit of shared governance requires that we follow it as best we can. If the administration feels they can ignore the existing policy merely because they find it inconvenient, then I have to ask: why am I serving on a committee which has no purpose, and is not permitted to carry out its prescribed function?
I have reluctantly concluded that I would be better off drawing my own conclusions as a regular faculty member, and feeling free to speak out on such matters, rather than continuing to participate in such a charade in silence.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Lichtenstein
Professor of History and American Studies
