Looking out for St. Thomas

It’s heartening to see and hear so many people express concern about the life and legacy of St. Thomas — the University of St. Thomas. I heard it on my radio show just about every time a guest from UST was on, when listeners called in with worries about programs or exhibits on the campus that may not uphold the great Thomistic, Catholic intellectual tradition of that institution. We share a love of that tradition, and of St. Thomas, and…without denying the problems UST and all universities face…we focused on the outstanding people and programs there.

Which brings up the comment an alumnus of UST sent in on a recent post about the UST professor who has been denied tenure. The writer is a UST alum who followed up the news of the professor’s lawsuit against the school and its president with a letter to that president, and he forwarded that with his comments here to the Forum. It prompts a new post here, because his letter to the president is excellent, and it speaks for many people. And the response he received needs attention.

In his letter, Mr. Houck told Fr. Dease the news item on the professor denied tenure has been in the student newspaper and was on the Internet, and…

on the surface is disturbing to me and other Alums who desperately do not want to see UST stray from its strong Catholic background, if that indeed is what this indicates to be happening. From the information contained herein and the fact that this incident is now in the public domain, it would seem to me that some explanation of this action should be forthcoming to those of us who are most interested in the future of UST as a Catholic institution. I am not in a position to question your decision in this matter, but think that it now needs public clarification and justification. Certainly I am interested in this issue and would appreciate the explanation and resolution of it. I believe that we who support UST now need and deserve that. Thank you.

R. J. Houck ’51

That is a very good letter, with good questions, sincere, succinct and well-put. The reply from Fr. Dease is briefly worded, mainly addressing the InForum blog post, it would appear, which Mr. Houck brought to Fr. Dease’s attention along with the news story.

Dear Mr. Houck,

Thank you for sharing your concerns about a blog entry discussing the denial of tenure to Dr. Siobhan Nash-Marshall at the University of St. Thomas .

Although I cannot comment on this personnel matter because of privacy laws and also because it is in litigation, I can absolutely assure you that it has nothing at all to do with Catholic and secular issues as the blogger suggests.  The blogger is, very simply, wrong.

I appreciate your taking the time to write and your continuing support for St. Thomas.

Sincerely,
Reverend Dennis Dease
President
University of St. Thomas

That satisfied Mr. Houck, who wrote this comment:

I may not be totally knowledgeable on how and why tenure is granted (or denied), but I wonder how and why there is any obligation on the part of the employer to grant tenure regardless of qualifications or lack thereof. It seems to me that it is at the discretion of the employer to grant tenure or not. If it is not granted for any reason, it is then the option of the employee to either stay at the level of achievement or leave to seek the desired tenure at another institution. Employers make such decisions and others based to the best of their judgment on what is best for the institution and not is what is best for the employees. At this point I would accept the decision of Fr. Dease as president of UST over the opinion of students and others until there is concrete evidence to the contrary. That is his responsibility and perogative and that of every CEO despite criticism to the contrary. Am I the only one to seek his comment on the issue before making opinions?

No, actually Dr. Marshall sought that explanation first. Many faculty members and students have been asking. The student newspaper sought Fr. Dease’s comment when they published the article about this issue.

Mr. Houck makes the well-intended assumption that university tenure is like promotion in the business or corporate world, though it is not. As the Aquin student newspaper explains:

After six years of teaching as an assistant professor, full-time faculty members are eligible for tenure, an assurance of lifetime employment as long as a teacher maintains competence. The university’s faculty handbook outlines the criteria for tenure, as well as the steps in the tenure process. Applicants for tenure must meet several criteria and must submit a portfolio that includes evidence that they meet the professional development requirements of teaching, professional engagement and service. The results of their annual, triennial and tenure year reviews are considered, as are the recommendation of the applicant’s department chair and reviews by the academic dean.

Go back to that original post link above and review it, and the Aquin article linked there, for the thorough explanation of this case. After the academic council reviewed her case, they reversed their earlier denial and recommended Marshall be granted tenure. Fr. Dease denied it again. As the Aquin reported:

She then filed a formal grievance and appeared at a hearing before the grievance committee Nov. 13, 2006. She said she presented a portfolio of her service work to the committee; it included more than 500 pages of letters and e-mails from colleagues substantiating her service, she said. “They [the members of the grievance committee] left no stone unturned,” Nash-Marshall said. The grievance committee unanimously recommended that her application for tenure be reconsidered, she said. Despite the committee’s recommendation, Dease denied her application for the third time.

If there is “concrete evidence to the contrary” on Dr. Marshall’s lack of merit or qualification, that explanation should clearly be made…no?

Journalism professor Thomas Connery, academic dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the time, said he thought Nash-Marshall had a strong tenure and promotion case. “I am very puzzled by the decision and I remain puzzled,” he said…

Mr. Houck expresses concern that he and other alum have for the Catholic identity of UST, but Fr. Dease’s reply to him focuses on his concern “about a blog entry,” assuring Mr. Houck that the denial of tenure to Dr. Marshall “has nothing at all to do with Catholic and secular issues as the blogger suggests.” His conclusion is that “the blogger is, very simply, wrong.”

That is dismissive. And inaccurate. The original post carried reporting by the Aquin and comments by faculty and students. Whatever is “wrong” in it should be corrected for the record.

Like Mr. Houck, I gave the benefit of the doubt to Fr. Dease, and closer reading of the post will show it to be charitable and hopeful.

UST was built upon the great Thomistic tradition of intellectual inquiry, of defining the debate and clarifying the explicit reasons behind the argument. Fine alumni like Mr. Houck and those for whom he speaks, including my son Andrew, expect the university to uphold that Catholic identity and honorable tradition. If at some point Fr. Dease provides the explanation so many people are seeking in good faith, I will publish it here in a ‘Sed contra’ post dedicated to intellectual honesty. Dr. Marshall and all of her colleagues…Mr. Houck and the alum…in fact, all of us…know that one doesn’t have to like an explanation, one only seeks to hear its reasons.

By the way….

This post has been a work in progress over the past day or so, due to considerable interruptions. In the meantime, today’s mail included this large impressive note card from the University of St. Thomas addressed to the UST alumnus in the family. It boasts of the university’s “Catholic Identity: Traditions of faith, values and service to all”, and proudly declares that St. John Vianney is “the largest undergraduate Catholic seminary in America.” I will add, it’s just about the best. The card boasts: “Initiated by students, perpetual Eucharistic adoration began in 2005.” Awesome students.

And it says: “Our Catholic identity continues to be an integral part of our mission and of the day-to-day life of our community.” That Catholic identity is good to reclaim.