在我直言不讳地反对种族接管教师招聘程序之后，大学对我进行了谴责。
作者：林培瑞
来源：华尔街日报，2014年12月11日
译者：Fredyib
8 月 16 日，加州大学河滨分校校长 Kim Wilcox 给我写了一封谴责信。校方认为我对 "求职者 "存在 "歧视"，我对种族问题发表了 "毫无根据的评论"。
Wilcox先生的说法主要基于我在 2022 年 12 月写给教职员遴选委员会同事的以下声明："[候选人 X] 活泼迷人，而且是黑人，这很好，但我不能说我发现他的成熟度和经验达到了我们顶尖候选人的水平"。我表示担心我的一些同事会像过去一样，把申请人的种族作为 "压倒一切的标准"。
委员会非官方的多元化、公平与包容监护人Heidi Brevik-Zender曾建议我们在其他几位候选人之前提拔这位黑人申请人，并将他列入我们的候选名单，而我的上述意见是对这种提拔的回应。随后，有人在没有通知我的情况下，将这些意见报告给了院长和副教务长，从而引发了大学的停不下来的纪律机器。
这台机器的力量让我惊讶，它对种族主义的指控也让我吃惊。别忘了，高中时我曾与一位来自肯尼亚的养兄同住一室，大学时我曾为黑人投票权而游行，1996 年以来，我在中国倡导人权的行为使我在中国被列入黑名单。
我有几个理由反对给这位申请人一个机会。这对被排除的资质更好的候选人不公平。这不符合大学的利益，即找到最好的从业人员。而且，我不相信人为的加分符合被加分者的最大利益。
我第一次听说对我的投诉是在 2023 年 1 月，当时我被要求与副院长Kiril Tomoff、院长Daryle Williams和副教务长Daniel Jeske会面。院长威廉姆斯先生告诉我，我说过或写过一些 "让人不高兴 "的话，我应该退出遴选委员会。我问了两遍我说了什么让人不高兴的话，但没人愿意说。我告诉院长，我不能因为一些没有说明的事情而辞职。
几天后，威廉姆斯先生把我从遴选委员会解聘了——仍然没有说我说了什么令人不快的话。我向一些惊愕的同事解释说，我猜测我是因为某些与种族有关的违法行为而被撤职的。后来，威廉姆斯先生向我们学校的教务委员会提出了对我的指控。他说我违反了《教师行为准则》，"对学生的种族、性别或民族血统发表了不利和无理的评论"。他还没有说出是哪句话，他还声称我违反了遴选委员会的保密规定。
随后，我收到了处理纪律问题的副教务长Philip Brisk发来的一封电子邮件。他告诉我，我可以与行政部门协商。我被告知，其中一个解决方案可能包括减薪 10%，为期一年。否则，我的案件将交由指控委员会处理，该委员会由一群教职员工组成，他们将对指控进行调查。如果他们找到了 "可能的理由"，我的案件就会提交给教职员特权和终身教职委员会，进行相当于审判的 "听证"。
我觉得很恼火，也不想进行谈判，于是选择让我的案件交由指控委员会处理，自己对威廉姆斯先生提起诉讼。我的主要论据是，他侵犯了我的正当程序权，因为他在没有说明我的违规行为的情况下就对我进行了处罚。指控委员会最终在没有异议的情况下决定，我的行为不需要举行纪律听证会，但威廉姆斯先生违反正当程序的行为需要举行纪律听证会。
但纪律机器已经开始运转。副教务长布里斯克先生推翻了这些结论。他撤销了我对威廉姆斯先生的投诉，决定将对我的指控提交特权和终身职位委员会进行纪律听证。最后，在 2023 年 12 月 6 日，布里斯克先生把我叫到他的办公室，第一次告诉我，我在将近一年前写的违纪文字是什么。
2024 年 2 月至 4 月间举行了为期四天的听证会。听证会上，检察官、指控、宣誓、证人、交叉质证等审判要素一应俱全。检察官是加州大学的一名律师，他给我的行为贴上了 "恶劣 "的标签，说我是 "解雇 "的候选人。陪审团由来自不同院系的三位教授组成。2024 年 6 月，他们建议我在一段时间内不得被任命为任何遴选委员会的成员——这对我来说没什么问题，但更重要的是，他们就所有管理部门的指控一致得出结论：我的行为 "并未违反《教师行为准则》"。
这台机器仍在运转。虽然校长威尔科克斯先生同意我没有违反任何保密规定，但他不同意委员会关于种族指控的结论，并向我发出了一封谴责信。从形式上讲，他有权这样做。在加州大学的程序中，尽管模仿了民法，但案件是由 "行政部门 "提出的，最终的权威也是 "行政部门"。实质上，威尔科克斯先生既是原告又是法官。
在这场磨难中，布里斯克先生多次建议我们 "和解"。以我 79 岁的高龄，我觉得我可以拒绝。假如我是一个年轻的学者，我很可能会不顾自己的清白而屈服，随时会被这台纪律机器吞入的生活是可怕的。
对机器的反抗会导致它加速运转。对我的言论的惩罚始于要求我辞去遴选委员会的职务。一年后，同样的话足以让我受到减薪甚至解雇的威胁。为什么会急剧升级？因为我没有屈服。对机器来说，这比最初的冒犯更令人不快。
在威尔科克斯先生考虑对我的案子做出最终决定时，我提出要去他的办公室当面听听他的决定和理由。他没有回答。几个月后，我收到了一条来自大学法律顾问的信息，警告说发生在我身上的所有事情都是保密的，我写出来 "可能会导致纪律处分"。
——转自议报
附：
UC Riverside 'DEI Guardians' Persecute Professor for Objecting to Racial Hiring Preferences
Prof Link decided to fight back against the railroading
By Evan Gahr, December 14, 2024 2:55 am
Diversity, equity and inclusion proponents are not very inclusive of anybody who disagrees with them.
In a harrowing Wall Street Journal opinion piece published earlier this week, University of California at Riverside Professor Perry Link recounted how he was hounded, badgered and persecuted by school administrators, most notably the University Chancellor, after he merely objected to giving preferences to a faculty candidate based on race.
In the December 11 article, titled "UC Riverside's DEI Guardians Came After Me," Link described how the university "censured me after I spoke out against race taking over the faculty hiring process."
He was ultimately censured by UC Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox and charged with having "discriminated" against "individuals seeking employment" for objecting to racial preferences.
Ironically, racial preferences in hiring by public employers or public universities has long been illegal in California anyway. And if the faculty search committee was flouting the law in this one case that Link flagged it makes you wonder how common the practice is at UC Riverside and other public universities across California.
As Link tells it, the fracas dated to December 2022 when he objected to colleagues on a faculty search committee boosting an unqualified black candidate.
He wrote that "[Candidate X] is lively and charming—and yes, Black, which is great—but I can't say that I found his sophistication and experience up to the level of our top candidates."
Link then "expressed my worry that some of my colleagues would, as they had in the past, make the applicant's race their "overriding criterion."
In other words he wanted candidates judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin to paraphrase Martin Luther King's famous color blind adage.
But diversity, equity and inclusion elevates race above everything else–fetishizes it, really. So the DEI machinery soon clamped down hard on Link.
"The committee's unofficial diversity, equity and inclusion guardian, Heidi Brevik-Zender, had proposed that we boost this black applicant ahead of several others and place him on our shortlist. My comments came in response to this boosting. Someone then reported them to deans and vice provosts without notice to me, triggering a university discipline machine that couldn't be stopped."
He was soon summoned to a meeting with administrators but they would not specify exactly what he had done wrong–kind of like Franz Kafka's famous novel, The Trial about somebody never told the crime for which he is being prosecuted?
"The first I heard of the complaint against me came in January 2023 when I was asked to meet with Associate Dean Kiril Tomoff, Dean Daryle Williams and Vice Provost Daniel Jeske," Link recounts. "Mr. Williams told me that I had said or written something that had 'upset people' and that I should recuse myself from the search committee. I asked—twice—what my upsetting words were, and no one would say. I told the dean that I couldn't resign for something unstated."
Several days later, Dean Williams dismissed Link from the faculty search committee, still without telling him precisely what he had said wrong.
"Later Mr. Williams filed an allegation against me with our campus Academic Senate. He said I had violated the Faculty Code of Conduct by making "adverse and unwarranted comments about the race, gender, or national origin of the candidate pool." He still hadn't named the words. He also claimed that I breached the search committee's confidentiality."
Then Phil Brisk, a vice provost who handles discipline, swung into action. He told Link that he could negotiate for a 10% salary reduction–or alternatively face more discipline.
Absent a pay cut "my case would go to a Charges Committee, a group of faculty members who would investigate the claims. If they found 'probable cause,' my case would then go to a faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee for a 'hearing' that amounts to a trial."
Link decided to fight back against the railroading. "Feeling annoyed and disinclined to negotiate, I opted to let my case go to the Charges Committee and filed a case of my own against Mr. Williams. I argued chiefly that he had violated my right to due process because he had punished me without specifying my offense. The Charges Committee eventually, and without dissent, decided that my actions didn't warrant a disciplinary hearing but that Mr. Williams's violation of due process did."
Despite this victory the DEI machinery still came down hard on Link, "as the discipline machine was already in gear."
Indeed, "Brisk countermanded these findings" against Williams for railroading Link.
As the professor recounts, "He set aside my complaint against Mr. Williams and decided to send the charges against me to the Privilege and Tenure Committee for a disciplinary hearing. Finally, on Dec. 6, 2023, Mr. Brisk called me to his office and for the first time told me what my offending words, written almost a year earlier, had been."
Next, a full scale trial ensued over Link's thought crimes. He was being put on trial for words, not actions.
"Four days of hearings were held between February and April 2024," Link recalls. "They had all the fixtures of a trial—prosecutor, briefs, swearings-in, witnesses, cross-examinations and more. The prosecutor, an attorney for the University of California, labeled my actions 'egregious' and said I was a candidate for 'termination.' The jury consisted of three professors from various departments."
He was largely vindicated. "In June 2024, they recommended that I not be appointed to any search committees for a time—fine by me—but, more important, unanimously concluded on all the administrations' charges that my actions "did not violate the Faculty Code of Conduct."
Despite the vindication, University of California at Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox decided to censure Link anyway.
"Still the machine moved forward. Though he agreed that I didn't violate any confidentiality rule, Mr. Wilcox disagreed with the committee's conclusion on the racial charges and sent me a letter of censure. Formally he had the right to do this. In the University of California process, for all its mimicry of civil law, a case is brought by 'the Administration,' and the final authority is also 'the Administration.' In essence, Mr. Wilcox was both plaintiff and judge."
Link concludes his piece by talking about how the DEI bureaucracy tolerated no dissent.
"Resistance to the machine causes it to accelerate.," he writes. "The penalty for my words began as a demand that I resign from a search committee. A year later, those same words were enough to threaten me with a pay cut or even termination. Why the dramatic escalation? Because I didn't bend. To the machine, that was more offensive than the original affront."
Link told the California Globe that DEI theoretically has noble goals but it has been perverted. "
"The ideals behind DEI are good, in my view," Link emailed. "I have spent a lot of time and energy in my life trying to make things better for underdogs. When DEI 'training' came along at UCR, I reacted against it because the curriculum was puerile and the 'teachers' far below my level in thinking about such things."
Link said he considered fighting the machine to be something of an experiment.
"When the DEI machine turned on me a couple of years ago, my attitude was to let it run its course–sort of as a research project–and see what happened.," he explained. "My idea was to write about it, which I just did, for the WSJ, but I want to write more, in more depth, especially on the question of 'How did this very odd phenomenon come about?'"
The professor added that the most important principle at stake for him in fighting the machine was "whether [academia] can return to its original purpose, which is learning, in the two forms we call 'teaching' and 'research.'"
John Warren, the UC Riverside associate vice chancellor for communications, did not respond to an email asking for comment on the Wall Street Journal and why the school is apparently hiring based on race in violation of California law.
没有评论:
发表评论