State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, New York 12246
Office of the Chancellor June 17, 1986
Mr. B. Robert Kreiser
Associate Secretary
American Association of University Professors
1012 Fourteenth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. Kreiser:
Your June 6 letter attempts once again to create a
role for AAUP to play in the Dube tenure appeal,
I thought my prior letters clearly made the point
that your organization has no right to intrude
where a collective bargaining representative has
been granted the exclusive right to represent State
University's professional employees (See State-UUP
Se
that these intrusions are ill-advised and serve no
Sincerely,
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Chancellor
cc: President Marburger
Professor Dube
be: Mr. Levine
~ Wharton w/copy of corres.
SUNY Board of Trustees (6/23/86)
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
1012 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W., SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202) 737-5900
President: Associate Secretary:
Paut H L WALTER B. ROBERT KREISER
Skidmore College
June 6, 1986
General Secretary:
ae STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
RECEIVED
. OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Chancellor JUN 9 1986
State University of New York AM
State University Plaza 218191217 12,3 .4 1516
Albany, New York 12246 , ,a\
Dear Chancellor Wharton:
We are writing to you once again regarding the case of
Professor Ernest Dube at the State University of New York at
Stony Brook. Professor Dube has consulted with us pursuant to
your letter to him of May 5, 1986, in which you informed him that
you were directing President John Marburger to extend his ap-
pointment until Februrary 28, 1987, during further review of his
tenure appeal that is to be conducted by a second ad hoc Chancel-
lor's Advisory Committee.
This letter is prompted by our concern over the adequacy,
in the context of the State University of New York's stated
provisions for notice (which are virtually identical to the Asso-
ciation's enclosed Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment) of
the extension of Professor Dube's apppointment only until Feb-
ruary rather than until the expiration of the academic year. The
Standard calling for twelve months of notice for faculty members
after two years of service requires that it be issued "before the
expiration of the appointment." The Standard's "before-the-expir-
ation" reference is designed to take into account the prevailing
cyclical nature of the academic hiring process to which faculty
members need to conform. Professors are placed at a severe dis-
advantage if their appointments expire and they need to secure
new positions at a time that is out of step with the ordinary
cycle of academic appointments.
The Association has spoken to this latter issue on previous
occasions. In a report by an AAUP investigating committee on a
case at Onondaga Community College, concerning a professor who
was notified on an arbitrary date during an academic year that
his services would terminate twelve months later, the investiga-
ting committee observed:
Because of the special rhythm of academic
appointment procedures, notification of
>
Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
June 6, 1986
Page Two
nonrenewal to take effect in the midst of an
academic year severely limits the faculty
member's opportunity to move promptly to a
new position. The notice given [the
professor] did not afford him a true year of
Opportunity to secure another academic
position. (AAUP Bulletin, Summer 1971, page
172::)
This issue was recently adjudicated in the courts, in a case
involving a faculty member at the University of Colorado. The
Calorado Court of Appeals, upholding the findings of the district
court, ruled with reference to notice "at least twelve months
before the expiration of an appointment":
The regents argue that the correct interpre-
tation of this standard is that they need
only give twelve months notice with no regard
as to the terms of appointment being served.
(The professor] argues, on the other hand,
that termination notification requires the
regents to give twelve months notice prior to
the expiration of the appointed term. ...
We conclude that the standards setting fort
notification for nonreappointment mean that
the regents must give twelve months notice
prior to the end of the regular appointment
term, rather than merely giving twelve months
notice at any time during the appointed term.
(Subyran v. Regents of University of
Colorado; No. 82CAL344; December 20, 1984)
We believe that this interpretation of the standards for
notice is applicable to the extension of appointment in Professor
Dube's case. We recommend that his appointment be extended for
the duration of the 1986-87 academic year, whatever may be the
result of the additional review you have scheduled for the fall.
Sincerely,
A Aer [Cee
B. Robert Kreiser
BRK/mjs
Enclosure
cc: President John H. Marburger
Professor Ernest F. Dube
xc: SUNY Board of Trustees (6/23/86)
WINTER
The Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment
(Endorsed by The Fiftieth Annual Meeting)
Because a probationary appointment, even though for a fixed or stated
term, carries an expectation of renewal, the faculty member should be
explicitly informed of a decision not to renew his appointment, in order
that he may seek a position at another college or university. Such notice
should be given at an early date, since a failure to secure another posi-
tion for the ensuing academic year will deny the faculty member the oppor-
tunity to practice his profession. The purpose of this Statement is to set
forth in detail, for the use of the academic profession, those standards for
notice of nonreappointment which the Association over a period of years
has actively supported and which are expressed as a general principle in
the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
The Standards for Notice
Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend reap-
pointment to the governing board, should be given in writing in accordance
with the following standards:
(1) Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the
appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year ap-
pointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months
in advance of its termination.
(2) Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service,
if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial
two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least
six months in advance of its termination.
(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment
after two or more years in the institution.
1967
407
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
P.O. BOX 270
NORTHPORT, NEW YORK 11768-0270
TELEPHONE ANDREW 1 -6066
October 8, 1986
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. Chancellor
SUNY
State University Plaza
Albany, New York 12246
John H. Marburger, President
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Re: Results of Discussion and Actions Taken
at Executive Session of the Council of the
State University at Stony Brook on September
24, 1986.
Present: Andrew E. Ullmann, Chair
Loretta Capuano
Aaron B. Donner
Joel H. Girsky
Betty G. Ostrander
Greta M. Rainsford
Jeffrey A. Sachs
Ena Townsend
Gentlemen:
As a result of the captioned Executive Session and by the unanimous
consent of the Council members I am authorized and directed to send this letter to
the Chancellor and President Marburger jointly. As this is the beginning of my
tenure as Chair of the Council there are certain concerns that my co-members and I
have developed which we feel need exposure and correction.
Over an extended period of time President Marburger and his staff
members have failed to keep the Council advised as to important developments in the
University. We offer the following examples:
1. DUBE - The public uproar over Dr. Dube is now common knowledge.
hile the Council does not take any position on Dr. Dube, all of the members feel
that the failure of the President's office to communicate with the Council
concerning any aspect of the problem over what is more than a three year period can
hardly be qualified as accidental.
The Council recognizes that it has no roll to play in the tenure
Process and we fully recognize the necessity for confidentiality in the process
=?
itself. Nevertheless, we feel that the individual Council members with various
constituencies in the Long Island Community could have offered some practical
suggestions to assist the Administration in this most unpleasant incident. Instead,
Our source of knowledge was Newsday.
While it is true that the Administration did use the service of a
former member of the Council in addressing the concern of several Jewish groups in
Nassau and Suffolk areas, we do not consider that a substitute for seeking the
Council's advice with regard to the many incidents and crisis which have appeared
over this period.
2. Dr. James Black was the Vice President for University Affairs and
in effect was dismissed. Again the Council does not question the Administration's
right to dismiss Dr. Black, nor does it take any position on whether or not the
dismissal was warranted. However, the dismissal was accomplished without any of the
Council members being advised that it was taking place or that it was imminent.
While it cannot be expected to be advised of every dismissal or
resignation, a change in a major position in the University, particularly in the
field of university affairs should have been communicated, at least on a private
basis.
3. On Sunday, May 4, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. and in response to great
concern by the Council over the lack of communication particularly in sensitive
areas like the Dube case an exective session was held at Joel Gersky's office. At
the conclusion of that meeting it was the unanimous consensus of the Council members
who were present that the lines of communication between the President's office and
the Council members in matters of importance and matters which would arouse public
interest would be kept open and the Council advised. Following that meeting and
ingnoring developments that took place in the Dube case since that time (we
understand that some aspects of the Dube case, must of necessity be kept
confidential) the following events have occurred:
(a) Dr. Homer Neal, the Provost of the University resigned. Prior
word of his resgination was not supplied to the Council, all of which were
privileged to read about it in Newsday. Still recognizing the need for same
confidentiality in some matters we feel that at least some explanation of Dr. Neal's
resignation should have been supplied and we find it offensive to have an important
event like this be withheld from us.
(b) Enrollment of students in Stony Brook - At the August 12, 1986
meeting of Council, the President advised that due to a drop in enrollment in the
freshman class of approximately 300 over a two year period, 30 tenured faculty
positions would be lost by the closing of one department and a severe cutback in
another. The names of the departments were not made known to us and we have no
quarrel with that decision. The reduction in freshman enrollees resulted from fewer
applicants being accepted and in not reducing the academic standards to a point
where lesser qualified students would be admitted. We are, however, concerned with
the Administration's failure to advise the Council earlier that August 12, 1986,
that tenured faculty positions would have to be terminated.
While we do not expect a discussion on every event we do think there
are some events that are important enough to at least warn the Council that steps
are being taken that might have an adverse public relations effect. Again, seeking
the advice of the Council on possible political after-effects should have taken
place.
4. Convention Center - When the proposal to erect a Convention Center
became close to reality three members of the Council, Aaron Donner, Betty Ostrander
and myself expressed to the President our great interest in being involved in the
process. Both Aaron Donner and myself are practicing attorneys in Suffolk County,
who have represented, for many years, several clients who have done similar type
projects and while we sought no professional or monetary involvement it was a
project that excited all three of us and we asked to be included. Instead we were
excluded. At the August 12th meeting of the Council I again expressed my interest
and did remind the President that myself, Donner and Ostrander would like very much
to be kept abreast of the event. I was assured that that would be the case.
Unfortunately, it was not. Approximately one week thereafter Newsday published a
rather extensive article indicating that Richard T. Carr and Jack Parker were taking
steps to secure financing for the project and in fact had approached the Wall Street
investment firm of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. We can hardly imagine a more flagrant
ignoring of the Council's desire to be imformed and in this case a desire of three
members to at least observe, if not participate.
5. Austin Travel - We begin our analysis of the University's problem
with Austin Travel with the following observations. Larry Austin, who is president
and Chief Executive Officer of Austin Travel and its founder is a member of the same
golf club that I belong to. We are not social friends. We do not play golf
together. He has no professional relationship with me and I have no business
relationship with him.
He is certainly one of Long Island's leading business men. Mr.
Austin, for example, is a leading philantropist heavily involved in the United
Jewish Appeal and other charitable foundations. He has been Vice President of the
Long Island Association, Long Island Philharmonic, Long Island Better Business
Bureau and Long Island Stage. Due to his heavy involvement in sociable and cultural
affairs in Long Island, while he is not a member of the body politic, he isa
prominent Republican businessman with friends in political circles. He is alsoa
member of the Board of Directors of the Stony Brook Foundation and a contributor as
well.
Some months ago and responding to a published request, Austin made
a presentation, together with three other agencies to obtain the right to open a
Travel Agency office on the campus. Having done corporate travel work for many
« =
clients, including being the sole agent for worldwide travel for the Grumman
Corporation, Austin Travel did, according to Larry Austin's discussion with me, make
what he was given to understand was the type of presentation that the Committee
wanted. When the selection process was over Mr. Austin was advised that "your
presentation was not good. You were not even close and you finished a distant
fourth." The contract was awarded to a Virginia based company which then obtained a
defunct travel agency office on Long Island and became the awardee of the bid.
Again, the Council takes no position with respect to the Committee's
decision. We do, however, find the University's handling of Mr. Austin to be almost
mind boggling. If, if fact, Austin Travel was not to be the designee, then at the
very least it seems to us that he should have been entitled to a private discussion.
Apparently the political fallout is quite extensive among Mr. Austin's friends, with
several Assemblymen and State Senators, at least one of whom had a private luncheon
with Dr. Marburger which resulted, I am told, in a rather unhappy ending.
6. The Suffolk Child Development Center is a school for the teaching
of emotionally disturbed children. Since 1978, it has occupied approximately 8,000
square feet on the Stony Brook campus pursuant to a continuing lease which expires
at the end of each academic year. The rental payment are $4.90 per square foot per
annum (one of our Council Members, Aaron Donner is attorney for the Center).
For the past several years undergraduate students and graduate students
at Stony Brook, whose disciplines involve working with emotionally disturbed
children used the facility as a laboratory in getting experience in teaching and
handling of these children. The Development Center gives stipends of approximately
$30,000.00 per year to the student interns. Needless to say the Development Center
has extensive backing from the Long Island community, political and otherwise.
By letter dated September 15, 1986, the Center was advised that (a)
they would have to vacate their premises no later than June 30, 1987, and (b) that
effective November 1, 1986, their rent would be raised to $10.00 per square foot per
year (the University's legal right to increase the rent is by no means clear). The
Director of the Center suggested to the Administration that there were many square
feet of vacant space on the campus in the immediate area and inquired as to why
their space was required. To this inquiry no response was received. (Copies of the
pertinent correspondence are annexed).
The Council takes no position on the merits of the University's
position in evicting the Development Center and procuring the space. We do,
however, find it particularly offensive to ask for an increase in rent when there is
only a few short months left, particularly when emotionally disturbed children are
involved and the Development Center's budget is, of course, tight. It has been
suggested that there will be severe political fallout when this knowledge becomes
public and again we feel that the Council could, if they had been asked, at least
issued a warning to the Administration that trouble was ahead. We also note that
the entire student training program in the Development Center is now in jeopardy
because the Developement Center must move.
In summation we offer the following comments:
The role of the Council is prescribed by law. However, we find that we
are in fact the University's "window on the world." The inability or unwillingness,
as the case may be, of the Administration to discuss important events and to seek
our opinion even if it is not followed is particularly offensive. Unfortunately, we
do not question an isolated course of conduct or an occasional mishap which is, of
course, excusable. What we do criticize is a continuous course of conduct over a
long period of time which is unexcusable. I repeat, that this document results
from a unanimous decision of the Council members at the Executive Session.
It is our unanimous view that the Council has in recent years been in
effect "shut out" from the University's major problems. We seek a quick and
definite change and we await further developments.
Yours, very truly,
AEU:vm
cc: Donald M. Blinken
277 Park Avenue
New YOrk, New York 10017
Office of the Provost
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-1401
StonyBrook telephone: ($16) 632-7000
September 15, 1986
Mr. Peter Kelly
President of the Board of Directors
Suffolk Child Development Center
Hollywood Drive
Smithtown, New York 11787
Re: Notice of Cancellation
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Pursuant to the terms of the Revocable Permit dated October 24,
1978, please consider this letter a formal notice of termination.
The provisions of that agreement allow the Developmental Center
to remain at its present location on campus until the completion
of your school year which is presently in progress.
Please be advised that it has been necessary to adjust the rental
rate from $4.90 to $10.00. Your new annual rental will then be
$43,680 beginning November 1, 1986 and continuing until July 1,
1987. The same formula which is set out in the 1978 agreement
has been applied to arrive at this figure.
t
We truly regret that these steps are necessary, but as you are
probably aware, competing demands for the University's space are
severe and we have no choice but to take this action. We are
Pleased that we were able to provide you with good, low cost
space during a critical time in the evolution of your Center.
The University also benefitted from this collaboration and we
hope to continue to interact with you in the future.
I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation and
assistance in effecting this move in an orderly and timely way.
Sincerely,
OKLA
J.R. Schubel
Provost
cc: William H. Anslow
John H. Marburger
Aaron Donner
Martin D. Hamburg
Martin D. Hamburg, Ph. D.
Executive Director
Dominic Romeo, Ph. D.
Director of Education
Jonn Werner
Director of Therapy Services
Ray DeNataile. Jr.
Director of Day Treatment
Michaei Darcy
Director of Ancillary Services
Elayne Gersien
SUFFOLK
Hollywood Drive * Smithtown, New York 11787 © [516] 724-1717
Stony Brook Branch Meadow Glen Branch
{516} 689-9850 [516] 265-3001
September 23, 1986
Provost J. R. Schubel
State University of New York
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York
Dear Provost Schubel:
Director of Program We are in receipt of your letter of September 15,
Development 1986, however, since our 1978 agreement with the
nau University does not provide you with’ the
Life Skilis/Parent Training opportunity to increase our rent unilaterally and
—_—ae in as much as you chose not to afford us even the
fara enomnn iwiitn courtesy of a discussion of these matters nor any
Center
Renee Allen. C.S. W
Mobile intervention Program
Charlotte Jungblut
infant Development Program
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Peter Kelly
Presicent
Jerry Costello
John DaVanzo
Jack Eschmann
Jonn Galli
Lawrence Goldberg
Richard Hart, D.D.S.
Frank Oliva
Margaret Raustiala
William Jo Schmitt
Howard E Smith
Pamela Tucker
rin
attempt to negotiate, we therefore will refuse to
pay any rent increase.
Most sincerely yours,
(
Martin >} Ha rg, Ph. D.
Executive Divector
_——e
cc: William H. Anslow, Vice Chancellor of
Finance and Business
John H. Marburger, President
Aaron Donner
A Research and Training Affiliate
rites oa pe of The State University of New York at Stony Brook
Martin D. Hamburg, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Elayne Gersten
Deputy Executive Director
Michael! Darcy
Director of Residential Services
Ray DeNatale, Jr.
Director of Day Treatment
Linda Paul, Ph.D.
Director of Education
John Werner, Ph.D.
Director of Therapy Services
Terri S. Kivelowitz
Early Childhood Direction
Center
Renee Allen, C.S.W.
Case Management Project
Charlotte Jungblut, C.S.W.
Infan’/Toddler Program
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Peter Kelly
President
Martin Bieber
Jerry Costello
Jack Eschmann
Lawrence Goldberg
Richard Hart, D.D.S.
Bernard Hoffman, M.D
Roy Probeyahn
Margaret Raustiala
Pam Tucker
SUFFOLK ~
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Hollywood Drive * Smithtown, New York 11787 « [516] 724-1717
Stony Brook Branch Deer Park Branch
[516] 689-9850 [516] 595-1444
Meadow Glen Branch
[516] 265-3001
October 6, 1986
Mr. Aaron Donner
Donner, Hariton & Berka
2115 Union Boulevard
Bay Shore, NY 11706
ron
Dear Mr, Denner:
Enclosed please find a report that we have been
working on, and while it is still incomplete, I am
forwarding to you this preliminary copy. A
complete list of publications that have resulted
from research at our Stony Brook site will be sent
to you by Friday.
You may also be interested in the attached
announcement. This is the first program of our
new Department of Continuing Edugation, and we
chose as our first partner the Department of
Physical Therapy at Stony Brook. They and we are
most enthusiastic about this program.
Finally, Aaron I cannot help but mention some of
our hopes for the future of our Stony Brook
project. Stony Brook University now has the
Opportunity to create a training and research
program of national significance in the area of
normal and abnormal child development. In May,
1985, Suffolk Center Proposed to the University
that we construct on campus a new Early Childhood
Center that would house our current program, the
Research Preschool Project of the Department of
Psychology and the University's Day Care Program.
A single site would not only provide considerable
operational efficiency to these programs that have
Similar facility needs, but would enhance the
Opportunity for integrated training and research
efforts.
We have pledged to assist the University with
solutions to some of its current day care problems
as well as to work toward obtaining public and
private funding for our Proposed Early Childhood
Center. We received considerable encouragement
A Research and Training Affiliate
of The State University of New York at Stony Brook
but no commitment back in 1985. We remain
interested in establishing an Early Childhood
Center which would clearly advance the
University's mission and would also provide us
with a permanent campus home.
Thank you for your kind interest in these matters.
Most sincerely yours,
a *
Martin D,/Hamburg, Ph.D.
Executi Directgr
MDH//pat
SUFFOLK CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Hollywood Drive © Smithtown, New York 11787. « [516] 724-1717
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
P.O. BOX 270
NORTHPORT, NEW YORK 11768-0270
TELEPHONE ANDREW 1 -6066
October 9, 1986
Dr. John H. Marburger, President
SUNY at Stony Brook
2 Johns Hollow Road
Setauket, New York 11784
Dear Dr. Marburger:
This letter has been supplied both to yourself, Clifton
Wharton and Donald Blinken on a personal and confidential basis.
Yours very truly,
ROW
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
AEU: vm
enclosure
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
P.O. BOX 270
NORTHPORT. NEW YORK 11768-0270
TELEPHONE ANDREW 1 -6066
October 8, 1986
Clifton R- Wharton, Jr. Chancellor
SUNY
State University plaza
Albany, New York 12246
Jonn H. Marburger, President
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Re: Results of Discussion and Actions Taken
at Executive Session of the Council of the
State University at Stony Brook on September
24, 1986.
Present: andrew E. Ullmann, Chair
Loretta Capuano
Aaron B. Donner
Joel H. Girsky
Betty G- Ostrander
Greta M. Rainsford
Jeffrey A- Sachs
Ena Townsend
As a result of the captioned Executive Session and by the unanimous
consent of the Council members I am authorized and directed to send this letter to
the Chancellor and President Marburger jointly. As this is the beginning of my
tenure as Chair of the Council there are certain concerns that my co-members and I
have developed which we feel need exposure and correction.
Over an extended period of time President Marburger and his staff
members have failed to keeP the Council advised as to important developments in the
University. we offer the following examples:
1. DUBE - The public uproar over Dr. Dube is now common knowledge -
While the Council does not take any position on Dr. Dube, all of the members feel
that the failure of the President's office to communicate with the Council
concerning any aspect of the problem over what is more than 4 three year period can
hardly be qualified as accidental.
The Council recognizes that it has no roll to play in the tenure
process and we fully recognize the necessity for confidentiality in the process
-2-
itself. Nevertheless, we feel that the individual Council members with various
constituencies in the Long Island Community could have offered some practical
suggestions to assist the Administration in this most unpleasant incident. Instead,
our source of knowledge was Newsday.
While it is true that the Administration did use the service of a
former member of the Council in addressing the concern of several Jewish groups in
Nassau and Suffolk areas, we do not consider that a substitute for seeking the
Council's advice with regard to the many incidents and crisis which have appeared
over this period.
2. Dr. James Black was the Vice President for University Affairs and
in effect was dismissed. Again the Council does not question the Administration's
right to dismiss Dr. Black, nor does it take any position on whether or not the
dismissal was warranted. However, the dismissal was accomplished without any of the
Council members being advised that it was taking place or that it was imminent.
While it cannot be expected to be advised of every dismissal or
resignation, a change in a major position in the University, particularly in the
field of university affairs should have been communicated, at least on a private
basis.
3. On Sunday, May 4, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. and in response to great
concern by the Council over the lack of communication particularly in sensitive
areas like the Dube case an exective session was held at Joel Gersky's office. At
the conclusion of that meeting it was the unanimous consensus of the Council members
who were present that the lines of communication between the President's office and
the Council members in matters of importance and matters which would arouse public
interest would be kept open and the Council advised. Following that meeting and
ingnoring developments that took place in the Dube case since that time (we
understand that some aspects of the Dube case, must of necessity be kept
confidential) the following events have occurred:
(a) Dr. Homer Neal, the Provost of the University resigned. Prior
word of his resgination was not supplied to the Council, all of which were
privileged to read about it in Newsday. Still recognizing the need for some
confidentiality in some matters we feel that at least some explanation of Dr. Neal's
resignation should have been supplied and we find it offensive to have an important
event like this be withheld from us.
(b) Enrollment of students in Stony Brook - At the August 12, 1986
meeting of Council, the President advised that due to a drop in enrollment in the
freshman class of approximately 300 over a two year period, 30 tenured faculty
positions would be lost by the closing of one department and a severe cutback in
another. The names of the departments were not made known to us and we have no
quarrel with that decision. The reduction in freshman enrollees resulted fram fewer
applicants being accepted and in not reducing the academic standards to a point
where lesser qualified students would be admitted. We are, however, concerned with
the Administration's failure to advise the Council earlier that August 12, 1986,
that tenured faculty positions would have to be terminated.
While we do not expect a discussion on every event we do think there
are same events that are important enough to at least warn the Council that steps
are being taken that might have an adverse public relations effect. Again, seeking
the advice of the Council on possible political after-effects should have taken
place.
4. Convention Center - When the proposal to erect a Convention Center
became close to reality three members of the Council, Aaron Donner, Betty Ostrander
and myself expressed to the President our great interest in being involved in the
process. Both Aaron Donner and myself are practicing attorneys in Suffolk County,
who have represented, for many years, several clients who have done similar type
projects and while we sought no professional or monetary involvement it was a
project that excited all three of us and we asked to be included. Instead we were
excluded. At the August 12th meeting of the Council I again expressed my interest
and did remind the President that myself, Donner and Ostrander would like very much
to be kept abreast of the event. I was assured that that would be the case.
Unfortunately, it was not. Approximately one week thereafter Newsday published a
rather extensive article indicating that Richard T. Carr and Jack Parker were taking
steps to secure financing for the project and in fact had approached the Wall Street
investment firm of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. We can hardly imagine a more flagrant
ignoring of the Council's desire to be imformed and in this case a desire of three
members to at least observe, if not participate.
5. Austin Travel - We begin our analysis of the University's problem
with Austin Travel with the following observations. Larry Austin, who is president
and Chief Executive Officer of Austin Travel and its founder is a member of the same
golf club that I belong to. We are not social friends. We do not play golf
together. He has no professional relationship with me and I have no business
relationship with him.
He is certainly one of Long Island's leading business men. Mr.
Austin, for example, is a leading philantropist heavily involved in the United
Jewish Appeal and other charitable foundations. He has been Vice President of the
Long Island Association, Long Island Philharmonic, Long Island Better Business
Bureau and Long Island Stage. Due to his heavy involvement in sociable and cultural
affairs in Long Island, while he is not a member of the body politic, he is a
prominent Republican businessman with friends in political circles. He is also a
member of the Board of Directors of the Stony Brook Foundation and a contributor as
well.
Some months ago and responding to a published request, Austin made
a presentation, together with three other agencies to obtain the right to open a
Travel Agency office on the campus. Having done corporate travel work for many
-4-
clients, including being the sole agent for worldwide travel for the Grumman
Corporation, Austin Travel did, according to Larry Austin's discussion with me, make
what he was given to understand was the type of presentation that the Committee
wanted. When the selection process was over Mr. Austin was advised that "your
presentation was not good. You were not even close and you finished a distant
fourth." The contract was awarded to a Virginia based company which then obtained a
defunct travel agency office on Long Island and became the awardee of the bid.
Again, the Council takes no position with respect to the Committee's
decision. We do, however, find the University's handling of Mr. Austin to be almost
mind boggling. If, if fact, Austin Travel was not to be the designee, then at the
very least it seems to us that he should have been entitled to a private discussion.
Apparently the political fallout is quite extensive among Mr. Austin's friends, with
several Assemblymen and State Senators, at least one of whom had a private luncheon
with Dr. Marburger which resulted, I am told, in a rather unhappy ending.
6. The Suffolk Child Development Center is a school for the teaching
of emotionally disturbed children. Since 1978, it has occupied approximately 8,000
square feet on the Stony Brook campus pursuant to a continuing lease which expires
at the end of each academic year. The rental payment are $4.90 per square foot per
annum (one of our Council Members, Aaron Donner is attorney for the Center).
For the past several years undergraduate students and graduate students
at Stony Brook, whose disciplines involve working with emotionally disturbed
children used the facility as a laboratory in getting experience in teaching and
handling of these children. The Development Center gives stipends of approximately
$30,000.00 per year to the student interns. Needless to say the Development Center
has extensive backing from the Long Island community, political and otherwise.
By letter dated September 15, 1986, the Center was advised that (a)
they would have to vacate their premises no later than June 30, 1987, and (b) that
effective November 1, 1986, their rent would be raised to $10.00 per square foot per
year (the University's legal right to increase the rent is by no means clear). The
Director of the Center suggested to the Administration that there were many square
feet of vacant space on the campus in the immediate area and inquired as to why
their space was required. To this inquiry no response was received. (Copies of the
pertinent correspondence are annexed).
The Council takes no position on the merits of the University's
position in evicting the Development Center and procuring the space. We do,
however, find it particularly offensive to ask for an increase in rent when there is
only a few short months left, particularly when emotionally disturbed children are
involved and the Development Center's budget is, of course, tight. It has been
suggested that there will be severe political fallout when this knowledge becomes
public and again we feel that the Council could, if they had been asked, at least
issued a warning to the Administration that trouble was ahead. We also note that
the entire student training program in the Development Center is now in jeopardy
because the Developement Center must move.
In summation we offer the following comments:
The role of the Council is prescribed by law. However, we find that we
are in fact the University's "window on the world." The inability or unwillingness,
as the case may be, of the Administration to discuss important events and to seek
our opinion even if it is not followed is particularly offensive. Unfortunately, we
do not question an isolated course of conduct or an occasional mishap which is, of
course, excusable. What we do criticize is a continuous course of conduct over a
long period of time which is unexcusable. I repeat, that this document results
from a unanimous decision of the Council members at the Executive Session.
It is our unanimous view that the Council has in recent years been in
effect "shut out" from the University's major problems. We seek a quick and
definite change and we await further developments.
Yours yery truly,
—
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
AEU:vm
cc: Donald M. Blinken
277 Park Avenue
New YOrk, New York 10017
Office of the Provost
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-1401
StonyBrook telephone: (516) 632-7000
September 15, 1986
Mr. Peter Kelly
President of the Board of Directors
Suffolk Child Development Center
Hollywood Drive
Smithtown, New York 11787
Re: Notice of Cancellation
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Pursuant to the terms of the Revocable Permit dated October 24,
1978, please consider this letter a formal notice of termination
The provisions of that agreement allow the Developmental Center
Please be advised that it has been necessary to adjust the rental
rate from $4.90 to $10.00. Your new annual rental will then be
$43,680 beginning November 1, 1986 and continuing until July 1,
1987 . The same formula which is set out in the 1978 agreement
has been applied to arrive at this figure.
&
We truly regret that these steps are necessary, but as you are
probably aware, competing demands for the University's space are
severe and we have no choice but to take this action. We are
Pleased that we were able to provide you with good, low cost
space during a critical time in the evolution of your Center.
The University also benefitted from this collaboration and we
hope to continue to interact with you in the future.
I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation and
assistance in effecting this move in an orderly and timely way.
Sincerely,
ey
J.R. Schubel
Provost
cc: William H. Anslow
John H. Marburger
Aaron Donner
Martin D. Hamburg
SUFFOLK
CHILD DEVELO
Martin D. Hamburg, Ph. D.
Executive Director
Dominic Romeo. Ph. D.
Director of Education
Jonn Werner
Director of Therapy Services
Ray DeNataie. Jr.
Director of Day Treatment
Michael Darcy |
Director of Ancillary Services
Elayne Gersten
Hollywood Drive « Smithtown, New York 11787 © [516] 724-1717
Stony Brook Branch
[516] 689-9850
Meadow Glen Branch
[516] 265-3001
September 23, 1986
Provost J. R. Schubel
State University of New York
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York
Dear Provost Schubel:
*
Director of Program We are in receipt of your letter of September 15,
Development 1986, however, since our 1978 agreement with the
— University does not provide you with the
Lite Skills/Parent Training opportunity to increase our rent unilaterally and
Fits ii in as much as you chose not to afford us even the
Barty Chitonnod- Dieection courtesy of a discussion of these matters nor any
Center
Renee Alien. C.S. W
Mobile Intervention Program
Chartotte Jungpiut
infant Development Program
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Martin > Ha rg,
attempt to negotiate, we therefore will refuse to
pay any rent increase.
Most sincerely yours,
oT Ph; ‘D:
eter Kelly 4
President Executive Divector
re oe cc: William H. Anslow, Vice Chancellor of
onn . .
Jack Bechnann: Finance and Business ;
Jonn Galli John H. Marburger, President
Lawrence Goldberg Aaron Donner
Richard Hart, DOS.
Frank Oliva
Margaret Raustiala
William Jo Scnmitt
Howard E Smith
Pamela Tucker
- “Nay A Research and Training Affiliate
Lrite= *&S, of The State University of New York at Stony Brook
It NaddaL ae
Martin D. Hamburg, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Elayne Gersten
Deputy Executive Director
Michael Darcy
Director of Residentia! Services
Ray DeNatale, Jr.
Director of Day Treatment
‘
Linda Paul, Ph.D.
Director of Education
John Werner, Ph.D.
Director of Therapy Services
Terri S. Kivelowitz
Early Childhood Direction
Center
Renee Allen, C.S.W.
Case Management Project
Charlotte Jungblut, C.S.W.
Infan/Toodier Program
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Peter Kelly
President
Martin Bieber
Jerry Costello
Jack Eschmann
Lawrence Goldberg
Richard Hart, D.DS.
Bernard Hotfman, M.D.
Roy Probeyahn
Margaret Raustiala
Pam Tucker
=) wwe,
ee ae
SUFFOLK —
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Hollywood Drive * Smithtown, New York 11787 e [516] 724-1717
Stony Brook Branch Deer Park Branch
[516] 689-9850 {516} 505-1444
Mesdow Glen Branch
[516] 265-3001
October 6, 1986
Mr. Aaron Donner
Donner, Hariton & Berka
2115 Union Boulevard
Bay Shore, NY 11706
ro“
Dear Mr, Denner:
Enclosed please find a report that we have been
working on, and while it is still incomplete, I am
forwarding to you this preliminary copy. A
complete list of publications that have resulted
from research at our Stony Brook site will be sent
to you by Friday.
You may also be interested in the attached
announcement. This is the first program of our
new Department of Continuing Edugation, and we
chose as our first partner the Department of
Physical Therapy at Stony Brook. They and we are
most enthusiastic about this program.
Finally, Aaron I cannot help but mention some of
our hopes for the future of our Stony Brook
project. Stony Brook University now has the
opportunity to create a training and research
program of national significance in the area of
normal and abnormal child development. In May,
1985, Suffolk Center proposed to the University
that we construct on campus a new Early Childhood
Center that would house our current program, the
Research Preschool Project of the Department of
Psychology and the University's Day Care Program.
A single site would not only provide considerable
Operational efficiency to these programs that have
Similar facility needs, but would enhance the
Opportunity for integrated training and research
efforts.
We have pledged to assist the University with
solutions to some of its current day care problems
4&5 well as to work toward obtaining public and
private funding for our Proposed Early Childhood
Center. We received considerable encouragement
A Research and Training Affiliate
of The State University of New York at Stony Brook
but no commitment back in 1985. We remain
interested in establishing an Early Childhood
Center which would clearly advance the
University's mission and would also provide us
with a permanent campus home.
Thank you for your kind interest in these matters.
Most sincerely yours,
;
Martin Dj/Hamburgd, Ph.D.
Directfr
SUFFOLK CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Hollywood Drive Smithtown, New York 11787. [516] 724-1717
ANDREW E. ULLMANN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
P.O. BOX 270
NORTHPORT, NEW YORK 11768-0270
TELEPHONE ANDREW 1 -6066
October 9, 1986
Donald M. Blinken
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Blinken:
I am taking the liberty of enclosing to your attention a copy
of a letter addressed by me, at the direction of the Stony Brook Council,
to Dr. Wharton and Dr. Marburger.
Naturally I am prepared to discuss this with you at any time.
Yours very truly,
wl a
AEU:vm
enclosure
Le
easily O,
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
STATE UNIVERSITY PLAZA
ALBANY. NEW YORK 12246
¥,
On m3™
~ 1948 ~
CHAIRMAN. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
October 14, 1986
Andrew E. Ullman, Esq.
Chaimman
The Council of the State University at Stony Brook
P.O. Box 270
Northport, New York 11768-0270
Dear Mr. Ullman:
This will acknowledge receipt of your
letter of October 9, enclosing a copy of a letter and
supporting material of the Stony Brook Council, recently
sent to Dr. Wharton and Dr. Marburger.
With all good wishes, remain,
Donald M. Blinken
DONALD M. BLINKEN
466 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10017
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, New York 12246
Office of the Chancellor January 30, 1987
Certified Mail
Professor Ernest F. Dube
Apartment 3-E
523 Fast Fourteenth Street
New York, New York 10009
Dear Professor Dube:
Your case and appeal present a complex and difficult set of issues,
I have considered the matter most carefully and wish to share my
thoughts and conclusions.
First, it is clear that employing the tenure criteria for teaching,
research and public service stipulated by the SUNY Board of Trustees
and using the weights assigned to each by the University Center at
Stony Brook, they have correctly found you deficient in the area
of scholarly publications. While all three elements are involved
in each tenure decision on each individual SUNY campus, it is quite
Clear that research receives a much larger weight on a graduate/
research comprehensive university campus than on a four-year arts
and science campus, and even less on a two-year community college
campus. Your strong record in teaching and in public/community
service was not sufficient to offset the deficiency in scholarly
publication. This is a conclusion which was made by all parties
in the process, including the most recent Chancellor's Advisory
Committee.
Second, it is clear that the circumstances surrounding considera-
tion of your tenure and the human environment in which it is taking
place is not neutral or purely academic. Although the Stony Brook
faculty committee/senate found that you had acted properly and
within your academic rights in the conduct of your teaching, there
are segments of the university and wider community who do not agree.
Moreover, these extraneous issues -- irrelevant to the tenure deci-
Sion per se -- will be used both by your critics and defenders to
interpret whatever tenure decision is made. If an adverse tenure
decision is made, your critics will claim that it is a vindication
of their charge of impropriety in your teaching and your advocates
will claim that the decision was based upon racial/religious biases,
If a positive tenure decision is made, your critics will claim
that it represents a reaffirmation of the content of your teaching
and your advocates will claim a victory against racial/religious
bigotry and for the content of your teaching. In neither case
will the true bases of the decision be seen as the traditional
ones, that is, the quality of your performance in teaching, re-
search and public service.
Professor Ernest F. Dube -2- January 30, 1987
I believe that either decision would be detrimental both to you
and to the university. If an adverse tenure decision is made,
your professional career could be affected by an erroneous and
inaccurate perception. If a positive tenure decision is made,
the proper weights and basis of a campus judgment on the criteria
employed in a tenure decision would be undermined. Stony Brook
should be allowed to exercise its judgment that research be given
proper weight; you, however, should not be penalized professionally
for inaccurate perceptions of such an adverse decision.
I believe that the State University of New York bears some respon-
sibility not to allow these external issues to intrude improperly
upon such tenure decisions; we also have a responsibility to pro-
vide reasonable protection to our faculty from external excesses
which could do damage to their careers.
I have, therefore, concluded that the State University of New York
should offer you an opportunity for a continuing appointment at
another campus within the system providing that such a campus is
willing to do so. The nature of the appointment will be determined
by the campus after appropriate faculty/departmental review of
credentials and personal interviews. In order to facilitate this,
the appropriate line and funding would be provided to the campus.
If you wish to pursue the possibility of appointment at one of
SUNY's four-year campuses, you should be in touch with Dr. Joseph
Burke, Provost, State University of New York. Dr. Burke would be
pleased to have your resume and supporting material sent to any
and all of the other SUNY campuses you might be interested in and
inform them of the conditions of this letter.
During this period of exploration, your current appointment will
be extended through August 3, 1987.
Sincerely,
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
L Chancellor
cc: VSUNY Board of Trustees
President Marburger
Dr. Liao
Dr. Ames
Dr. Bramel
THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1987
Professor in Zionism Affair Is Denied Tenure
By HOWARD FRENCH
A professor at the State University at
Stony Brook, L.I., embroiled in contro-
versy since he told students in 1983 that
Zionism is a form of racism, has been
denied tenure by the Chancellor of the
State University.
In a two-page decision issued Jan. 30,
two days before he resigned as Chan-
cellor, Clifton R. Wharton Jr. rejected
Professor Ernest F. Dube’s appeal of
an August 1985 decision by Stony
Brook’s president denying tenure.
Many students and faculty members
have criticized the decision, saying it
violates the principle of academic free-
dom. Four faculty committees had
recommended that Professor Dube be
granted tenure, a permanent teaching
post at the university. Critics of the
decision say that he was not forcing his
opinions on his students, but was set-
ting out topics for debate.
The chairman of the school’s history
department, Professor Joel Rosenthal,
headed an executive committee to re-
view charges that Dr. Dube’s course
“Politics of Race” was anti-Semitic.
He said of the ruling, ‘It seems we
gave in to external influences,” He
called the Chancellor ‘chicken’ for
“allowing extramural politics to be in-
volved in a tenure decision.”
According to faculty members who
have seen the decision, Professor Dube
was informed that he would not be of-
fered tenure at Stony Brook, but would
be allowed to remain in the state uni-
versity system if another campus of-
fered him a “continuing position.”
Mr. Wharton has refused to com-
ment on the matter. But the Stony
Brook president, Dr. John H. Mar-
burger 3d, issued a statement praising
the decision because it ‘‘acknowledged
the responsibility the school has to pro-
tect its faculty from inappropriate ex-
ternal influences.”
Mr. Dube, who has often denied his
remarks were inappropriate, refused
to comment on the decision.
Chancellor Wharton's decision not to
grant tenure to the South African-born
professor, who has taught in the
school's Africana Studies department
since 1977, overruled the recommenda-
tions of four separate committees that
have considered the case since 1985.
The president of the Graduate Stu-
dent Organization at Stony Brook,
Chris Vestudo, called the denial of ten-
ure for Professor Dube ‘‘outrageous,”
and said student leaders are ‘‘prepared
to stand behind the professor in what-
ever he decides to do, including what-
ever protests might be necessary.”
The controversy began in mid-1983,
when a visiting Israeli professor com-
plained in a letter to the administration
that the linking of Zionism to racism in
the class was “sloganeering that is
practiced by the anti-Semite.”
A university senate investigation in
August 1983 concluded that Professor
Dube’s course had not overstepped the
bounds of academic freedom, unfurling
a wave of criticism from Jewish
groups in the area. Governor Cuomo
condemned the teachings on Zionism
as ‘‘intellectually dishonest.”
Joseph Topek, president of the Stony
Brook chapter of Hillel, a national
group of Jewish campus organizations,
said he objected to Professor Dube’s |
characterization of Zionism as ‘‘one of
the three forms of racism, along with
Nazism and apartheid.” But he said the {-
Jewish community on campus ‘“‘did not F
want to see this matter politicized,”
The director of the Long Island chap-
ter of the Anti-Defamation League,
Carin Katz, said that the organization’s
role in the decision was ‘to expose the
anti-Semitism” and ‘‘whatever action
taken by the university was their own.”
aor
‘The New York Times.
Prof. Ernest F. Dube
ENS CORRECTED COPY
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, New York 12246
Office of the Chancellor January 30, 1987
Certified Mail
Professor Ernest F. Dube
Apartment 3-E
523 East Fourteenth Street
New York, New York 10009
Dear Professor Dube:
Your case and appeal present a complex and difficult set of issues.
I have considered the matter most carefully and wish to share my
thoughts and conclusions.
First, it is clear that employing the tenure criteria for teaching,
research and public service stipulated by the SUNY Board of Trustees
and using the weights assigned to each by the University Center at
Stony Brook, they have correctly found you deficient in the area
of scholarly publications. While all three elements are involved
in each tenure decision on each individual SUNY campus, it is quite
clear that research receives a much larger weight on a graduate/
research comprehensive university campus than on a four-year arts
and science campus, and even less on a two-year community college
campus. Your strong record in teaching and in public/community
service was not sufficient to offset the deficiency in scholarly
publication. This is a conclusion which was made by all parties
in the process, including the most recent Chancellor's Advisory
Committee.
Second, it is clear that the circumstances surrounding considera-
tion of your tenure and the human environment in which it is taking
place is not neutral or purely academic. Although the Stony Brook
faculty committee/senate found that you had acted properly and
within your academic rights in the conduct of your teaching, there
are segments of the university and wider community who do not agree.
Moreover, these extraneous issues -- irrelevant to the tenure deci-
sion per se -- will be used both by your critics and defenders to
interpret whatever tenure decision is made. If an adverse tenure
decision is made, your critics will claim that it is a vindication
of their charge of impropriety in your teaching and your advocates
will claim that the decision was based upon racial/religious biases.
If a positive tenure decision is made, your critics will claim
that it represents a reaffirmation of the content of your teaching
and your advocates will claim a victory against racial/religious
bigotry and for the content of your teaching. In neither case
will the true bases of the decision be seen as the traditional
ones, that is, the quality of your performance in teaching, re-
search and public service.
Professor Ernest F. Dube =~2= January 30, 1987
I believe that either decision would be detrimental both to you
and to the university. If an adverse tenure decision is made,
your professional career could be affected by an erroneous and
inaccurate perception. If a positive tenure decision is made,
the proper weights and basis of a campus judgment on the criteria
employed in a tenure decision would be undermined. Stony Brook
should be allowed to exercise its judgment that research be given
proper weight; you, however, should not be penalized professionally
for inaccurate perceptions of such an adverse decision.
I believe that the State University of New York bears some respon-
Sibility not to allow these external issues to intrude improperly
upon such tenure decisions; we also have a responsibility to pro-
vide reasonable protection to our faculty from external excesses
which could do damage to their careers.
I have, therefore, concluded that the State University of New York
should offer you an opportunity for a continuing appointment at
another campus within the system providing that such a campus is
willing to do so. The nature of the appointment will be determined
by the campus after appropriate faculty/departmental review of
credentials and personal interviews. In order to facilitate this,
the appropriate line and funding would be provided to the campus.
If you wish to pursue the possibility of appointment at one of
SUNY's other campuses, you should be in touch with Dr. Joseph
Burke, Provost, State University of New York. Dr. Burke would be
pleased to have your resume and Supporting material sent to any
and all of the other SUNY Campuses you might be interested in and
inform them of the conditions of this letter.
During this period of exploration, your current appointment will
be extended through August 31, 1987,
‘Sincerely,
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Chancellor
ect Jawe Board of Trustees
President Marburger
Dr. Liao
Dr. Ames
Dr. Bramel
Newsday 2/10/87
A Tenure Decision That Hurts Free Inquiry
New York Times
2/8/87
Professor Is Denied Tenure in
: T
: By HOWARD FRENCH ~ :
A professor at the State University at
Stony Brook, L.I., embroiled in contro-
versy since he told students in 1983 that
Zionism is a form of racism, has been
denied tenure by the Chancellor of the
State University.
In a two-page decision issued Jan. 30,
two days before he resigned as Chan-
cellor, Clifton R. Wharton Jr. rejected
Professor Ernest F. Dube’s appeal of
an August 1985 decision by Stony
Brook’s president denying tenure.
Many students and faculty: members
have criticized the decision, saying it
violates the principle of academic free-
dom. Four facultv committees had
recommended that Professor Dube-be
granted tenure, a permanent teaching
post at the university. Critics of the
decision say that he was not forcing his
opinions on his students, but was set-
ting out topics for debate.
The chairman of the school’s history"
department, Professor Joel Rosenthal,
headed an executive committee to re-
view charges that Dr. Dube’s course
“Politics of Race’ was anti-Semitic.
He said of the ruling, “It seems we
gave in to external influences.’ He
called the Chancellor ‘‘chicken” for
“allowing extramural politics to be in-
volved in a tenure decision.”
According to faculty members who
have seen the decision, Professor Dube t
was informed that he would not be of-
fered tenure at Stony Brook, but would
be allowed to remain in the state uni-
versity system if another campus of-
fered him a “continuing position.”
Mr. Wharton has refused to com-
ment on the matter. But the Stony
Brook president, Dr. John H. Mar-
burger 3d, issued a statement praising
the decision because it ‘“‘acknowledged
the responsibility the school has to pro-
tect its-faculty from inappropriate ex-
ternal influences.”
Mr. Dube, who-has often denied his
remarks were inappropriate, refused
to comment on the decision.
Chancellor Wharton’s decision not to
grant tenure to the South African-born
professor, who has taught in the
school’s African Studies department
since 1977, overruled the recommenda-
tions of four separate committees that
have considered the case since 1985.
The president of the Graduate Stu-
dent Organization at Stony Brook,
Chris Vestudo, called the denial of ten-
ure for Professor Dube ‘‘outrageous,”’
and said student leaders are ‘prepared |
Zionism Affair
: The New York Times
Prof. Ernest F. Dube
to stand behind the professor in what-
ever he decides to do, including what-
ever protests might be necessary.”
The controversy began in mid-1983,
when a visiting Israeli professor com-
plained in a letter to the administration
that the linking of Zionism to racism in
the class was ‘‘sloganeering that is
practiced by the anti-Semite.”
A university senate investigation in’
August 1983 concluded that Professor '
Dube’s course had not overstepped the.
bounds of academic freedom, unfurling
a wave of ‘criticism*from Jewish.
groups in the area. Governor Cuomo
condemned the teachings on Zionism
as ‘‘intellectually dishonest.” “
Joseph Topek, president of the Stony
Brook chapter of Hillel, a national
group of Jewish campus organizations,
said he objected to Professor Dube’s
characterization of Zionism as “‘one of
the three forms of racism, along with
Nazism and apartheid.” But he said the
Jewish community on campus “did not
want to see this matter politicized.” .
The director of the Long Island chap-
ter of the Anti-Defamation League, ”
Carin Katz, said that the organization’s
role in the decision was ‘‘to expose the
anti-Semitism” and ‘‘whatever action
taken by the university was their own.” |
Prof. Ernest Dube won't be teaching at the State
University's Stony Brook campus after the current
academic year, and part of the reason is that some of
his ideas offended some New Yorkers.
To the extent that the decision denying him ten-
ure at Stony Brook was influenced by off-campus
politics — which former SUNY Chancellor Clifton
Wharton as much as admitted — it was unworthy of
a university system that aspires to being among the
nation’s best. Dube may be offered a job at another
SUNY campus, but that can’t undo the damage to
SUNY's academic integrity.
Few knowledgeable people would argue that ten-
ure decisions are apolitical. But faculty politics are an
understood part of campus life, and they're more like-
ly to involve differences among personalities or dis-
agreements over the use of resources than hostility to
particular ideas.
The SUNY decision on Dube is different. His propo-
sition that Zionism has a racist aspect was offensive
not to scholarship but primarily to the sensitivities of
off-campus Jewish groups. And the hue and cry was,
regrettably, taken up by Gov. Mario Cuomo.
Although a faculty committee backed Dube, Stony
Brook President John Marburger denied him tenure.
A faculty appeals committee recommended tenure
anyway, but its report was nullified by Wharton on the
questionable ground that a committee member had
spoken to the press.
Wharton concluded last month — just before he left
the chancellor's job — that yet another review of
Dube's credentials indicated he lacked enough schol-
arly publications to qualify for tenure. But Wharton
acknowledged that the decision was “not merely aca-
demic." That's as close as an administrator is likely to
get to admitting that politics tainted Dube'’s chances.
The purpose of tenure is to protect the careers of
scholars with controversial ideas. Dube is being de-
nied that protection — at least in part — precisely
because his ideas were controversial.
Perhaps astute academics keep their more uncon-
ventional ideas to themselves until they have tenure.
But they shouldn't have to; that would ultimately frus-
trate the goal of free inquiry.
It may be that, even without the public flap, Dube
would have been refused tenure purely on academic
grounds. There's no'way to know that now. But under
the present circumstances, the Dube decision can't
help but suggest that SUNY is an unsafe place to
advance ideas that may have negative political reac-
tions. And that’s bad for SUNY.
Jewish World 2/13 - 2/19/87
Stony Bro
By WALTER RUBY
A controversial professor who
taught. his students at the State
University of New York at Stony
Brook that Zionism is a form of
racism angrily denounced a decision
last week to deny him tenure, con-
tending that his impending dismissal
from Stony Brook has been
engineered by ‘“‘right Wing Zionists.””
Prof. Ernest Fred Dube. a Sous"!
African-born black weit in
the Africana Studies. ptugram at
Stony Brook, spoke out last week
after it was announced that he had
been denied tenure by SUNY
Chancellor Clifton R. Wharton Jr.
Nevertheless, Dube would be allow-
ed, Wharton said, to continue
teaching in the State University
system if another campus offered
him a tenured ‘‘continuing posi-
tion.”’
Wharton’s announcement con-
firmed a 1985 decision by Stony
Brook President John H. Marburger
3d, denying tenure to Dube. The
professor is now consulting with his
lawyer, before deciding whether to
take legal steps to challenge Whar-
ton’s ruling.
In comments to the Jewish World,
Dube charged, ‘‘Despite all the
disclaimers by Marburger and
others, the reality is that this decision
gives people outside the university
the right to open the door of
academia and to make academic
decisions. The lesson here is that if
you see someone teaching something
you don’t like, just go in and make |
a lot of noise and you'll win.”’
¢ In response to Dube’s charges,
Marburger told the Jewish World,
‘‘From the very beginning of the
review process, we have sought to in-
sulate (consideration of Dube’s
tenure application) from outside
pressures. Almost all press accounts
have indicated that there was a con-
nection (between anti-Dube pressures
from outside and the denial of
tenure). That was very unfortunate,
because there was, in fact, no such
connection. I never felt under
pressure.””
While expressing doubt that the
angry ~ ' asponse to Dube’s
teachi .. oy much of the local
Je ish community will have a chill-
ing effect on academic freedom at
Stony Brock,. Marburger said he
thought ‘‘the community reaction
was an unfortunate one.’’ He add-
ed, ‘‘The effect of the outcry was less
(guess who?)
than many believe, but the effect has
been mainly negative. At the univer-
sity there is a widespread feeling of
being wronged and misunderstood.”’
The long dormant Dube con-
troversy, which convulsed the Stony
Brook campus during the 1983-84
academic year, was revived by last
week’s announcement. Wharton,
who left his position as chancellor
Feb. 1, issued a decision dated Jan.
30 denying Dube’s appeal for tenure.
Wharton’s decision means that
Dube, who also serves as a represen-
tative at the mission of the African
National Congress (ANC) at the
United Nations, will not be able to
teach at Stony Brook after August
1987. Wharton declined to comment
on his decision.
According to Kevin Ireland, a
spokesman for Stony Brook, Whar-
ton has agreed to make available the
budget line to pay Dube’s salary if
another campus picks him up.
Ireland said there is a strong
possibility Dube’s salary would be
paid during the first year at another
school with funding from Stony
Brook.
Wharton informed Dube in a let-
ter that he had a strong record of
community service, but lacked
enough scholarly publications to
qualify for tenure. But Wharton
noted, ‘‘It is clear that the cir-
cumstances surrounding considera-
tion of your tenure and the human
Jenvironment in which it is taking
‘place (are) not neutral or merely
academic.”’
In a statement released after
Wharton’s decision became known,
Marburger commented, ‘‘I think
Chancellor Wharton’s decision is a
thoughtful one that acknowledges
the high standards of scholarship
Stony Brook sets for its faculty. It
also acknowledges the responsibili-
ty the university has to protect its
faculty from inappropriate external
factors.”’
Wharton’s decision on Dube was
strongly criticized by some students
and professors on the Stony Brook
campus last week, who noted that
the Marburger and Wharton deci-
sions denying Dube tenure overruled
the recommendations of four
separate faculty committees which
had been considering the case since
1985. History Professor Joel Rosen-
thal, who headed a faculty commit-
tee which ruled in 1983 that Dube’s
teachings on Zionism in his course
‘*The Politics of Race’’ were within
the bounds of academic freedom,
- told The Wew York Times that
Wharton’s ruling made him believe
that ‘‘we gave in to external in-
fluences.’’ He called the chancellor
“‘chicken’’ for ‘‘allowing external
politics to be involved in a tenure
decision.”’
The president of the Graduate Stu-
dent Organization at Stony Brook,
Chris Vestudo, called the denial of
tenure for Dube ‘‘outrageous”’ and
said student leaders are ‘‘prepared to
stand behind the professor in
whatever he decides to do, including
whatever protests might be
necessary.’”
The angriest protest came from,
Imamu Amiri Baraka, a well known
black poet and militant leader in the
1960s, who today serves as chairman
of the Africana Studies Program at
Stony Brook. Baraka termed Whar-
ton’s decision ‘‘mealy mouthed and
hypocritical’’ and charged that such
a decision would only have been
made in the case of a black man.
Wharton, who had been state univer-
sity chancellor since 1978, before
leaving his post last week to accept
a managerial position in a private
firm, is also black.
Rabbi Joseph Topek, director of
the Stony Brook chapter of Hillel,
stressed that the denial of tenure to
Dube ‘‘was based exclusively on the
question of his academic creden- ,
tials.’” Noting that he did not want
“to see this matter politicized,’’
Topek said that the denial of tenure
to Dube ‘‘ought not be an occasion
for gloating or breast-beating in the
Jewish community.’’
However, Rabbi Arthur Seltzer,
former director of the Long Island
chapter of the Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), who
played the most prominent role in
the organized Jewish community’s
campaign to insist that the teaching
of ‘Zionism is racism’ not be allow-
ed at Stony Brook, said he was
“*gratified’’ by Wharton’s decision.
According to Seltzer, the denial of
tenure to Dube ‘‘seems to vindicate
our concerns that there was a serious
lack of professionalism and an abuse
of the classrooms of the state univer-
Continued
A-ISs”
ok axes Dube, who blames
sity.’”
The Dube controversy began in
‘the summer of 1983, when a visiting
Israeli professor, Dr. Selwyn Troen,
accused Dube in a letter to Mar-
burger and members of the faculty
of using his course ‘‘The Politics of
Race’’ as a propaganda forum
against Israel and Zionism, and of
engaging in ‘‘sloganeering that is
practiced by the anti-Semite.”’
Dube, who was imprisoned in
South Africa in the mid-1960s,
“Taught his ciass that mainstream
Zionism, as exemplified by both of
Israel’s major parties, Labor and
Likud, is a form of ‘‘reactive
racism,’’ which he defined as a form
of racism practiced by a people who
were once themselves victims of
racism. Dube referred to Zionism on
a syllabus that accompanied his
‘Politics of Race’’ course during the
summer semester of 1983 as ‘‘one of
the three forms of racism, along with
Nazism and apartheid,” and asked
his students to respond to a test ques-
tion which read, ‘‘Zionism is as
much racism as Nazism was racism.”’
However, Dube stressed in inter-
views that he did not consider all
Zionists to be racists, referring to
Argentine journalist Jacobo Tim-
merman as a non-racist Zionist.
A faculty committee headed by
Rosenthal cleared Dube of charges
that he violated academic ethics, but
an aroused Jewish community and
many state politicians pressured
Marburger to forbid the teaching of-
‘Zionism is racism.’ Gov. Mario
Cuomo denounced the Stony Brook
faculty for not speaking out against
Dube’s teachings.
A statement by Marburger in Oc-
tober 1983 ‘‘divorcing’’ Stony Brook
from Dube’s teachings on Zionism
led to campus demonstrations by
third world students. This was
followed by a brief visit to the cam-
pus by several members of the mili-
tant Jewish Defense Organization,
who demanded that Dube be im-
mediately fired.
The university eventually set up a
special faculty committee to ensure
that professors would adhere to cer-
tain standards of academic respon-
sibility as well as to academic
freedom. Meanwhile, a series of
academic committees considered
Dube’s application for tenure,
leading to Marburger’s announce-
ment in August 1985 that tenure had
been denied. Dube then appealed
Marburger’s decision to Wharton.
New York Times 2/24/c7
fi- FF
Academic Not-So-Freedom at SUNY
“To equate Zionism with racism has become a
cliché of anti-Israel animus. But is acceptance of
this belief, even if bigoted, grounds to deny a profes-
sor.tenure? It apparently was at the State Univer-
sity.of New York at Stony Brook, dealing a blow to
academic freedom, a concept meant to encompass’
even the most bitter-differences of opinion.
“In a decision issued just two days before his
resignation as SUNY chancellor on Feb. 1, Clifton
Wharton affirmed the Stony Brook president, Dr.
John Marburger, injdenying tenure to Ernest Dube,
an assistant professor of Africana Studies. The
Marburger decision, in August 1985, was taken
against the recommendation of four faculty com-
mittees. It also came after Professor Dube had
characterized Zionism as a form of racism, along
with Nazism and apartheid. That inspired a wave of
protests by Long Island Jewish organizations and
Governor Cuomo.
A native of South Africa who has taught at
Stony Brook since 1977, Professor Dube used the
characterization in a course syllabus. In 1983 a visit-
ing' Israeli professor objected, charging Professor
Dube with the kind of “‘sloganeering that is prac-
ticed by the anti-Semite.’’ An investigation by the
university senate concluded that Mr. Dube had not
exceeded the bounds of academic freedom.
Dr. Marburger contends that his decision was
completely unrelated to the 1983 flap. He says he
felt Mr. Dube’s scholarly publications were not up
to the standard customarily required for tenure at
SUNY and the professor’s teaching and public serv-
ice did not compensate for that. He said the Whar-
ton decision vindicated his judgment.
Perhaps. But the chancellor, even as he af-
firmed the denial, offered Mr. Dube a chance at a
job on another SUNY campus if one could be found.
Spokesmen for the university admit that was highly
unusual and say it was done out of concern that Mr.
Dube might suffer because of a possible ‘‘misper-
ception’’ of his tenure case. Maybe it was also done
to induce the professor to accept it more readily.
That, apparently, is not to be. Professor Dube
says he will fight the tenure decision in court. Pend-
ing the outcome of that suit, the question lingers
about academic freedom at Stony Brook: how free?
Long Island Newsday 2/16/87
On the Issue of Tenure
Newsday’s editorial, “A Tenure Decision That
Hurts Free Inquiry” [Feb. 10] makes a commend-
able argument for academic freedom which I whol-
ly support. Unfortunately, it also propagates a se-
rious misreading of SUNY Chancellor Clifton
Wharton’s decision. . ;
Your statement that ‘part of the reason” that
Ernest Dube will not be teaching at Stony Brook
next year “‘is that some of his ideas offended some
New Yorkers” is false. The assertion upon which
this conclusion is founded, namely that ‘former
SUNY Chancellor Clifton Wharton as much as ad-
mitted” it, is also incorrect, as is the statement
that “Wharton acknowleded that the discussion
was ‘not purely academic.’” A similar statement
in a related news story, that “Wharton also ac-
knowledged the decision was not purely based on
academics” is equally incorrect.
The chancellor did not make such statements,
nor did he conclude that nonacademic consider-
ations played a role in my decision not to recom-
mend tenure for Dube or his decision to support
my action. ; ;
"These errors appear to derive from a misreading
of Wharton’s explicit recognition of the public con-
troversy surrounding a course that Dube gave in
1983. There is no question that public criticism
occurred and that supporters and detractors of
Dube have cited it in reacting to the tenure deci-
sion. But the decision itself was made according to
well-defined standards for promotion and tenure
and was totally unrelated to Dube’s course or the
public discussion of it.
At no time has any review of the initial decision,
including Wharton’s review, suggested that my de-
nial of tenure for Dube was based upon anything
but the regular criteria of performance in teach-
ing, scholarship and service that applies to every
other member of our faculty. :
Stony Brook has not and will not bow to political
pressure in determining who it will hire and fire.
To do so abrogates its responsibility to protect its
faculty from external influences, and on a purely
practical level, would repulse the exceptional facul-
ty it continues to attract.
John H. Marburger, President
State University of Stony Brook
Stony Brook
February Il, 1987 + THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION + 17
Personal & Professional
Tenure Denial at Stony Brook
STONY BROOK, N.Y.
The chancellor of the State Uni-
versity of New York has upheld the
decision of officials at the Stony
Brook campus not to grant tenure to
a faculty member who contends that
pressure from local Jewish groups
led to the denial.
Chancellor Clifton R. Wharton,
Jr., said the university would try to
offer the professor a tenured post at
another campus within the system,
according to senior administrators.
The faculty member, Ernest F.
Dube, was turned down for tenure by
the Stony Brook administration in
1985, despite the approval of various
faculty committees.
Shortly before leaving office last
month, Chancellor Wharton agreed
to uphold Stony Brook’s decision,
while opening the possibility of a job
elsewhere for Mr. Dube. The deci-
sion does not guarantee him a ten-
ured appointment, but it would allow
a department at another campus to
offer him a post, administrators said.
Colleagues Express Dismay
Mr. Dube, who last week received
notification of the decision in a letter,
said he would not comment on the
matter until he consulted with his
lawyers.
Colleagues in the department of
Africana studies, however, ex-
pressed dismay at the chancellor’s
ruling. “‘We’re opposed to the deci-
sion, and we think the chancellor is
cowardly and reactionary,”’ said
Upheld by SUNY Chancellor
Amiri Baraka, chairman of the de-
partment.
Mr. Dube, an assistant professor,
had asked the chancellor to overturn
the denial, claiming that the adminis-
tration had bowed to pressure from
Jewish groups that were outraged by
what they saw as his anti-Semitism.
Senior administrators said Mr.
Wharton had accepted Stony
Brook’s decision to deny tenure to
the professor. However, the chancel-
lor acknowledged that the review had
been marked by unusual circum-
stances and said Mr. Dube should not
be penalized.
Last fall, an advisory committee
investigated Mr. Dube’s appeal and
made a recommendation to the chan-
cellor. That report has not released.
In 1983, Mr. Dube was the focus of
controversy on the campus because
of a course he taught in which he
cited Zionism as an example of rac-
ism. Several Jewish organizations
urged university administrators to
denounce the professor.
A faculty-senate committee even-
tually concluded that Mr. Dube had
not overstepped the bounds of aca-
demic freedom in the course, and
university administrators agreed.
The controversy resurfaced in
1985 after administrators turned Mr.
Dube down for tenure. Earlier, two
faculty groups had recommended
that Mr. Dube receive tenure. An ini-
tial advisory committee that re-
viewed Mr. Dube’s appeal agreed.
—LIZ McMILLEN
Ottice of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-070)
StonyBrook telephone: ($16) 632-6265
February 24, 1987
TO THE EDITOR:
Your editorial "Academic Not-So-Freedom at SUNY" takes
a cheap shot at a difficult decision whose basis has been
persistently misconstrued in the press. While controversial
beliefs are not grounds for denial of tenure, neither is being
the center of controversy grounds for awarding tenure. The
State University of New York at Stony Brook, like other re-
search universities, seeks firmer foundations for its tenure
decisions.
The "four faculty committees" that recommended tenure
for Dr. Dube included one at the level of his program in
Africana Studies, one College-wide committee, and two three-
member appeals committees, the latter selected according to a
process specified in the labor contract with United University
Professions. None but the first committee recommended promo-
tion in rank, and that not unanimously. The College-wide
committee, by far the most important, recommended for tenure
by one vote in a split ballot. The second of the two appeals
committees recommended that either: (1) Professor Dube re-
ceive tenure without promotion, or (2) Professor Dube's contract
be extended for an additional fixed period to strengthen his
case. Both of the last two committees declared that there
was no evidence of inappropriate external influence in my
decision to deny tenure.
I decided to deny tenure to Dr. Dube based upon the entire
record available to me, and not simply upon the result of com-
mittee votes. Unfortunately for the public understanding of
such cases, but fortunately for the candidate, the details of
this record are not made public. The few facts I have cited
above, which were available to the Times, indicate that the
case was not a simple one.
Your suggestion that the Chancellor's offer to Dr. Dube
was made "to induce the professor to accept the decision more
readily," is outrageous and unsupported by any evidence what-
soever. The SUNY tenure process is carried out with the utmost
integrity and seriousness and has not been compromised in the
case of Dr. Dube.
JOHN H. MARBURGER
PRESIDENT
STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK
Office of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0701
StonyBrook telephone: (516) 632-6265
March 3, 1987
Mr. Donald M. Blinken
466 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Dear Don:
Enclosed is Jack’s response to the Times editorial, for
your review prior to your luncheon on Thursday.
Jack asked that I also send you the reports from the
two committees that reviewed the decision not to grant tenure
to Dr. Dube and Jack’s letters to Clif in response to the
reports.
Sincerely,
sul,
Sally Flaherty
Assistant to the President
Enclosures
Office of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0701
StonyBrook telephone: ($16) 632-6265
March 2, 1987
Dr. Jerome B. Komisar
Acting Chancellor
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, NY 12246
Dear Jerry:
When a New York Times editorial appeared last week
criticizing SUNY for its unjust treatment of Dr. Ernest F.
Dube, I determined to respond immediately. The Times piece
gives legitimacy to the growing tide of indignation about how
SUNY allowed its faculty evaluation process to be compromised
by political pressure. Every press account since my original
decision to deny tenure has drawn the same inference: that
the decision was made as a result of Dr. Dube’s controversial
statements describing Zionism as a form of racism. The
effect has been to raise serious questions about SUNY’s
independence as an institution in which faculty can discuss
controversial topics openly without fear of punishment or
reprisal through political pressure.
Unfortunately, there is much public evidence of attempts
to apply political pressure on SUNY in this case. Since you
witnessed them directly, I need not remind you of them speci-
fically. But they were highly visible and they involved both
the executive and the legislative branches of State govern-
ment. As you know, I decided to grant Dr. Dube an additional
year prior to his tenure review in order to distance the
process from those unfortunate events. When my tenure deci-
sion was announced, the New York Times was the first to
report it, citing the earlier controversy and linking it
implicitly to the tenure decision. That set the tone for all
subsequent press coverage. It is not surprising that the
Times chose to slant their story as they did because there
has never been anything in the public record about the basis
for the decision other than what Dr. Dube’s supporters have
provided.
In crafting my response, I was strongly motivated by the
need to provide some tangible evidence to the public that the
integrity of our academic processes has not been compromised.
I believe that this is an objective of such importance to our
credibility with students, faculty and alumni as well as
within the world academic community that unusual steps are
justified. Consequently, I chose to reveal aspects of the
tenure process in Dr. Dube’s case that are not ordinarily
made public. The details I disclosed were the voting pat-
terns of the faculty committees and the final recommendations
of those committees. I did not disclose any correspondence
or other material that contained judgments of the quality of
Dr. Dube'’s work or suggested the basis for the recommenda-
tions. I did contact your office regarding this material and
was advised not to disclose it. I asked for more detailed
guidance on the consequences of revealing such information in
varying degrees of detail, but did not receive it. After
pondering the matter, I decided to proceed and sent off the
enclosed.
I thought you should know that I deliberately acted
contrary to advice that I received from your office and that
I am willing to submit to whatever consequences you think may
be appropriate under the circumstances. I assure you that I
would do the same thing in the future under similar circum-
stances. If this is a case of unacceptable insubordination,
please let me know. At least I can assure you that I will
not act insubordinately or otherwise without letting you know
ahead of time and giving your office a fair chance to talk me
out of it.
By now you may be aware that as I was leaving SUNY Plaza
last Thursday, a group of angry students was kicking a hole
through the wall separating my office reception area from the
corridor. A ‘smoke bomb’ tossed through the hole filled the
area with smoke and disrupted business for the rest of the
day. Destructive acts occurred only in the first onslaught
following which the demonstration was relatively calm. My
staff and other administrators on the spot acted in an
exemplary fashion, and when I returned to campus on Friday,
I had a civilized discussion with a representative group of
12 students. They are clearly concerned about the appearance
that I denied tenure to Professor Dube because of his contro-
versial statements.
In this connection, language in the new labor agreement
with UUP provides for yet more process in this case. Will
you please advise me explicitly of my responsibilities under
the new agreement? I would of course prefer that with the
Chancellor’s response the case were to be closed within SUNY.
Sincerely,
John H. Marburger
President
Enclosure
cc: J. R. Schubel
P. J. Teed
be: J. Krause
ee F
nn
Office of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
St B k Stony Brook, New York 11794-0701
ony roo telephone: (516) 246-5940
April 10, 1986
Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Chancellor
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, NY 12246
Dear Clif:
I am writing to provide you with my reaction to the
report of the tripartite committee that reviewed Dr. Ernest
F. Dube's appeal of my refusal to recommend him to you for
tenure. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with the recom-
mendation of the committee. I do not believe that Dr. Dube
measures up to the standards that Stony Brook expects of its
faculty, and I think it would be a very serious mistake to
grant him a tenured appointment at Stony Brook at any rank.
Since I have been at Stony Brook, and apparently long before
that time, our campus has never tenured anyone with such a
limited publication record. If tenure were to be awarded in
this case, it would make it impossible to consistently reject
other marginal cases in the future.
A typical tenurable faculty member will have 8-10
articles in refereed journals or 3-4 refereed articles and a
book. Professor Dube had only one article in a refereed
journal, no book and one non-refereed paper. He has not
developed any thesis or inquiry that has been subjected to
the tests of scholarly review.
Much of Professor Dube's support on campus has come from
numerous public talks he has given. I do not believe that
such presentations should form the basis for tenure. Nor am
I persuaded that Professor Dube's knowledge to which Dean
Neville refers constitutes grounds for tenure, and Dean
Neville did not suggest that it does.
It is important to understand that the recommendation of
the Personnel Policy Committee, which the tripartite commit-
tee endorses, was split as badly as it could be. The vote
was 4 to 3 in favor of tenure, with no support at all for
promotion. The very positive tone of the tripartite
CO He Meek
T. yYrnanny
ba’. ¥feeman Pccauen ts
committee report does not reflect the deep reservations that
our faculty have regarding the granting of tenure in this
case. In its deliberations, the tripartite committee did not
discuss the materials in the file with anyone other than
Professor Dube, and certainly not with any of those who made
decisions affecting the case.
I regret that the tripartite committee decided to recom-
mend tenure for Professor Dube. His is the weakest case I
have seen advanced in my nearly six years at Stony Brook.
Sincerely
Marburger
President
udale o >
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-3355
tonyBrook telephone: (516) 246-3517, 6059, 6053, 8248
February 21, 1986
Chancellor Clirfrord Wharton
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, N.Y. 12246
Re: Article 33 - Appeal of Dr. Ernest F. Dube
SES LFA BOTT OLED
Dear Chancellor Wharton:
The Chancellor's Review Committee studied the materials in the
file of Dr. Dube, interviewed him, read some of what he had
written and attended a lecture given by him. After five meetings,
the committee voted unanimously to endorse the recommendation of
the Faculty Senate's Personnel Policy Committee to grant Professor
Dube tenure without promotion.
We enclose the following materials to substantiate our decision.
1. A biography of Dr. Dube.
2. Campus Review of the Africana Studies Program of 1984.
3. The finds of the Committee. The findings were organized
and written chiefly by Elof A. Carlson with put and
emendations rrom Leslie H. Owens and Aaron . Godfrey.
Respectfully,
AWG:eh A. W. Godfrey, Latin & Classics
enc. Comparative Literature Dept.
cc: President John wexvurger
Professor Ernest Dube
WORK
Ernest Frederick Dube, Ph.D.
May, 1985
PERSONAL
Place of Birth: Johannesburg, South Africa
Address: University: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Africana Studies Program
Long Island, New York 11794-4340
Telephone: (516) 246-3352
Home : 523 East 14 Street, Apt. 3E
New York, New York 10009
Telephone: (212) 477-4769
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Cornell University Psychology Department, September 1976.
Dissertation title: "A Cross-cultural Study of the Relationship
between 'Intelligence' level and Story Recall." Major area at
Cornell was Cognitive Psychology (Information Processing--Memory
and Cognition). Minor areas were Personality and Social Change.
Bachelor of Social Science, Natal University, Durban, South
Africa. Major areas were Psychology and Sociology with Minors
in Social Anthropology, Economics, Business Administration, and
Roman Dutch Law (1959-1962...1966).-
Diploma in Social Work, Jan H. Hofmeyr School of Social Work,
Johannesburg, South Africa (1951-1953).
EXPERIENCE
Between 1954 and 1957, worked as a Director of Community Social
Work in Lamontville, Durban. Duties included: Coordination of
social services, formation of youth and adult clubs, casework,
formation of Play Centers for non-school-going age children,
and Creches for small babies of working mothers.
Between 1958 and 1963, was employed by the Psychology Department,
Natal University as a Research and Technical Assistant to the
head of the Department, Professor Ronald Albins. My work
included construction of equipment used for experiments,
assisting both lecturers and graduate students in their research
on African subjects or informants, ordering of books and
equipment, and administering the funds of the Department.
Between 1963 and 1967, I was the guest of the State. Reasons
for this were my membership in the African National Congress and
carrying on with the activities of a banned organization.
Between 1970 and 1976, was a graduate student at Cornell
University where I was Teaching Assistant to Drs. U. Neisser
(Memory and Attention), T. A. Ryan (Motivation), and James
Maas (Introductory Psychology) -
i
'
f
'
Dube
From Fall, 1977 to the present, Assistant Professor, Africana
Studies Program and Department of Psychology, State University
of New York at Stony Brook.
For the academic year, 1981-1982, I served as the Acting Chairman
of the Africana Studies Program, State University of New York
at Stony Brook.
HONORS
Toc. H. (South Africa) Scholarship to study Social Work at the
Jan H. Hofmeyr School of Social Work (Johannesburg, South Africa)
Mabel Palmer Award, for tuition at Natal University (Durban,
South Africa)
Cornell University Humanities and Social Science Fellowship
National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant
United Nations Scholarship, for living expenses in Africa
Honored by the New York Institute for Social Therapy and Research
as being one of twelve effective teachers on Social Issues,
October 1984.
DISSERTATION TOPIC
An investigation of the definition of "intelligence" by non-
literate Africans and a test of such a definition for its
predictive value in experimental psychology- The main study
was, however, 4 study of performance by two cultural groups and
a non-literate group on a memory task. The main study was
undertaken to test four hypotheses: a) the author's hypothesis
that there are wide individual differences within cultural and
educational groups in the ability to recall stories and other
cognitive tasks, and that these differences can be predicted
on the basis of subject's rated "intelligence"--thus validating
the rating procedure; b) the literacy and modernization hypo-
thesis that absence of books and illiteracy lead to reliance on
memory, thus compelling 4 development of superior memory skills
as compared to literates who do not have to develop such skills
(Porter, 1868; Reisman, 1956; and others); c) Bartlett's
hypothesis that there are no overall differences in memory
ability between literate and non-literate subjects, but that
people tend to have better memory for information that is
culturally familiar and relevant to them than what is novel;
a) Scribner and Cole hypothesis that formal schooling develops
particular skills of learning and memorizing, which result in
higher performance by formally educated subjects as compared to
unschooled or non-literate subjects.
Subjects in this study consisted of: non-literate African young
adults, African adolescents attending junior high school, and
Americans also attending junior high school. The results in this
fewer tees eseente SSeS
sain pilates io afoot i ie BAP NG ts
ee a ee
Dube (3)
study indicate a strong "intelligence" effect and a "cultural"
effect, with both African groups recalling more than the
American group.
RESEARCH INTEREST
The research conducted in Botswana (Africa) and in the U.S. has
raised some old and new questions. For example, the non-literate
African's view of "jntelligence" is similar to a western layman's
view as reported by Vernon (1959). Does this mean all people
have basically the same view of "intelligence"? or was this a
mere coincidence? The superior performance by the high
"intelligent" group in this study raises the questions whether
the usual poor performance by non-literate subjects does not
reveal a weakness in our research methods which seem to have
taken for granted that our tasks' methods are understood by
non-literate subjects. The question raised by these results is
whether our tasks are not biased in favor of schooled subjects.
The questions raised by these results seem to require further
investigation with some other tasks which may be different from
memory task.
PUBLISHED WORKS
Dube, E. F. "The Relationship Between Racism and Education in
South Africa," in Harvard Educational Review,
March/April, 1985.
Dube, D. F. "The Reagan Administration's Policy Toward South
"Literacy, Cultural Familiarity, and ‘Intelligence’
As Determinants of Story Recall," in Ulric Neisser
Ex Fs
Africa: Misunderstood or Understood," New World
Dube,
Remembering in Natural
Review, June/July, 1984.
San Francisco, 1982.
(ed. ) Memory Observed:
Contexts. W-
H. Freeman and Co.,
UNPUBLISHED WORKS
At present I am working on 2 book (as yet untitled) which is
to be on Racism.
"A Study of Story Recall Among Literate and Non-
Literate Botswana." This paper was presented to
an E.P.A. Conference held in New York City in
April, 1976.
Dube, E. F.-
and Dube, E. F. "Selective Attention of Visually
Presented Information," presented to E.P.A.
Conference in Washington in April, 1978.
Neisser, U.
"Ts Peaceful Change Still Possible in South Africa?"
Paper presented to a4 conference on Apartheid held
in Kingston, Jamaica, sponsored by the Jamaican
government and the University of the West Indies,
June 18, 1978.
Dube, E. F.
Dube
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
(4) May 1985
"RN case against foreign investment in South africa."
Paper presented to the National Conference of Black
Lawyers during their 10th year anniversary in New
Orleans, August 22, 1978.
“an African View of Intelligence," presented at
Amherst College, June 3, 1979:
"History of Liberation Movement in South Africa,"
presented to African Liberation Party in Chicago,
July 10, 1979.
"Sports under Apartheid," presented to University
of Oregon at Corvallis, October 19, 1980.
"Cross Cultural Study of Memory,” in U. Neisser
(ed.) Studies in Story Recall, 1981.
"Present American Policy on Southern Africa,"
presented at U.C.L.A., May 24, 1981.
"State of Internal Situation in South Africa and
the Role of African National Congress," paper
presented at the State University of Oregon,
Portland, June 3, 1981.
"Western Attitude to South Africa's Destabilization
of Front Line States in Southern Africa," paper
presented to an International Conference on National
Resources held at Escuela Superior Poletecnica del
Litoral, Guayaquil, Ecuador, November 18, 1981.
"Education in South Africa," presented to an
African National Congress seminar in Morogoro,
Tanzania, January 8, 1982.
“African Education in South Africa and New Laws
Required to Correct its Abuses," paper presented to
an International Conference on Curriculum Development,
organized by the African National Congress and the
Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Morogoro, Tanzania,
August 21-25, 1981.
"The History of the Concept of Race and its
Relationship to Racism," lecture to the graduate
students and faculty, Department of Psychology,
Rutgers University, October 18, 1981.
"The South African Invasion.of Angola: Its Meaning
and the future of the struggle in South Africa and
Namibia," presented to foreign students at the
University of Southern Illinois, February 12, 1982.
7. ao ne
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
Dube,
(S) May 1985
"The Meaning of 'Constructive Engagement' to the
Liberation of South Africa and Namibia," lecture
given to Northwestern University, African Studies
Department, April 6, 1982.
"The Western States' Collaboration with South
Africa in Nuclear Arms Development," paper presented
to a Conference of Concerned Academics to Stop
Nuclear Arms Race, held at City University Graduate
Center, New York, June 14, 1982.
"The Utilization of Concrete Teaching in ‘Abstract’
Subjects," paper presented to an African National
Congress Education Council on Curriculum Update,
Morogoro, Tanzania, August L7=23, 1982.
"Violence or Peaceful Change in South Africa‘:
The Two Chances," paper presented at SUNY at
Albany, to the Afro-American and African Studies
Department, September 24, 1982.
"The Three Forms of Racism," lecture given at
Rutgers University to the graduate students and
staff of the Department of Psychology, October 18, 1982.
"The Uses of 1.Q. Tests in U.S. Racism," lecture
presented to Afro-American and African Students
Association, two-day conference in Wesleyan College,
Connecticut, November 30-December Ls £982
"The Role of Minorities and Progressive White
Americans in Namibian and South African Struggle for
Liberation," lecture presented to the Political
Science Department, Oregon State University at
Corvallis, February 4, 1983.
"The Negative Role of the AFL/CIO in South African
Trade Unionism," paper presented to District 65,
New York, February 15, 1983.
“How Multinational Companies help to Perpetuate
Racism: Reason for Divestment," paper presented
to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
June 3, 1983, and Duke University, June 4, 1983.
Meetings organized by students and staff on the
issue of divestment from South Africa.
"The Collaboration between Multinational Companies,
the U.S., and the AFL/CIO in Perpetuating Oppression
in South Africa," presented at a dinner to honor
Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners of
conscience, organized by the Labor Research
Institute, November 19, 1983.
y-. Dube (6) May 1985
Dube, E. F. "The Effects of the Continuing Devastating Drought
in Africa (1977-1983) South of the Sahara," paper
presented to Emory University staff and students,
November 11, 1983. (Abstracts of this paper were
later published in Newsday, March 28, 1984.)
Dube, E. F. "Race and Racism," paper presented to a conference
organized by the November 29 Coalition on Racism,
January 12-13, 1984.
Dube, E. F. “The Reagan Administration's Policy Toward South
Africa: Misunderstood or Understood," paper
presented to the History and Political Science
graduate students and staff at the City University
Graduate Center, New York, February 26, 1984.
Revised version of the above paper presented to
International Studies Association Silver Anniversary,
Atlanta, Georgia, March 28, 1984. (This also
appeared in the New World Review, June/July, 1984.)
Dube, E. F. “Israel's Collaboration with South Africa,"
sponsored by Faculty and Students for Palestinian
Rights, University of Chicago, September 13, 1984.
Dube, E. F. "The Meaning of the Present Student Uprisings in
South Africa," presented to All African Peoples
Party, Kansas City, November 11, 1984.
Dube, E. F. "Political Prisoners and Their Families in South
Africa," presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of
the American Orthopsychiatric Association,
April 20-24, 1985, New York Hilton Hotel, New York.
Dube, E. F. "The Effect of Racism on African Children," to be
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Public Health Association, to be held in Washington,
D.C., November, 1985.
REFERENCES
Dr. Ulric Neisser, Department of Psychology, Uris Hall, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York 14853; telephone (607) 256-6305
Dr. William W. Lambert, Department of Psychology, Uris Hall,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853; telephone (607) 256-6390
Mr. J. Congress Mbata, Africana Research Center, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York 14853; telephone (607) 256-4625
Report of the Chancellor's Article 33 Committee
The Chancellor's Review Committee for evaluating the tenure
and promotion of Professor Ernest Dube endorses the Academic
Senate's Personnel Policy Committee recommendation for tenure
without promotion. Professor Dube would retain his present rank
as assistant Professor with opportunities for promotion as his
future scholarly work merits. Our decision was unanimous and
based on a detailed examination of his personnel file and the
following questions:
1) What should be the faculty composition of a major
University supported by the taxpayers of New York?
2) What academic contributions have been made by
Professor Dube since he came ot SUSB in the fall of
LOTT?
3) Were the procedures used to evaluate Professor Dube
fair, thorough, and cognizant of the circumstances
under which Professor Dube carried out his
professional responsibilities?
4) What are the short term and long term consequences
of granting or not granting Professor Dube tenure at
SUSB for the University itself and for the academic
community in the U.S. and abroad who have been
following this case?
Background Information
Professor Ernest Frederick Dube was born in Johannesburg,
South Africa in 1929. He received a diploma in the Hofmeyer
School of Social Work in 1953 and was a social worker in South
Africa for several years before obtaining a B.S. in Psychology and
Sociology in 1967 at the University of Natal. He openly supported
the movement to abolish apartheid and was subsequently arrested
for his outspoken political views. He was imprisoned from 1963 to
(2)
1967 on South Africa's Robben Island and was released on condition
that he would leave the country. He left South Africa for exile
in London and in 1970 was admitted to Cornell University where he
studied cognitive psychology and received his Ph.D. in 1976. He
joined the SUSB faculty a year later.
During his years in South Africa, Professor Dube became
conversant in five languages (English, Zulu, Afrikaans, Sosotho,
and Xhotha) and gained intimate knowledge of comparative
educational differences of the British, Afrikaans, and black
communities. Familiarity with the diverse ways children learn and
how learning habits are shaped by cultural peculiarities have
played a major role in Professor Dube's approach to cognitive
psychology and teaching.
Professor Dube's uncle was a founding member of the African
National Congress (ANC) in 1912 and the airport in Soweto is named
after him. The name Dube is prominent in Africa, carrying much
the same public recognition as the name King or Kennedy in the
Use S.
Professor Dube's Contributions
Professor Dube's career at SUSB should be understood in
context. He was recruited by the Africana Studies Program. This
is an undergraduate Program that was initiated in 1968 in the wake
of a nation-wide drive to provide courses on black culture and
history for the university community. At the time that Professor
Dube began with the Africana Studies Program, it was not consider-
ed a serious discipline and had dubious academic standards. It
was viewed by many members of the University community as a
vehicle for minority students without adequate skills to obtain
degrees. Professor Dube never accepted this hypothesis and from
the very beginning of his time at Stony Brook, sought to improve
the academic standards of the discipline and help students perform
in accordance with their academic ability. Professor Dube
(3)
introduced courses on African History, African Politics,
contemporary Africa, and Racism.
To change the image of the Africana Studies Program,
Professor Dube has initiated a number of independent readings
courses in which he supervised the students approach and
evaluation of articles from the periodical literature. About 15
to 20 students a year, usually drawn from his lecture courses,
take these independent readings courses. Professor Dube meets
with them every other week until they are comfortable with their
project. The approach he uses stimulates their interest to learn
more and the independent study permits a more effective
development of scholarly habits of reading and writing.
Professor Dube claims that through this emphasis on scholarly
courses, the Africana Studies Program has increased the range of
students participating in its courses as well as the quality of
minority students in them. (See enclosed documents) At present
about one-sixth of Professor Dube's students are black, about
one-eighth are Asian, and the rest are Caucasian.
Professor Dube was hired jointly by Psychology and Africana
Studies. The most important aspect of his appointment, however,
has been with Africana Sutdies, despite the fact that his training
was in cognitive psychology. This necessitated a considerable
amount of academic retooling on his part to meet the needs of
Africana Studies.
The Africana Studies Program offers no graduate degrees; it
is an undergraduate degree-granting unit. These administrative
features make it difficult to do graduate level work. Because
Professor Dube was not formally trained in Africana Studies, he
had to put aside his interest in cognitive psychology when he
started at SUSB so that he could educate himself as well as his
students in African history and culture. Students from other
universities sought to do graduate work with Dr. Dube wrote to him
about obtaining a degree in cognitive psychology from the
Psychology Department and not Africana Studies. He has not
(4)
accepted such students because he felt committed to the Africana
Studies Program and could not put his primary effort in the
Psychology Department.
If granted tenure Professor Dube hopes to bring stature to
the Africana Studies Program by improving its scholarly standing
and by attracting faculty so that a full department status can be
assigned to it. When this is done he would like to work with
master's candidates who are interested in interdisciplinary
approaches. He believes his approach to cognitive psychology can
be applied to U.S. urban and rural black children since many of
the features he found significant in South African black
communities may turn out to be important here.
Professor Dube has had inquiries (from Columbia University
Press) about a scholarly project on race and racism that he has
been working on for several years. He is still not certain
whether it should be a single work on race and racism or two
books. The racism aspect will stress two concepts he has
developed through teaching his courses: covert racism and
reactive racism. Covert racism includes policies in which
minorities are blamed for their inadequate achievements or ignored
while the inequalities of opportunity, education, and funding that
contribute to these failings are minimized. Reactive racism
includes minority bias against other minorities, sometimes not
perceived as bias, in which a minority's need to survive after
oppression often justifies comparably oppressive, neglectful, or
illegal practices. Professor Dube believes that this work will be
widely discussed because most authors writing about racism stress
the open prejudices and tyranny of racism and they undervalue the
importance of these other factors that are more likely to exist
among educated populations.
Finally, Professor Dube has had a profound influence on his
colleagues in the Africana Studies Program. He has been a
consultant for them on issues of African affairs and he has
introduced many of them to African authorities he personally
(5)
knows. He has also been a consultant for colleagues in the
Department of Psychology who are interested in the applications of
cognitive psychology to differences in achievement, talent, pace
of learning, and intelligence.
Dr. Dube is a person with an international reputation and is
highly regarded locally, nationally, and internationally. He has
given about 30 speeches and participates in symposia nationally
and internationally. Although his publications as yet are not
extensive, he is a good teacher and gives a great deal of himself
to students on an informal basis, as an advisor, and in directing
independent study and readings.
Issues Raised by the Dube Case
The Dube case is a troublesome one because he is the subject
of a controversy that had both national and local publicity over
alleged racism (anti-semitism) in his course on racism. Professor
Dube was Cleared of those charges by an investigation of the
Academic Senate. Unfortunately, during the time these accusations
were first made, public figures (including the Governor), who
assumed they were true, made judgments about Professor Dube that
would never have been made if they had been aware of his life and
his stand on racism. The subsequent harassment by the Jewish
Defense League and the threats to him, his family, and the
Africana Studies Program made it difficult for Professor Dube to
focus on his studies of race and racism at a time when he should
have been spending considerable energy on such projects. This
included loss of his wife's job, burglary of his home, and fear
for the safety of his children. He had to move from Long Island
to New York City to achieve that safety.
While the controversy surrounding Professor Dube was
minimized by Dean Neville in his recommendation against Professor
Dube's tenure, it was, in our view, an important factor for us to
consider in the development of his academic career. We recognize
(6)
that President Marburger delayed Professor Dube's tenure review an
extra year to help him put his life back together, but it is not
easy for one who has been the victim of oppression in South Africa
to ignore the potential for violence and intimidation even in our
Own country.
We believe that all elements of the promotion and tenure
decision were made without conscious bias against Professor Dube
as a controversial figure. For this reason we have not compared
similar decisions for tenure without promotion which were either
accepted or denied by the Administration (both types of decision
have precedent at SUSB). We cannot judge what the decision would
have been had Professor Dube never been accused of anti-semitism.
We are assuming in our recommendation that every decision made
against Professor Dube's tenure or promotion was based on academic
values that were unrelated to the notoriety generated by his
course on racism.
We question the academic evaluation of Professor Dube for
several reasons. We believe that his contributions to the
Africana Studies Program have been underrated and lumped together
as mere teaching. We believe that the circumstances of Professor
Dube's career were not given the consideration they should have
received. And we believe that too narrow a definition of
scholarship was applied in his case.
We asked ourselves what a university should be. We all
agreed that scholarship, teaching, public service, and university
service are important components. We also recognize that few
individuals are productive in all areas and that a person may
shift emphasis over the years stressing one or another of those
aspects. Some scholars become most productive in their later
years, many lose their productivity several years after entering
academic life. We all want to avoid that state of deadwood in
which scholarship and enthusiasm for learning, teaching, and
service fades.
We believe a university is strengthened, not weakened, when
(7)
it recruits former Cabinet members or other national figures whose
major function is that of being a resource for students and other
faculty rather than being scholars in the traditional sense of
writing articles for refereed journals. A great university takes
risks. It will choose scholars who lack a Ph.D.; it will recruit
artists and writers who have no interest in the formal criticism
of creative work; it will allow scholars to change fields and
recognize that it will take time to develop skills in a new area;
it will encourage interdisciplinary scholarship although a person
may lack formal training in other disciplines.
In Professor Dube's case we note Dean Neville's admiration
for Professor Dube as a "Cultural resource." He notes that "few
people now in the western world have been as involved as he in the
affairs of Africa." He refers to him as "a walking library and
video collection." In his most positive statement, he calls him
"a national treasure."
These are not the remarks one would make of a weak candidate
for promotion and tenure. Those candidates who are turned down
usually lack national, let alone international stature. Such
candidates are not known for their efforts to shape a more
scholarly program or department. They are rarely called upon to
give invited talks or asked to participate in international
conferences. In Professor Dube's case, we argue, those less
tangible contributions, not measured by formal publication, are a
valid component of the scholarly contributions a faculty member
makes in and outside the institution. Whenever a faculty member
from SUSB is accorded that recognition at national meetings,
whenever such a faculty member invites foreign dignitaries to
symposia at SUSB, or whenever that person is a guest at another
university, our university benefits.
We also argue that Dean Neville's judgment of Professor
Dube's potential is both premature and unwarranted. He states (p.
4) "I'm not sure that Professor Dube ought to seek scholarly
maturity. His great contribution will be to write an auto-
(8)
biography, and to extend out from his personal experience." This
is an extremely narrow view of scholarly maturity. It would
reduce Professor Dube to the status of an historical curiosity or
event that needs to be recorded. It would deny to him the
opportunity to influence a4 future generation of scholars
interested in Africana Studies. It would prejudge the worth of
his books on race and racism. Few of us can judge the future
direction of a career on the basis of a few documents. A broader
context must be used that includes personal familiarity by one's
colleagues, awareness of a scholar's habits of mind from
conversations with him, and other factors including the influence
of a scholar on his students.
Professor Dube's contributions are in part confirmed by Dr.
Neville when he says, “Regarding University service and teaching
viewed in the ordinary ways, Professor Dube surely has done what
would merit tenure in other cases, all things being equal." The
committee certainly endorses this assessment. The committee also
interviewed Dr. Dube and feels confident that once tenure is
granted, Dr. Dube will be able to have a productive scholarly
life. It is clear also that once the anxiety of tenure is
removed, he can be more productive as 4 writer while continuing
his impressive record of external lecturing and of teaching and
service to the University and its students.
We also disagree with Dean Neville's views on the messages
students will get if Professor Dube is awarded tenure at SUSB.
Undergraduates do not see the issues as faculty do and we doubt
that they would see the University perverted into a system that
rewards teaching without scholarship. This is a false perception;
we argue that the scholarship that Professor Dube has done is
unconventional but nevertheless valid in a university. We fear
that rejection of Professor Dube's tenure would be perceived by
the Africana Studies Program as indifference to their efforts to
attract more competent scholars or their demands for more work and
skill by their students. We fear that the denial of tenure would
(3)
make black scholars at other universities in the U.S. shun SUSB as
a school that casts out its treasures. And we fear that the
denial of tenure would be misinterpreted by African scholars as
covert racism.
We endorse the Personnel Policy Committee's ruling because it
reflects the recognition of Professor Dube's overall contributions
to the University and it also acknowledges that formal scholarship
should be a major part of the promotion decision. Tenure without
promotion meets both of these complementary perceptions of the
University. It is a place where those who have a positive
scholarly impact on students, colleagues, and the world belong.
It is also a place where those who make their scholarly work
known, through scholarly books and refereed journal articles, reap
the most rewards.
at
Aaron mi dfirey,
Lecturer, Classics and Comparative
Literature
SL,
Vasbe Hf. hotus.
Leslie H. Owens,
Director, Africana Studies Program
Elof A. Za son,
Distinguished Teaching Professor,
Department of Biochemistry
- Vi Office of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0701
StonyBrook telephone: (516) 632-6265
December 10, 1986
Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
Chancellor
State University of New York
State University Plaza
Albany, NY 12246
Dear Clif:
You now have the report of the second tripartite com-
mittee formed under Article 33 of the UUP Agreement regarding
Professor Dube's promotion and tenure. I am writing to give
you my reactions to this report. I continue to believe that
Dr. Dube does not measure up to the standards that Stony
Brook expects of its faculty and that it would be a very
serious mistake to grant him a tenured appointment at any
rank.
I have already expressed the reasons for my conclusion
that Professor Dube should not receive either promotion or
tenure. (See attached.) His teaching and service contribu-
tions are by no means strong enough to overbalance the excep-
tional absence of scholarly activity. This judgment has not
been altered by any additional facts or observations brought
forth by either committee.
This second report suggests strongly that the weakness
in Professor Dube's case is lack of publications. The prob-
lem as I see it is rather the consequence of this lack, which
is that his value to the University remains potential. We do
not have a credible indication that more time will lead to
the production of a body of material that can be subject to
the scrutiny of the scholarly community. There is no ques-
tion that the study of racism is important or that Dr. Dube's
particular training and background ought to be valuable in
pursuing it. The question is will he do it in such a way
that others can read about it, study it, and evaluate what he
has done. Based on what we have seen, I conclude he probably
will not. I am not interested in quantities of published
papers; I am interested in the quality of thought as tested
in the only way we have available to us: the critical re-
sponse of the intellectual community to one's work. "...be-
ing invited to give lectures for other scholars at presti-
gious universities" is not a substitute for a scholarly
record.
The report says in his favor that “Professor Dube's
file, letters of recommendation and personal interviews show
that there is genera] agreement that he is a valued member of
the Africana Studies Program." The first committee inter-
viewed only Professor Dube. The second interviewed the
chairman of the first committee and Professor Dube and, at my
request, myself. My remarks to the committee questioned
Dr. Dube's value to the program. The other tenured faculty
in the program (there are only two) have immensely stronger
histories of creative and analytical scholarly work.
On the question of mastery of subject matter, which the
report declares "he certainly has", I must take issue with
the committee. How does one tell? I cannot infer this from
the material available to me. Nor can I find compelling
evidence of the sort of outstanding performance in teaching
that one should expect if the tenure case is to be based upon
ts
The faculty Personnel Policy Committee was badly split
over the question of tenure. The second tripartite committee
also describes itself as divided on the question of "whether
his strengths in teaching and service outweigh his weakness
in scholarly contributions as measured by published papers."
The committee gives an either/or recommendation that im-
plicitly acknowledges that the verdict, even after ten years
beyond his doctoral degree, is not yet clear. While I am
sympathetic to the use of measures other than publications in
conventional scholarly journals for some fields, I am not
convinced that the study of racism is one of those fields or
that an acceptable alternative has been found in Dr. Dube's
case.
In conclusion, I believe that it is not in Stony Brook's
best interest either to grant tenure now or to wait another
three years for another tenure evaluation. I recommend ter-
mination of Dr. Dube's contract on August 31, 1987. This
would give an extension of his current contract for the
Spring semester and the summer during which he could arrange
for other employment.
Sincerely,
John H. Marburger
President
Enclosure
ces E. Dube
T. Liao
be: J. Schubel
P. Teed
Follow-r
*"StonyBrook = (..'""
Human Resources Department
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0751}
telephone: (516) 632-6145
November 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM
LO’ President John H. Marburger
FROM: Professor T. Liao T. nual
SUBJECT: Committee Report For Appeal of Ernest Dube
Enclosed is a copy of our committee's report to Chancellor C.
Wharton. If you have any comments, they may be sent directly
to the Chancellor or to me. If comments are sent to me, I
will forward them to the Chancellor.
Thank you for taking the time to visit
The information that you shared with us
the preparation of our report.
with the committee.
was very helpful in
Human Resources Department
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0751}
telephone: (516) 632-6145
,tony Brook P
November 24, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chancellor Clifton Wharton
FROM: Advisory Committee for Appeal of Ernest F. Dube >°
Chairperson: Professor Thomas T. Liao T rar
Committee Members: Professor Edward Ames
Professor Dana Bramel
SUBJECT: Committee Report for Appeal of Ernest F. Dube
This memorandum reviews the tenure and promotion process
of Ernest F. Dube, an Assistant Professor in the Africana
Studies Program at SUNY/Stony Brook. This review was
undertaken following the guidelines provided by Article 33 of
the UUP-State Agreement. The committee's report was prepared
and written according to the outline provided by Thomas M.
Mannix, Associate Vice Chancellor, in his letter October 20,
1976.
Tie Description of Review Process
During the months of October and November, 1986, the
committee reviewed Professor Dube's tenure and promotion file
and met five times to discuss the contents of the file and to
interview three people to obtain additional information. To
obtain a balanced perspective of this case, we interviewed the
following people at three of our meetings:
October 23 - Professor Ernest F. Dube
October 30 - Professor Aaron Godfrey
November 6 - President John H. Marburger
II. Appointment Date and Prior Experience
Professor Dube was appointed to his current position in
September, 1977. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology from
Cornell University in 1976. His doctoral dissertation was an
excellent piece of work. It dealt with the probelm of taking
cultural differences into account when measuring the
"intelligence" of students of widely differing backgrounds,
specifically those of African and European students.
III. Chronology of Tenure and Promotion Review Process
Since Africana Studies is a "Program" and not a
Department, his qualifications for promotion and tenure were
initially reviewed (in 1984/85) by a committee specially
appointed by the Dean of Humanities. This committee
recommended (by vote of 4 to 3) that he be promoted to the rank
of Associate Professor and (by a vote of 6 to 1) that he be
granted tenure. This decision was then reviewed by the College
of Arts and Sciences Personnel Policy Committee. They
recomended (by vote of 4 to 3) that he be given tenure at the
rank of Assistant Professor. The Dean of Humanities then
recommended against Professor Dube's being granted either
tenure or promotion. The Provost and the President also
decided against tenure or promotion. On appeal, a committee
such as ours was appointed in 1985. Its report recommending
tenure as Assistant Professor was not acted on by the
Chancellor.
Despite the three different recommendations made at the
three steps of the review procedure, there is substantial
agreement as to the facts in the case. These we may summarize
as follows:
A. It is SUNY/Stony Brook policy to consider the
accomplishments of candidates for tenure and promotion in the
areas of scholarship, teaching, and service, with the first
receiving the greatest emphasis.
B. Since the completion of his thesis at Cornell
Univesity, Professor Dube's publication record has been below
the levels normally considered adequate for promotion and
tenure at SUNY/Stony Brook.
C. Professor Dube has achieved a measure of national
recognition as a speaker. For several years, he has spoken
about once per month to various gatherings at American
universities (including Chicago, Minnesota, and Berkeley).
Some of these addresses have been "non-academic," but perhaps
one-third have dealt with scholarly topics (unrelated to his
dissertation and have been sponsored by university departments
of Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology.
If these addresses had been written down and published, they
might have raised the usual problems faced by scholars pursuing
interdisciplinary research, but they would be much more easily
appraised than his actual record.
D. Professor Dube's record as an undergraduate classroom
teacher has been above average. Not only has he attracted
students to his own courses, but he has also spent a great deal
of time and effort in supervising individual reading and
research by undergraduates in the Africana Studies Program.
Professor Dube has regularly had a teaching load which is
greater than the load which most Stony Brook departments assign
to faculty with active research programs.
E. Professor Dube has also been active in helping
minority graduate students in Psychology develop and carry out
their doctoral dissertation research, even though had has not
been assigned teaching duties in the Psychology Department.
F. Professor Dube has achieved a measure of national
recognition as one of the few Black scholars to have emerged
from South African educational system. This fact would
certainly make him a special kind of asset for Stony Brook. He
serves on the editorial board of the African Urban Quarterly
journal. In updating his professional achievements, the
committee discovered that Professor Dube has written a paper
dealing with racism that has been accepted for publication in
the Philosophical Forum.
Given this non-controversial statement of the facts of the
case, we note that the three levels of review of these records
have reached different recommendations. The difference in
tenure and promotion decisions is due to the difference in
weight given to Professor Dube's scholarship, teaching, and
service record. A related factor is the difference in the
assessment of the value of Professor Dube's contribution to the
Africana Studies Program.
IV. Committee Findings and Recommendation
Professor Dube's file, letters of recommendation and
personal interviews show that there is general agreement that
he is a valued member of the Africana Studies Program. Besides
being an effective teacher, many view him as “a Cultural
resource" of the university. The key question is whether his
strengths in teaching and service outweigh his weakness in
scholarly contributions as measured by published papers. As
with other review groups, we are also divided on this point.
In section III (D), we noted that Professor Dube's
teaching load has been heavier than normal required at
SUNY/Stony Brook. From 1977-83, besides teaching classes and
supervising directed reading and projects, he also was
chairperson for one year. It can be argued that the demand for
his time limited his ability to publish more papers. From
1983-86, the problems that relate to his teaching about racism
certainly interfered with his research and writing activities.
Two faculty review committees have recommended that
Professor Dube be tenured because of his value to his
department and the university. The main reason that some
faculty reviewers and central administrators recommended no
promotion or tenure was due to his weak publication record. We
feel that publication of papers is only one measure of
scholarship. Professor Dube has demonstrated scholarship by
being invited to give lectures for other scholars at
prestigious universities. :
In final analysis, Professor Dube's record must be judged
against the six criteria for promotion and tenure that are
provided by the SUNY Board of Trustees. He certainly has
mastery of subject matter and is an effective teacher. These
qualities combined with advisement work with students makes him
a valued member of his program. Professor Leslie Owens, former
Chairperson of the Africana Studies Program considers Professor
Dube to be a key person in their program. His service record
includes being his program's chairperson for one year.
In the area of scholarship, Professor Dube's record should
be judged in a broader context. Although he has a weak
publication record, his frequent invitations to address
scholarly audiences is an indication that what he has to say is
considered by many to be very important. Finally, we want to
point out that Professor Dube has made significant
contributions to enriching the life of the University by
helping to correct discrimination and encouraging diversity in
his courses.
Our judgment is that Professor Dube is greatly needed by
the Africana Studies Program and is a valuable academic
resource of our University. Thus we recommend that either:
(1) Professor Dube receive tenure as an Assistant
Professor, or
(2) Professor Dube's contract be extended for an
additional three years (1987-1990). This period of
time would be used by him to demonstrate an ability
to publish additional papers. During the 1989-1990
academic year, he should be considered for promotion
and tenure again.
’ Office of the President
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-0701]
StonyBrook telephone: ($16) 632-6265
f] LO
March 9, 1987 Y ub
we
Professor Richard N. Porter
Department of Chemistry
Harvard University
12 Oxford Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Dear Dick:
Thanks for sending me a copy of your letter responding
to the New York Times editorial. I appreciate your rational
and supportive comments. You may be interested in the at-
tached response that I sent, also not yet published. I de-
cided deliberately to take the unusual step of exposing the
pattern of voting in the committees because I believe some-
thing of that sort is necessary to demonstrate to our public
that the issue was a complicated one.
Since you have sent your letter to the Times, I assume
you will not mind if I share it with others here on campus
and at SUNY Central. If you have any objections, please let
me know.
Sincerely;
ohn H. Marburger
President
Enclosure
Atak copies sent to:
/D. Blinken
J. Komisar
J. Burke
S. Levine
Stony Brook Council
Vice Presidential Advisory Group
S. Petrey
Bg
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPART MEINT OF CLIEMISTRY
12 Oxford Sivect
Cumbridge, Massachusetts 02138
UWS. 41.
February 25, 1987
The Editor
Ihe New Yor Times
Your editorial of February 25, "“Acacemic - Nol-So-Frmedan
for SUNY." implies that President: Marburger acted cither capriciously
or under extemal pressures and in defiance of "four faculty cammittons"
in denying tenure at Stony Brock to Professor Emest Pube. It is true
that external forces did threaten Professcr Dube's right to present
provocative and unpopular ideas to his classes on racisn, but that threat
was effectively removed by the finding of Professor Rosenthal's ad hoc
camittee that Professor Dube had acted within generally understood
principles of academic freedan, The task faced by the "four faculty
committees" that made recommendations on Professor Dube's appointment to
tenure was to insure that the proooss of evaluation he entirely shielded
fram outside pressures. As the chair of the Personm1 Policy Cannittce
of the College of Arts and Sciences, I can assure the readers of the
Times that the faculty and administration succeeded in doing just that.
It would he inappropriate to discuss the details of the case here, except
to say that tenure cases at a University with strong mandates to produce
knowledge, to educate, and to serve the public arm with few exceptions
canplex., This case was one of our more camplex ones, inviting honest
disagrecnent among informed people of good wil]. Jt is therefore technically
correct but entirely too simplistic to state that four faculty committees
recammended tenure and that the President overmiled them. At the time
President Marburger made his jnitial decision on the case, he followed the
custom of consulting with me as chair of the Arts and Science Camnittoe
making the tenure recammendation to the adninistration., lt wos my belief
at the time, and remains so, that he acted in good faith, in an entirely
academic context, and with thoughtfully reasoned support for his decision.
In view of the underlying facts, your editorial is in my opinion a wholly
unjustified misrepresentation of a great institution and its leader, and
indeed uncharacteristic of your great newspaper.
Sincerely yours,
Riel ord Go Petes,
RICHARD N, PORTER
Professor of Chemistry,
State University of New York, Stay Brook
(Visiting Professor of Chemistry,
Harvard University)
Yel: 617/495-4711
617/495-1895
RNP snc
State Uimversin Of Now York at Stony Broos
Stony Brook, New York 11794 O70)
' a
stonyBrook tclephone (S16) 632-6268
February 24, 1987
TO THE EDITOR:
Your editorial "Academic Not-So-Freedom at SUNY" takes
a cheap shot at a difficult decision whose basis has been
persistently misconstrued in the press. While controversial
beliefs are not grounds for denial of tenure, neither is being
the center of controversy grounds for awarding tenure. The
State University of New York at Stony Brook, like other re-
search universities, seeks firmer foundations for its tenure
Gecisions.
The "four faculty committees" that recommended tenure
for Dr. Dube included one at the level of his program in
Africana Studies, one College-wide committee, and two three-
member appeals committees, the latter selected according to a
process specified in the labor contract with United University
Professions. None but the first committee recommended promo-
tion in rank, and that not unanimously. The College-wide
committee, by far the most important, recommended for tenure
by one vote in a split ballot. The second of the two appeals
committees recommended that either: (1) Professor Dube re-
ceive tenure without promotion, or (2) Professor Dube's contract
be extended for an additional fixed period to strengthen his
case. Both of the last two committees declared that there
was no evidence of inappropriate external influence in my
decision to deny tenure.
I decided to deny tenure to Dr. Dube based upon the entire
record available to me, and not simply upon the result of com-
mittee votes. Unfortunately for the public understanding of
such cases, but fortunately for the candidate, the details of
this record are not made public. The few facts I have cited
above, which were available to the Times, indicate that the
case was not a simple one.
Your suggestion that the Chancellor's offer to Dr. Dube
was made "to induce the professor to accept the decision more
readily," is outrageous and unsupported by any evidence what-
soever. The SUNY tenure process is carried out with the utmost
integrity and seriousness and has not been compromised in the
case of Dr. Dube.
JOHN H. MARBURGER
PRESIDENT
STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0