Document 4

Below is a revised version of the remarks I had prepared in anticipation of a vote of no confidence in Provost Urice at the 22 October meeting of the Academic Senate. I fully endorse the views of my fellow senators who were also planning to vote in favor of this resolution. I am limiting my own comments to two items of which I have personal knowledge and which I believe are grievable under the University’s Code of Ethics.

ITEM 1: The Provost’s Fall 1997 Remarks at the College and Milner Library Faculty Meetings (subsequently reprinted in The Provost’s Newsletter, August 1997):

The Provost referred to "a threat to the concept of shared governance" coming from "those whose motives are uncertain and whose rhetoric is often distorted." He also alluded to "those who . . . knowingly spread false rumors, cancel classes for personal convenience, unjustly attack the motives of others, or communicate without appropriate courtesy and civility."

I believe that these remarks demonstrably violate the University’s "Code of Ethics" (March 16, 1988; all subsequent citations from the "Code of Ethics" reference this document), to wit: "No administrator should encourage or accept hearsay comments regarding faculty or fellow administrators" (Appendix, IV.C.) Hearsay is defined (as my legal source has stated in lay terms) as "[s]econdhand information that a witness only heard about from someone and did not see or hear himself." In his remarks the Provost was encouraging faculty members to accept, on his word alone, his (extremely negative) characterization of the conduct of others. He was thus encouraging faculty to accept secondhand comments about fellow faculty members.

The Code also stipulates that "[s]tatements concerning the quality of people’s work, their moral or professional character, or any other attribute should be given no credence unless the person making them is willing to personally support their statements and to supply evidence of their accuracy" (Appendix, IV.C.; emphasis added). In questioning the "professional character" of the (unidentified) faculty member(s), the Provost supplied no evidence whatsoever of the accuracy of his contention that there are faculty who "knowingly spread false rumors, cancel classes for personal convenience, unjustly attack the motives of others, or communicate without appropriate courtesy and civility."

ITEM 2: Provost Urice’s memo to Senator Curtis White, dated 12 October 1997.

I note especially the following remarks. Provost Urice stated that Senator White "resorted to [a] level of conduct which could damage the university." Provost Urice did not specify how Senator’s White’s conduct "could damage the university," nor did he supply any evidence (beyond his own opinion) in support of his assertion. I believe that this statement therefore violates the University’s "Code of Ethics" (Appendix, IV.C.) as cited above.

I believe that this statement also violates the clause of the University Code of Ethics which stipulates that "[faculty members] should refrain from making rash statements in criticism of their fellows" (Appendix, III.B.). "Rash" is defined by Webster’s Dictionary (http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?rash) as "ill-considered, improvident, shortsighted; not well considered or thought out." Since, as noted, Provost Urice supplied no evidence in support of his assertion that Senator White’s conduct "could damage the university," I contend that his statement can be characterized as "not well considered or thought out," hence "rash" in the sense of the cited clause of the University’s Code of Ethics.

I believe that both Items 1 and 2 additionally violate the provisions of the University’s Code of Ethics governing free expression, to wit: "Membership in the academic community imposes on faculty members an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty . . . and free expression on and off the campus" (p. 16; emphasis added). It is to be noted in this regard that the Code does not merely endorse the right to express differing opinions, nor does it simply permit the expression of differing opinions; the Code specifically enjoins faculty members, places them under an obligation, to acknowledge the right to express differing opinions and it places them under an obligation to encourage free expression. Provost Urice has in these situations failed to meet his obligation under the Code of Ethics to acknowledge others’ right to express differing opinions as well as his obligation to foster and defend free expression. On the contrary, he has demonstrated a clear pattern of consistently characterizing differing opinions as deriving from "uncertain motives," as exhibiting "distorted rhetoric," and as damaging to the university. He has thus acted in a manner likely to stifle free expression in the academic community.

I also note in this regard that Provost Urice in his apology to Senator White at the Academic Senate meeting of 22 October limited the apology to his (Provost Urice’s) questioning in the 12 October memo of the appropriateness of Senator White’s continuance on the Rules Committee. Provost Urice did not apologize for his claim that Senator White’s "level of conduct could damage the university"; thus he failed to apologize for or to retract—he let stand, in other words--a statement that appears to violate the University’s Code of Ethics. Furthermore, Provost Urice in his remarks reiterated his characterization of Senator White’s interpretation of the ASPT proposal as a "misrepresentation." Once again, Provost Urice confused a differing interpretation of facts—the proposed ASPT revisions, in this case--with misrepresentation. He thus failed "to acknowledge [faculty members’] right to express differing opinions"; such a failure is, once again, a violation of the University’s Code of Ethics. It is particularly disturbing that, given the opportunity to retract his statements concerning Senator White’s conduct, Provost Urice did not do so. He thereby compounded, in my view, his infraction of the University Code of Ethics.

In summary, I would argue that Provost Urice has consistently failed to distinguish between, on the one hand, the expression of differing opinions as to the import of facts, and, on the other, the misrepresentation of facts themselves. The capacity and the willingness to make this distinction—between the expression of differing opinions (a protected right under the University’s Code of Ethics) and misrepresentation—is vital in an academic officer who is placed by the University’s Code of Ethics under the obligation actively to foster free expression. This capacity and this willingness are vital as well to that officer’s effective functioning in his leadership role. I find it impossible to repose confidence in an academic leader who has demonstrably and consistently failed to fulfill one of his fundamental ethical duties as a member of the academic community and one who serves, moreover, at the apex of the University’s Ethics and Grievance procedures.