Just days before the opening convocation, Dr. Dawn Bishop McLin was presented with a letter placing her on administrative leave, with a recommendation of termination. That action not only caught her by surprise, it sent shock waves throughout the Jackson State University (JSU) community. The situation has been compounded by numerous unanswered questions.
The first question is whether she is being recommended for termination as a faculty member in the department of psychology or as faculty senate president. There is a difference as to how people perceive the matter as well as how the administration proceeds.
If it is as a faculty member in the department of psychology, there are at least three questions that need to be answered. What have her evaluations over the years shown? Was she recommended for termination respectively by her chair, the dean, the provost, and by the requisite committee at each level? Since she is tenured, what is the violating cause for which she is being recommended for removal?
On the other hand, if she is being recommended for removal as faculty senate president, the question becomes, “have the administrators not apprised themselves of the fact that the faculty senate president, like all of the senators, is elected by the faculty, not appointed by the administration?” The senators can impeach the senate president, but not the administration. An administrative removal of a faculty senate president would be a first in the history of JSU, despite the fact several JSU presidents having had votes of no confidence taken against them by the faculty. Those past presidents were upset, but realized they had no such authority. For the administration to remove the faculty senate president would be a violation of the standards of AAUP and most accreditation bodies. It also is against the history and idea of academic faculty senates.
In a matter as serious as the removal of a faculty member, another question becomes, “what are the serious allegation(s) against Dr. McLin?” The companion question is, “what concrete evidence is there to substantiate such allegation(s)?”
Given the testimonies of many in the JSU community regarding the strong and valuable advocacy role of the faculty senate under President McLin, that her activism has been in conjunction with and/or at the request of the senate, and given the short tenure of this administration, the question arises as to whether the negative recommendation is more a matter of personal bias.
As the events play out, many members of the JSU community wonder aloud whether the move against Dr. McLin is designed to put fear in the minds of outspoken critics. Some teachers realize that if the president of the senate, who is also a tenured teacher, can be gotten rid of so easily, they could meet with the same fate for even less serious allegations, if they are outspoken. The logic is that if the voice of the senate, which represents the faculty, can be muted, if not eliminated by some heavy-handed administrator, then the university president will become as much of an authoritarian as any plantation owner or political dictator. The same things could happen to the Student Government, robbing students of their limited voice in campus matters.
Finally, as Dr. McLin prepares to defend herself in a campus hearing, many wonder how much of a fair chance she has before any personnel committee put together by administrators who appear “out to get her.” Thus, the questions are as follows. (1) Will the hearing be conducted by a standing committee composed of a representative number of faculty members? (2) Will she be able to testify? (3) Will she be afforded the right to have her own representative and witnesses? (4) Will she and her representative have an opportunity to confront any witnesses of the administration? (5) Will she be able to hear or receive the committee’s conclusion in a timely manner? (6) Will she have the opportunity to appeal any negative conclusion? (7) Will any administrator(s) have the authority to overturn a decision in her favor? This is the model of procedural due process. We raise the questions, however, because frequently more kangaroo-type hearings are what take place on many campuses, where the presidents are dictatorial.
While the writer cannot expound upon whether the veracity of the allegations against Dr. McLin because he has not seen them in writing, he takes the position that the questions raised need to be asked and answered before the matter proceeds. The JSU administration must seriously consider the impact of terminating her or any other faculty senate officers merely because their policies or even their political styles may not be to the liking of some members of the administration. The role of the senators is to represent the view of the faculty, not to ensure that the faculty always aligns its views with that of the administration. From the exchange of views and ideas one can often get the best and wisest conclusions.
The matter of Dr. McLin being recommended for termination is the business of the entire JSU community because its resolution will have both immediate and long-term impacts on students, faculty, other employees, and even supporters of the university. The precedent that it sets needs to be one that students and other youngsters can follow; one that will in fact, attract other students, faculty, and administrative staff rather than raise for them a red flag because of how they might be treated. It would be hypocritical of administrators to complain about the conduct of students, faculty, and staff, but then show little regard for their rights and feelings. Many in the JSU community, many who look to HBCUs as instruments for their uplift, and many who work in the collegiate world will be taking notes on how the case of Dr. McLin is handled.
