Nearly a month ago, Jackson State President Marcus Thompson had a letter delivered to Dr. Dawn Bishop McLin placing her on administrative leave with a termination recommendation. That news quickly made the rounds.
Since that initial announcement, not much has been published in the media. This silence is, in part, because there has not yet been a due process hearing on the matter.
Another possible reason may be because many people consider it to be just a dispute between the administration and Dr. McLin, or at most between the president and the faculty senate. That perspective, however, is far too limited to account for the reality of the struggle.
What we are witnessing are (1) a deliberate diminishing of the role of the faculty senate, (2) a systemic attempt to alter the relationship between the faculty senate and the administration, (3) a violation of the concept of faculty tenure, and (4) a disturbing model or example placed before students and African American people. Much of this has been in the making in one form or another since the days of JSU Interim President Herman Smith, and at the urgings of Commissioner of Higher Education W. Ray Cleere.
Dr. John Peoples initiated the idea of a faculty senate at JSU during a time when many progressive colleges and universities were establishing them. The faculty senates then and earlier were in place as mechanisms that assisted the institutions by offering advice on academic matters, including but not limited to curriculum development and revision, student graduation requirements, selection and evaluation of academic personnel and administrators, and other such matters that impact the institution’s academic activities.
Although the idea was new in Mississippi, the senate was popularized under Peoples and under Dr. James Hefner. Nevertheless, by the time W. Ray Cleere became commissioner, the college board and other state officials began to be more assertive in such institutional affairs as faculty senates.
That effort has escalated over the years and is manifest today as the current JSU administration demonstrates by seeking to punish a senate president who has been outspoken on such academic things as expressing (1) a lack of confidence in certain academic administrators, (2) the academic freedom to teach the truths in the curriculum, and (3) opposing environmental conditions that diminish the chances of student academic success.
If McLin’s punishment is carried out, it will further diminish the role of the faculty senate at JSU. Future senate presidents will perhaps be much more cautious and less diligent in being the academic advocate that is traditional and needed.
Again, since the days of W. Ray Cleere, the Office of Institutions of Higher Education (IHL) has been opposed to the activism and advocacy role of university faculty senates. University presidents have been applauded for ignoring senates and putting their officers “in their places.” For an example, since those days, votes of no confidence by individual senates have been taken against four university presidents without any action being taken, when usually a vote of no confidence has been the kiss of death for such presidents. Further, on at least one other occasion, a senate president – Dr. Sam McNair – who was at odds with a university president – Dr. Donna Oliver – has been fired by the university president, with the college board upholding the action.
The idea from the board and the university presidents has been that the senates are subordinates to the president rather than independent partners on the campuses whose members are elected by the faculty to speak for the academic interests of the university, especially for the role of the faculty. It is this kind of faulty thinking that causes JSU’s president to mistakenly believe that he has the authority to remove the senate president. If it is allowed to stand, no faculty senate president will ever again have any real voice to speak for the faculty nor on academic matters. As a matter of fact, even more faculty members will be reluctant to serve in the senate than is the case today.
If the recommendation to terminate Dr. McLin is upheld, the world will also be able to see the violation of the concept of faculty tenure. In academia, the concept is that after being closely monitored and evaluated for a number of years, a faculty member is deemed to be of such quality that he/she should be awarded permanent employment, so long as he/she is not found guilty of such specific causes as immorality, incompetence, insubordination, and unbecoming conduct. Based upon the charges levelled against Dr. McLin, none of this seems to be the case.
The reasons for her recommended termination all stem from her advocacy as faculty senate president, not any causes stemming from her role as a teacher. If her actions can be misconstrued or mis-applied in such a way that she can be fired despite her tenure, what other tenured professor is safe?
What appears to be an effort to rid the campus of a “marked” leader who is too outspoken, the administration is setting a bad example for students who are seeking truth and justice from them as mentors. Similarly, the administration is by-passing an opportunity to show that a historically Black university can rise above the pattern of traditionally white universities in how it treats its employees, especially Black ones, with whom it may have a political difference.
Instead of being a model, however, even before giving Dr. McLin the boot, it is letting her twist in the wind of negative public opinion. Additionally, because the negative actions against McLin stem from her role as faculty senate president, the images of the faculty senate and of faculty tenure are also hung-out for negative scrutiny by people who are not familiar with the present or similar situations. The issue is as big as the matter of the continued existence of faculty tenure and a faculty senate, at least at JSU.
