Provost Darryl Tippens chief academic officer of Pepperdine weathered a vote of no confidence in his administrative leadership Monday the first vote of its kind in Pepperdine history.
When last year’s controversial tenure decisions regarding Drs. Stella Erbes and Alexander Diener came under fire and little information was exchanged to justify the decisions some faculty began to question the leadership of the provost. The vote failed 113 to 30 while 22 abstained and 51 did not respond.
As personnel issues are handled confidentially by the administration the uncertainty shrouding these particular cases arose from the lack of a definitive explanation for the reasons behind their outcomes. The gaps in available information contributed to a climate of distrust which culminated in last week’s vote.
In the wake of the emotional turmoil caused by the ordeal administration and faculty showed a renewed commitment to reconciliation. However after the vote faculty members most vocal in their dissatisfaction with Tippens’ leadership either declined to comment or could not be reached.
“We have much to be proud of Tippens wrote in an e-mail. Pepperdine University is a remarkable university where differences can be resolved for the sake of a higher purpose. The vote encourages me to redouble my efforts to listen well to work hard on behalf of the faculty and students and to serve with all my heart in a cause that is bigger than any one of us.”
Before the voting period closed spirited e-mail discussions flooded faculty and administration inboxes. They expressed concern over the disparity between the provost’s offense and the gravity of the vote some arguing that past grievances with the provost should not influence votes. And a vote of no confidence — which some have heard described as the “nuclear option” — is not taken lightly in the academic community.
The vote would have had no binding implications but was meant to illustrate in clear terms the extent of faculty discontent.
“A vote of no confidence is a very powerful statement that relates not only to the administrative officer under question but it tends to be something that goes out to the whole world said Dr. Steve Lemley, professor of communication and provost for seven years prior to Tippens. It makes a statement to the academic community it makes a statement to interested people that are not connected to the University and it probably sends a message that is not constructive for the University.”
In a statement to the faculty Seaver Dean Rick Marrs said that a vote of no confidence allows others to speculate on the situation without context and ultimately harms public confidence in Seaver.
Benton added that “this is an issue with many intangible factors. Truth should be very tangible but impressions should not shape how the university is viewed externally.”
In a faculty-wide e-mail sent March 1 Benton broke the traditional rule of confidentiality in personnel issues shedding light on several hazy elements of the two tenure cases in question.
“I think confidentiality should be the rule Benton explained. We have however found ourselves in the exception. I want faculty colleagues deans division chairs university tenure committees to make honest candid unvarnished objective decisions otherwise the whole process collapses in a heap. It becomes a series of rubber stamps. Tenure should not be built upon rubber stamps.”
Furthermore Tippens said the tenuous communication between administration and faculty until very recently — a result of dealing with sensitive personnel issues — fostered the circulation of rumors ad hominem attacks and misinformation.
“I was disappointed [to learn of the vote] because I am confident that the motion does not reflect the will of the majority nor was the motion based on the best possible information Tippens wrote in an e-mail. Unfortunately faculty did not have very complete information about these tenure cases. In the absence of the right data it is understandable how some people saw it in a particular way.”
In Erbes’ case the Office of the Provost removed pages from her file. Contrary to general impression Benton clarified the practice of editing tenure files after careful review is not unusual.
What was unusual was the fact that when the provost’s office removed 10 out of 73 pages because they did not belong in a tenure application the faculty member was not consulted as is the customary practice. Tippens apologized for the error both publicly and privately.
Because the error was considered procedural the administration deemed it only fair to repeat the tenure review at the university level where the mistake occurred and Erbes was ultimately approved for tenure. An additional publication during this time also contributed to the granting of tenure upon second review.
In the second case Benton wrote in the e-mail that Diener was respected for his level of scholarship and contribution to student scholarship but grounds for denial of tenure concerning his behavior came to light. This evidence remained consistent upon appeal and had been shared with Diener on several occasions. It’s not clear what the behavior in question entailed.
“There is precedent for this genre of action not specifically the way in which these events occurred Lemley added. My ultimate concern was that it did not seem to me that the issues that arose in this case came to the level of being a matter for a vote of no confidence.”
But precedent doesn’t make the denial of tenure any easier Benton said.
“I was in the room. I know what went into that decision he emphasized. And I know it was not an easy one to make but that we thought we were making the right decision for the right reasons. And frankly that’s how I’m going to make decisions every step along the way … The running of a university is not a popularity contest. You make the hard decisions and you move forward.”
“The provost and I have worked through 101 cases without any public incident Benton continued. If you go to Texas A&M Princeton Ohio State Vanderbilt tenure is not a sure thing. And it’s not a sure thing here but we put so much emphasis on the hiring that we tend to get a very high success rate on the back end.”
But some argued the situation was handled poorly enough to necessitate the vote.
“I’m strongly in favor of the no confidence vote because I don’t have confidence in the administration Dr. Dan Caldwell said during the voting period. Caldwell has known Diener for 20 years and said he served as his mentor. He was outstanding in the three areas that faculty members are evaluated in: teaching research and service.”
Caldwell said that Diener was denied tenure by the president and provost despite unanimous recommendation by all committees leading up to this level of the tenure process.
Although it happens rarely Lemley said there is precedent for tenure applications to be stopped at committees further down the line before reaching the Board of Regents.
“I don’t question the motives of the people who raised the questions Lemley stated. The arguments that have been put forward by the people who have raised the questions are very powerful arguments very well reasoned … I simply in the end disagree that those arguments are as weighty as the need to maintain our institutional culture which has been by and large one of collaboration rather than confrontation through the years.”
But Caldwell argued for taking a stand for what is right regardless — even if that means confrontation — as this should outweigh the ill effects of disagreement on institutional reputation.
“Colleges and universities should stand for what is right not what is expedient Caldwell said. So I’m in favor of faculty members voting for what they think is right not what they think will be best for the institution in terms of fundraising and external reputation.”
But wi
th the vote now in the past Seaver Faculty Association President Stan Warford affirmed the vision of the faculty to improve the tenure process governance and communication between faculty and administration.
“We look forward to working with faculty and administration with common purpose and mutual trust wrote Warford, to insure that clear guidelines are established that will safeguard the integrity and transparency of the process and strengthen faculty responsibilities in institutional governance.”