To the Editor:
As an observer to this year's faculty meetings, I feel the need to comment on the Nov. 12 opinions column, "Kertzer's Brown, Inc. legacy," by Simon Liebling '12.
First, the column does not portray all facts accurately. Liebling fails to note that the tenure reforms were drawn up with faculty input — Professor of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences Sheila Blumstein introduced the reforms at the Oct. 5 faculty meeting. In addition, the faculty did not prove that it "does not want" tenure reforms. Rather, it voted not to approve the reforms based on matters of process. (The reforms were presented as one document; faculty members sought to vote on individual articles.) In fact, the faculty voted not to bury the reforms but rather to send them back to the Faculty Executive Committee, which is currently working with the original drafters to restructure the document.
Second, the column includes scant evidence. Liebling writes that the University has taken an "antagonistic tack" in dealing with faculty, but cites no specific instance of such a tack other than the broad discussion of tenure reform.
Third, the column assumes that all faculty members have the same opposition regarding tenure. To assume that all faculty would uniformly "resist" tenure reform is a gross oversimplification of the diversity of the professors within our community, and ignores the fact that the votes during the faculty meeting were far from unanimous.
Regardless of one's stance regarding "Brown, Inc.", it remains imperative that campus-wide dialogue be based on facts, not mere assumptions.
Kara Kaufman '12
Nov. 15
