Situation
Professor Johnson, a faculty member of the State University sociology department, was angry about the way in which the decision for selecting one of two finalists for a new position in the department was handled. Some members who were not at the final selection and vote meeting had indicated their preference and left a “proxy” with the chair of the department. He had never seen this practice before, and others who were unable to attend the meeting had not been told that a proxy vote was possible. The vote was a tie, with the chair making the final decision in favor of the candidate whom was not Professor Johnson’s choice. Professor Johnson described the discussion at the meeting and tie vote to Betsy Candidate, his first choice for the position, to indicate to her the substantial support she had among the faculty (although she was not offered the position) as well as to inform her of the questionable way the voting was carried out.
Questions
- Was it appropriate for Professor Johnson to discuss the faculty hiring selection meeting with the job candidate?
- Were there any options he could have pursued to voice concerns about the selection meeting that would not violate the confidentiality of the hiring decision meeting?
Discussion
Discussion and voting at faculty hiring meetings are confidential proceedings. Individual members need to be free to make evaluative judgments about candidates’ professional work and potential. The outcomes of these meetings, job offers to selected candidates, and the criteria and procedures for hiring decisions are all aspects of hiring that are not confidential.
Professor Johnson was violating the confidentiality of the meeting by discussing specific details of the meeting with Betsy. He could have raised his concern about the meeting not following the established procedures for voting both with other faculty and with the chair of the department, either in individual discussions or at a subsequent faculty meeting. He could also raise this issue with the dean of the school.
It would have been appropriate for Professor Johnson to discuss the general process of hiring with Betsy. He could indicate his personal support for her hiring, but it was not appropriate for him to tell Betsy of the department chair’s candidate preference. Once he had raised the voting procedure irregularities (rules for use of proxies) officially for department discussion, he could have informed Betsy that he had concerns about the way selection procedures had been applied in this case and that he was officially addressing this with the department.
