Perrin...
(Continued from Page 10)
Liberal Arts. Raymond Bim,
associate professor of history,
expressed both positive and
negative feelings about Perrin.
In a letter dated Dec. 21, 1970,
Bim said, “During our
discussions over the Honors
College course, I had the feeling
thal Perrin’s attitude towards his
undergraduates was con
descending. He preferred to
lecture and tended to advocate
the master-apprentice
relationship with his students.
But he was a thoroughly
dedicated teacher, with a
professional sense of history that
must have been apparent to those
in his class. He was very
demanding, but held on to his
students. As time passed I con
cluded that excellent control over
his material must have
warranted their respect.
“As I understood Perrin’s
limitations in subsequent years,”
Bim’s letter continued, “I ap
preciated him more. I learned
that his authorative manner
around colleagues was veneer
covering intellectual and perhaps
social insecurities.”
Bim also referred in his letter
to Perrin’s research activities.
“His (Perrin’s) published
research is somewhat difficult
for the non-specialist to follow, in
that Perrin approaches the
problems of medieval legal
terminology by attempting to re
create the dialectic of the
lawyers themselves. To an extent
this is well and good. It is in
structive to see an historian
follow the course of the
arguments of medieval men. But
as an end in itself I for one find
such research to be shortsighted,
and the greater part of Perrin’s
two articles reads like footnote
elaborations,” Bim said in his
letter.
“I do not know whether Perrin
has submitted other work to
professional journals and
presses,” the Bim letter con
tinued. “If he had, and if it passed
successfully the rigorous
editorial scrutiny of such
publications, I would feel more
confident about what he is doing.
At present, unless Perrin extends
the range and methodology of his
research, I just cannot see what
significant contribution he will
make to research.
“Summing up,” Bim’s letter
said, “I find that Perrin is a man
of mixed qualities. Certainly he
does not measure up in
tellectually to Robert Lang, for
whom I wrote an earlier letter.
Perrin, however, has grown
considerably as a teacher since
1964, and at this moment must
rank among the most effective in
the History Department. As a
colleague, he is exemplary
doing administrative jobs well.
My main question concerns his
research. He has demonstrated
an ability for close analysis of
texts. Can he go beyond what he
has been doing? After a long
season of doubt, I stated my
belief that he could when I voted
for a recommendation for tenure
and promotion.”
Department head evaluation
Stanley Peirson, head of the
History Department, wrote an
evaluation letter to Starlin on
Oct. 28, 1970 in which he outlined
the main points of discussion
which arose when Perrin was
reviewed by his department.
“The reservations expressed iu
the negative votes and indeed in
the judgments of several faculty
members who in the end cast
affirmative votes, centered
mainly on the issue of the quality
and the promise of the can
didate’s scholarship,” Pierson’s
letter said.
“Here, as in the case of Lang
and several individuals advanced
during the past several years,”
the letter continued, “the rate of
scholarly publications has been
slow and it is rather difficult to
assess the potentiality for the
future.
“Not all of the members of the
tenured faculty were concerned
about the question of Perrin’s
scholarship,” it said, “a number
feeling that his strengths in other
areas more than compensated for
his slow rate of publication.
“I think it is fair to say that
they are convinced that Perrin’s
advancement will in fact
strengthen the scholarly and
professional commitments of the
department,” the Pierson letter
said.
Pierson “had no serious
reservations” that Perrin showed
the necessary commitment to
sustain teaching and scholarly
growth. “He is extremely hard
working; he is well trained,” his
letter added. “He will wear
well.”
Hovet’s report of the Advisory
Council seemed contradictory to
Pierson’s assessment of Perrin’s
teaching ability. Hovet’s report
said it was “lukewarm to
favorable—it is adequate.’’
Pierson’s letter said the question
of Perrin’s teaching raised little
disagreement among the tenured
history faculty. “He is strong at
all levels—graduate, upper
division, and lower-division,” it
said. “One of the members voting
against him for tenure described
him as a superb lecturer, as one
who had mastered the art of
teaching.”
Stanly Pierson s evaluation of
John Perrin indicated positive
support in all areas.
William Hanna, associate
history professor voted for
Perrin’s promotion during the
history department meeting, but
he did so “with considerable
reluctance.” Hanna said in an
evaluation letter to Starlin dated
Nov. 16, 1970, “His (Perrin’s)
research is a weakness that
signifies a good deal about
Perrin’s mind and potential for
growth.” “I cannot envision
much expansion of John’s mind
from this work or much sub
stance it will add to his
teaching,” it added.
“Perrin will likely bang away
at it (his research work) as he
has been doing, with stub
bornness and meagre results,”
Hanna’s letter said.
“In short, if the department is
to become stronger—both in the
profession and in the Univer
sity—it will probably not promote
many from the Perrin, Maddex,
Woodham, Lan, Falconeri
group,” it said referring to other
history teachers requesting
tenure. “This is painful, for it
means filling these vacancies
when money for hiring is scarce.
Inertia and the unwillingness to
accept the trouble and risk of the
loss of one or more of our staff
are the chief causes of our easy
recommendations for promotion.
Had I not been temporarily
weary of the battles, I would have
voted no on promotion for
Perrin,” the letter said.
The evaluation authored by
Robert Smith, now head of the
History Department, did not
agree with Hanna’s letter. Smith
characterized Perrin as a
“professional” with very high
teaching standards who
demanded a high level of student
performance.
Summing up his evaluation
letter, Smith said, “It seems to
me that John Perrin meets the
requisites for advancement to
associate professor in the areas
of teaching, service, and
scholarship in the broadest sense.
His weakness in the area of
publication is relative and does
not outweigh the many positive
factors in the other categories.
Nor is that weakness in_
publication something that has
much chance of continuing.
There is too much
professionalism in Perrin’s
make-up. He will publish because
that is the professional thing to
do.”
Letters inconsistent
Like the evaluations written
within the University, the letters
from the outside evaluators show
inconsistencies. A letter to Paul
Holbo, associate dean of the
College of Liberal Arts, dated
Nov. 9, 1970 from Norman
Cantor, distinguished professor
of history at the State University
of New York at Binghamton, was
one of six outside evaluations
weighed by the University in its
decision.
“I regret that I am not familiar
with the work of Mr. John
Perrin,” Cantor wrote. “Looking
at his list of published work, I am
not surprised by this un
familiarity,” the letter con
tinued. “He has published only
one article in a rather obscure
journal. “The article that will be
published in the Gains Post
Feschrift looks interesting, but as
far as I know this book hasn’t
been published yet,” the Cantor
letter added.
Cantor either didn t read
Perrin’s published work (or his
unpublished work in manuscript
form) or he simply failed to
comment on it in his evaluation
letter.
Cantor summed up his
evaluation by saying, “I might as
well tell you my prejudice, so that
you can discount my opinions if
you wish. I regard Gains Post
(Parrin’s thesis professor at
Wisconsin) and his students as a
curse on medieval history. It took
Post 40 years to produce a
significant book; even then it
isn’t very good. Not surprising,
his students that I have en
countered are consistently
mediocre.”
The University apparently did
not discount Cantor’s evaluation.
President Clark quoted Cantor in
his Statement of Reasons for
firing Perrin as an example of the
negative evaluations. He cited
Cantor’s statement that Perrin’s
‘‘published work is so slim in
amount that he could not possibly
have status in his field.”
Several evaluators questioned
the quality of the journal in which
Perrin published his major
research article. At the time
Perrin was evaluated his only
major article, “Legatus, the
Lawyers and the Terminology of
Power in Roman Law,” had been
published in Studia Graliana, a
European journal specializing in
medieval history. Another major
article, “AZO, Roman Law and
Sovereign European States,” had
been accepted for Post Scripta
but at the time was not in print.
The “AZO” manuscript was
presumably available to the
evaluators, however. It has since
been published.
hoido requested an evaluation
of Studia Gratiana from Howard
Kaminsky of the University of
Washington History Department.
Kaminsky replied in a letter to
Holbo, "I regard it as a sound and
respectable scholarly jounral,
and believe that this would also
be the opinion of most medieval
historians.”
William Bowsky, professor of
history, University of California
at Davis, said in a letter Studia
Gratiana was too specialized for
him; he had not read Perrin’s
article. He said he could not,
therefore, evaluate Perrin.
"Much promise”
Another evaluator, Stephan
Kuttner of the Institute of
Medieval Canon Law in New
Haven, Conn., cited a few
technical difficulties in Perrin’s
article. He finished his
evaluation, however, writing,
"There is definitely much
promise in the work. I suppose
that he will in time make
significant contributions to
Roman and Canon law in the
Middle Ages.” He expressed the
hope in his letter of meeting
personally with Perrin.
Work praised
John Moore, professor of
history at Hofstra University in
New York sent an evaluation to
Stanley Pierson of the History
Department on Sept. 16, 1970. In
his letter, he said a brief con
versation with Perrin in
Kalamazoo, Mich, and personal
correspondence had indicated to
him that Perrin had “raised
significant questions (in the field
of medieval history) and has
provided valuable material to be
used in attacking those
questions.”
Beyond this, however, Moore
said in his letter he had not read
Perrin’s “Legatus,” article and
couldn’t evaluate it.
Burton Moyer assessed the
most positive of the six letters
from off-campus evaluators as
“somewhat positive.” The text of
an evaluation letter from Ben
jamin Nelson, an expert on
medieval history to Stanley
Pierson on Aug. 4, 1970 indicated
that Moyer’s characterization of
the letter wasn’t entirely correct.
“I am, indeed, very pleased
that the close readings of Mr.
Perrin’s two essays confirms the
strong and favorable impression
I got from my meeting with him
at Kalamazoo,” Nelson wrote.
“In both essays Perrin goes
beyond an expertise in Medieval
Civil and Canon Law, which is
itself rare in the United States. I
am confident that in the years
ahead Dr. Perrin will expand his
own scope so as to make
significant contact with issues of
greater general interest,”
Nelson’s letter continued.
“The present letter is intended
to convey an assurance that Dr.
Perrin has exemplary learning in
a field of ever growing im
portance in the United States,”
Nelson wrote. “I have seen and
listened to many papers by
Wisconsin men over the years. I
would put Perrin’s work ahead of
the others,” it added.
After Perrin received notice
that he had been denied tenure
and promotion he met with
President Clark and Alpert in an
attempt to determine why the
decision had not been in his favor.
The discussions, according to
Perrin, told him nothing. At that
point, he requested a “closed
door” hearing where “each side
could lay its cards on the table”
without the case becoming a
public affair.
Open hearing set
University administrators and
the State Board were
disagreeable to this proposition,
so an open hearing was
scheduled. The State Board
appointed a hearings officer,
Eugene attorney David Andrews
to conduct the hearing. John
Leahy, assistant attorney
general, represented the State
Board. David Frohnmayer,
President Clark’s legal counsel
represented the University.
Perrin asked Eugene attorney Ed
Fadeley to present his case.
The role of the hearing officer,
Andrews, was not to issue a
judgment or a judicial decision.
Rather, Andrews was to report
his “findings of fact, conclusions
and make any necessary
recommendations ’’ to the State
Board.
The hearing commenced May 9
last Spring in the University Law
School moot court room and
lasted five days. During the
course of the hearing several
witnesses were called to testify
for the State and for Perrin.
Perrin’s evaluation file,
previously held confidential, was
admitted as evidence during the
second day of tne hearing.
However, it was not placed in the
public record until after the
hearing examiner completed his
report.
Clark testified
When President Clark took the
witness stand on the fourth day,
he questioned the validity of the
evaluations offered by members
of the History Department.
“If eminent historians who are
friends of the professor are asked
to evaluate him, I would question
the validity of their opinions,”
Clark said. “Men are men—we
can’t help but be reduced in
objectivity when we know the
man.”
"One is much more likely to get
a candid, frank appraisal of a
person if he is not acquainted
with him,” Clark added.
The crux of Perrin’s case was
to prove with substantial
evidence that Clark’s reasons for
firing him were “wholly inap
propriate as a basis for the
decision or that they were wholly
without basis in fact.”
Several witnesses traveled to
Eugene to testify in Perrin’s
behalf. They included Gains Post,
Perrin’s, thesis professor and
James Brundage, a medieval
historian from the University of
Wisconsin. Members of the
University history faculty and
former students testified that
Perrin was an excellent teacher
and an outstanding scholar.
During the third day of the
hearing, Perrin took the witness
stand. Ed Fadeley, his attorney
asked him to explain the dif
ficulties involved in his par
ticular area of research—the
study of Roman and medieval
Canon law. Perrin said the
scarcity of reference material on
the West Coast makes research in
his field difficult. “The most
authoritative and original
documents are available in
London, Paris and Rome,”
Perrin told the court. He added
that they are unavailable to him
because he doesn’t have the
financial capabilities to carry out
his research work in Europe.
Legal jousting ends
The tenure hearing recessed
after five days of legal jousting
and extensive testimony. It
reconvened briefly Aug. 9 when
the attorneys presented their
final oral arguments. During the
recess, attorneys from both sides
submitted supplementary briefs
answering a number of questions
raised by the hearing officer.
Andrews stated in his report,
released Oct. 9, that,
“Scholarship is totally an
evaluative and judgmental
matter. It is apparent that it’s not
limited to published works, but
other matters are involved. Most
of the evaluators,” the report
said, “did not know of ap
proximately 50 per cent of what
he (Perrin) had writ
ten...because it was still in
manuscript form.” “...the
promotional file was particularly
weak for a complete and fair
evaluation of his scholarship,”
the report said.
me very aitucuity in
evaluating scholarship highlights
the judgmental factors in
volved,” Andrews’ report said.
Andrews met the central issue
of the case when he wrote, “The
President was not clearly wrong
in his evaluation of the
Petitioner’s (Perrin’s)
scholarship. His evaluation was
not wholly without basis in fact.”
Thus, Perrin had not proved his
case to the satisfaction of the
hearing officer. Andrews,
therefore, recommended that
Clark’s decision to deny tenure
and promotion for Perrin should
be upheld by the State Board.
Andrews reported that Perrin
“...is a good, perhaps even strong
teacher.” “(Perrin) meets the
criteria for teaching set forth in
(he indices used in the evaluation
of faculty for tenure,” he wrote.
(Continued on Page 13)