Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 8, 1973)
VOLKSWAGEN ^^7 MERCEDES & PORSCHE DATSUN& TOYOTA FACTORY TRAINED EXPERTS 1 IGUENTER SCHOENER Bus. Ph. 342-2912 2045 FRANKLIN BLVD.I Eugene. Oregon 974031 J JJizzaJJarJorj START YOUR NEW YEAR WITH A DELICIOUS HOT PIZZA OPEN DAILY j AT NOON PIZZA TO GO: 746-8245 ASK ABOUT OUR GROUP PARTY FACILITIES 4006 FRANKLIN BLVD. Board to decide Perrin case by Feb. 17 By CLAY EALS Of the Emerald PORTLAND (Special) — The State Board of Higher Education has until February 17 to decide the tenure case of John Perrin. The decision of Perrin’s case l became the board’s respon sibility on Dec. 19, when the i board held a public bearing for Perrin Administrative Rules of the board state that the board “shall render its decision within 60 days after completion” of a public hearing far a contested academic employment case. The Dec. 19 hearing consisted of more than an hour of legal arguments concerning Perrin’s appeal of University President Robert Clark’s decision to deny him tenure and promotion. Perrin, a farmer University assistant professor of history, was officially terminated by Clark, effective at the end of the 1971-72 school year. (Under State System of Higher Education rules, teachers must either be given tenure before the start of their seventh year of em ployment, or that they be fired. Perrin had taught at the University since 1964. Clark had terminated Perrin because he felt evaluations of Perrin’s teaching were “generally, though not uniform ly, favorable,” Perrin’s public service record was “adequate, but not exceptional,” and Perrin’s research showed a “very limited record and slow rate of scholarly production.” Subsequently, Perrin appealed Clark’s decision to the board. The Ed Fadeley John Perrin board named a bearing officer to hear the case and the officer conducted a five-day hearing last Spring. The officer, Eugene attorney David Andrews, upheld Clark’s decision, and Perrin sub sequently appealed Andrews’ decision to the board. At the Dec. 19 public hearing, the only speakers were Ed Fadeley, Eugene attorney representing Perrin, and David Frohnmayer, special assistant to Clark for legal affairs. Fadeley and Frohnmayer differed as to what the major points of the case were. Fadeley characterized the reason Perrin was fired as being the difference between “fact” and “file. ” “People who knew Perrin and his work were for him, some were opposed,” Fadeley said. '“People who looked at a separate thing—a promotion and tenure file—were opposed.” Fadeley emphasized that the University’s administration's reliance on the file was wrong because the file was “incomplete, inaccurate, secret, with no way for Perrin to know of its com pleteness, and with no way for Perrin to correct its inac curacies.” He added, “The file presents a different man than the fact.” Fadeley also said the University administration relied too heavily on Perrin’s publication record. (Perrin had one article of research published prior to Clark’s termination decision and has subsequently had a second article published j “Teaching, service and scholarship” are the three criteria for determining Seafarer Bell-Bottom Pants for guys & gals complete stock of sizes Now at BILL BAKER'S MENS WEAR 342-3734 Ml Bast 13Hi Av*. Photo by Jamas Link academic personnel cases, Faddey said, “and the standard does not say Publication.’ I strongly suggest that the amount of publication has become paramount in the decision making process.” The “finding of facts" com piled by the board’s hearing officer actually supports Perrin’s case, Faddey said, “except that an untenured man has no right to fairness in the tenure process.” Fadeley said he didn’t find that conclusion acceptable, “and I don’t think you (the board) will.” Concluding, Faddey told board members, “1 want the case decided here.” Frohnmayer, in replying to Fadeley’s testimony and ex plaining Clark’s side of the case, said the board should only overturn Clark’s decision if the board found it “arbitrary and capricious.” “The board's bearing officer found that the decision of the University President wasn’t that way.” Frohnmayer, concerning “the merits of the case,” said that Clark “did not originate the doubt” about Perrin. “It began at the departmental levd . . . and becamt too compelling to ignore.’ Frohnmayer said the University advisory bodies which considered Perrin’s case were elected and “have some idea of the comparative range of quality” or teachers. Clark was presented with a “reservoir of doubt that, of course, had not been dispelled,” Frohnmayer said. Plus, wit nesses at last spring’s hearing “confirmed the doubts,” he said. “The President of a University is in charge of the educational quality of the University ... What is at issue is the matter of academic judgement “It is important that the President be as secure as possible” in deciding personnel cases, he said. “It would have been arbitrary and capricious to ignore the evidence” against Perrin, Frohnmayer said. Frohnmayer challenged that Perrin’s file was incomplete. “Every single thing called for by the University was in the file,” he said. In rebuttal to Frohnmayer’s remarks, Faddey flatly stated that Perrin “is being treated unequally, not being given equal protection under the law. And the reason is that the file was in complete. “The President (Clark) strongly adhered to the position that only the file could be seen by the hearing officer. He (Clark) trusted the system. But in this case, the hearing officer said the file was not complete.” Faddey added that “the whole record is in my favor” in the case. After the board heard from Fadeley and Frohnmayer and after board members briefly questioned the two, Board President George Layman told the board it could decide the matter immediately, or defer it. The meeting was then prompt ly adjourned after board member Loran Stewart moved to “go to lunch.”
