The comments are in reply to a series of points Dr Rindos made at the beginning of his Reply of April 1993 to the Tenure Review Committee's Recommendation to deny tenure.
Included at the end are brief extracts from two other letters forced into release at the same time.
Basically, what he is providing is a series of recommendations for "public" rationalisations to the comments made in the 1993 Reply (as may be seen by the use of some of these arguments by the Vice-Chancellor in her June 1993 letter to all UWA staff. Some of the points made are simple lies while others are merely misdirection, conscious misinterpretation, or evasion. It sure makes for interesting reading, in any case.
The points of 1993 to which Wood was responding, and comments added at this time are square bracketed, with the original 1993 material being indented.
Wood's Response
Rindos' criticism of the Committee are surprising. I thought that the
Committee process was with his agreement. The process followed was an
attempt, based on best practise, to arrive at a valid judgement.
Rindos' Reply
In fact, we were TOLD there was to be a Committee, this after Partis'
first tenure report was written. We were not involved in its creation,
and to the contrary were excluded from any real involvement or effect on it
(other than having Partis excluded). Much written data exists about this
topic.
Objection #2
The Report's "standards," as well as their application, are
invalid, arbitrary, and incompatible to international tenuring
standards. Indeed, it is left totally unclear whether these
"standards" are even intended to find applicability beyond the
specifics of my own case.]
Wood's Response
The standards are those that have been applied in promotion decisions
to the position of senior lecturer and are intended to be applied
in all future tenure decisions.
Rindos' Reply
Right, and we will follow our regulations in the future JUST as CAREFULLY
as we have in the past, which is to say, "whenever it's convenient." UWA
doesn't need NEW regulations, save one that binds Administrators to follow
EXISTING ones! They admitted in writing that they consciously did NOT
follow existing regulations in my case, i.e. the "secret" file on me.
Objection #3
The Report's conclusions are biased by the selective choice
of evidence, evidence which, itself, is both fragmentary and
incomplete.]
Wood's Response
The bias in the evidence was towards Rindos. We accepted all of his
comments in preference to other opinions submitted. As Chair, I even
corrected a publication citation that had been (radically) miscited in his
submission.
Rindos' Reply
I love this business. After the first meeting they said they sent me a
list of questions to cover what they saw as "problems" with my
performance. They then tell me that they ACCEPTED my explanations for ALL
questions put to me. They then deny tenure! It is BIZARRE! I'm also not
sure what he is talking about here regarding the publications save for the
fact that changes in the citations occurred between August 1992 and
January 1993, this in part due to the nonsense with plagiarism charges]>
Objection #3a
The evidence is not accompanied by any supporting
documentation which would permit independent evaluation of the
validity of the claims made. Essential comparative data is
totally lacking. Comparative data presented here unambiguously
shows that my productivity is far superior to that of my academic
colleagues in Australia.]
Wood's Response
The comparative data were embodied in the professional judgements of the
academic members of the Committee and related to the standards at the
University of Western Australia. The averages used in the Sheehan study
are not limited to teaching and research positions and included more
junior staff.
Rindos' Reply
Of course, there is only one staff level below that of Senior Lecturer,
the Junior Lecturer level, and the statistics would also have included
"more senior staff," to wit, Associated Professors and Professors. And
"data" = "embodied professional judgement"? SHEESH!
Objection #3b
Evidence has been improperly obtained and negative testimony
apparently has been actively solicited by Dr Partis in a manner
which clearly abrogated a pre-existing understanding.]
Objection #3c
The Committee reports that Dr Partis provided them with some
incorrect data. All of his statements, hence, must be provided
to myself and my legal representatives to ensure their
factuality.
Wood's Response
The Partis conclusions were discounted. ["submission was" is
scratched in favour of the words given here.] The issue referenced to (as
incorrect data from Partis) was in relation to the reasons for Rindos'
removal from Archaeology 120. It was investigated but in the end
considered irrelevant.
Rindos' Reply
Obviously, we got him on the solicitation of negative evidence. I also
find the word "discounted" interesting. I think he means "we accepted
them, but at a reduced price." Furthermore, the "investigation" discovered
that I was NOT removed from teaching because of poor performance.
Objection #3d
None of the negative evidence cited has been presented to me
previously for response or rebuttal, and both the source and
nature of the accusations as well as the names of my accusers
have been withheld from me at all stages of the review. Hence,
I have not been able, at any stage in these proceedings, to reply
to matters on which I now find myself being judged.
Wood's Response
Staff, I assume, are allowed to submit comments on the suitability of
a colleague. However, we gave little or no weight to this evidence.
Rindos' Reply
Well, is it "little" or "no"? After all, they claim in the report that
they DID accept Partis' judgement on these matters! And those conclusions
WERE based on the evidence he says they did not give weight to, which is
to admit that such data EXISTED!! Then the VC noted in her public
document that my supposed "difficulty" in getting along with colleagues
WAS relevant to my dismissal!
Objection #4
Much ado has been made about whether I was able to "get
along" with other archaeologists on campus. This argument is
irrelevant to the granting of tenure.
If accepted as a valid reason, or even if seen to be
accepted as such, it institutionalises the discrimination I
experienced in the Archaeology Department and leads to a situation
in which ad hominum attacks, even if false or produced under
coercion, are recognised as a valid reasons for denying tenure.
This would be a total outrage.
Wood's Response
The committee did not give any weight to Rindos' ability to get along with
other people. As my report indicated, it was impossible to judge the
relevance of this factor, so it was set aside.
Rindos' Reply
Of course, the VC in her letter of sacking specifically re-raised this
issue and made alleged inability to get on with Bowdler a reason to deny
tenure. Jory's newly released letter makes CLEAR reference to these
matters, and the accepted (at a discount) Partis recommendations make
reference to nothing else! Then of course there is this business of "to
set aside" -- what does that MEAN?
Objection #4b
It must be noted that TWO of the four archaeologists
currently assigned to Anthropology have announced that they will
leaving UWA in June. A third, who apparently is not teaching in
any case and who has widely broadcast that she "will resign" if I
am granted tenure], is on a short term contract. Hence, we are
quickly reaching the point where there are almost no staff left
with whom it is apparently claimed that I "cannot get along."
Even raising such an issue has become moot in terms of a program
which seems, itself, to be in the process of rather rapid
self-destruction.
Wood's Response
The committee felt that the behaviour ["attitudes" is scratched out] and
performance of other staff could not ["were not" is scratched out] be used
to judge Rindos. As mentioned above, his ability to get along with people
was not considered in the evaluation of his teaching and research.
Rindos' Reply
Of course, it WAS considered in other contexts, like whether he should be
tenured at all! Also clearly other staff behaviour could not be
considered since they they would have had to admit my productivity was not
below that of other staff. I assume that he said "could not" in
preference to "were not" to mean that it was improper to use this data, so
they "could not" use it. But they DID use it, so he couldn't say it "was
not used." And what does he mean about the "behaviour" of others??? Is he
trying to imply they TOO were judged guilty and removed (as happens to be
the case, save for Bowdler)? If so, then is he saying that this is, or
isn't, relevant to me? And it also appears that the ATTITUDES of other
staff WERE judged relevant, but not their BEHAVIOUR (even if it was
improper, one would assume). Sorry if this is a bit confusing, but such
is the nature of the "data" with which I must work!
Objection #5
The Committee identifies, but unambiguously states it is
unable to evaluate, a central, indeed the critical, factor for
judging my overall performance -- whether I was somehow
disadvantaged in the past few years. Everybody familiar with the
situation knows that both myself and my students have been
disadvantaged, and in the case of my students, this judgement is
in writing. How could they have been disadvantaged while I
remained untouched?]
Wood's Response
(5) I agree that we were unable to adequately evaluate the degree to
which Rindos was disadvantaged.
Rindos' Reply
This is only a SLIGHTLY critical factor in evaluation, eh? Maybe they could
have tried a TINY bit to figure it out? Maybe they could have read, for
example, the Bruce or Hotop reports?
Objection #5a
The Committee, it must be stressed, clearly was not provided
the evidence it believed was necessary to complete its task, and
the Report clearly and repeatedly notes this fact. How,
therefore, could it make any sort of informed judgement?
Wood's Response
It is not clear what evidence Rindos refers to. The Committee found a lot
of the evidence (eg from Bruce) disorganised dribble and no basis for
making an informed judgement.
Rindos' Reply
Gee, he really thought a LOT of the Review of Archaeology and Professor
Bruce's letter of reference for my tenurability.
Objection #5b
The Committee's admitted inability, or unwillingness, to
judge whether I was disadvantaged makes their recommendation
invalid since it presumes, but does not even attempt to
demonstrate, "guilt" on my part. Natural justice necessitates
that barring CONVINCING evidence that the fault IN FACT was mine,
then the benefit of the doubt must be given to me.
Wood's Response
[totally blank]
Rindos' Reply
ABSOLUTELY NO REPLY IS GIVEN TO THIS!!! A GREAT BIG GOTCH'YA
Objection #6
A proper and complete rebuttal of the Committee's findings
requires that we be provided with all the relevant evidence
raised in, or related to, the Report. I must know the names of
my accusers, the nature of their complaints, the evidence
indicating that their complaints are valid and not mere
defamatory constructions, and the data which has been used in
what appears to be a campaign designed to destroy my career and
my good name and reputation. Details on specifically what is
required are given below.
Wood's Response
I interpret this as a threat. If it is acceptable to others, I
would give him all the data.
Rindos' Reply
The previous start to the sentence "If it is common practise, I would . .
. " is scratched out with the substitution of "acceptable to others" as
given here. This is clearly because it IS common practice to show people
the evidence being held against them." Of course the MOST important part
of this is that it is a CLEAR admission that data existed which I was not
permitted to see. WHY my being asked to be shown the data held
against me should be interpreted by him as a "threat" is astonishing in
the extreme!
Objection #7
The Committee has ignored good evidence indicating
satisfactory performance before this final period of review and
the final recommendation, hence, is out of character with all
previous judgments of my tenurability. This evidence must be
reviewed.
Wood's Response
I am not sure what evidence he refers to.
Rindos' Reply
That evidence was clearly listed in the body of the report. This is
merely the summary. It includes things like my previous satisfactory
reviews by my supervisors, my citation level, and the impact of my
work, and...
Objection #7a
Both of my previous yearly evaluations have been satisfactory.
Hence, barring some sort of event occurring solely
during my third year of residence (and no such specific evidence
is given), how can the final evaluation be other than
satisfactory?
Wood's Response
There are no written records of his yearly evaluations (Rindos referred to
positive teaching evaluations and when asked for them said they were 'on
his file'). I searched the available files and were [sic] not able to
locate items. When questioned further he was vague on the matter[?]
[The last word is difficult to read, but "matter" appears to be the
most likely transcription].
Rindos' Reply
This is pure misdirection: he had to be aware that I was referring
to the yearly evaluations by my supervisors. In the first year it was
Professor Oxnard, while in the second year, evaluations were provided
by Professors Oxnard and Taylor. They were in the files and I have
copies. Of course, they are also positive so must be evaded at any
cost. Taylor, in particular, noted that it was a "pleasure to have" me
"around the department." This kind of evidence would NOT be helpful
since they were getting rid of me for my Inability to get along with
other people!
On the matter of the student evaluations: the sole ones in my possession -- those done while in geography -- were supplied. An entire page of positive comments from students was NOT included in the documents given the committee. The reviews from earlier years were supplied during FoI -- They were found, and in the VICE-CHANCELLORY! For whatever it is worth, the grades given me by my students were ALL over 90%, computed as a grade, or converted to their letter grades, an mark of "A or A+."
Objection #7b
If deficiencies prohibiting tenuring were to have existed,
which, in fact, is not the case, I still would have had no
opportunity to correct them since no negative judgment had
earlier been given to me. To deny tenure at this point in time,
without any previous warning of inadequate performance, in and of
itself, constitutes serious injustice.
Wood's Response
I have no argument with this. However, I would note that he has had a
light teaching load.
Rindos' Reply
That is one hell of an admission!!! He ACCEPTS that I was done a "serious
injustice"!
On the "light teaching load" business. I have documents warning the University that my HEAVY teaching load could "compromise future action." My classes were then cancelled! I wonder why I had what they could then describe as a "light" teaching load!?
Objection #8
Many achievements of great importance relating to my
performance are ignored, as is the overwhelmingly positive
judgement of my peers in the world archaeological community.
This evidence must be taken into account.
Wood's Response
I am not sure what "great achievements" he is referring to. The
solicited letters that have come in since his receipt of the report
must be weighed against the confidential reports of the two external
reviewers. The Committee chair did not consider them strong enough
to effect ["his" is scratched out] the judged lack of output by Rindos.
Rindos' Reply
The Reviewers were provided by Partis with incomplete and out of
date information. As a result, they presumed that my previous ONE
YEARS' work was the TOTAL work I had done at UWA. They also were
provided NO data whatsoever on my teaching, or my university or
community service. Both mentioned the fact of the harassment I was
getting from Bowdler and the others in Archaeology. Despite ALL of
this, BOTH still felt that a case could be made for tenuring me!
In the body of the report I noted that the committee TOTALLY ignored matters like my being head of department, setting up of the anthro-gopher, etc etc etc etc. But since they also ignored EVERYTHING published during my first year at UWA, what's new with that??
Objection #8
The "standards" used by the Committee to judge my
productivity do not properly account for my actual productivity.
Here, it must be noted that my productivity, judged by
comparative statistics supplied below, is over 10 times that
typical for scholars in my field. Even if we adopt the
"standards" used by the Committee, my productivity is still more
than 150% that for others in my field.
Wood's Response
This is repeat of an earlier point (see 3a).
Rindos' Reply
The point of 3a was that they could produce NO evidence whatsoever
of any poor performance -- this after they clearly stated where such
evidence could be found. Neither does it speak to the point that the
Committee excluded work that was published since the time I first
arrived, and that they did so without providing any reason for doing
so!
Objection #9
The fact that a willingness has been expressed to discuss my
placement in both the Geography and Anatomy Departments on this
campus (given the current difficulties, probably in the context
of affiliation with a Centre) is totally ignored, and my previous
placement in Geography, an arrangement found more than
satisfactory to all parties concerned, is not even mentioned.
Wood's Response
Neither department has indicated a willingness to take Rindos. On
enquiry, those individuals who have previously said Rindos would be
welcome have become less enthuastistic. I would strongly counsel against
the establishment of a centre to accomodate Rindos (The Committee viewed
post-tenure decision arrangements as outside their brief).
Rindos' Reply
Sheesh! What a pack of lies, misrepresentation, and misdirection. And
then, of course, the VC brought the future role for me at the University
back into consideration by saying that no place being found for me was
another reason to deny tenure. I guess no matter HOW carefully they tried
to set it up, she actually managed to screw up their little plan. I guess
I AM impressed!! :{(
[Comments on his charges are bracketed]
"1) Archaeology 120": Professor Jory notes that Professor Oxnard removed Dr Rindos from teaching the Introductory Archaeology class [120] and says it important to "clarify this situation." He then continues (as if this would remain true no matter WHAT Oxnard said) "The fact remains that the Head of Division clearly thought that Rindos was unable to teach that class."
[False. According to a statement, Professor Oxnard removed Dr Rindos from teching the 120 class to prevent Professor Bowdler using that as another means to harass him and his students. It was NOT done for reasons of poor performance, even though such had been claimed by Dr Michael Partis in an earlier document recommending denial of tenure. Professor Oxnard conveyed this fact to the Committee.]
"2) The undergraduate teaching load . . . varies from light to very light . . . Despite the light load the evaluations presented show competence rather than excellence."
[They cancel Dr Rindos' classes and then used that as a reason to harm him. In fact statistics on his teaching indicate he was one of the most highly rated teachers at UWA. The University had been warned by its legal advisors that Dr Rindos' "heavy teaching load" could compromise possible actions.]
"General conclusions": "...since his arrival Rindos has received an unfavourable report from his Head of Department (Bowdler)"
[False on two counts: She was NOT Dr Rindos' head of department when the letter was written. His actual head of department, Professor Michael Taylor wrote a highly complimentary letter at that time. He wrote: "He [Rindos] is a very enthusiastic researcher and has become productive in the past few months since the burden of conflict has been removed from his situation. The enthusiasm is show in the discussions he seeks to initiate in the Department which are always lively and interesting. . . . He is a pleasure to have in the Department and wishes to fit in with the staff and functioning of the Department."]
"has been suspended from teaching first year students by his Head of Division (Oxnard)"
[already discussed]
"has produced little in the way of research considering his light teaching load"
[False on both counts.]
"and most importantly for the University, has been involved in creating an atmosphere in which his colleagues and superiors find it impossible to cooperate with him or he with them."
[FINALLY, the REAL reason!]
"I also note the advice of the Head of Division of Agriculture and Science (Partis) that tenure not be granted.
[This of course is nothing but commentary on the sentence given directly before it. Obviously the "discounting" of Dr Partis' recommendations did not go as far as discounting the conclusion!]
Professor Sandra Bowdler
Comment from Bowdler "Review" of June 1991
She refers to events which, one year later, in 1992 will cause Dr Rindos to be brought up on sexual harrassment charges. Regarding these events she states: "I should make it clear that I am not insinuating any sort of sexual harassment here."
One year later, during the very week that Dr Rindos should have had his tenure confirmed, the very same complaints became charges of "sexual harassment!"
While a difficult process for Dr Rindos, one might note that the charges, brought by women, caused no small amusement on the UWA campus -- this because Dr Rindos is openly gay.
For the full Bowlder document follow this link.