Remembering to value civil discourse
January 23, 2014 by Inside NAU 61 Comments
Updated Wednesday, Jan. 29: Dr. Larry James' leadership skills and record of accomplishments in higher education made him a strong candidate for this position. In searching for a dean, NAU's goals include finding the right match between a candidate's skills and the college's needs. After extensive discussions in the university community, Dr. James' candidacy will not be pursued and he will not be visiting campus.
by Laura Huenneke, Provost
Dan Kain, Vice Provost for Academic Personnel
Northern Arizona University is currently searching for a new dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences—seeking to identify an effective, visionary leader for a large and important academic unit. When current Dean Stephen Wright chose to withdraw from the search last fall, the search committee focused on identifying the strongest, most highly qualified candidates in the applicant pool. Three finalists came to campus for interviews late last semester; recently the search committee recommended (and the Provost's Office concurred) that one of those finalists be invited back for further conversation, and two additional highly qualified finalists also be invited for campus interviews.
As the search committee had already learned, one of these finalists had come under scrutiny in the past for allegations related to his prior military service. These allegations have been thoroughly investigated in several legal and professional venues and dismissed each time. His current employer investigated the allegations quite thoroughly and found no basis whatsoever for them. Our own reference checks to date have uncovered absolutely no evidence supporting the allegations, as well as many strong endorsements and commendations. Thus we invited him to come for a campus interview; he has stated that he looks forward to the interview and the opportunity to engage in open discussion with our university community.
Sadly, some individuals (including students) are seeking to prevent his interview and visit. Intimidating flyers are being posted anonymously, and messages have been flying around campus urging people to "check out" the person via Google or other quick web searches. This behavior is inconsistent with the university's commitment to civil discourse and fair evaluation of individuals. Indeed, our search process has consistently instructed committee members NOT to search the Internet to learn about candidates, both because of the inaccuracies promulgated on the web and because of the potential for discrimination. Our process is built around our deep respect for giving everyone a fair chance in the hiring process.
As a community, we need to re-examine what is important to us and how we live out the very principles we articulate.
First, we believe a university community should uphold the core values of thoughtful evaluation of evidence (rather than a rush to judgment based on unverified Internet accusations). As in all such searches, the process of a campus visit and continued reference checking are meant to provide deeper insights into the leadership potential and vision of the candidate. We ask and expect the university community to engage thoughtfully and respectfully in this process. This is also a teachable moment for our students. There should be careful attention to distinguishing accusation from fact. How many faculty members would accept a student paper as credible with a citation to a single (non-scholarly, non-documented) website or its spinoffs?
Second, we remind our colleagues that Northern Arizona University is committed to values of thoughtful dialogue, free speech and respect for diverse opinions. On our campus, as happens elsewhere, there are broad declarations of commitment to freedom of expression and appreciation of diversity, while in reality some political or social perspectives are actually suppressed by intimidation or loud voices. The call to prevent one of our finalists from coming to engage in dialogue with the college is interfering with the full, fair consideration of a diverse and highly qualified individual.
We find it ironic—worse than ironic, painful—that a university community committed to social justice, diversity and the protection of individual voices would rush to condemn a person based on unproven allegations that have been dismissed in prior investigations. Protests and demands to prevent that person's freedom of speech are incompatible with the values of civil discourse, social justice and commitment to fair treatment for diverse candidates. We ask that the university community reaffirm these values in the next steps of this search and in all university operations.
Filed Under: Blogs
JM says
His documented record is enough to prevent my support. He has made a career overseeing legal and documented torture. Which is still torture and deplorable.
Carol Thompson says
Hello Colleagues, We faculty in SBS are tired of the implications that we do not understand research, serious investigations, responsible findings. We do know how to do research, not only the Cartesian style of the sciences, but hermeneutic and critical approaches. What all three teach is interpretation of the findings can highly vary, depending on one's theories.
As a faculty researcher, I strongly disagree with the Administration's interpretation of the findings. First, the findings will remain partial, for U.S. security policy demands a high level of secrecy, of non-disclosure. Second, the candidate's vita also does not give disclosure. Third, as disclosed in his own writing, the candidate has violated the Geneva Accords for treatment of prisoners. As we teach our students, the highest level of ethical behavior is as important in the social sciences as systematic research rigor.
We will continue to teach about our freedom of expression and continue to encourage the candidate to express his, by choosing not to come to a faculty, of whom many find his behavior quite inappropriate for any leadership role in higher education.
I write this in memory of Joel Olson and Geeta Chowdhry, both of whom would be proudly joining us in our interpretation of the very partial findings that are open to the public.
Carol Thompson
sr says
This response by the administration is nothing short of reprehensible. To say that a university full of researchers doesn't know how to distinguish fact from accusation is, at best, laughable. Could they possibly condescend further? In addition, this response is chock full of lies, in the most serious and literal sense. Dr. James has NOT been thoroughly investigated and cleared. In fact, there is a vast difference between charges being investigated and cleared, and charges simply being dismissed without investigation. The latter is what has happened here and what the NAU administration are referring to as being cleared, but this is pure deception. In the national security climate of the United States since 9/11, not a single psychologist has been investigated for their role in engineering torture regimes. Thanks to Alberto Gonzales, Dr. James has not broken the law. Except, of course, international law. But what do we care about that, right? If Dr. James wants to go back to working for the military, let him. His "ethics" are clearly acceptable there. But not here, not at a university, and certainly not in a college of social and behavioral sciences. In fact, he should take Drs. Kain and Huenneke with him. They should be ashamed, as am I to be at a university like this one.
This would be a serious mistake both for the college (imagine the environment he would walk into) and the university – we are the place that provided a home for this fellow. Can't we do better than this?
SBS Student says
All I can say is wow. I am embarrassed to be a student in SBS. Do these people really believe everything they read on the Internet? These comments make me sick.
cmh says
Using the mantra of "civil discourse" to lecture both faculty and students who have raised legitimate issues about this candidate borders on administrative arrogance. This doesn't make the NAU provostial crew look too good. Civil discourse has to do with style, not differences of opinion — which in this case are substantial, it appears. This ill-advised message is flirting with censorship in a university context. Another really bad (but revealing) move.
Graduated says
Your privilege is showing…
Joph Nanah says
As a graduate who I value my mentors and advisors. However, if there was one who was associated or tainted with such inhuman and internationally condemned accusations I would shy away from them.
Romand Coles says
OPEN LETTER TO THE NAU ADMINISTRATION AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY OF SCHOLARS, STUDENTS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PEOPLE CONCERNING THE CANDIDACY OF LARRY JAMES, SENIOR INTERROGATION PSYCHOLOGIST AT GUANTANAMO (JAN. – MAY, 2003), FOR THE POSITION OF DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AT NAU:
The candidacy of Larry James for the position of Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences has recently come under critical scrutiny, due to his tenure in 2003 as the senior interrogation psychologist at the U.S. Navel Station at Guantanamo. James presided over the Behavioral Science Consultation Team during a period when, as Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic scholar Deborah Popowski documents, "government authorities reported that boys and men at the prison were threatened with rape and death; forced to strip naked; short-shackled into stress positions for hours; and physically assaulted". The International Human Rights Clinic has devoted substantial resources to convince courts to hear the case of Larry James for several years and in the process they have accumulated a vast body of reasoned argument concerning scholarly empirical and legal evidence suggesting that Larry James was involved in torture and professional misconduct. The pertinent accusations and corresponding legal documents are lengthy and backed by the sort of evidence one would expect from Harvard scholars, as well as other highly respected institutions (such as the Center for Constitutional Rights) that have backed those seeking full hearings of the evidence in professional associations and courts. All this is public information readily available. In this light, the fact that faculty, students, and members of broader communities of citizens and scholars are deeply concerned about NAU's selection of James for a campus interview is not unreasonable. Rather, it would be quite shocking if we were not.
Nevertheless, on the afternoon of January 23, the Provost and Vice Provost for Academic Personnel issued a public statement titled, "Remembering to Value Civil Discourse", in which they chastised the critics, stating that "we find it ironic – worse than ironic, painful – that a university community committed to social justice, diversity and the protection of individual voices would rush to condemn a person based on unproven allegations that have been dismissed in prior investigations." They accuse "some individuals (including students)" of uncivil discourse and unthoughtful evaluation of the evidence – a "rush to judgment" that fails to distinguish accusation from fact. They compare the critical discourse to a paper based on Google gossip that is wholly lacking in scholarship and documentation. As self-proclaimed exemplars of these higher standards, they state that, "These allegations have been thoroughly investigated in several legal and professional venues and dismissed each time. His current employer investigated the allegations quite thoroughly and found no basis whatsoever for them. Our own reference checks to date have uncovered absolutely no evidence supporting the allegations."
The concern for evidence-based investigation, accurate representation of what we know, and our best efforts at reasoned deliberation are values I too hold to be absolutely vital to the scholarly enterprise and democratic discourse. Yet based on these standards I come to a very different conclusion about the character of the conversation and work that has been conducted around this search thus far. Indeed, based on a reasonable discussion of the available evidence I think it is clear that Larry James is dishonest. Moreover, regretfully, some of the central the statements in letter from the administration are false and fall short of the standards they profess. Reluctantly, I think the search process to date has been irresponsible and profoundly tarnishes the reputation of NAU. Below I offer the evidence and reasons that lead me to these sad conclusions. I believe that it is largely because many people have come to similar conclusions, are frustrated by a failure of the institution to address them, and sense that they are not being heard, that leads people to threaten protests, pamphlet, etc.
1.)	Larry James is deceptive and dishonest. Among the most important documents a candidate submits to a search committee is a resume. Larry James' resume makes absolutely no mention of his tenure as the chief of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT – he was known as 'biscuit 1') that oversaw and helped design well documented torture and abusive interrogation practices. (see the c.v. on the Provost's website: http://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Administrative/Provost/Provost/_Forms/James_Larry.pdf) This is a serious omission, especially as this issue has been a source of contestation in previous searches where he was a candidate at other institutions of higher education, and also because he has been criticized for omitting this information in his c.v. for his position at Wright State University. In other words, the omission was clearly part of an effort to mislead the search committee. Such behavior – uncontestable as it is – should alone disqualify a job candidate.
2.)	Larry James deliberately misled the search committee and the administration in his communications with them about the proceedings and conclusions of the professional and judicial institutions that have ruled on his case. In a widely circulated letter to Dan Kane, James writes: a) that in the Louisiana Court of Appeals, "all three judges voted the same way and agreed that there was no evidence and they threw the case out"; b) that the ethics complaint filed against him in Ohio "was thrown out due to lack of evidence"; c) that Ohio courts continually threw out the case against him for the same reasons. These claims are empirically false and this can be demonstrated in a matter of minutes by anyone who checks the public court records.
These records clearly show the following: a) The Louisiana State Board of Examiners refused to hear the case based on "peremptory exception", claiming that the plaintiff filing the case did not have standing to bring forth the complaint (a highly dubious claim but not appropriate for us to debate here). It did not address the extensive evidence at all. b) The Louisiana District and Appellate courts ruled that the Board did not have to conduct an investigation and hearing of the complaint against James. The courts made absolutely no ruling whatsoever on the evidence. c) Public documents reveal that the situation in Ohio is very similar. The Ohio State Psychology Board dismissed a 50-page professional misconduct complaint against James filed by Harvard University's International Human Rights Clinic and four other plaintiffs – in a three sentence ruling without giving a single reason. The Clinic and plaintiffs then petitioned a County Court of Common Pleas to compel the Board to conduct a hearing on the evidence in the complaint and a meaningful investigation – or at minimum a public explanation for its dismissal. The Board then moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the plaintiffs hadn't suffered sufficient personal and direct harm in the case to merit status for bringing the issue before the court. The Ohio legal system found that because the accusers "have not alleged direct and concrete personal injury" (i.e., were not themselves victims of interrogation in Guantanamo) they did not have legal standing. The court thus dismissed the case. Fact: In direct contradiction to James' deceptive and dishonest claim above, in none of these cases did a court even consider the evidence – they merely considered the question of legal standing. While James says that their dismissal of the case is proof of the bogus character of the claims against him, this is empirically false.
3. James lies about the evidence in the complaints. In the letter to Dan Kane, James says that "no patients, no prisoners, none of my former staff, nor any official Department of Defense (DOD) documents were offered as factual evidence against me." In fact, as a matter of public record, the 50-page complaint is rational and painstakingly documented with a vast array of legal, empirical, and testimonial evidence. As the Harvard Clinic and petitioners note, "the petitioners supported the Board Complaint with over a thousand pages of documentation. The Board Complaint cited reports, records, and hearings from the U.S. military, Senate, Department of Justice, Central Intelligence Agency, as well as statements from survivors and witnesses." In James' letter to Kane, he frames the charges against him not as highly documented (and to my mind highly persuasive, but this is not the issue under discussion here) and reasoned accusations brought by several plaintiffs in cooperation with a Human Rights Clinic at one of the nation's most respected institutions, but as a malicious repeated attack by one crazed person obsessed with bringing him down. The official public records show this claim to be empirically false.
4. Just as disturbing has Larry James's willful deception and dishonesty – character traits that should by themselves disqualify him for this position – James shows an absolute disregard and contempt for critical inquiry and vital political contestation. In his letter to Kane, James characterizes the complaints against him as evidence that "our military members are attacked in a very, very vile and diabolical way on the internet like I have been. I am saddened by this because I was trained that when one gets Ph.D. behind their name he or she should make inferences based on data, facts, peer reviewed journal finds rather than blogs from the internet." We know from the discussion of public documents above that the reasons people are offering are far from internet gossip. But consider the bigger issue here: There is massive evidence that Guantanamo is a horrendous institution that violates international human rights. The highest officials in the U.N. make and document such claims. So do many of our nation's most respected civil rights organizations. The concerns are not simply those of purportedly crazy, "uncivil", "rush to judgment", "vile vile diabolical" radical types. That James views the rich traditions of critical inquiry and political dissent with such contempt is ample reason to prevent further consideration of his candidacy for the position of Dean in SBS, where these traditions are fortunately represented and flourishing – amidst several other perspectives. James' of course says he respects free speech. But this is not the primary issue. The primary issue here is that the Dean of SBS must be one who can work well with and strongly support the work of diverse critics and dissenters. His furious misrepresentations and conclusions offer strong and striking evidence to the contrary.
This brings me to my last point, for now. The NAU administration has acted in a most irresponsible manner in this case. First, they have neglected to do the very kind of rigorous research they claim to support. They have taken James claims at face value, when a review of the facts I have offered above shows that he is profoundly dishonest. These public documents are available to anyone who searches the internet for two minutes. The administration's claim that because something is on the web it is unworthy information is, quite simply preposterous. It depends what you find. Court documents, information at leading human rights clinics, scholarly articles, legal charges, books, and many other good sources of information are available on the web. The issue isn't 'to web or not to web', it is how to web. If the administration had, indeed, used the web, they would have discovered very quickly that James mislead the committee. Instead they repeat some of the things he says that are untrue. To say something that is sharp and contesting, as I just did, is not necessarily to be uncivil. The question is not "to use strong speech or not to use strong speech, but how and in what cases. Strong speech can be evidence of honesty, truth, and it has been an integral part of the dissenting traditions that have brought us many of the things we most cherish – like significant civil rights for diverse people and forms of life, democracy, a less militaristic world, and so forth. Some members of the administration were irresponsible to not investigate this case more carefully. Some of them are also irresponsible by chastising faculty and students who are raising very important questions and heatedly contesting the judgments being made in the selection of James for a campus visit. They are inhibiting precisely the sort of robust contestation that is part of our democracy and a healthy institution of higher education. The issue is not about James' free speech. It is about whether in a worldwide search this man is plausibly among the very best that we can find to interview for this crucial leadership position.
I find the evidence extremely compelling that Guantanamo is an abominable institution. I find the substantial evidence compelling that BSCT and Larry James were integral to the abuses that are systematic there. James' propensity for misrepresentation greatly diminishes the credibility of his claims to the contrary. These too are crucial reasons that I oppose his candidacy. Nevertheless, higher education and our democracy ought to be places where people who disagree on this point can vigorously argue and politically contest each other. Yet blatant dishonesty and contempt for the rich tradition of dissent and critical inquiry have no place in higher education. Nor does the chastisement from higher-ups of those who are raising very important questions.
Romand Coles, McAllister Chair and Director of the Program for Community, Culture and Environment
I never trust the Internet, but I always find the Internet more credible than the Administration.
None of your business says
Read for yourself:
http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/larry_james_6492.pdf
faculty, student, and alumna says
I fully support Romand Coles's open letter:
The concern for evidence-based investigation, accurate representation of what we know, and our best efforts at reasoned deliberation are values I too hold to be absolutely vital to the scholarly enterprise and democratic discourse. Yet based on these standards I come to a very different conclusion about the character of the conversation and work that has been conducted around this search thus far. Indeed, based on a reasonable discussion of the available evidence I think it is clear that Larry James is dishonest. Moreover, regretfully, some of the central the statements in the letter from the administration are false and fall short of the standards they profess. Reluctantly, I think the search process to date has been irresponsible and profoundly tarnishes the reputation of NAU. Below I offer the evidence and reasons that lead me to these sad conclusions. I believe that it is largely because many people have come to similar conclusions, are frustrated by a failure of the institution to address them, and sense that they are not being heard, that leads people to threaten protests, pamphlet, etc.
1.) Larry James is deceptive and dishonest. Among the most important documents a candidate submits to a search committee is a resume. Larry James' resume makes absolutely no mention of his tenure as the chief of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT – he was known as 'biscuit 1') that oversaw and helped design well documented torture and abusive interrogation practices. (see the c.v. on the Provost's website: http://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Administrative/Provost/Provost/_Forms/James_Larry.pdf) This is a serious omission, especially as this issue has been a source of contestation in previous searches where he was a candidate at other institutions of higher education, and also because he has been criticized for omitting this information in his c.v. for his position at Wright State University. In other words, the omission was clearly part of an effort to mislead the search committee. Such behavior – uncontestable as it is – should alone disqualify a job candidate.
2.) Larry James deliberately misled the search committee and the administration in his communications with them about the proceedings and conclusions of the professional and judicial institutions that have ruled on his case. In a widely circulated letter to Dan Kane, James writes: a) that in the Louisiana Court of Appeals, "all three judges voted the same way and agreed that there was no evidence and they threw the case out"; b) that the ethics complaint filed against him in Ohio "was thrown out due to lack of evidence"; c) that Ohio courts continually threw out the case against him for the same reasons. These claims are empirically false and this can be demonstrated in a matter of minutes by anyone who checks the public court records.
Mark Neumann, Professor, School of Communication says
I fully support the Open Letter posted above by Dr. Rom Coles. It not only addresses a body of research that many of us have looked into regarding James, it also expresses what I and so many colleagues are feeling about this awful letter from the provost's office. How unfortunate that this candidate wasn't properly vetted. How unfortunate is to have the provost's office chastise the faculty about their capacity for research, and civil discourse. How unfortunate it is that we–the faculty–would even have to defend ourselves for asking important questions about a candidate who could potentially lead our college.
Andrew Zacarias - Alumni and Graduate Student says
JM Student says
I also support the Open Letter by Dr. Coles. Thank you, Rom!
Dr. Jacqueline Vaughn says
I have proposed to the Department of Politics and International Affairs that we invite Dr. Deborah Popowski or another representative of the Harvard International Human Rights Clinic to NAU to address these issues before the larger campus community. I have also proposed that Dr. James be invited — separate from his hiring visit — to speak. Perhaps the NAU administration will financially support their presentations in the spirit of the kind of civil discourse they seek for our campus.
Steven Miles says
To the Northern Arizona University Community,
I have an extensive history of scholarship on the treatment of prisoners in US War on Terror prisons. I have published a book in two editions, maintain an archive of about 50 thousand pages of declassified documents at the medical and psychological operations in the war on terror prisons http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/OathBetrayed/index.html I have studied Larry James work, the allegations against him, and his refutations of those allegations extensively. I have reviewed materials pertaining to the "exonerations" of professional charges against him.
Larry James had proximate command responsibilities relative to the mistreatment of prisoners. He was in a position where he cannot plausibly claim to have been unaware of those abuses. He took an active role in shaping the extraordinary accommodation of the American Psychological Association to a novel, for the United States, application of the discredited and abusive interrogational strategy of "learned helplessness." Although it is true that when the abusive strategies caused a scandal, he was involved in the effort of retraction and damage control within the Department of Defense, his selection for that effort and his ability to participate in that partial effort was entirely predicated on his not insubstantial contribution to the abusive system that brought shame on the United States.
NAU will have to make own decision about his role in your community but they may not do so by claiming that a lack of foundation for the descriptions of his work.
Steven H. Miles, MD
Maas Family Foundation Chair in Bioethics
Cheeky Mummy says
I also strongly support Rom Coles open letter As well as the right of every faculty member, student and staff to openly state and display their views, findings and opinions on any subject they feel strongly about. That, after all is what made educational institutions a place of learning and expression and what made this country the great country it was. The suppression of these comments and dissentions is what is destroying our educational system and this country. Hear Hear to all who support or oppose and their right to public expression.
Norm Wallen says
I strongly support the letter by Dr. Rom Coles. Norm Wallen, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University, Twenty-one year resident of Flagstaff.
An SBS Student says
As an NAU senior, I have been highly satisfied with the quality of education I have received at Northern Arizona University. I harbor no hesitation in commending the faculty of SBS for their commitment to academic excellence and to the achievements of their students. As as an SBS student, I stand strongly in their support. In reviewing the information presented here by Laura Huenneke and Dan Kain, I am surprised to learn that the NAU administration would find need to direct or in any way police the research of NAU faculty, whose intellectual and academic achievements have affected me so profoundly throughout my college career. If it is true that NAU faculty need be reminded by the administration of the importance and nature of properly conducted research, it is clear that NAU has neglected to meet basic academic standards for some time. As a student interested in a research based career, may I suggest that the NAU administration seek resolution to this issue not by chastising faculty but by refunding the obviously misspent tuition of NAU students.
David R. McCain, SBS Graduate Student says
I also fully support Rom Coles's open letter. I'm hopeful that the facts Rom and others have presented will influence the Administration's decisions related to Mr. James.
I support Rom's conclusions. This has gotten out of hand.
JML says
I suspect a war criminal that nobody else wants comes cheap. We all know how much NAU dislikes paying its professors. NAU your values are showing.
Ben Williams says
As a graduate of NAU, and even as one who no longer lives in Flagstaff but still cares deeply about the place and its people, I fully support Rom Coles' open letter. I also fully support the views of all comments posted thus far. I hope that this will be an instance where civil discourse is truly valued: where its participants are heard, and where decisions are guided by the truest and most compelling of the offerings of these participants. To not truly value civil discourse–to simply go through the motions of civil discourse, collecting solid, well-founded views and comments only to ignore them and make a decision based upon something other than the claimed foundations and values of the democratic process and of civil discourse–is an all-too-common trend that I hope NAU has the integrity to help put an end to.
Bjorn Krondorfer, Martin-Springer Instittue says
By the Martin-Springer Institute
Concerning SBS Search for new Dean
At the Martin-Springer Institute, we have been following the controversy about one of the candidates on the short-list for the new dean of NAU's College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
The controversy is related to the candidate's role in the interrogation of prisoners in U.S. custody in Guantanamo (Cuba) and Abu Ghraib (Iraq). At the Martin-Springer Institute, we stand for the values of moral courage and social justice and encourage open dialogue. Open dialogue can be disquieting at times, especially if it concerns uncomfortable truths. We also recognize the importance of conducting the search for an academic leadership position with professional fairness and in accordance with EEOC rules.
What seems undisputed is that the candidate was sent to Guantanamo in January of 2003 and to Abu Ghraib in 2004. The information is publicly available also in the candidate's own memoir Fixing Hell: An Army Psychologist Confronts Abu Ghraib. What is less clear is the exact role the candidate played in the interrogation of prisoners at these facilities about which some human rights and law centers in this country have raised serious questions.
The Martin-Springer Institute takes allegations of torture seriously. Declared legitimate at the time, the enhanced interrogation techniques employed in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have been condemned as torture. We can refer here to the work, for example, of respected investigative journalist and educator Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror (2004), as well as several of his articles in the The New York Review ("US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites"; and "The Red Cross Report: What it Means").
Torture is not only a serious human rights abuse but also a moral evil. The Martin-Springer Institute is currently not in a position to prove or disprove the allegations about the candidate's role at these places. But diligent efforts must be made to ascertain the truth in an open and fair process. Should there be compelling enough evidence that the candidate contributed to, condoned, or knowingly turned a blind eye on the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques, the Martin-Springer Institute would consider it deeply deplorable if such a person were offered an academic leadership position at NAU.
Björn Krondorfer
Director of Martin-Springer Institute &
Professor of Comparative Religious Studies
SUS Student says
As a free-thinking human-being who chose this school based on the record of the faculty and the values put forth for students in the SUS program, I believe that it would be a terrible mistake to hire someone to oversee not just our program, but the whole school who has questionable ethics. Please, NAU, if you won't listen to students, take a lesson from those highly educated and highly respected faculty who you have already hired. If you can trust them to teach us about research and ethics, you should also be able to trust their research and ethics when they tell you that Larry James is not the candidate to choose. Hopefully reading Dr. Coles' argument may help you see (at the least) that more investigation is needed into Larry James' past before we consider making NAU his future and what that future at NAU might do to the future of our programs here.
I am disappointed in SBS. Why would NAU even want to hire someone like Larry James. Do you think his high profile will in some way help NAU? He is not famous; he is infamous. Why would we want someone like that to teach here? He does not have the kind of knowledge or information that I would want to learn. NAU, you can do better.
Anne Scott says
I agree with Rom Coles' assessment. I would be deeply disturbed if NAU were to pursue the candidacy of Larry James and embarrassed to be affiliated with this institution if Dr. James were to receive this deanship. I urge the upper level administration to rethink this situation.
Dr. Anne Scott
President's Distinguished Teaching Fellow
I have one other question about civil discourse that I hope will be considered carefully by the NAU Community: How might Larry James' own discourse measure up to this honorable standard? Perhaps his book, Fixing Hell, provides useful information as we seek to answer this question? Here are two passages for our consideration in this context:
pp. 180-181 [His discourse on the International Committee of the Red Cross]
. . . but the ICRC consistently takes a critical view of the United States. Like most other soldiers, I saw the ICRC representatives as a bunch of radical left do-gooders, mostly from Europe, who were as interesting in giving America a black eye as they were in truly helping the innocent. Every ICRC rep I met had long, disheveled '60s and '70s hairstyles as well as Birkenstock sandals—the consummate hippie motif. They thought all of the detainees were completely innocent and only needed to be hugged more. I was seen as a devil by then supposedly helping interrogators craft abusive interrogation practices. I hadn't been in Abu Ghraib long before the ICRC accused me of torturing prisoners . . .
It was the ICRC who concocted the story of medical torture."
"Sex was a complicating factor in much of our work at Abu Ghraib. I came to know several single women at Abu Ghraib who got pregnant, received adverse legal action, and were sent home. Private Jeni Nelson was a short, fat, seriously ugly young lady. She looked as though she was crying all the time. Nevertheless, she got a boyfriend, got pregnant, and was promptly sent home by her company commander. Did she do it on purpose to get out of Abu Ghraib? Probably, and I'm sure she wasn't the first."
Romand Coles
Raymond Michlowski says
I have read and I agree with the view of the Provost and Vice-Provost that the university community should follow the path of civil discourse in the matter of Dr. Larry James, and indeed, in all matters. However, I am very troubled by what seems to be some muddying of the waters regarding the debate about Dr. James. So, in the spirit of civil discourse rather than civil silence, I would like to address several issues.
As someone who has worked with combat veterans for many years, and who well understands how wartime contexts can lead people into actions that they might otherwise not undertake, I am very careful not to "rush to judgement" about issues such as this. So I find the characterization of people who are troubled by Dr. James's candidacy as being guilty of unthoughtful decisions taken without careful consideration of evidence both unfair and wrong. I have thought long and hard about this. Rather than constructing some imaginary about Dr. James's actions, I take him at his own words (see Fixing Hell). These show that he was present and in a position of authority when violations of the law and spirit of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners took place.
The Geneva convention specifies:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
"The following acts are and shall remain prohibited … cruel treatment and torture; … Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment. (Geneva Convention, 1949)
According to the Senate Armed Services Committee and many other sources, boys and men in Abu Ghraib at the time of Dr. James's tenure there "were threatened with rape and death for themselves and their family members; sexually, culturally, and religiously humiliated; forced naked; deprived of sleep; subjected to sensory deprivation, over-stimulation, and extreme isolation; short-shackled into stress positions for hours; and physically assaulted." Dr. James served as the Director of the Behavioral Science Unit of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib. The practice of aggressive and humiliating interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, where Dr. James serve as the chief psychologist (2007-2008), are well documented in social science and law. It strains credibility to believe that Dr. James was not privy to at least some of these behaviors, not to mention his own accounts in Fixing Hell.
What is being missed in the present debate is that the question about what Dr. James did or did not do is a red herring. It is not the core issue. There is sufficient evidence of his presence and participation in activities that would, under normal circumstances, contravene the Geneva Convention. The real question is what does it mean that he was involved in these activities.
Claims that Dr. James's did not violate any laws or principles of psychological practice are facilitated by the fact that, according to a Bush administration finding, individuals held at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were not prisoners of war covered under the Geneva Convention. They were "enemy combatants." Some, I am sure, are willing to accept that this thin legal tissue renders Dr. James's behavior acceptable. However, it is also good to remember that the Bush administration also ruled that water boarding was not torture, and that "enhanced interrogation" was torture only when the victim began to experience "organ failure" (that is, began to die).
I spent a number of years studying and writing about the violations of international law during the Iraq war. One of the things I learned along the way is that the international legal community is in broad agreement that the kind of activities, routine humiliations and interrogations that took place at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo where Dr. James held a position of command were violations of the Geneva Convention, not to mention basic rules of humane decency.
It should also be recognized that the claim that Dr. James's behavior has been "thoroughly investigated" is not a settled issue as the Provost and vice-Provost have been led to believe. In a recent communication to an NAU faculty member (complete letter below), Deborah Popowski, of Harvard Law School, the chief investigator of the allegations against Dr. James, had this to say:
None of the licensing boards or courts made public evidentiary findings, and to our knowledge, none conducted a meaningful investigation. The Louisiana psychology board denied to look into the matter because it claimed that the statute of limitations had already run. The Ohio board refused to state a reason for its dismissal, despite our repeated inquiries and offers to provide additional evidence if necessary. To our knowledge, the board did not even contact the witnesses we listed, who would have attested to the abuse at Guantánamo at the time that Dr. James claimed to have exerted so much influence. Finally, all legal attempts to compel the boards to investigate the case were dismissed on standing and right of action grounds: the courts ruled that the complainants could not challenge the board's inaction because they were insufficiently harmed and the law did not provide a mechanism to legally challenge the boards' decisions to not act on a complaint. No judge ruled that the boards had "acted correctly" in dismissing. They simply refused to review the board's actions.
What can be fairly said is that no board found that Dr. James participated in behaviors in violation of acceptable standards for practicing psychologists. What cannot be said is that, after careful examination of the charges and the evidence presented, they concluded that Dr. James had not engaged in the behaviors alleged. These are very different things, and those who are weighing the matter should be aware of that distinction.
Finally, I would like to take strong exception to the idea that sharing these concerns with colleagues constitutes a violation of the spirit of civil discourse, or a rush to judgement. What has been exchanged among colleagues and the university community about this matter is exactly the kind of discourse a university committed to social justice should pursue. Are we to accept any claim by the government and its subordinates that the harms it and they have perpetrated are acceptable simply because the government declares them to be so? In my department we are at great pains to teach our students that there are standards beyond those set by national governments, and these can be used to evaluate the legality and morality of behaviors by governments and their agents. If I were to remain silent about my deep concerns regarding the suitability of Dr. Larry James for Dean of SBS, it would contravene the very things we try to teach our students.
My goal here is not to tell others what to think about Dr. Larry James and his role in Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo. It is to say what I think. This, I believe, is well within the purview of civil discourse.
Concerned members of the university community should read the complaints filed against Dr. Larry James, as well as his own writings, and decide whether hiring Dr. Larry James is the kind of message SBS and NAU would like to send to the wider world about what NAU represents.
P.S. I wrote this before I read the email recently distributed by Dr. Rom Coles. I urge you to give careful consideration to the questions Rom raises about whether Dr. James is also guilty of misrepresentation by having omitted his positions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo from his C.V.
Dr. Raymond J. Michalowski
Arizona Regents Professor
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 15005
To my earlier comment I will add two more points: (1) in my 21 years at NAU, I have served on, or have chaired, many, many search committees, including search committees for provost positions and other positions high up on the administrative ladder. Under no circumstances would any of these search committees have entertained the notion of bringing a candidate to campus for an interview if that candidate in any way was found to have been deceitful on his or her resume, as Larry James has been. That James got as far as he did in the search process boggles my mind and calls into serious question the entire search process. (2) An upper level administration that does not heed the serious and valid concerns of its faculty about a job candidate risks not only alienating its faculty but repeating an egregious situation prior to John Haeger's tenure as president. In this situation, a certain Owen Cargol was hired to be NAU's president despite serious objections by several faculty bodies and without a sufficient background check being performed on this candidate. This president was fired after one semester at NAU for gross misconduct. Why would any search committee remotely entertain a candidate whose record even hints at ambiguity or misconduct, and why would this upper level administration endorse the search committee's recommendation? Their role,instead, should be to scrutinize James' records more carefully and not to accept, at face value, a poorly conceived, defensive, and self-damning rationalization offered by James himself.
Dr Anne Scott
Just wondering whether Liz Grobsmith and Susanna Maxwell would have written a letter like this.
Past Undergraduate Current Graduate Student says
I am saddened to hear that comments left by some of my peers have been repeatedly deleted. Doesn't everyone have the right to express their opinion? Even if the opinion is perceived as unfavorable, they should still have the opportunity to be heard. I just wanted to bring light to the fact that some voices in our community are being silenced.
Alumni says
I said "racialized violence" not "radicalized violence." Moderators are changing it. FYI.
BSCT1 says
"enhanced" provosting techniques!
I think that Dan Kain and the provost owe the faculty and students an apology for their letter, which shows a blatant disregard for the values they claim to uphold. They should welcome faculty and student concerns about this candidate's character and research if they are in fact committed to "civil discourse" and "social justice."
Also: I would recommend that Kain and Huenneke do some reading on the scholarship and theory regarding "civil discourse", which has largely been a language of power in opposition to a language of justice.
Kevin White says
I would like to voice my support for my classmates and professors in protest against the possibility of giving Larry James a position of authority in our school. There is a huge difference between legally exonerated and morally exonerated. No one who has held a leadership position at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib should be considered fit for a position of academic leadership or authority, regardless of what they say their motivations were, and regardless of whether they have faced legal or formal recrimination for their actions there.
In addition, to see members of the NAU administration, people I've generally had great respect for, criticize students and faculty for exercising their rights and duties as citizens is disappointing. Unless flyers actually threaten bodily harm to Larry James, to call flyers intimidating is too hyperbolic a statement to be taken seriously. To discourage students from researching on their own in a critical manner, even on the internet, is not appropriate behaviour for an educator. The insinuation that objections to the prospect of hiring Larry James are not evidence based is clearly incorrect. Students and faculty using their freedom of speech to protest and express their concerns about Larry James certainly does not infringe on his free speech in any meaningful way. Even setting all of that aside, by any reasonable standard, asking whether students and faculty would want to work with someone should be a key factor in the question of whether to hire them. By protesting and voicing their concerns about Larry James, students and faculty are contributing to the hiring process, not interfering with it. Further, categorizing flyers as "intimidating," and insinuating that objections to Larry James aren't based on facts or legitimate research, do not make for civil discourse.
I've lived in Flagstaff a long time, and I've spent a lot of time studying and working at NAU. I know from experience that our university can be better than this. Respectfully,
Retired NAU faculty says
As a retired NAU faculty person, all I can say is that Huenneke and Kain should be ashamed of themselves. The first mistake was to allow such a candidate to make the short list; if Huenneke and Kain were doing appropriate due diligence, the Provost's office would not have approved Dr. James as a finalist. Having made the first mistake, rather than fix it, they are digging in their heels, sticking by their mistake, and treating the faculty and students with arrogance and contempt. In a search, the questions raised by the community are EXACTLY the kind of background investigations needed. Does anyone really think checking James' own references will lead to anything except a few sanitized platitudes? James will get buddy letters and atta-boy reference checks that will reveal nothing. Is the Provost's office and NAU HR really that naive?
EVERYTHING in James' background is fair game and must be considered if you want to avoid making the wrong hiring decision. It is as if the place did not learn anything from hiring Owen Cargol, where arrogance of the hiring authority (in Cargol's case, Kay McKay of ABOR) insisted on hiring a candidate who the rest of the community found unsuitable.
Take a look at what happened last year with James in interviewing for a similar position at U Missouri. Pass on Dr. James if you have any sense at all.
I have previously commented on Larry James whose career I have followed for ten years in writing about the mistreatment and torture of war on terror prisoners. My CV listing that work is at http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/facstaff/miles_s/
In that it is now difficult to imagine how Larry James continued candidacy can be sustained NAU must now turn to reform and healing.
Reform must two issues: 1) the flawed vetting of the James candidacy and 2) the improper intrusion of NAU leadership in support of that candidacy as a profound and well grounded criticism of a failed search took form.
Healing must address the wounds caused by an insulting and condescending lecture on civil discourse by NAU leadership.
Steven Miles
Professor of Medicine and Bioethics
NAU News says
Editor's note: Please review the rules of engagement for commenting: http://stage.news.nau.edu/code-of-conduct/
Undergrad/grad alum says
It makes me happy to see civil discourse coming from some of my favorite professors.
After this guy is not hired, perhaps these administrators can take a lesson on internet sources. After all, I can read my thesis on the interweb, does that make it suspect? Are these administrators aware that the bulk of scientific findings are also published here?
Or are we to take your frankly condescending comments about internet source veracity to mean that you're own use of the internet should be ignored?
NAU: great professors, terrible administrators.
Genie says
Unfortunately, I followed the guidelines for engaging and my comments were deleted. I disagreed with the Provost's position but it was a fair assessment of the situation from my own perspective. I'm confused about what civil discourse is…
Your Name says
The editor's note raises more questions than it addresses. Is this an attempt limit the conversation and comments? Which comments have violated the so-called rules of engagement? Why do the editors "reserve the right, at our discretion, to remove any comment or to revoke a user's privilege to post to our page"? This, in the context of the Provost's comments, appears to be an attempt to curb speech and open discussion. What is going on here?
torture is inhumane says
a classic example of biting the hand that feeds you. Such blatant condescension transcends the question of whether it is Dr. James who is suitable for employment at NAU
Proud SBS Alumn says
So proud of Carol Thompson and other NAU faculty for taking a stand on a tough issue. Thank you for your following your values. Also, Carol I loved your class-the knowledge has stayed with me through the years!
RIP Joel Olson – I know he'd take the same stance…
I would like to second esteemed scholar, Steven Miles', call for reconciliation and reform. I suggest that a meeting take place between the SBS Chairs and Directors and leaders in the Provost's Office to discuss how this search process went so awry, as well as how not to repeat such mistakes in the future. The conversation should also constructively address questions of communication: What regular practices of respect, expression, and listening between the Provost's Office and SBS are needed so that we can foster open and honest communication as a condition of more collaborative governance in the future? What vision for the future of this relationship and what vision for the future flourishing of SBS ought to guide the search process so we achieve excellence instead of what has transpired? At each step of the way, this crisis will be to a significant degree what various parties make of it. I suggest that we seize it as an opportunity to imaginatively rethink what has happened, our relationships, and visions for a better future.
If all sides may have difficulty seeing and hearing the possible opportunities here, nevertheless, we all still share an interest in resolving the crisis at hand within an extremely short time frame. Thus far, each step of the way, the proliferation of dysfunction has been predictable. Let us not continue a path of erring.
To all of us: we are poised on a very precarious edge. On one side are a set of potentially creative opportunities in relation to which we might seize a rose from the cross of the present. On the other side is a disaster that makes what we are currently suffering look small by comparison. Predictably, sooner rather than later the national media is likely to catch wind of what is going on here. If they do, we will enter a media storm that will quickly spiral beyond any of our control. This will be terrible for all of us and it will compound by several magnitudes our difficulties to communicate and seek ways to work better together. In proliferating rumors, words will lose their meaning. NAU will look terrible. All of us will be diminished.
To my mind it is time for us to take a deep breath and recalibrate. We all live here, we all have to figure out how to work well together. The first step is to expel Larry James from the candidate pool. As Anne Scott thoughtfully suggests, deceit on a resume provides a more than ample and uncomplicated reason to do so. The second step is to convene a conversation – difficult, yes, but not without its possibilities.
Rom Coles
I resonate with Rom Coles's January 27th response inviting the NAU Community to capitalize on the opportunity to heal the wounds produced by this issue and think to the future.
Now that Larry James's candidacy has been terminated, my hope is that all interested parties will stop and reflect…This is the first step towards creating growth and healing.
This conflict, however uncomfortable and painful, opens up space for creativity and grace much as a broken bone allows a fractured bone to become stronger. But, for that bone to heal, it must be set correctly just as we must respond thoughtfully and compassionately in the wake of this incident for it to bear fruit.
I envision the NAU Community moving into the wake of this conflict with openness, empathy for all perspectives, and determination to explore how we can do better. I look forward to being part of the journey.
Robert Neustadt says
Some folks want to be like an ostrich,
Bury their heads in the sand.
Some hope that plastic dreams
Can unclench all those greedy hands.
Some hope to take the easy way:
Poisons, bombs. They think we need 'em.
Don't you know you can't kill all the unbelievers?
There's no shortcut to freedom.
The above lyrics, from Pete Seeger's song "My Rainbow Race" resonate with many aspects of this situation. Pete Seeger died tonight, and I would like to invoke his commitment to freedom, justice, truth and integrity in my comment on this situation.
It is neither ironic nor sad that faculty and community members have expressed concern over this candidate. There are red flags all over this candidate's record and to ignore these (and to ignore the conspicuous lacunae in his cv) would be tantamount to burying our heads in the sand. There exists voluminous evidence–documented by credible sources and the candidate himself–that makes MANY of us uncomfortable. Put simply,for many reasons this is not someone we want in a leadership position at our university.
We will never know the extent of his involvement in torture. That said, even if we were to take him at his word and believe that he strove to mitigate harm to prisoners, even then, he still in this scenario, supported a deplorable prison camp that nearly every country on earth has declared in conflict with international law and human rights.
I am not going to rehash the evidence, others have already presented this case thoroughly. I am proud that my colleagues have called attention to this candidate's past history as Senior Interrogation Psychologist–especially since the candidate himself has chosen not to report this himself. If he comes on campus for an interview are we comfortable asking him questions?
It is our right and responsibility to ask questions, express our views, to report our findings (using the internet as a tool) and to bring our concerns to the forefront. Sticking our heads in the sand serves no one. There is no shortcut to freedom.
Robert Neustadt
Professor of Spanish
Director of Latin American Studies
and member of Ethnic Studies Steering Committee
Margery Sorensen says
Thank you for your strong, thoughtful and public response to the candidacy of Larry James. I have deep concerns about this candidate and agree with your question of why, given significant opposing evidence, this man was considered the best we could find from a pool of candidates.
Paul Flikkema says
I do not agree that the NAU community has rushed to judgment via "quick web searches" on this issue, as the 'Civil Discourse' NAU News item above obliquely claims. However, I agree that is indeed time to engage in "thoughtful dialogue, free speech and respect for diverse opinions" regarding the search.
Simply because Larry James is a candidate, the search now touches on many of our society's core values, and has rightly become a matter of concern to all of us. I encourage members of the NAU community to carefully read the open letters by Professors Coles, Michalowski, and Krondorfer, critically analyze the evidence, develop and discuss their own questions and concerns, and transmit them to the NAU administration. We can demonstrate to the community-at-large the value of scholarly inquiry and robust debate.
Paul Flikkema
(on sabbatical leave at Aalto University, 2013-2014)
Guy Senese says
Copy here of letter to NAU AAUP Chapter: Guy Senese, President NAU AAUP
To: NAU AAUP
I believe that we have an obligation to discuss concerns regarding essential issues that emerge regarding Academic Freedom, the central concern of AAUP. This note regards the recent effort by our chief academic officers, the Provost and Associate Provost, to police discourse in our university community, through an open letter to the NAU community. For a full appraisal of the issues withing, please read the full discussion initiation at NAU News: http://stage.news.nau.edu/remembering-value-civil-discourse/ As the current president of NAU-AAUP I want to say that my comments do not represent any official position of our NAU Chapter. They are my own but I wish to reinforce the durability of the principle of open academic discussion. Significant issues have been thoroughly covered by Dr. Coles and others. After studying the issue, I support the central elements Dr. Coles' comments including his recent call for a dialogue between concerned faculty and administration. I support the university community members who have exercised their academic freedom and First Amendment rights to speech on this issue, especially in light of the chilling effect the letter may have had on this principle. The record of these events will not without witness, and I hope we as a university community can emerge better for the discussion.
In the letter in question, our academic officers focus on the irony that members of a university dedicated to free speech, social justice and free inquiry, would deny free speech in the form of a campus interview, to Dr. James. NAU remains a public institution, with traditions and rules obligating faculty to engage with all aspects of university life that may impact students and citizens. Dr. James is a public figure, the vetting of whose record is open to inquiry and questioning. I believe this unfortunate letter, was severe over-reaction to campus hearsay, yet its severity and claims to protect core academic values was not matched by reference to any supporting examples or facts. Indeed such a narrative may be seriously counterproductive to the fairness they claim to be protecting. This public letter in fact may demonstrate undue prejudice against other candidates, inasmuch as it asks us to ignore or dismisses that substantial part of the extensive public record available to faculty and students. Points:
1.	It was a symptom of institutional immaturity that our academic officers would be "saddened" (par.) that discussion of such a controversial candidate for such an important position in the university might be complicated by protest. Speech in a democratic society is necessarily messy, and the university in a democracy is precisely the place where we as a nation are or should be, unafraid to acknowledge that we encourage students and faculty to be among the most well informed, sensitive and diligent regarding the political and social conditions of importance to public debate. It would be truly sad if no one noticed or cared. The letter actually cites an assumed political preference held by members of the dissenting academic community. It claims that this preference is somehow violating "civility" strangling and drowning out other perspectives. No evidence is presented to support this claim, yet the letter includes an explicit admission that the university is taking a political position, admonishing those who have dissented in this case. This false representation does real damage to our reputation, as this document went out to a wide public audience.
2.	In any academic community we expect that faculty and students are by now relatively sophisticated consumers of internet sources. It was wrong to chastise the academic community for seeking information on the candidate, as if it, including the search members, were a sequestered jury. As a campus with a national reputation for distance learning commitments, this was a commentary on the degree to which we would expect Internet source use sophistication.
3.	For a school whose number one current gaze is on the globalization of the university, this letter shows real immaturity regarding the intellectual process of engaging with the monumental issues of human rights at the international level. This includes that part of the process which sophisticated students understand worldwide: It is contentious, it will have loose ends, but it will be heard. Is the university big enough, smart enough to host the conversation? This letter says no. This letter simply advertises that we are not ready for global prime time.
4.	The letter and the comments section are in fact a representation of much that could be right about a candid space for comment regarding issues of importance for the university. However this "editorial" was presented as part of ¬news for the university. Again, this without content, heavy with vague warnings, and claims that it was exercising a "teachable moment" for students regarding the importance of yes….evidence. Yet, no evidence was provided regarding the nature of the issues at stake with the James candidacy, the email hearsay, nor nature of the intimidating "flyers." It continues an unhealthy pattern where administrators police email for disciplinary action. It was news with a warning, putting a chill on campus discourse, and a violation of Arizona university policy. Board of Regents policy states: "The Board recognizes and supports the principle that faculty members who speak or write as a private citizen should be free from institutional censorship or discipline." The Board language continues to advise caution and that speech serve the "best interests" of the institution. Raising issues regarding the veracity of candidate resume's, and issues regarding responsible critiques of candidate behaviors, is right and warranted. On the contrary, the Provost and Vice-Provost have spoken in their letter, representing not themselves but the university, and as such have failed that test. To officially censure the academic community is in violation of our best interests.
5.	The NAU Conditions of Faculty service states: "Faculty members are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate they are not speaking for the institution." Our academic officers are also faculty members, and should be held to no lower standard.
Guy Senese
Professor, COE/NAU
President, NAU AAUP
Cc: NAU NEWS Comments Section
NAU faculty member says
I agree with Professor Coles that the next step is to "convene a conversation – difficult, yes, but not without its possibilities." I would suggest that it begin with an apology by the provost and vice provost for suggesting that faculty and students should not express concerns about a candidate, especially one whose published work alone should have disqualified him from being considered for this position. The search committee might also consider an apology — did they engage in due diligence? It seems that his book Fixing Hell alone should have disqualified him from a leadership position at a public university — or an academic appointment of any kind, for that matter.
Cathy Small says
I truly appreciated the input and the evidence shared by Rom, Luis, and others because it raised serious doubts for me about the candidate for Dean that I had not had previously. However, these doubts are the reason I would have wanted Larry James to come to campus, answer our questions, and explain his involvement Serious doubts do not necessarily amount to "guilt" and yet, in effect, we allowed it to be this way by deciding that he was culpable enough to be denied a hearing as a candidate. Our decision may have been correct, but I will never really know for sure.
I respectfully have to disagree. Having someone come to campus to talk about their research and experience is very different than having a candidate come to interview for a high-level administrative position, particularly when their background was not thoroughly vetted. It should not have been news (and on the NAU NEWS feed at that) that this candidate has a controversial background.
NAU grad says
Thank you to Björn Krondorfer and Cathy Small for their posts. Theirs are voices of reason in this comment section. Unfortunately, there has been little two-way communication happening in the discussion section and reason has been overshadowed.
Dr. James should have been given the opportunity to come to campus to answer questions and explain his involvement. As was stated by another commenter in Inside Higher Ed, "If everyone was to be held accountable for guilt by association even if they were working to make a positive out of the negative, then no one would be in academics!" Nor would we find a job anywhere else.
Why? It seems his record alone would have disqualified him from such an important leadership position.
He doesn't have a record.
NAU Student says
I fully support the statements presented by Guy Senese.
Jamie Senese says
As a member of the college of SBS, I received the following email from our Associate Dean this morning:
I was contacted by Dr. Huenneke and Dr. Kain. They volunteered to hold a general discussion with members of the SBS community to discuss the recent turn of events in the SBS Dean Search. They will be available to answer questions and concerns this Friday, January 31, at 9:00 in room 109 SBS West.
William Huffman, Ph.D.
Associate Dean
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Given the campus-wide reaction to both Larry James' candidacy, as well as the issues regarding academic freedom that developed following the very public letter of admonishment on the NAU News feed from the Provost and Vice Provost, I would like to suggest to Dr. Huenneke and Dr. Kain that a meeting to which all members of the university community are invited might be more appropriate. Deep issues have been raised that concern all of us, not just members of the SBS community.
Jamie Senese
Institute for Human Development
Alumni, Graduate Student, Employee says
The fact that this invitation was removed by the administration says a lot about their commitment to civil discourse.
Many more students, faculty, staff, and community members might have attended this morning's forum had the administration allowed this invitation to stand.
Thank you Jamie for this invitation.
This meeting is intended for the SBS community, but I think its relevant for the entire academic community at NAU. It's a great opportunity for everyone concerned about how this all unfolded to ask questions and discuss possible ways forward.
Dr. Huenneke and Dr. Kain volunteered to hold a general discussion with members of the SBS community to discuss the recent turn of events in the SBS Dean Search. They will be available to answer questions and concerns this Friday, January 31, at 9:00 in room 109 SBS West.
Leave a Reply to David R. McCain, SBS Graduate Student Cancel reply
July 16, 2019 Insulin, a medication used to treat diabetes, is temperature-sensitive and has a short shelf life. It can be stored unopened for up to a year, but once opened, it … Read more about Study on extending insulin's shelf life may have dramatic implications for health care—on Earth and in space
NAU CommunicationsPO Box 4133Flagstaff, AZ 86011Department Number: (928) 523-2282Fax: (928) 523-9353NAUcomm@nau.edu NAU Communications works to advance Northern Arizona … Read more about
July 12, 2019 On Monday, President Rita Cheng signed an agreement that allows Northern Arizona University to bring its master of public administration (MPA) program to students … Read more about President Cheng signs agreement to bring MPA program to China
July 11, 2019 This weekend, five members of the Phoenix Symphony Chamber Players will perform "The Three B's" as part of Northern Arizona University's Horizons Summer Concert … Read more about NAU Horizons Summer Concert Series features Phoenix Symphony Chamber Players
Kudos to these students Do you have a spotlight item to share with the NAU community? E-mail your announcements to Inside@nau.edu, or use our online submission … Read more about In the Student Spotlight: July 12, 2019
Kudos to these faculty, staff and programs Do you have a spotlight item to share with the NAU community? E-mail your announcements to Inside@nau.edu, or use … Read more about In the Spotlight: July 12, 2019
May 6, 2019 Northern Arizona University will honor the graduating class of spring 2019 with ceremonies May 10-11. This semester, about 5,900 students applied to … Read more about Everything you need to know about spring 2019 commencement
April 10, 2019 Some couples claim it was love at first sight. Emily and Jon Bannon are not one of those couples. While attending Northern Arizona University, Emily worked … Read more about Mighty Max: The love story of two NAU alumni and the roller-coaster ride of having a sick son
It all started with a teddy bear. Then raising and keeping pets, going hunting with his dad and realizing he was the only '90s kid whose bedroom walls were covered in posters of … Read more about Born in tragedy: How an NAU alumnus helped save the life of one Lucky elk