Bob Palazzo’s e-mail of February 23 contains misrepresentations or misunderstandings that deserve comment.

It is not surprising that he seeks to avoid further discussions regarding the Institute’s decision to reprimand me. The reasons are shameful.

I did file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. I was told quite clearly by the examining official from the NLRB that the Institute’s action would have violated the National Labor Relations Act if I were an “employee” of the Institute. The Board ruled that I and other faculty at Rensselaer are not “employees” but are “managers/supervisors.” As such, we are not afforded protection under the NLRA. This legal finding hardly justifies the Institute’s action. It was shameful even if legal.

The finding that we are management destroyed the Institute’s rationale for blocking the Governance Committee’s survey and for reprimanding me. Some of you will remember a Philadelphia lawyer hired by the Institute who alleged that the survey was a possible violation of the NLRA. She stated “I have no doubt that some faculty are not managers.” She continued by saying these non-managers may have been intimidated by the survey, in violation of the act. Ignoring the absurdity of intimidation by the innocuous wording of the survey, the NLRA has determined that the faculty at Rensselaer are managers. Thus the administration’s already weak justification for suppressing faculty governance has vanished.

Palazzo and the lawyer representing the president have failed to distinguish between my protests about the reprimand and the grounds for my grievance. The grievance does not ask that the reprimand be removed. Instead, the grievance protests suppression of free speech and faculty governance. The following is extracted from my grievance memo:

I am specifically grieving former provost G. P. “Bud” Peterson’s attempt to apply Human Resource Policy Guideline 800.10 as a justification for suppressing the recent Governance Survey. This suppression infringed my academic freedom and prevented the Faculty Senate from fulfilling its constitutional role in Institute governance.

Additionally, I am unaware of litigation against the Institute that involves the reprimand or the grievance.

The lawyer’s dismissal of my grievance allowed the president to avoid a direct response to a recommendation made by a faculty committee. The committee recommended that my reprimand be removed. This was not done at my request. Indeed, the reprimand has become almost a badge of honor. The issues of academic freedom and faculty governance that are the heart of my grievance are unresolved and should not be avoided by a legalistic pretense from a lawyer. If the president thinks the grievance should be denied, let her be forthright enough to say so.

Contrary to what Palazzo says, many of us think we do live in tyranny. It is a tyranny that permeates the organization despite the good intentions of lower level administrators. If you doubt this, I suggest you contact colleagues who have recently left Rensselaer or those who have made firm plans to leave. Many of them have sought me out to vent their anger and frustration.

Bruce Nauman