Tuesday, September 19, 2006


My story is complicated and I don't expect reporters to easily understand--especially student reporters. The article states that I was "denied tenure." My punishment was far more significant than that. I was given a terminal appointment and removed from tenure track.

The headline speaks of my resignation. I did not resign. I requested that my name be removed from the evaluation process, thus not applying for another appointment. Had I left before my terminal appointment was completed, it would be accurate to say I resigned. Why is this important? Because being removed from tenure track uniquely put me in the position of having to "apply" for another appointment. None of my full-time colleagues (all tenured or on tenure track) have this barrier. Put another way, I was turned into an "at-will employee." See Institute for Labor Studies & Research: Q/A: Is an employer required to explain why an at-will employee is being terminated? No. Employers terminating an at-will employee are not obligated to give any reasons for the termination. www.rilaborinstitute.org/employment_guide_2001/chapter_1.html.

These concepts are easily misunderstood, and any reporter makes such mistakes, as did the Grand Rapids PRESS and television media. BUT, CC reporters, not to get dear husband John's name right is unforgivable! (Just Kidding.) He taught at CC for more than 30 years---and played a very important role in the life of the school. His name is John WORST, not WORTH.

No comments:

Post a Comment