Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't)
They don’t need a “case”. She’s an at-will employee. They don’t need to give any reason at all to non-renew her. They just need to give her notice.
Hood College president's statement on Simone Kolysh
-
Link?
Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't), it still takes time. I'm looking at their faculty handbook as well as their legalese in hiring ads, and it looks like the AAUP has a decent stranglehold on them too. No way department, admin, and the union peeps settled on this. Zero chance.
Also, faculty receive a president's notice of non-reappointment, so those claiming this is the default are wrong. Further, non-reappointment is decided by a committee which then informs the president.
That did not happen in less than a week. Get over it.
The relevant policy language is in a different HR document, not the �handbook�. If she has 18 months service, they have to give her a year�s notice of non-renewal. That�s why I speculated they may have cut her a deal to go away sooner. -
Link?
Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't), it still takes time. I'm looking at their faculty handbook as well as their legalese in hiring ads, and it looks like the AAUP has a decent stranglehold on them too. No way department, admin, and the union peeps settled on this. Zero chance.
Also, faculty receive a president's notice of non-reappointment, so those claiming this is the default are wrong. Further, non-reappointment is decided by a committee which then informs the president.
That did not happen in less than a week. Get over it.
The relevant policy language is in a different HR document, not the ?handbook?. If she has 18 months service, they have to give her a year?s notice of non-renewal. That?s why I speculated they may have cut her a deal to go away sooner.They call it the “faculty code”.
-
Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't), it still takes time. I'm looking at their faculty handbook as well as their legalese in hiring ads, and it looks like the AAUP has a decent stranglehold on them too. No way department, admin, and the union peeps settled on this. Zero chance.
Also, faculty receive a president's notice of non-reappointment, so those claiming this is the default are wrong. Further, non-reappointment is decided by a committee which then informs the president.
That did not happen in less than a week. Get over it.
The relevant policy language is in a different HR document, not the “handbook”. If she has 18 months service, they have to give her a year’s notice of non-renewal. That’s why I speculated they may have cut her a deal to go away sooner.The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
-
The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook.
-
You said it's in an HR doc.
Do you have a link to that doc?
The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook. -
The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook.LOL. You're getting desperate. I'm guessing you've never been involved with this process. Our university operates under similar guidelines, and it was a small effort to not renew the contract of a non-TT woman. We knew she had no gripe by the nature of the job, and she failed to do her job, but it took a minute, as we expected her to fight. She did, and she lost, with a compensatory prize (not an extra year).
The document states that non-renewal will be decided by a committee who makes their recommendations to the president. None of that is contingent upon grievance rights. You're going to need to go back to this being a lie and abrogated by another document.
Hood's FBR will process complaints of wrongful non-renewal. It's explicitly stated that this exists for non-tenured faculty who believe they were not renewed for bad reasons. Though this isn't necessary for expecting non-renewal to take more than a week to decide on, so it would not matter if you could establish that this is a lie and abrogated by another document.
It's also a bit contrived to expect she's not taking the conciliatory year.
-
What about the refried beans?
The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook.
LOL. You're getting desperate. I'm guessing you've never been involved with this process. Our university operates under similar guidelines, and it was a small effort to not renew the contract of a non-TT woman. We knew she had no gripe by the nature of the job, and she failed to do her job, but it took a minute, as we expected her to fight. She did, and she lost, with a compensatory prize (not an extra year).
The document states that non-renewal will be decided by a committee who makes their recommendations to the president. None of that is contingent upon grievance rights. You're going to need to go back to this being a lie and abrogated by another document.
Hood's FBR will process complaints of wrongful non-renewal. It's explicitly stated that this exists for non-tenured faculty who believe they were not renewed for bad reasons. Though this isn't necessary for expecting non-renewal to take more than a week to decide on, so it would not matter if you could establish that this is a lie and abrogated by another document.
It's also a bit contrived to expect she's not taking the conciliatory year. -
What about the refried beans?
The relevant language on how non-renewal is processed is in the handbook, unless you have evidence that they lie here just to abrogate it in a separate document. There's a multi-stage procedure involving committee work. That didn't happen in a short number of days. Further, you best believe the AAUP is going to get involved, especially when it involves speech.
No, you don't understand how academia works. Non-tenured tt on yearly contracts in at-will states do not have grievance rights. Nothing in that handbook speaks to non-tenured non-renewals. If you think otherwise, cite the page number and I will school you on how you've misread it.
The "Faculty Code" is the more relevant document here, not the Handbook.
LOL. You're getting desperate. I'm guessing you've never been involved with this process. Our university operates under similar guidelines, and it was a small effort to not renew the contract of a non-TT woman. We knew she had no gripe by the nature of the job, and she failed to do her job, but it took a minute, as we expected her to fight. She did, and she lost, with a compensatory prize (not an extra year).
The document states that non-renewal will be decided by a committee who makes their recommendations to the president. None of that is contingent upon grievance rights. You're going to need to go back to this being a lie and abrogated by another document.
Hood's FBR will process complaints of wrongful non-renewal. It's explicitly stated that this exists for non-tenured faculty who believe they were not renewed for bad reasons. Though this isn't necessary for expecting non-renewal to take more than a week to decide on, so it would not matter if you could establish that this is a lie and abrogated by another document.
It's also a bit contrived to expect she's not taking the conciliatory year.Nobody responded because nobody cared. Stop trying to force it.
...See full post -
Is there anything else more selfish than being an academic and having 4 children, then using your professional platform which likely pays you only enough to put food in their mouths as a pedestal to constantly push fringe ideologies explicitly so that you can constantly be in a potentially disciplinary spotlight. SK is a grotesque human. It’s seriously not that hard to show up and do your job well without getting in trouble.
Don’t colleges like Hood pay well?
-
Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't)
Wait, how exactly do you think the case isn't open and shut?
Kolysh publicly declared discriminatory intentionality against an entire group of people (men) in violation of federal civil rights law, and furthermore violated the school's policy in making insulting statements against any students who disagree with her own braindead MSNBC politics. That's not even bringing up the behavior not directly related to school that she also broadcasts, such as saying black men who catcall in public should be stabbed. The case is open and shut and then some. -
Where's it say that in the school policy?
Even if the case were open and shut (it isn't)
Wait, how exactly do you think the case isn't open and shut?
Kolysh publicly declared discriminatory intentionality against an entire group of people (men) in violation of federal civil rights law, and furthermore violated the school's policy in making insulting statements against any students who disagree with her own braindead MSNBC politics. That's not even bringing up the behavior not directly related to school that she also broadcasts, such as saying black men who catcall in public should be stabbed. The case is open and shut and then some. -
Where's it say that in the school policy?
Read the statement by the college president posted by OP.
Also see:
https://www.hood.edu/sites/default/files/Policy%2055%20bro.pdfKolysh openly and deliberately violated several of these policies. It's almost like she was trying to get fired?
Specifically note the cyberbullying clause, which definitely applies to her social media that create an offensive environment for the students she openly seeks to exclude. She repeatedly uses hate speech against "men" as a group -- sex is a protected category under federal law. So that's definitely already proved through her own posts, even disregarding additional accusations that she also engages in classroom bullying against the same groups she seeks to exclude. -
From the Faculty Code:
"Procedures for dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of
academic freedom or of other rights accorded to citizens of the United States."There's the policy against bullying and there's the policy of upholding academic freedom.
If 83be is right about the Code being the highest document, then I don't see a dismissal happening.
Where's it say that in the school policy?
Read the statement by the college president posted by OP.
Also see:
https://www.hood.edu/sites/default/files/Policy%2055%20bro.pdf
Kolysh openly and deliberately violated several of these policies. It's almost like she was trying to get fired?
Specifically note the cyberbullying clause, which definitely applies to her social media that create an offensive environment for the students she openly seeks to exclude. She repeatedly uses hate speech against "men" as a group -- sex is a protected category under federal law. So that's definitely already proved through her own posts, even disregarding additional accusations that she also engages in classroom bullying against the same groups she seeks to exclude.