behind closed doors

Bob Paquette is not a man of few words. He is well-known on campus for being outspoken, defined equally by his boisterous personality and his intellect. It is not surprising that Paquette—a tenured history professor at Hamilton—has been outspoken about one issue that faculty hardly ever talk about publicly: salaries.

Last spring, Paquette received his annual salary letter but there was something absent from the letter … a raise. In a letter dated May 25, 2007, Dean of Faculty Joe Urgo wrote to Paquette, “Bob, despite your publications in 2006 and your efforts at teaching effectively, I cannot see clear to increasing your salary in 2007-2008. While we were disappointed in the outcome of discussions surrounding the Alexander Hamilton Center, it is incumbent upon us all to handle such disappointments in a professional manner.” These words set-off discussions amongst faculty about the policies and processes surrounding salary determination, and the reaches of academic freedom. In the process, an interesting mix of faculty banded together, leftover animosities over the failed Alexander Hamilton Center (AHC) were revealed, and students were once again left in the dark about what’s really going on at Hamilton behind closed doors.

Determining Salaries
Salaries are based on three factors: teaching, scholarship, and service. During the spring semester, faculty members write a self-evaluation and a personal statement that they submit to their department chairs. The chairs read the reports and write assessment forms for each faculty member in his or her department. Typically, the Dean will meet with chairs to discuss the reports before determining raises, but there is no formal procedure or requirement to meet with chairs. “I met with those chairs where I had questions,” said Urgo, although he did not meet with the chair of the history department. Salary letters were previously not reviewed by the president; last year, however, President Joan Hinde Stewart reviewed each salary letter. Raises for the 2007-2008 academic year ranged from zero-to-seven percent, with most faculty members receiving a three-to-four percent raise.

“Salaries are recompenses,” said Stewart. “We try to reward merit, so there are going to be tough decisions and relative decisions to be made.” Salary letters are sent out at the end of May and include the faculty member’s raise for the upcoming academic year and a short message from the Dean of Faculty, although many professors described their letters as vague and the reasoning less than transparent.

The Exception...?
In the spring of 2007, Paquette predicted to his co-founders of the newly-founded Alexander Hamilton Institute, Professors James Bradfield and Doug Ambrose, that he would not receive a raise in response to his vocal criticisms of the administration about the AHC. At the time, Bradfield and Ambrose laughed it off. “I told him he was crazy,” said Bradfield. “My view was that the College just wouldn’t do that thing. And I was dead wrong.”

Based on the three criteria for determining salaries—teaching, scholarship and service—it is difficult to understand why Paquette would be one of the few singled out for a zero increase. His classes are popular and he receives positive evaluations from students. “In 27 years here, maybe on two occasions I have cancelled a class. My students know I am in my office seven days a week,” said Paquette. “So it’s clearly something else that bothered them.” Paquette has also been consistent in his publishing and is respected for his research. This leaves only the third criterion—service.

Urgo claims that service (or lack thereof) was one reason for Paquette’s zero percent raise. He believes Paquette acted unprofessionally during the debate of the AHC charter. The failed AHC has taken form in the Alexander Hamilton Institute in the village of Clinton. In the aftermath of this debate, the administration was faced with resentment from conservative alumni who supported the Center and the resignation of one of the College’s most loyal trustees, Carl Menges ’51, who now financially supports the AHI. Paquette was the chief architect of the AHC and the failed attempt to bring it to campus left him bitter and frustrated with the administration.

Urgo, Paquette, and Bradfield met on August 16 and again in the fall to discuss the reasoning for Paquette’s zero percent raise. Paquette also submitted six requests for a fuller explanation of how his salary was determined. On each account, Paquette felt Urgo dodged the issues and could not specifically state what actions were deemed unprofessional. Urgo contends that he supplied Paquette with plenty of answers and that Paquette is just unwilling to hear them. “Often people say they’re not being told something when really they just disagree,” said Urgo.

The Zero Percent Raise
A zero percent raise is highly unusual. “It’s all very strange because this sort of thing never happens,” said Professor Jay Williams ’54.

Zero-percent raises are usually given in an effort to warn an underperforming faculty member. But as Williams noted, “Bob Paquette has not gone to sleep. He is very active. Why would you punish him?”

Urgo maintains that a zero percent raise is not a punishment, but a standard, although many faculty members disagree. “A zero percent raise in this economic situation functions as a pay cut and it is a pretty serious step to take,” said Professor Margaret Gentry. “Whatever he had done in terms of scholarship or teaching seemed to be trumped by concerns about his relationship with the College. I’m concerned that one area of one’s professional life erases the teaching and scholarship.”

The Role of Collegiality
In 2006 Dean Urgo published an article entitled “Collegiality and Academic Community” in Sympoke. Collegiality is buzzword amongst higher education circles, relating to the cultivation of positive relationships among colleagues. Examples of collegiality include serving as an effective advisor for students and being respectful of other professors. Paquette’s outspoken nature has at times run against the ideas of collegiality among his colleagues and the administration. Although these personal differences are rarely discussed publicly, it is easy to see why collegiality would come into play in this instance.

Urgo recognized that collegiality was becoming a fourth pillar in personnel and salary decisions at some schools, but believes that collegiality should be incorporated within the three main factors for salary determination at colleges like Hamilton. Still, the faculty is divided on this issue: “One of the sticking points of collegiality, is that there are no criteria for what good collegiality is and what bad collegiality is,” said Professor Robin Kinnel. “Even if it is measurable, it would come after teaching and scholarship.”

The basic role of collegiality is accepted by most faculty members, but its ties to salaries are new and somewhat unsettling. “Urgo is the first to raise these kinds of issues in a salary letter and somehow tie a lack of collegiality to pay raises,” said Professor Tim Elgren.

“I don’t think being critical of the administration or Board of Trustees constitutes non-collegiality,” said Williams. “If we’re not free to criticize the Dean when he does something wrong, Heaven help us! We’re in real trouble then.”

Faculty Support
News of Paquette’s zero percent salary spread through the faculty during the summer and fall of 2007. “It just seemed puzzling to the senior faculty that were there that Paquette would get a zero raise, especially in the wake of his conflict with the administration because it looks punitive,” said Professor David Paris, who previously served as Dean of Faculty. By November, a group of 17 tenured professors had gathered to informally discuss the allocation of a zero percent raise.

Supporters of Paquette include a diverse sampling of the faculty, who are mostly drawn together for the sake of principle rather than personal reasons. “The amazing and amusing thing to me is that this incident has brought together the most conservative and most liberal faculty members,” said Williams.

“Bob [Paquette] and I rarely agree on anything politically, but I certainly would never approve of anyone being penalized for being outspoken,” said Professor Esther Kanipe. “I believe in freedom of speech.”

The 17 senior faculty members met with Urgo on December 17 for almost two hours, but everyone walked from the meeting unsatisfied. “We gave the Dean every opportunity to answer our concerns, and he chose not to,” said Elgren.

Hamilton History
Hamilton’s recent history has highly influenced today’s campus climate, making it impossible to understand this new salary incident without taking a trip down memory lane. “Hamilton is a deceptive looking school,” said Professor Bonnie Urciuoli. “It looks like a beautiful place and it looks simple, but it’s complicated.”

In 2002, the Womyn’s Center invited Annie Sprinkle, a self-described prostitute-porn star turned sexologist, to campus for a lecture on sex toys. Paquette protested the lecture, stating that it violated New York State obscenity laws. “Academic freedom is not an absolute,” stated Paquette in a September 25, 2002 interview with the Associated Press. “I would have to conclude that this administration is both intellectually and morally vapid.”

Later that same year, a faculty member discovered President Eugene Tobin had plagiarized some of his speeches and Tobin subsequently resigned. “The Board of Trustees liked Tobin very much and they didn’t want to lose him,” said Urciuoli, who noted that some board members are said to have strong views about the faculty members that brought Tobin’s plagiarism to the forefront.

In 2004, the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture invited Susan Rosenberg to teach a writing class entitled “Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity, and Change.” Rosenberg was a member of the radical Weather Underground, and was in the midst of serving a 58-year prison term for weapons possession when President Bill Clinton pardoned her in 2001. After vocal criticism of Rosenberg on the Hill and off, she stepped down from the appointment.

A few months later, scandal would again rock the campus. The Kirkland Project invited Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Boulder, to speak at Hamilton. Professor Ted Eismeier did a simple Google search on Churchill and discovered that Churchill had written an essay that compared the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center to “little Eichmanns.” Everyone from New York Governor George Pataki to Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly weighed in on the incident and the event was eventually cancelled due to security concerns.

In 2006, Paquette, Bradfield, and Ambrose introduced the charter for the AHC with enthusiastic fanfare and support from the administration. During the fall of 2006, however, debates over the governance structure for the Center derailed the project.

Paquette’s account of Hamilton’s recent history is summarized in his article, “The World We Have Lost: A Parable on the Academy,” which is published in the May 2008 issue of The New Criterion. In the aftermath of the disintegration of the AHC charter, Paquette claims he was viewed as “intransigent, paranoid, perhaps even mentally unstable.” In response, Paquette states that “paranoia means irrational fear. Hamilton College’s recent history, he points out, makes his fears eminently reasonable.”

Next Steps
Most faculty members interviewed for this article stressed the need for more communication between the faculty, administration, and Board of Trustees and a greater degree of transparency. “The institution is a work in progress that requires good communication among all parties,” said Kinnel.

At the March faculty meeting, the faculty passed a motion by a vote of 69-20 to have the Academic Council report to the faculty next year on the process for sanctions related to salary decisions, as stated in the Faculty Handbook. “If anything comes out of this, hopefully it’s that the administration has learned that this is a very dangerous thing to do because it does have consequences which are not good,” said Williams.

The Ripple Effects
Not surprisingly, receiving no raise for the 2006-2007 academic year has done little to silence Paquette. “To think that a zero will in any way silence me is laughable,” said Paquette. “The zero was meant to provide a chilling effect, but I can make up the difference with two speeches about the Alexander Hamilton Center. And if they do it again, I will give 10 speeches. And if they do it again, I will give 20 speeches.”

Although Paquette is free to discuss this issue publicly and has waived confidentiality, the administration and members of the faculty are limited in what they can divulge in the public sphere.

“This is not being done for Bob Paquette,” said Paquette. “This is being done for a principle.” Most parties involved would agree.

-katie childs

Clike here to read The Continental's coverage of the Alexander Hamilton Center in the Spring 2007 issue.