COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
2002-2003 Academic Year
Ralph Fregosi, Chair
Darrel Goll, Vice Chair

CAFT Members:

Term ending 4/03
Don Bourque, Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics (5/00-4/03)
Ralph Fregosi, Physiology (7/00-4/03)
Vicki Mills, University Library (9/01-4/03) (replacement)
James Ratner, Law Instruction (5/00-4/03)

Term ending 4/04
Anne E. Atwater, Physiology (5/01-4/04)
Darrel Goll, Nutritional Sciences (5/01-4/04)
Julie Anne Plax, Art (5/01-4/04)
Ann Weekes, Humanities Program (5/01-4/04)

Term ending 4/05
Ara Arabyan, AME Engineering (5/02-4/05)
Donald DeYoung, University Animal Care (5/02-4/05)
Laura A. McCammon, Theater Arts (5/02-4/05)
Bruce D. Sales, Psychology, Policy and Law (5/02-4/05)

Charge:

According to the Constitution of the General Faculty of The University of Arizona, Article V, Section 9b:

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure shall have jurisdiction to make inquiry and to conduct hearings in two general areas, namely: in regard to those matters contained in the Conditions of Service dealing with the contractual employment relationship between the General Faculty member and the University/Board of Regents; and in regard to any internal matters relating to grievances against or by any member of the General Faculty. The Committee shall consider the protection of academic freedom and tenure as a principal obligation.

Further, according to the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, second edition, 1995, section 2.13.09, entitled Misconduct in Research, Scholarship or Creative Endeavor:

For purposes of this policy "misconduct" means (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviations from accepted practice in proposing, conducting or disseminating the results of research, scholarship or creative endeavor, (2) material failure to comply with federal and other requirements for protecting researchers, human subjects and the public or for ensuring the welfare for laboratory animals; and (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research, scholarship and creative endeavors…and … When an inquiry has found cause to think that misconduct has occurred, the Vice President for Research must ask the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) to conduct a formal investigation.

Cases:

Four potential cases were brought to CAFT for preliminary discussions in 2002-2003:

Case 1. Submitted on January 30, 2003. "Misconduct in Research, Scholarship or Creative Endeavor". The complainant alleges that other faculty members claimed that the complainant’s work was their own, and also claimed that the work was new. This case was initially heard by UCEC, which denied the claim. The complainant appealed this case to the Provost, and in parallel sent a letter to CAFT asking for an investigation by this committee. The Provost has denied the complainant’s appeal, so the case has now come to CAFT and a hearing panel will soon be assigned.

Case 2. Submitted on January 22, 2003. "Misconduct in Research, Scholarship or Creative Endeavor". The case was initially heard by UCEC, who considered the following complaints:

a. Plagiarism
b. Infringement on another’s Intellectual Property rights

UCEC failed to find evidence for either allegation. However, UCEC did find that an ethical violation occurred because the respondents published a paper that used the results of experiments previously conducted by the complainant, but failed to acknowledge the latter. UCEC concluded that by failing to give due credit and proper attribution to the complainant, who was apparently responsible for pioneering the work, the respondents have breached fundamental principles of honesty and trust, and suggested that the charges were serious enough to be considered misconduct in research, and should be heard by CAFT. Because the allegation involved research misconduct, UHAP policy 2.13.09 requires a formal investigation. As a result, we selected a five-member sub-committee to hear this case (Jamie Ratner, Chair, Julie Anne Plax, Donald Bourque, Ara Arabyan, Darrel Goll). However, on March 4, 2003, the Vice President for Research instructed CAFT to table the case until UCEC more explicitly states where this case falls under the definition of research misconduct, as defined in UHAP 2.13.09. On April 8, the Vice President for Research released the case and forwarded it to CAFT for a complete investigation.

Case 3. Submitted on 1/28/2003. Grievance by a faculty member against a Department Head. The complainant is charging the respondent with the following allegations:

A. Interference with an annual performance evaluation
B. Refusal to use department funds to remove hazardous materials from the complainant’s storage area
C. Unauthorized removal of software from a computer (at an undisclosed location) that the complainant uses to prepare lectures.

Because this case involves a grievance by a faculty member against a department head, because there are allegations of interference with an annual performance evaluation, and because there is an allegation of retaliation that amounts to infringement of academic freedom, this case also requires a formal CAFT hearing under UHAP 2.13.09. A five-person panel has been assigned to hear this case which is in progress. The panel chair is Dr. Anne Atwater, and the remaining panel members are Donald DeYoung, Victoria Mills, Bruce D. Sales and Ann Weekes. This hearing is awaiting appointment of a new panel member, because the complainant noted a conflict of interest.

Case 4. Submitted on March 6, 2003. "Misconduct in Research, Scholarship or Creative Endeavor". The complainant alleges that the respondent carried out human subjects research without proper approval of the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board (IRB). The case was heard by UCEC, and that committee issued a report on 2/28/2003. UCEC found that the respondent was not in compliance with University and IRB guidelines. UCEC found no evidence for misconduct with regard to the actual treatment of human subjects, and as a result they proposed a series of actions for the respondent to complete in an effort to more fully understand IRB procedures, and to hopefully rectify the allegations. CAFT was not informed as to whether or not these series of actions were completed. Nevertheless, because the allegation was defined as research misconduct, CAFT is obliged to conduct a formal investigation of the allegations under UHAP policy 2.13.09. We are currently in the process of establishing a five-person panel to do this investigation.

CAFT Website: Improvements to the CAFT website were continued this year. Please examine the resources available at the website at http://fp.arizona.edu/caft/. Comments or suggestions for content or improvement are welcome and can be addressed by e-mail to facsen@u.arizona.edu.

Respectfully submitted,
Ralph F. Fregosi, Chair of CAFT
April 14, 2003

BACK

This site maintained by The University of Arizona Faculty Center
1216 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210456
Tucson, AZ 85721-0456
VOICE 520-621-1342    FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated 08/05/09