2003-04 Academic Year
Bruce D. Sales, Chair (5/02-4/05)
Don DeYoung, Vice Chair (5/02-4/05)

CAFT Members:

Term ending 4/04
Anne E. Atwater, Physiology (5/01-4/04) (resigned-retired 2003)
Elaine G. Jones (4/03-4/04) (replacement for A. Atwater)
Darrell Goll, Nutritional Sciences (5/01-4/04)
Julie Anne Plax, Art (5/01-4/04)
Ann Weekes, English (5/01-4/04)

Term ending 4/05

Ara Arabyan, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (5/02-4/05)
Donald DeYoung, University Animal Care (5/02-4/05)
Laura McCammon, Theater Education (5/02-4/05)
Bruce D. Sales, Psychology (5/02-4/05)

Term ending 4/06
Jean Braucher, Law (5/03-4/06)
Caryl Flinn, Women’s Studies (5/03-4/06)
Roberto Guzman, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (5/03-4/06)
Susan Wilson-Sanders, University Animal Care (5/03-4/06)

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.

Cases:
One new case was brought to CAFT in 2003-2004, and one continuing case from 2003 was resubmitted:

Case 1.            Submitted on November 14, 2003.   “Appeal of dismissal of a tenured faculty member.” A five-person panel was appointed, with a sixth person to serve as alternate to be determined and dropping out at the point of panel’s deliberations (Ara Arabyan, Panel Chair, Jean Braucher, Darrell Goll, Donald DeYoung, Roberto Guzman, and Ann Weekes, Alternate). The Panel heard the case on January 9, 12, and 15, 2004 and wrote a report which is now before the President for a final ruling.

Case 2.            Originally 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. After receiving clarification from UCEC about how this case falls under the definition of Research Misconduct, the VPR released the case and forwarded it to CAFT for a complete investigation. The Chair of CAFT empanelled a five-member panel to hear the case. On May 16, 2003, however, the Panel Chair received a letter from the VPR saying that he improperly forwarded the appeal of the dismissal of the plagiarism charge in this case to CAFT, when it should have gone to the Provost, and to please hold up on CAFT’s investigation until the Provost has ruled on the appeal.

Case 2.            Re-submitted on March 11, 2004.

On March 10, 2004, the Provost ruled that he did not find evidence to overturn the dismissal of the plagiarism claim, but that there is evidence to support the claim of “serious deviations from accepted practice in proposing, conducting or disseminating the results of research, scholarship or creative endeavor,” and forwarded the case to CAFT for a formal investigation.

Because the allegation involves research misconduct, the version of the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, 2.13.09 (excerpted below), entitled “Misconduct in Research, Scholarship or Creative Endeavor,” which was in effect prior to April 4, 2003, requires a formal investigation by CAFT.

University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, second edition, 1995, section 2.13.09,

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.

Two of the four previously appointed panel members appointed to hear this case have since rotated off the Committee and two more are due to rotate off in April 2004; (Panel Chair: Jamie Ratner (03), Julie Anne Plax (03), Don Bourque (03), Ara Arabyan (05), Darrel Goll (04)) so a new CAFT panel will be appointed.

Respectfully submitted,
Bruce D. Sales, Chair of CAFT
April 14, 2004