By definition, independent reviews consist of an outside body’s investigation on the workings and motives of an organization. They are conducted with the intent of finding out whether such an organization could have made mistakes in its procedure; mistakes that could be reversed for the sake of that organization and the greater community.
It should not come as too much surprise, then, that when University Provost Linda Brady informed International Affairs directors Magid Shirzadegan and Kathy Poole their contracts would not be renewed beyond this year, community outrage prompted Brady to request an independent review.
When the Emerald first reported last month on the impending dismissals of Shirzadegan and Poole, Brady said the decisions were made after intensive deliberation and she was “convinced that it was the only option available under the circumstances.” But the request for an independent review suggests that the original rationale no longer stands against the weight of opposition from the community.
Forty current and former University students and community members responded to the Emerald article ( “Two International Affairs directors dismissed,” ODE, Jan. 23), expressing their displeasure with the decision on the paper’s Web site. And it appears that this near-unanimous sentiment in regard to the directors has made an impact within the University administration.
There’s just one problem: Brady’s personal assistant, Lorraine Davis, is conducting the investigation. The investigation calls for Davis to file a complete report by March 14. However, one can’t help but question the wisdom of an in-house investigation being referred to as “independent.”
Such a move certainly won’t quell the criticism being leveled at Brady by International Affairs alumni. Student groups such as the “Student Coalition for Transparency” have been formed as a direct response to the reported dismissals. It’s understandable that certain aspects of this issue can’t be disclosed due to possible legal ramifications. All we can do is hope the investigation is more than just a face-saving maneuver on the University’s part.
The decision to let Shirzadegan and Poole go is clearly not in line with the wishes of the greater University community. This is not to say the decision is unjustified in and of itself; it just means that the administration must be completely forthright with the public in disclosing its rationale for such a decision, especially when the decision seems to contradict the University’s so-called commitment to diversity.
The campus community is angered and confused by the non-renewal of Shirzadegan’s and Poole’s contracts. That a legitimate reason for their dismissals has yet to be offered by Brady or anyone else within the University administration only increases the volume of public discontent. Until one is, they can expect the noise surrounding them to grow louder before it goes quiet.