Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. J.P. Loo's avatar
  2. Sebastian Sunday Grève's avatar
  3. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  4. Fabien Muller's avatar
  7. Saul Smilansky's avatar

More thoughts on the Sheinman case at Bar-Ilan University

Brian Leiter

The legal philosopher and legal scholar Alon Harel (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) writes:

I was asked to examine again carefully the case of Hanoch Sheinman. I was told that I was misled with respect to some of the facts. I tried to do my best to explore all the relevant facts and here are my findings. [Ed.-see Prof. Harel's earlier comments]

Let me first say that the accusations that decisions of promotion and tenure at Bar-Ilan are politicized are not new and are unfortunately based in evidence. The most famous case in which Bar Ilan used political considerations was that of Menachmen Klein, who for a long was not promoted despite his scientific achievements. I believe therefore that the academic community is justified in exploring the issue carefully. Decisions concerning promotion and tenure at Bar Ilan should be scrutinized in cases of suspicion. The suspicion is of course particularly grave in the case of Hanoch because of the threats issued in an earlier letter sent to Hanoch by his dean during the operation/war Zuk Eitan.

As I see it, the current accusations against Bar Ilan University are based on the following:

1)     Bar Ilan established a mid-term review process retroactively.

2)     The faculty deviated in its instructions from the instructions of the rector as the rector instructed faculties to perform the process during the third year while the implementation at the law faculty included individuals who have completed three years.

3)     The implementation was inconsiderate, hasty, and unfair because it was sent to Hanoch when he was abroad, the deadline was much too short (one week) and Hanoch was also on sabbatical and had some family events which made it particularly difficult for him to meet the deadline.

I think claim 1 is not justified while there is some merit in 2 and 3.

I do not see that there is a problem in the 'retroactive procedure'. This is because the procedure of mid-term review does not impose harsher requirements for tenure. It is merely a procedure designed to provide feedback to the candidate. I do not think candidates are being made worse off as a result of this process.

On the other hand I think that the faculty unjustifiably deviated from the instruction of the rector in making a decision to extend the mid term review to people who have completed third year. Hanoch is right that the language of the rector's instruction does not apply to his case. Although I think the rector can extend the process to candidates at their fourth or fifth year, the faculty should not extend it to such cases.

I also think that given the circumstances of Hanoch at this time, the fact that he is on sabbatical abroad and the Bar Mitzva of his son all justified greater empathy than the one shown by Bar Ilan. This is particularly true given the history of his case at Bar Ilan.

I will again open comments, but will moderate for relevant substance, and edit accordingly.  Only comments with a full name in the "name" line and a valid e-mail address (which will not appear) will be published.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 responses to “More thoughts on the Sheinman case at Bar-Ilan University”

  1. Mathieu Carpentier

    In light of Alon Harel's careful analysis and of Leslie Green's reply, it is now clear to me that my earlier comment on this matter was incredibly naive. There is definitely something suspicious in the procedure to which Hanoch Sheinman is subjected. Whatever the merits of a "midway review process", it is clearly applied unfairly in this particular case (the one week deadline is preposterous).

    My apologies to Hanoch Sheinman, who has my unqualified support (for what it is worth).

    Reply
  2. Hanoch Sheinman

    I would very much like to thank Alon Harel for his readiness to revisit his initial comments on the new process at BIU Law and take the time to look into the details of the case and finally revise his account of the facts in light of evidence that wasn't available to him at the time. His considered account is in fact quite accurate and I must confess a sense of relief, as I have utmost respect for his integrity sense of justice.

    I'd still take issue with the thought that there's no problem with applying a process of this sort retroactively. I think Alon might be right to assume that in the most common case of a midway review process, the point of the process is basically to help the faculty member and it is not supposed to lead to termination. But first, I frankly don't know whether this is true with respect to the new process at BIU, because the process has never been defined in the University Guidelines. And second, as far as I can tell, even when the process is basically helpful or constructive, a decent university wouldn't apply it retroactively. Take USC for example. They have a six-year tenure track process and a midway review process for faculty members in their third year. Unlike at BIU, the process at USC is defined in the University Guidelines, and so any newly appointed faculty member is aware of the process in advance . I'd be surprised to discover that USC would be prepared to apply the midterm process in cases where the process isn't defined in the University Guidelines at the time of the appointment.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress