We write to express our grave concerns about the actions taken by five students to interfere in Professor Terry Boychuk’s tenure process and the tabling of his tenure decision by the college trustees. This is a shameful episode at Macalester that may negatively affect relationships between students and teachers for years to come. It should strike terror in the hearts of every faculty member because, by refusing to follow due process, this sort of vigilante justice could happen to any one of us. We are especially concerned about the effect of this case on our untenured colleagues, men and women at the beginning of their academic careers who have the most to fear because they have the most to lose.

It is appalling that five students who admit to having no direct knowledge of events have publicly charged a faculty member with the crime of sexual harassment. According to statements published in The Mac Weekly, the students even refer to their charges as “allegations,” meaning that they have made declarations without proof. They admit to relying on hearsay. By definition, hearsay is evidence based on something the witness had heard someone else say rather than on what he or she has seen or experienced; it is usually inadmissible as testimony in law courts. It ought to be inadmissible in tenure decisions, too.

The grievance policy is designed to adjudicate charges of sexual harassment, to require accusers to make a signed statement and bring forward evidence of his or her charges. Moreover, it is designed to protect the reputations of both complainant and complainee during the process, and to mete out punishments if the charges made can be proven. No such thing happened in this case. Prior to making these public allegations, no student actually filed a sexual harassment grievance against Professor Boychuk. Instead, five students decided to deny due process and to publicly besmirch Professor Boychuk’s character with the legal equivalent of rumor and innuendo.

Sexual harassment is a serious crime that warrants the protection of the aggrieved and appropriate punishment for the proven perpetrator. It is so serious that individuals accused of harassment deserve all the guarantees of a legal process and the presumption of innocence. Because sexual harassment constitutes a wide range of actions, not all of which are equivalent, our grievance policy lays out a range of possible punishments. If proven guilty of egregious sexual harassment, a [tenured or untenured] faculty member can be harshly disciplined, suspended, or even terminated, depending on the circumstances (Page 9:3 Macalester College Faculty Handbook).

If the students’ allegations of “unprofessional comments” by Professor Boychuk can be proven true, it is a function of the grievance process to determine appropriate punishment, not the collective judgment of five unaffected parties. By making their allegations public, creating a news event and speaking with the press, these students have taken it upon themselves to impose the ultimate punishment-the public humiliation of Professor Boychuk and an attempt to get him fired for what they admit are unproven charges. What punishment could possibly be worse for what they characterize as “unprofessional comments”?

Relying on the concept of presumption of innocence for the accused, imagine for a moment that Professor Boychuk ultimately is acquitted of these allegations. How will he ever be able publicly to clear his name or reputation? The outcome of any grievance that may have been prompted by the students’ letters is confidential. Even if the public could find out that Professor Boychuk was exonerated, will The Mac Weekly editor write a lengthy front page article apologizing for allowing the paper to extend this travesty? Will the original articles identifying the allegations be removed from the Weekly’s Web site? Who will take responsibility? Will the trustees apologize for allowing the tenure process to be hijacked by students with no demonstrated respect for due process or a presumption of innocence for the accused? Will the five students write a second set of letters to every trustee expressing mortification and regret for their actions? How will they apologize and make amends to Professor Boychuk for sullying his reputation?

By tabling a decision on Terry Boychuk’s tenure, the college trustees have only encouraged future students to have no respect for due process and to deny a presumption of innocence for the accused. Although he has been irreparably damaged by this situation, the problem we are trying to highlight goes beyond Terry Boychuk and the details of this case. If any concerned but uninvolved student can create a public scene and get attendant news coverage by repeating hearsay, can besmirch our character with impunity and can put our jobs and careers at risk, everyone on this campus has cause for fear. Every student faces a similar risk of public accusation and ruined reputation. It could happen to any of us!

We urge our colleagues and concerned students to speak out and to condemn this violation of due process. Without a commitment to adjudicating grievances fairly and confidentially, all of us are threatened.