Roberds also refers to administration and the Faculty Senate being antagonistic to faculty. This is a really strange claim, as the members of the Faculty Senate are elected by the faculty and serve a three-year term. Any faculty member who is antagonistic to the faculty would be replaced quickly by someone who represents the faculty. (There is also a process for removing a sitting senator.) Roberds singles out Harraf — who is not a member of the dominant culture — as one who has "no tolerance for dissent or disagreement." Arguing that a person who is not a member of the dominant culture has no tolerance for disagreement is silly.

Roberds states that there is more freedom in Iraq than at SUU. This was written in response to a proposed Faculty Senate Constitution. Several years ago, SUU President Steven Bennion gave approval to the Faculty Senate to change its constitution. A constitution was written, voted on by the faculty in the spring of 2004 and rejected.

Subsequently, a Faculty Senate retreat was held and views exchanged. From that retreat I wrote a proposed constitution and sent it to those who had attended the retreat, asking if I had captured the essence of the discussion. To me, it was in reference to that document that Roberds directed his "freedom in Iraq" comparison. I do not understand how I, as a single faculty member, or how my writing a proposed Constitution constrains his freedom.

Finally, the tenure process requires input from several faculty committees. Even after meeting several times to discuss Roberds' application for tenure, a faculty committee did not approve it. According to the tenure policy, that committee must approve Roberds' application for it to be forwarded to others for approval. By not approving the application, that committee essentially denied it. So, it can be argued that tenure to Roberds was denied by his peers.

---

David Rees is Faculty Senate president at Southern Utah University.