In 1995, Linda Schilcher was offered a faculty position in the History Department at the University of Arkansas. Although she held a tenured position at a university, ranked first in its category by U.S. News and World Report, and her book Families in Politics had established her reputation as a leading historian in the field, she was intrigued by the opportunity to help build Arkansas's new Middle East Studies Program (see Proposal and Advisory Letter). Her current work on agricultural and environmental history would be well suited to a university with an agricultural school and located in a climate similar to that of the Middle East.

Although Dr. Schilcher's offer did not include tenure, it specified a six-year probationary period in writing (see Offer Letter). She was told that absolutely no one received tenure upon arrival. Her position was Associate Professor in the History Department, a new position that had been created for the benefit of building a multi-disciplinary Middle East Studies Program (MEST). (Similar new positions were created in other departments.) She made financial, personal, and family sacrifices to accept this new position.

While at the University of Arkansas, Dr. Schilcher successfully taught a full load of courses, receiving excellent student evaluations. She developed five new courses and supervised undergraduate, honors, M.A., and Ph.D. students. Furthermore, she conducted international research projects, organized an international conference, and was re-elected president of a major international organization in her field. Her first book was translated into Arabic and published in the Middle East; it was also revised for a second English edition. Additionally, she gathered and edited two volumes of articles and submitted the first for publication, while working on her fifth book. She served effectively on departmental and university committees and performed a number of out-reach functions as service for the Middle East Studies Program, such as organizing field trips and representing the Program at conferences, where she chaired panels, presented papers, and was a discussant. She traveled to the Middle East repeatedly, completing research and publication projects and setting up research collaborations with governments, international and regional organizations, all to the credit of the Middle East Studies Program and the University, as a whole.

Meanwhile, the plans for the new Middle East Studies Program were to be determined by a Middle East Studies Steering Committee, which included the new Middle East Studies faculty from the various contributing departments, as well as other members of the University Community.

As time passed, the organization and procedures of the Steering Committee became increasingly obscure and contrary to stated university policies. Its goals and priorities were a mystery. The Dean named the Associate Dean, an expert in German literature, to chair the Steering Committee, duplicating the functions of the Program's Director and diluting the Program's focus on the Middle East.

The Steering Committee's meetings were rare and ineffective. Parliamentary procedures were ignored. The atmosphere was tense and intimidating. Dr. Schilcher was twice physically frightened by violent responses to her questions. She immediately reported these incidents to her department chairman.

"Every single member of the core faculty of the MEST program who has been deposed has testified that the female members of the core faculty were treated worse than the male faculty" (RMSJ, p. 23). MEST program decisions were made at meetings at which its faculty members were not present. Students were admitted to the Program and given scholarships without Steering Committee knowledge or approval. Students in the Program were not introduced to the faculty. Program faculty members were not introduced to participants on Program-sponsored excursions to the Middle East, nor to visitors and official delegations from the Middle East.

Despite its $23,000,000 endowment, the Middle East Studies Program had no office, no staff, and no equipment. No internal or public accounting for the Middle East Studies Program was made available. Faculty were afforded no office support in building the program, further burdening them with administrative and secretarial chores.

Faculty members made their complaints through the appropriate channels. Four Middle East faculty members presented the Dean with a letter in June of 1996. Dr. Schilcher spoke with her appointed mentor and to the Chairman and Assistant Chairman in the History Department. She reported her concerns in writing to the Director of International Studies. Her Chairman attended meetings with the Associate Dean and spoke to the Dean on her behalf. These complaints were not addressed.

Instead, the Dean suppressed the results of an enquiry and disbanded the Steering Committee. He also cancelled faculty development accounts, violating the original terms of Dr. Schilcher's employment agreement and undermining her research. The funds for the conference that she was organizing were cut, leaving Dr. Schilcher personally and professionally embarrassed before an international organization, as well as colleagues at Arkansas and elsewhere.

In 1998, Dr. Schilcher's third-year review by the History Department was positive (see Third Year Review). The Dean, despite his written promise of a six-year probationary period, terminated Dr. Schilcher's contract, justifying his action by a decision of the College Personnel Committee. "The College Personnel Committee has no specified role in the third year review process, and became involved only because [the Dean] requested its involvement" (RMSJ, p. 38). "The College Personnel Committee delivered its recommendation to [the Dean] on May 6, one day before the final departmental recommendation had been drafted" (RMSJ, p. 38). A second female professor in the Middle East Studies Program who made similar complaints was later denied tenure. "[T]he only two times that [the Dean] has ever consulted the College Personnel Committee on a third year review were the two Caucasian female MEST core faculty members" (RMSJ, p. 26).

Dr. Schilcher's termination was appealed to the Vice President and the Chancellor, but was not overturned, and she left the University of Arkansas in 1999.

In academic year 1999-2000, Dr. Schilcher held a temporary appointment at the University of California at Los Angeles, teaching Middle Eastern History. During that year, she suffered a breakdown and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to her experiences at the University of Arkansas, which left her no prospect of further academic employment. Her two female colleagues in the Middle East Program at Arkansas also sought psychiatric treatment as a result of their experiences in the Program, as did one of the men who witnessed these events.

Dr. Schilcher continued to attempt intellectual work and finished a handful of projects, but her condition did not allow her to work up to her own academic standards and those of others. She had to refuse an offer of employment at the California State University at San Diego due to her illness. Her life savings were depleted, as she had no employment and no health insurance.

She continues to be in treatment and to be medicated. Not only is she isolated from a lifetime of colleagues and friends, but she is also unable to be with her children and grandchildren, due to financial hardship. She now works as a live-in housekeeper and earns some money as an occasional translator, baby-sitter, and goatherd.

To a person outside of academe, it might seem unbelievable that a university administrator would not follow university procedures and fulfill promises made in writing. It might seem that even if one administrator ignored a written promise, then his or her superior would step in and keep it. But, as sometimes occurs in academic institutions,* the errors of one administrator are re-affirmed by his or her superiors.

These now former administrators continue to draw enhanced administrative-level salaries, while they are defended by the University's lawyers. The tactics of these lawyers have delayed Dr. Schilcher's trial for five years, adding further injury and damage, all at tax payers' expense.

At the trial in Fayetteville, Dr. Schilcher intends to have her day in court, to vindicate her reputation, if not rescue her career. The record is clear and well documented, and the Schilcher Support Committee stands ready to provide her the support and encouragement she needs in this ordeal.



*Footnote. An extreme example is the case of Dee Kotla, an employee at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is managed by the University of California. Kotla was fired, allegedly for making $4.60 of personal phone calls and having a friend's files on a Lab computer. University lawyers defended this decision and lost twice in court. Legal costs for this case, funded by federal tax dollars, are estimated to be $9 million. An employee lawyer who has litigated claims against the university said "They have to look at this as, 'Will this stand up in an administrative proceeding or at trial' . . . Before they had an endless supply of money, and they didn't really have to think what it would cost them. They could just fire this person and fight them with lawyers until they go away. They can't do that anymore." (See Ian Hoffmann, Jury awards whistleblower $2.1 million: Lab operators express disappointment in verdict, claiming actions were merited, Tri-Valley Herald and other news outlets, March 24, 2005 and Ian Hoffman, UC may lose war chest courtesy of taxpayers, Inside Bay Area, August 2, 2005.)

For estimates of legal expenses related to tenure denial at the University of California in 1996 through 1999, see Torres Report and UC Finally Reports. For one case, which the University lost in 1996, the University reported spending over $2 million for outside legal counsel.

For estimates of legal costs between 1999 and 2002 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (which is run by the University of California), see Your Tax Dollars Pay LLNL's Legal Costs.