An adjunct instructor at the University of Akron who vocally opposed a policy stating that new hires might need to submit DNA samples or fingerprints has lost his job.
The instructor, Matthew Williams, who is also an officer in a national organization that seeks better working conditions for adjuncts, was scheduled to begin teaching a seven-week continuing-education course on March 31, the second of two courses he signed an agreement to teach in January. But he said he was informed by the university’s department of continuing education and work-force development last week that he was ineligible to teach.
According to the university, Mr. Williams violated the terms of his contract with the School of Communication last fall when he quit in protest of the policy.
The policy, which was later rewritten, originally stated that new employees could be asked to submit DNA samples or fingerprints for use in federal criminal-background checks. The Board of Trustees revised the policy in December, removing references to DNA testing and saying instead that law-enforcement agencies would determine what information they needed from new employees for background checks.
Short Notice
Barbara O’Malley, a university spokeswoman, said the university chose not to let Mr. Williams finish his contract because he gave one day’s notice when he resigned in the fall, leaving the university to find an instructor to teach in his place.
The university’s written rules say that resigning employees “should give notice early enough to avoid serious interruption to the university operation,” usually four months.
Ms. O’Malley said once the university learned Mr. Williams had been hired by the continuing-education department to teach the two courses, one of which ended this month, it told the department he could not teach the next course.
“When an employee walks off a job at the University of Akron, they’re probably going to have a hard time getting that job back,” Ms. O’Malley said.
Mr. Williams said resigning four months in advance to protest a policy would be difficult, especially as an adjunct. He also said that some of his actions in recent weeks, in addition to his protest of the DNA policy, led the university to end his contract early.
During an open forum for faculty members in late February, Mr. Williams questioned Luis M. Proenza, the university’s president, about pay for top administrators. Mr. Williams also wrote e-mail messages to several members of the Board of Trustees this month arguing for better treatment of adjunct faculty members.
Mr. Williams, who is a senior leader of an adjunct-advocacy group known as the New Faculty Majority, has also been openly recruiting part-time faculty members to join the group. He has also testified twice before a committee in the Ohio House of Representatives in favor of legislation that would change the state’s collective-bargaining laws to allow part-time faculty to unionize.
“Make no mistake here,” Mr. Williams said. “All I am doing is expressing my First Amendment right to free speech and my right to academic freedom under the university’s rules.”
Ms. O’Malley said that the university was not retaliating for Mr. Williams’s comments or actions.
Mr. Williams said he will file an appeal with the university in the next few days but isn’t optimistic about the outcome. He declined to comment on whether he would take any further action against the university if his appeal is denied.