next »

[yukidaruma]

Dear all,

Update from intelligence gathering. Things are perhaps starting to seem a little fairer on the board.

The reason being given for the non-renewal of contracts for existing teachers is that of primarily improving the University’s status and also the quality of the teachers and their ability here. According to a letter from the President, there have been 402 applications from around the world for the faculty positions and it has been decided that there will be 20 faculty members hired and 8 staff members.

**********

Ethical concerns about the manner of dismissal of the existing faculty aside for one moment, what concerns me is that the replacements being brought to the University. I have heard from several sources that the focus is on PhD holders (or equivalent), publications, educational background as well as teaching experience (etc). This is all good for a research University, but AIU is still small and I fear there may be a danger of directing funds into research projects, travels and publications in order to raise the status, to the detriment of the students. There are plans to open a graduate school at AIU, so PhD holders in relevant areas will be necessary of course.

As has been pointed out, having a PhD or fantastic publications does not make a good teacher, nor make up for years of teaching experience. Furthermore, the students will have to adjust to a large amount of unfamiliar faces and teaching styles. This is potentially worse for those AIU students currently on their year abroad, as they have virtually no say in this matter, and probably aren’t even aware of it.

Of course, it is perfectly possible the replacements are marvellous teachers, but we are at the administration’s verdict on that and there can be no easy way to determine if there was any personal bias in the decision making. Being just students I doubt we could request examination of these methods. However, as quoted from the President’s letter, 6th December:

“A month was spent assessing the research achievements, educational backgrounds and motives for application of these applicants. Each of the 34 short-listed faculty candidates was asked to conduct a demonstration class and was later interviewed by the President, both Vice Presidents, Dean of Academic Affairs, and each program director. Eleven candidates for staff positions were also interviewed. Those who were selected after careful consideration were discussed and officially selected at the University Management Committee and the Academic Affairs Executive Committee, both held in late November. Candidates were notified of the selection results on December 1.”

***********

Secondly, the reason for the unequal treatment of the faculty and other positions during the mass position advertisement during (and before?) September seems to be being given as the need to keep the Directors (and others) because of their academic abilities and to prevent putting the University at risk during the selection process. I do not know the legal side regarding this treatment, but I suspect that since the President holds all the power at this University (title of gakuchou and rijichou, whose roles are usually played by different people – correct me if I’m wrong), it may well be legitimate. Being fair on the other hand is another matter. And all those applying to AIU of course must wonder if this sort of situation is likely to happen again. Sources say it’s unlikely but…

However, at the base of the President’s letter is it written as follows:

“For faculty whom regrettably we could not hire, we would like to offer as much assistance as possible in their efforts to seek employment elsewhere.”

Perhaps others here could confirm is such help is being given?

**********

To hark back to an old line on nepotism, I have heard on fairly good authority another view of the case. Apparently when the President suggested he bring his son studying for a PhD in Sociology to teach at the University, he did so because he couldn’t find any other teachers. The son was said to have been very reluctant and seemed a nice person and was in a position he couldn’t easily refuse, even though the President and others at hand new how bad it looked on record. The AAEC decided it was acceptable and his son apparently came to teach for two winters. I haven’t checked the records on the length, but there you have an alternate version of that story. Take it or leave it.

**********

To further expound on some points regarding the President’s history, I will attempt to write what I heard. However, I don’t claim this to be exceptionally accurate, so those with an interest would do well to read up on it in detail. Apparently when Dr. Nakajima was President of TUFS in Tokyo and was approaching the term for renewal of Presidency there was another person there (female?) who was in a position where (s)he would receive a grant should she be voted in as President. It seems the faculty there may have done things in attempts to make Dr. Nakajima look bad and eventually he didn’t get the vote. He did do some good things there too however, such as moving the old TUFS campus to a new one in order to raise the University up. Again, take it with a pinch of salt. I’m only relaying the things I’ve heard from a fairly good source.

**********

There is one last area I wanted to mention that I’ve heard rumours about, and that is the general feeling regarding MSUA. There does indeed seem to be a very negative feeling towards that University and a strong desire to disassociate AIU from it. How much bearing this has on the treatment of staff who used to work there and are also associated with MSUA, I feel is worthy of questioning. There certainly seems to be enough desire there that is could influence decisions, and I’ve heard from other sources similar concerns, both those who are having their contracts renewed and those who aren’t.

********
********

Finally, I wish to make clear that my intentions are only to bring light to this situation. Hopefully some semblance of truth may appear, but I fear that the student voice may not have much to push with. It is difficult to see how these faculty changes will affect students and more and more the real problems seem to be pointing towards the particular system in place at this University, that is, the top-down President-power-heavy one. Issues of humanity regarding the way the faculty have been treated also arise. We will keep trying to find the truth and a good solution for this as best we can however.

[disappointed]

Thank you, Yukidaruma, for your excellent invetsigative reporting. Your work scouting for the facts has made this an even more balanced discussion and more research will shed more light on this issue/controversy (to fire or not to fire, experienced faculty). Keep your head up and talk around a bit more. You like many others have probably been told that the 3-year contract was a given for those who signed up to work at AIU.
As a teacher, I was under the distinct impression that my work, if recognized as positive, would be rewarded with an extension. In fact, extensions were given to all program directors (despite much negative feedback from faculty and otjers about at least one of them) and some others. That is an area that needs a closer look.

Reports are filtering in to faculty that the president is preparing meetings with students to calm their minds & ease their worries. Many of us suspect that the truth will be bent in these sessisons. It might be interesting for you or some other student to record what you hear.

Thanks for your efforts!

[klutzklitz]

Yukidaruma,

You are to be commended for your intrepid detective work. As I'm sure you are fast discovering there are more than two sides to this story. Almost everybody on the inside, except administration apologists sworn to defend the party line, will give you their own unique impression of what has happened. You are also correct that the crux of the problem is the overwhelming concentration of power in the President's hands. The head of the school could be the most noble person in the world and these improprieties would still occur because as one wag put it earlier, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

No matter how it is spun the fact of the matter is that a large number of experienced faculty, on the whole judged very favorably by their peers and their students, were summarily dumped. At least two of these people possess the vaunted PhD. Some of those eventually let go were given the "privilege" of a job interview but by most indications these were show trials since their death warrants had already been signed. Who knows, there may have been perfectly decent reasons to get rid of one, two, or many of these faculty but the point is, there were no checks and balances, no due process, and no fair play involved in the personnel decisions. Until these institutional defects are resolved this kind of madness will recur, to the ultimate detriment of the students' education.

What I frankly find appalling is going to the AIU wesbite and looking through the AIU brochures and seeing images again and again of laid off faculty who were not given judicious treatment. Until recently the administration was entirely willing to portray these folks as the public face of AIU. Something is really rotten here.

[freshair]

Hi Yukidaruma, other students and those interested in AIU,

You have posted a lot of interesting information in your latest e-mail and I would like to commend you again on your hard work and investigative digging.  You really are trying to find out was has been happening and to make AIU better.  As Klutz has said, hat's off to you and other students working on this.

[freshair]

Dear All,

To follow up on my previous message about nepotism, here is a link to the Chronicle pages that advertise jobs/job searches in sociology:http://chronicle.com/jobs/100/800/8000/

Yukidaruma if you look at the job notices there you will see that universities and colleges almost uniformly REQUIRE a Ph.D. before someone can even APPLY for a position.  Here for instance, are representative schools currently  looking for assistant professors in sociology and their requirements:

Washington State University:  "Ph.D. in Sociology or very related field required..."

U. of Guelph (Canada):  "Applicants must have completed a Ph.D. in Sociology..."

U. of Macau:  "Applicants should possess a Ph.D. degree in sociology from an accredited institution..."

Siena College:  "applicants must hold a Ph.D. in Sociology"

One other note and this is alluded to by Klutz in his last, informative post.  This nepotism is taking place at a place that holds itself out to the rest of the world as being globalized, international and innovative.  In fact, the most recent brochures for the university claim AIU is the most innovative univesity in Japan!   Nepotism is not new or innovative; it smacks of Japan's feudal past just like the Bushido book which President Nakajima requires all AIU students to read and write a report on before they graduate.  This really is hypocrisy on a grand scale. 

[outsideadvisor]

general information:

Although the standard in most universities in the U.S. and Europe, especially those where research is the focus, is the PhD (fundamentally, a research degree), in universities, departments or programs elsewhere -- and even many in America and Europe -- dedicated still to students and teaching, an MA is often acceptable (or even desired), for teachers and even administrative/supervisory staff. In this same Chronicle, you can now find these listings.

Miami Dade College: Chairperson of ESL  --- 
Masters/ PhD preferred

American University of Kuwait: Intensive English Program Director ---
               MA in ESL

Harvard University Institute of English: Preceptorship ---
               MA/ PhD preferred

University of Qatar: ESL Program Lecturer ---
               MA in TESOL

[asa29]

I can't comment on AIU or the Japanese system as a whole as relates to research / publications, as an outsider. I'm aware that AIU is teaching-focused through necessity, despite grand designs of the prefecture (it's supposed to exist to produce KTP for regional development), although also aware that a graduate school is in the pipeline. Am I wrong to think that under the Japanese system most research comes out of private institutes, often linked to industry?

I have been a student in Japan which informs my perspective, and it's from this that I can say that AIU does have a claim to be innovative - just because it is quite different to any other Japanese university I have ever visited in terms of its seminar-focused teaching and its atmosphere, even before you add in the English language and study abroad requirement. Put it this way, my jaw hit the floor.

I am not a cultural apologist (sorry - think they call themselves "relativists") by any means, but hoping that any institution in Japan, however innovative, is going to be able to operate outside the whole system of kone is expecting too much. It can be a hell of a frustrating place to deal with, however much experience you have. Having said that, an again from an outsider's point of view, not that of someone who would ever look to work for a Japanese university, I've found AIU generally very open to work with, dare I say "flexible"?

I am not making these comments with the intention of winding anyone up, but just to illustrate that personal experiences are not necessarily shared.

Regarding common practice in academia, the most comprehensive guide for foreign faculty is Debito's list which I've been aware of for about 5 years. I think the guy goes OTT, but even a quick glance is enough to disabuse you of the notion that anything AIU has been accused of is not common practice. Better than the norm is still not great, but when he warns you that you are a "pigeon to be plucked", not to bring your spouse and kids and  that the whole system is a racket... well, that's your common practice for you. I would at least make sure I armed myself with fluent Japanese.

With appreciation that just because Debito said it, it wouldn't necessarily stand up in a court of law, and in the understanding that I have no reason to disbelieve that people have been unfairly treated at AIU.

[yukidaruma]

English explanation from the President on University policies and the recruitment of new staff.


December 12, 2006

Dear AIU Students:

   The following is a message about the “new faculty and staff” recruitment policy.

        On November 30, the results of the recruitment and selection of faculty and staff were sent to everyone who applied for a teaching position.  Since faculty/staff and students constitute the foundation of our university, as President and Chair of the Board of Trustees of our university, I gave a great deal of serious thought to the selection of  faculty/staff for AIU’s further development.  This matter was discussed for long hours at the Academic Affairs Executive Committee and the University Management Committee  before the applicants were eventually notified of the results.
 
Since this is the very first time since our university opened that we have dealt with a faculty/staff reshuffle, let me explain our policy on faculty/staff employment in case you may be experiencing feelings of anxiety about it.

 AIU’s Basic Stance on Personnel Policy   

Before AIU was launched as Japan’s first independent public university corporation, the recruitment and employment of faculty and staff was one of the most critical issues thoroughly debated at the Foundation and Preparatory Committee meetings.  The content of the discussions over this particular issue may be found in the minutes of the meetings and it was also reported by the media.  Fully aware that many existing universities, especially those run by the government and local governments, have lost their vitality and international competitiveness because of their inflexible and stale  employment policies, we fully discussed and considered what kind of personnel policy should be adopted in order to establish a new and innovated university that sets itself apart from conventional ones in Japan.  Akita International University came into being as a result.  In November 2002, a year and a half before AIU opened, I , as President-to-be, made public a message which referred to the distinct characteristics of AIU, including: “More than half of our faculty members are non-Japanese,” “All Japanese students are required to study abroad for a year,” and, “A functional and flexible university management system will be adopted.”  I elaborated by adding, “In order to successfully meet the needs of society and the times, we will, under the leadership of the President, introduce the performance evaluation and the fixed-term contract systems and build a functional and flexible university system by which faculty members can devote themselves to education and research.”  Based on this philosophy and goal, which were clearly mentioned in the brochure and other publicity materials used in preparation for the start of AIU, we set about recruiting faculty/staff  from around the world for the first three years of our university.  First and foremost, I would like to gain your understanding of this particular feature of AIU, which cannot be found at other institutions of higher learning.

AIU’s Personnel —
Fixed-Term Contract and Performance Evaluation

All AIU faculty and staff members—except those on loan, those hired midway through the year, or part-time workers—have a three-year contract.  Their contracts are renewable only through mutual agreement.  A contract that is not renewed does not mean “dismissal,” nor is it permissible to dismiss anyone unilaterally without proper reasons during the period of contract.  All full-time faculty and staff members are subject to an annual evaluation of work performance.  The results of the evaluation are reflected in their annual salary the following year and are utilized for renewing their contracts as a reference.  Contracts are signed based on the mutual understanding of these two points.
 
The exercise of these systems is an entirely new attempt as far as Japanese universities are concerned.  In conventional Japanese universities, where a lifelong employment system is the norm, not a few faculty members stay on until retirement without publishing any research papers and/or improving the quality of their teachings.  Having decided not to have the same tendency happen to our university, we adopted totally new contract and evaluation systems with the aim of incorporating a friendly spirit of competition into our university.  If faculty/staff members are allowed to keep their jobs at the university where they are employed without meeting any particular requirements, it could undermine the flexibility and mobility of the institution, thus making it extremely difficult to improve the curriculum in such ways as to address the changes that take place in society as well as its needs.  I would say that this is an inevitable choice, given that universities now face a fierce competition for survival and that our university is aiming to establish itself as a top-class university in the world.

Recent Recruitment and Selection of Faculty and Staff 

In view of many different factors, including the level of progress our students have made in English, it is necessary that we make a substantial reform of the curriculum which has been implemented for the past three years, improve the content of courses, and devise ways to strengthen the working system of the administration office.  For the Global Studies Program, which is now being expanded, we need new faculty members to offer courses in East Asian “areas” such as China, South Korea, Far Eastern Russia, and Mongolia.  Within a Professional Graduate School Global Communications, which will be established at our university in 2008, we have a definite need to build a systematic and cooperative organization in which our limited human resources can be best utilized.
 
    
           Based on this policy and personnel system of our university, we decided to advertise for candidates for faculty and staff positions instead of automatically renewing the contracts of those three-year contracts which will conclude at the end of March 2007.  However, those faculty and staff members were also entitled to apply.  I said this orally and in writing to all faculty and staff members on July 31, based on our Employment Contract.

We received, including applications from inside of AIU, 402 applications for faculty positions from around the world, and 26 applications for staff positions from around the country.  A month was spent carefully assessing the application documents of all candidates by myself, our two Vice Presidents, Dean of Academic Affairs and each Director; these were eventually narrowed down to 34.  Each applicant was asked to conduct a demonstration class and then later was interviewed.  Eleven applicants for staff positions were rated through an interview.

Competition for positions at our university proved to be much stiffer than I had expected, both in terms of research achievements and practical experience in education.   Twenty faculty members were selected for appointment, including some who applied from inside of AIU.
 
Due to the revision of Japan’s School Education Law, teaching positions at AIU will be classified in four categories: professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and lecturer.  Those in the position of assistant professor and above, except those with practical experience, will all be Ph.D. holders in principle.  My belief is that with the advent of what is called the age of “Intellectual Explosion,” which is expected to form the foundation of a knowledge-based society,   it is essential for those who teach at a university to experience, as educators, the demanding process that leads up to acquiring a Ph.D.
 
As for staff members, we decided to hire eight people who we judged to have a high communication skills and competence in English.
 
    Obviously, working with a fixed-term contract is unstable as compared to the lifelong employment system.  Therefore, in parallel with a fixed-term contract system,   we are considering adopting the so-called tenure system, which is thought of as a “right to lifelong employment” in the U.S., for our faculty.  We are also considering a new, separate system for staff members.
 
    I am deeply grateful to the faculty and staff members who have been with AIU since its opening, for the hard work they have given our university and students.  For those we regrettably could not hire, I would like to offer as much assistance as possible in their efforts to seek employment elsewhere.

The personnel system of our institution is a novel attempt and challenge not only for universities in Japan, but also for those overseas.  Once again, I seek the understanding and support of this feature of AIU from our faculty, staff, and students.

As President and Chair of the Board of Trustees of AIU, I promise our students that I will do everything within my power to develop our university to the highest level possible.  Please do your best at your studies, as you always have done.


Mineo Nakajima, Ph.D.
President   

[crypto]

Yukidaruma - thank you for posting Nakajima's letter in its entirety.

> nor is it permissible to dismiss anyone unilaterally without proper
> reasons during the period of contract.  All full-time faculty and
> staff members are subject to an annual evaluation of work performance.

He does not even mention how the evaluations were performed!  If they were unilateral in nature, as reported here repeatedly, then dismissal of faculty members based on such highly biased evaluation is indeed unilateral, which he says is not permissible.

The fact that he did not even try to support validity of the evaluations using words such as "bilateral", "unbiased", and "balanced", speaks for itself.

Yukidaruma, if I were you I would ask the administration for the results of student evaluations for the fired AND retained faculty members, if they are not publicly available.  The main objective of AIU, as promised to the people of Akita Prefecture, was education.  There should be at least decent, if not very strong, correlation between those who scored high in student evaluation and those who were retained.

[concernedinakita]

In line with AIU hiring guidelines and practices,
these questions must be asked:

Dr. Nakajima, how many year contract do you have?

How many points did you receive last year?
 
Who is responsible for evaluating your performance?

[awakichicomm]

Dr. Nakajima may be a decent man, and a sincere man. Some people don’t simply like his way to led a university. Or they don’t like whom he and his staff choose to “fire.” So they speak badly about him. On the other hand ... you can tell a lot more about any man, look at what he does in the politics.

Look at the speeches he gives. I read online about the speeches Nakijima gave on front of US-Japan Society Incorparated audience. Oh it is too, too much too believe. Ths man is suppose to represnt a world universiity for the times, our new technology age. So why does he show so much hate for China? Why does he think Taiwan is almost it’s OWN little colony and its best friend America is a big protector of thecolony? Maybe the AIU president also wants Japan to build up its military navy and make America just a little anxiety about going to far? Why does he scare all us about China being a rising bully, this sounds like Rumsfield from U.S. These are my question…I think I know all his answers all ready. This is not about the harmonious society in East Asia. He accuses China of hegemonist, he should look into his own eye.

     He is like new hard wing of Japan liberal party. He reminds of very dangerous mayor in Toyko, his name is [was]Ishihara. They call them neonationalistics. They don’t like soft Japan, including secure jobs for their own people anymore. Good Safe jobs doesn’t make them competitive doesn’t make them ready for the fights that are coming.He calls it about being global and about healthy competition but it is abot tough and scared for what he sees as China’s threat. He brings this attitude to the management practice of AIU. Too bad for staffs and faculties there. Someone on the INternet use the “feudal’ word and that may seem to be the mentalities but it is really going to be about the right attitude for the “China challenge”!

So maybe it is not the perfect way to tell. But I belief you can learn a lot through it. Look at what the man says about the world affairs in fromt of people especially Japanese people (and also American people)he expects are friendly and will not be made uneasy. Noone will act inpolite to an elder  gentleman.

There it is, you see it now?The people in Japan should not want this kind of human being in charge of their university, many of them want good relations with all country’s. Many of them want peaceful development in Asia and all places but not the typing of peace Nakjima speaks. “global AIU” is a pretty window for all to see happily but it is tricking –someone said it right before.

I am not disliking the person …I am talking factfully about how he comes cross himself toward others. Its all here: http://www.ajstokyo.org/ajs_e/mineo_nakajima-e.html

[concernedinakita]

Memory problems seem to plague the AIU administration.

Re Akita International University (AIU)

The accusations that both got their jobs through cronyism approaches slander.

Neither had any prior friendship or professional relationship with the president. True, one works in the same China field as the president. But because their views on China are radically different they would not have met more than five or six times in the thirty years before going to Akita.

Quote from Gregory Clark's Life Story:
"One of Japan’s top scholars on China, Nakajima Mineo, was later to tell me how my theory about the 1958 Taiwan Straits crisis underlying the Sino-Soviet dispute of the early 1960’s was a major break-though in his own thinking about China.

Nakajima was somewhat anti-Beijing, and, like quite a few rightwing Japanese scholars, he was a frequent visitor to the ANU. But unlike our ANU conservatives he managed to retain some sense of academic curiosity and objectivity.

His appreciation of my book was later to help me very much in Japan. He was even to invite me in 2002 to help him set up an international university in Akita, in northern Japan."

http://www.gregoryclark.net/lifestory/page4/page4.html

"Neither had any prior friendship or professional relationship with the president." ?
Mr. Clark writes profusely, so much so, that he seems to be having memory problems.

For further reading on this subject check out what Vice President Gregory Clark has to say.
http://groups.google.co.jp/group/GregoryClarknet/browse_thread/thread/b1417f20dde8a053/24b121e223285659?lnk=raot&hl=ja&fwc=1

http://www.debito.org/gregoryclarkfabricates.html#original
Scroll down to: EXCHANGE BETWEEN PETER HADFIELD, AUTHOR OF THE CITED USA TODAY ARTICLE, AND GREGORY CLARK

[floating]

Let me repeat that this forum should NOT be a place to humiliate someone. Criticism and humiliation should be strictly distiguished.

[allies]

Sorry that much of this will be rehash, but Nakajima sent a lengthy propaganda missive to all faculty and students about contracts. To that, this reply:

Purpose:
Concerned faculty members maintain that the basic issue should not be
obscured by references to meeting minutes before AIU opened, or statements
made for the public in 2003 (part of Nakajima's smokescreen). Conversely, let’s look directly at the wording describing faculty’s fixed termed contracts.

Faculty Contracts
“ARTICLE 16. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT. When this Contract expires, the Employer
and the Employee can renew the Contract, subject to mutual agreement by both
parties.
2. The Employer shall indicate its will about the renewal to the Employee no
later than five (5) months before the expiration of the Contract. <snip>”

On July 31, President Nakajima announced in writing, essentially, that the terms of the
contract had changed, with these statements:

•   Those contracts will be terminated on the date of expiration.
•   The University, however, reserves its right to negotiate with individual
faculty and staff members for a new contract, when necessary.

The wording “…contracts will be terminated” has to be interpreted to mean,
‘There will be no renewals.’ Similarly, telling faculty at that time that
they needed to reapply clearly indicated there were no renewals. Offering no
renewal options was a serious and flagrant violation of contract.

At the same time, President Nakajima met privately with certain faculty
members, telling them, despite the new contract terms (“termination”), that
they in fact didn’t need to follow re-application procedures even though he
had recently claimed that everyone had to reapply. Instead, they were
promised a job, and were told to keep it secret. (Are we in elementary
school, or a university?) If nothing improper were taking place, why would
those meetings have been kept secret?

It’s also worth mentioning that, contrary to the president’s assurances in
his letter, every indication and implication made from April 2004 was that
if faculty members worked hard, taught with dedication, published papers,
presented at conferences, and got good evaluations from colleagues and
students, they would be able to continue teaching at AIU indefinitely. Many
teachers –even those not renewed -- accomplished those goals and much more.

Fixed Term Contract System
President Nakajima attempted to portray AIU’s fixed term contract system as
something unique, but it’s not. Usually fixed term contracts, often
nonrenewable at Japanese universities, are offered only to foreigners. AIU
is unique in that it treats foreigners and Japanese equally poorly. These
contracts are not unique, and are not ethical.

Why should faculty who perform well in every measurable way be forced out
with non-renewal? What kind of system would want to force individuals to
find a new job every three years, and then move with families to a new city,
and adjust to a new situation? Do students want such a job in this “new
Japan?” If you hope to someday find a steady job that you can keep for more
than three years, then support the dismissed faculty.

Remember, we are NOT suggesting that faculty receive “guaranteed lifetime
employment” (Nakajima had assured everyone AIU was saving academia from this hideous notion of lifetime employment) Surely, there is a middle point between a tenure system that doesn’t allow a university to dismiss problematic faculty and a system such
as AIU’s that has dismissed approximately 30% of its faculty after just
three years.

Faculty members actually have supported, in principle, an evaluation system,
as long as the process of evaluation is conducted fairly and transparently.
At AIU the process has been neither fair nor transparent. Positive peer and
student evaluations and significant faculty contributions have been ignored
or minimized.

Faculty members only claim their right to a fair chance to renew, as the
contract states, and that accomplishments and good evaluations be rewarded
with contract renewal. It is reasonable to not renew those who act
improperly, or perform poorly. However, AIU choose to not renew some faculty
members for unsupportable reasons.

Ph.D.’s
President Nakajima claims that, in principle, Ph.D.’s are needed, yet the
vice presidents of this university, Mr. Yoshio and Mr. Clark, do not have
such degrees. (Yoshio does not even hold a Master’s degree. Yet he, with
more experience in bureaucracy than education, is a full professor.) Mr.
Katsumata, Director of the Library and an ex-student and friend of Dr.
Nakajima, somehow rose to his position lacking both a Ph.D. and a Master’s
degree. Other older Japanese men on campus lack a Ph.D. as well. Dr.
Nakajima may value their life experience. However, he does not seem to value
the 15- to 25-year professional experience (in university programs similar
to AIU’s) that many non-renewed faculty members have. To ignore these
people’s experience while rewarding Katsumata’s and Yoshio’s seems
hypocritical.

Faculty members feel that everyone should be judged on all their actions and
accomplishments. However, this letter is pointing out: (1) gross
inconsistencies that show stated policy does not conform to reality; and (2)
even the top universities in the world do not require all Ph.D.s.

The Situation
Complaints about this situation are pouring in from all areas of AIU and the
community—from students here and abroad, faculty, and the public—and
President Nakajima’s long message was an attempt to “put out that fire.”
However, the fire that AIU administration started with irresponsible actions
won’t be put out so easily. Like with all controversies, students (and
teachers) should gain a broad perspective, learn the facts, think deeply,
then speak their minds.

President Nakajima himself, as a student, led a major demonstration (about a
political matter).

AIU students pay fees to this school and have a right to get honest
information about its policies and procedures, to express opinions and to
organize responses, and to take action if they feel so inspired.

[yukidaruma]

With the issue on the contract front, I'm a little puzzled.

The argument being used is as follows:

1) When this Contract expires, the Employer and the Employee can renew the Contract, *subject to mutual agreement by both
parties.*
2) The Employer *shall indicate its will about the renewal* to the Employee no later than five (5) months before the expiration of the Contract.

The latter part bearing no relevance because the contract termination of the contracts to expire in March was decided at a meeting this past July, more than 5 months in advance in other words.

Here is where I find it hard to follow. The contract states renewal by mutual agreement. Yet the management disagrees about this fact (ostensibly in the case of all faculty) and "indicates its will" not to renew any contracts. In other words, the management is not agreeing, so the will to renew is not mutual.

Therefore, why is "Offering no renewal options...a serious and flagrant violation of contract." ?

**********

I am just pointing out that this particular argument seems very weak to me. Of course, I have no understandiing of legal matters regarding contracts, so perhaps there is more to it than I realise. If somebody would be so kind as to show me where this argument fails I would welcome it, otherwise I don't see how a breach of contract has actually ocurred.

Similarly, with the case of the secret renewals I've heard about, the contract also states:

"The University, however, reserves its right to negotiate with individual faculty and staff members for a new contract, when necessary."

Which would undoubtedly be used in defense against the accusations of some staff being reassured they would get a contract renewal while others wouldn't. It's still very strange and as someone rightly said, very unprofessional in such an institution however.

**********

I still feel there are many things wrong with the system at this University and have questions about the decision-making practices and ethical implications and motives behind decisions, but I'm afraid from a contractual point of view that I cannot find much argument, however unusual the practice of non-renewal without just reason really is. I have to admit though, the wording 'by mutual agreement' is extremely vague and leaves little to work with. If the contract had said 'without good reason' or something to that effect, then perhaps it could be questioned...

I don't know. I'd like to hear from others on this. Am I missing something here or is the contract argument a dead end? Let's try to stick to facts on this particular issue. If the argument is to be used it needs to be strong.

*************

Oh, and above when somebody pointed out the flaws in a previous post of mine, I largely agree that if there was no proper recruitment that it can still be questioned about the President's son being hired (regardless of whether he's a nice person ;) ). As I said though, I was just relaying things I've heard.