A faculty member claimed that his academic unit, and in particular myself as its head, did not properly credit him for his peer-reviewed publications. As a result, he asserted, his raises were inappropriately low for a number of years. He requested money to make up for the claimed losses, and a change in base salary to bring it to the level he thought proper. Importantly for our present topic, my colleague said that his beliefs about some nonacademic matters were well known and unpopular in the unit, and that they were the real reason for his low raises. In short, he claimed that the unit was violating its own standards for determining merit increases and that I knowingly abetted this action. If correct, then I was behaving unethically.

My colleague filed a formal grievance in accordance with university procedures. He also hired a lawyer, thereby raising my blood pressure a few points. The university then provided an attorney to assist me, and another to serve as counsel to the three-person hearing committee that was composed of faculty members from other units on campus. The rules of procedure provided for the calling of witnesses, submitting documents and data, and so on. Neither side took issue with the process, which seemed quite fair.