ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR YEARS OF EDITORIAL FREEDOM
Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Ann Arbor, Michigan
michigandaily.com
Former SMTD professor alleges provost’s misconduct throughout his tenure review, Daily investigation finds
Abigail Schad/DAILY
AMER GOEL
Focal Point Reporter
O
n July 29, 2020, Susan Collins, former University of Michigan provost, sent a letter to David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance, in which she stated her decision to not recommend Somangshu Mukherji, former Music, Theatre & Dance School professor, for promotion and tenure. “I have reviewed this case with great care, consulted with reviewers whose judgment I trust, discussed it with the President, and in the end, I have decided not to support this recommendation,” her tenure decision reads. “The President has accepted my recommendation, and the promotion of Professor Mukherji will not be forwarded to the Regents.” In an April 2025 written statement to The Michigan Daily, Mukherji commented on this decision and the provost’s reasoning. “What sticks in my brain to this day, was the Provost’s justification for her decision. She did not cite a deficiency in my materials, or an issue raised by any of the individuals or bodies empowered to decide tenure at the University,” he wrote. “Instead—using a phrase that summons images of backroom politics and rigged elections— she indicated that she had rejected my tenure case based on the opinions of unidentified, unnamed ‘reviewers whose judgment I trust.’” A three-month investigation by The Daily found the Office of the Provost — including Collins and Sara Blair, vice provost for academic and faculty affairs — has allegedly engaged in several levels of misconduct throughout the process of handling Mukherji’s tenure case. This included two nonstandard private evaluations with opinions from at least one
person who was found guilty of harassing Mukherji by the Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX office, overturning an official University decision that reprimanded the provost, and denying their own written policies in the Michigan court of claims, alleging that these policies are non-binding. The Daily reviewed thousands of pages of legal documents, appeals, internal University documents and official University guidelines throughout this investigation. The Daily also sent multiple requests for comment to Collins and Blair, but did not receive a response from Collins. Blair forwarded the request to the Public Affairs office. “The university does not comment on personnel matters,” University spokesperson Kay Jarvis wrote in an email to The Daily. In his written statement, Mukherji reflected on his emotions throughout his tenure dispute. He expressed his feelings of powerlessness within the University following the provost’s decision not to recommend him for tenure. “Her statement left me feeling very troubled, and uncertain about the institution to which I had committed myself. By the time the Provost subsequently overturned the grievance finding in my favor, my feelings had changed to frustration and powerlessness,” he wrote. “It was not simply that the Provost had taken an action that she was not empowered to take, especially given her clear and material conflict of interest. … It was that her action reflected an individual (and a University) that had no interest in rules, laws or ethics, or even basic notions of right and wrong.”
“Her action reflected (an individual) that had no interest in rules” Section six of the Faculty Handbook, which specifies
GOT A NEWS TIP? Call us at 734-763-2459 or e-mail news@michigandaily.com and let us know.
how University officials like the provost can interact with, promote or terminate faculty members, outlines the process for granting tenure at the University. First, the relevant faculty member goes under an internal departmental review. During this review, the executive committee (consisting of professors of the faculty member’s school), the dean of the school and the chair of their department compile a recommendation for tenure based on review letters from other scholars in the relevant academic area. That recommendation then goes to the Office of the Provost, where the provost decides whether they want to accept, reject or reevaluate it. If they accept or reject it, they forward a positive or negative recommendation to the University’s Board of Regents, who ultimately decide if tenure is granted. If they reevaluate it, they send it back to the faculty member’s school to gain more information or reconsider if the school wants to recommend promotion for tenure. In June 2018, the Department of Music Theory decided to consider Mukherji for the 20192020 academic year. In February 2020, Mukherji received a positive internal recommendation compiled by Gier based on nine positive and three negative accounts from faculty reviewers; a four positive, one negative and one abstain vote vote from the executive committee of the Music, Theatre & Dance School; and a positive recommendation from the chair of the Music Theory department. The Daily reached out to Gier for comment, but did not receive a response. In an interview with The Daily, Rebekah Modrak, current Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs chair, remarked on the provost’s review process. “We know that, in most cases, the review of tenure dossiers
Follow The Daily on Instagram,
@MICHIGANDAILY
that takes place in the provost’s office is fully administrative and is meant to ensure that all the reviews are accounted for and there’s been no bias,” Modrak said. When they received the internal recommendation compiled by Gier, the Office of the Provost initiated its tenure review process. However, this review was not fully administrative, and examined more than just accounts of recommendation or bias. Instead, it was a private review of the substance of the casebook, and for it, the provost recruited new faculty reviewers who were allegedly not disclosed to Mukherji or Gier and were not part of the original set of review letters included in Gier’s recommendation. According to section two of the Music, Theatre & Dance School Faculty Handbook, reviewers of a tenure casebook are required to come from a list of names submitted by the faculty member and their school’s dean. However, at least three of these reviewers were not suggested by Mukherji or Gier. “For a review involving promotion and/or tenure, the Dean will seek, in accordance with established University policies, confidential written statements concerning the work of the faculty member from all of the persons in the appropriate rank whose names are submitted by the faculty member and by the departmental Chair,” the handbook reads. “This procedure is also be used for the review of a candidate being hired from outside the School into a tenured faculty position in the School.” After evaluating all review letters submitted to Collins, the Office of the Provost’s Guiding Principles for Tenure Review for Instructional Review directs her to either accept or reject Gier’s recommendation or send Mukherji’s casebook
For more stories and coverage, visit
MICHIGANDAILY.COM
back to the Music, Theatre & Dance School for revaluation. “In reviewing both negative and positive recommendations for tenure and promotion, the Provost/EVPAA may accept the recommendation or send the case back to the school or college for reconsideration,” the principles read. The provost neither took Gier’s recommendation nor sent the casebook back to the Music, Theatre & Dance School. Instead, the office conducted a second review, this time including Gier but still excluding Mukherji. For this review, the provost directed Gier to select four more new reviewers, two internal to the Music, Theatre & Dance School and two external, outside the University entirely. The Daily has obtained a copy of Gier’s September 2023 deposition, included in a lawsuit filed by Mukherji over misconduct throughout his tenure review. In this deposition, Gier admitted to a second review process from the provost’s office, one for which he did not involve the chair of the department or Mukherji. The Faculty Handbook of tenure guidelines contain nothing about conducting a second review. The nature of this review brought concerns to Mukherji regarding section three of the Guiding Principles, which specified the need for transparency in the tenure review process. In an interview with The Daily, Kentaro Toyama, W.K. Kellogg professor of community information and a member of SACUA at the time it presided over Mukherji’s tenure case, remarked on the lack of transparency throughout Mukherji’s review process. “I think there are several problematic things about it that as faculty, I believe all tenure track faculty here should be concerned about,” Toyama said. “The first is the
INDEX Vol. CXXXVI No. 14 ©2025 The Michigan
opaque process of review that happened under then-Provost Susan Collins.”
“There are several problematic things about (the review)” During Mukherji’s lawsuit, his attorney Hideaki Sano questioned Blair about whether there are written policies pertaining to the provost’s tenure review process, Blair confirmed in her deposition that there are none. Sano did not respond to The Daily’s requests for comment. “There are no written policies,” Blair said, according to the transcript. “There are materials that are provided to reviewers that spell out the conduct of the process, the timeline for the process, the expectations of reviewers, remind them of things like the conflict of interest policy.” One of the reviewers that was not disclosed to Mukherji was Aleksandra Vojčić, associate professor of music. She was recruited by Gier for the second review and submitted an internal review letter for Mukherji’s casebook. However, Mukherji later discovered that Vojčić did not write the letter that she submitted by herself. Instead, she collaborated with her colleague Karen Fournier, associate professor of music, to write the letter. Fournier had previously harassed Mukherji, according to an ECRT investigation, and Fournier was not disciplined or terminated as a result of the ECRT investigation. The Daily has obtained a copy of an email sent to Mukherji confirming these allegations. It remains unclear why Fournier collaborated on Vojčić’s letter. Fournier and Vojčić did not respond to The Daily’s repeated requests for comment.
F O C A L P O I N T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 NEWS........................2 ARTS........................4
CONTINUED AT MICHIGANDAILY.COM
OPINION....................6 MIC...........................8 SPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10