After Professor Abdulkader Sinno was suspended, faculty, students and other Indiana University community members spoke out. This person at a January protest claimed IU violated policy by suspending Sinno.
(Devan Ridgway, WTIU)
The suspension of professor Abdulkader Sinno did not follow the correct policy, according to the Indiana University Bloomington Board of Review. The board said Sinno should have been given a chance to defend himself while facing severe sanctions.
Sinno, Palestine Solidarity Committee’s advisor at the time, was suspended for two semesters in December after the group held a public event without an approved room request. The suspension prompted outrage from some faculty and IU community members, as well as an investigation by the review board.
The board’s opinion stated Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs Carrie Docherty did not act in accordance with Bloomington campus policy while pursuing severe sanctions.
The board said Provost Rahul Shrivastav should direct Docherty to follow the correct policy or decrease the punishment.
Sinno said in an email he is “deeply appreciative” of faculty, students and alumni who have rallied to support him, and he’s grateful for the “commendable professionalism” of the review board.
“VPFAA Docherty’s behavior so transparently violated the values and policies we hold dear at IU that colleagues easily saw through it,” Sinno said. “This case is not about me as much as it is about the need to protect IU against the egregious violations by current administrative leaders of academic freedom, free speech, faculty protections and shared governance.”
The next step in Sinno’s case depends on Shrivastav, Sinno said.
Shrivastav has supported Docherty and her interpretation of policy. At a Jan. 16 Faculty Council meeting, he said faculty have a right to appeal sanctions or discipline to a panel of their peers, but campus policy and university policy differ on when they can do so.
“If the faculty board of review feels a given policy has not been followed appropriately and makes that recommendation to me — for example, to refer a matter to campus policy which may involve faculty misconduct committees instead of or in addition to their review — I am happy and I'm committing here today, that I will act on that recommendation as appropriate,” Shrivastav said.
Shrivastav was asked at an April 2 meeting if he would uphold the Board of Review’s recommendations to correct Sinno’s punishment, but he declined multiple times to comment on legal and personnel matters.
An IU spokesperson also declined to comment on personal matters.
What does the Faculty Board of Review say?
After the Palestine Solidarity Committee event, Associate Vice President for Public Safety Benjamin Hunter filed a complaint against Sinno. Hunter claimed Sinno “compromised university security” with the event. Docherty’s office investigated and suspended Sinno.
“As the result of your conduct during the interview, your credibility deficiencies, my concerns regarding your judgment in advising the student organization, your failures to follow relevant policies and procedures, and evidence obtained during the investigation, I have serious concerns about the effect your behavior may have on members of the campus community,” Docherty wrote to Sinno in December.
But the Faculty Review Board said Docherty followed incorrect policy in a March 28 opinion. After Sinno’s suspension, some disputed which policy applied to his case. The board determined that because Docherty sought severe sanctions, she should have followed a policy on faculty disciplinary procedures, BL-ACA-D27, instead of another university policy reserved for non-severe sanctions.
The Board said if Docherty followed the correct procedure, Sinno would have been able to defend himself to the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee. Then, the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee would have made recommendations for sanctions to the provost. Docherty or another administrator would not have sanctioned Sinno.
The board said Shrivastav should direct Docherty to act in accordance with BL-ACA-D27 and present Sinno’s case to the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee if she wants to continue with the severe sanctions. If Docherty continues with sanctioning Sinno with the other, original university policy, she can only seek non-severe sanctions.
According to the opinion, Docherty argued she followed university policy, saying it supersedes Bloomington’s policy for discipline.
She also provided a Confidential Dossier to the board, containing reports relating to the suspension, anonymous bias reports and documentation of conflicts dating back to 2019. The board asked Docherty to share it with Sinno so he is aware of the allegations and can defend himself, Sinno said.
Docherty refused to provide the dossier to Sinno, the opinion said, so it was not included in the board’s investigation or opinion. Sinno said he learned about the dossier from the review board.
“I also learned that this administration does not shy away from weaponizing the IU General Counsel office against faculty,” Sinno said. “This is not supposed to be the purpose of the IUGC.”
The board said none of Docherty’s arguments were persuasive.
“If the VPFAA decides to pursue this case before the FMRC she should be careful to bring forward any and all accusations that are the basis for sanctions,” the opinion concluded. “Full disclosure gives Professor Sinno notice of the claims against him and a chance to respond. This is necessary for the efficient operation of our disciplinary procedures and the fulfillment of the university’s obligations to Professor Sinno under university policies and the U.S. Constitution.”
The Bloomington Faculty Council decided to clarify the policies in question after confusion over which ones applied to Sinno’s case.
Aubrey is our higher education reporter and a Report For America corps member. Contact her at aubmwrig@iu.edu or follow her on X @aubreymwright.
