But the record indicates that Bishop almost certainly met the standard for tenure. UAH had touted Bishop's skills as an investigator, and one of her inventions had generated $1.25 million in investment funds--at a school that was striving to enhance its research profile.
Tenure decisions generally involve an evaluation of skills in research, teaching, and service. I worked in higher education for almost 20 years, and my understanding is that research often carries far more weight than the other two components. Some reports indicate that Bishop received mixed reviews as a teacher, but more than 20 of her neuroscience students signed a petition supporting her bid for tenure. On her research record alone, Amy Bishop probably had earned tenure.
So, why was she denied? We know that her department chair, the person who should have been most familiar with her work, supported her candidacy. (The chair, Gopi Podila, was killed in the shooting.) We know that an unidentified faculty colleague spoke out in meetings against Bishop, claiming she was "crazy"--and his comments reportedly carried weight in the final tenure decision.
Did the faculty colleague have some special insight into Amy Bishop's behavior, and if so, why did her department chair not pick up on it? Did the faculty colleague have a genuine reason to believe Bishop was crazy or was he possibly jealous about her research successes? What really went on with the decision to deny Amy Bishop tenure?
The University of Alabama probably will do everything in its power to make sure the public never learns the answers to those questions. We suspect that means the victims and their families eventually will receive significant sums from the university for their pain and suffering. But the truth about what happened with the tenure process, in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting, probably will never be known.
Victims and their families, of course, deserve compensation--and behind-the-scenes negotiations probably are going on now. Some of the lawsuits have named Bishop and her husband as defendants, but there is not much money to be found there. The deep pockets, and much of the legal liability, lie with the university.
Why? One of two scenarios seem to apply here:
* The university failed to follow its own procedures, causing Amy Bishop to wrongfully be denied tenure--and she snapped under the strain of an injustice; or
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
