Confidentiality in Appointments and Promotion Matters
 
Date:   March 3, 2006
To:      Yale Faculty
From: Andrew Hamilton, Provost
Re:     Confidentiality in Appointments and Promotion Matters

Dear Colleagues,

The University's tenure and appointments procedure is currently the subject of considerable discussion in the Yale community. A committee chaired by Deans Salovey and Butler will report later this spring or early in the fall on possible changes to our procedures. In this context and in several other quarters recently, issues about the confidentiality of our promotion and appointments deliberations have been raised and discussed. Even before the deliberations of the Salovey/Butler committee conclude, I believe it important to comment on the matter of confidentiality itself and the set of expectations of private communication that lie at the heart of our procedures for appointing and promoting members of the Yale faculty.

Confidentiality is essential to the fair and effective conduct of all personnel matters. Without confidentiality at every level, letters of recommendation cannot be detailed or reliable, the internal deliberations of a faculty meeting or of an appointments or tenure committee cannot be open or free, and the outcome cannot be trusted. Candid exchanges of opinion also are essential to the process. Without a shared commitment to confidentiality, members of these committees cannot trust each other in a way that is necessary for the full examination of the quality of candidates and for the protection of both the candidates and those engaged in the deliberation. The right and discerning decision can be reached only if all members of a committee feel free to express their honest opinion and respond in the same way to the opinions of others without fearing that these opinions will be made public. Breeches of confidentiality undermine both the validity of a specific discussion decision and confidence about future discussions in future meetings on that or any other candidate.

Our commitment to truth, fairness, and high standards is the bedrock of deliberations on appointments, and confidentiality can never become a license to convey inaccurate or inappropriate information. In fact, the best guard against the introduction of false or inappropriate information is the free and open exchange among peers protected by confidentiality in frank discussions where facts and opinions can be brought into the light, examined, and challenged. This cannot happen if members of departments and appointments committees begin withholding knowledge or opinions for fear that their expressions of honest doubt, support, and debate will be made public.

The outcome of departmental appointments discussions are properly conveyed confidentially only by the department chair to the appropriate dean, member of the Provost's Office, or higher committee, whichever is appropriate. All of us who participated in these discussions as faculty must not repeat or circulate anything said or communicated in these discussions. The department chair also frequently has the responsibility for conveying the outcome to the candidate in a letter or conversation containing a brief but clear explanation of the reasons for the department's decision in sufficient detail to make the outcome understood. In communicating a department's decision, the chair is expected to protect the confidentiality of the discussion itself, including the positions taken by department members. Should a candidate believe that in the course of the review some impropriety took place in violation of University policy, he or she has the right to bring a complaint to the appropriate dean and ultimately to the Provosts for redress. The Yale Faculty Handbook describes a carefully designed set of procedures for such a complaint that protects the candidate, members of search and review committees, and members of departments alike and in which confidentiality again plays an important role.

Finally, except for the compelled disclosure that may occur during certain legal proceedings, Connecticut law generally prohibits the disclosure of employment records relating to the hiring, promotion, discipline, or discharge of any employee without the written permission of the employee. These records include verbal and written evaluations of employees that occur in departmental as well as appointment committee discussions, so the failure to maintain confidentiality can create serious legal risks. This body of law, extremely important in itself, simply symbolizes our larger commitment to the protections that confidentiality affords for candidates, for members of appointments committees, and for the fairness and validity of the processes that define who and what we are as a university.

I am proud to be a member of an institution that holds and practices these values of confidentiality and fairness, and the open and frank discussion that both protect, and I am grateful to all of you who so obviously practice and uphold them in your ongoing and important deliberations.

Sincerely,
Andrew D. Hamilton