Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Outside committee finds Kay not guilty of misconduct; ruling may not

Arizona Summer Wildcat

In another step towards a third internal committee to consider the UA's case against former Alzheimer researcher Margarite Kay, an independent committee of her peers in the science community determined that she was not guilty of misconduct.

When the University of Arizona's internal committee will meet has yet to be determined, since the university requested that the date be rescheduled to be later in the year.

This comes following a string of legal victories for Kay, most recently of which was a ruling by a court of appeals that the Pima County Superior Court has the jurisdiction to order that she be reinstated.

Though the UA has technically reinstated Kay - allowing her some of her salary and back pay - she has been banned from campus.

Whether the conclusions from the recent peer review could help give Kay some momentum going into the internal committee cannot be determined.

"I don't think this outside committee will have much effect," said Carol Bernstein, president of the Arizona chapter of the American Association of University Professors and a research professor of microbiology and immunization.

Since it is an outside committee, its results will not be presented to the internal committee, but Kay's attorney, Don Awerkamp, said that the peer review should still affect the university's further handling of this case.

"I would think it would have some impact," Awerkamp said. "If they give her fair process this time.

"If they don't do it correctly this time, then, we'll be back in court."

Though the panel that conducted the most recent review was not connected with Kay or the UA, some say that it still could have been biased.

"I do not believe the panel was independent," said Jerold Hogle, faculty chair and professor of English. "They had those opinions before the panel was formed."

Hogle said he thinks that this entire case has been the product of the UA's lacking a precise policy on how to handle the investigation and termination process of faculty.

"The policies were sort of fragmented," he said.

At this time, the faculty senate is working to construct a policy that would make the peer review process part of a "consistent, clean policy," Hogle said.

In the past, peer reviews allowed attorneys to be present but not to actively represent. Following all the controversy surrounding Kay's case, lawyers may replace peers on both sides of the issue.

"Faculty hearings are not courts of law," Hogle said.

But as this case continues to move forward - and through the courts - this becomes more of a legal matter.

"It's much more a contest between attorneys," he said.

Lawyers will be a part of the next internal committee, and Bernstein said the issue at hand is not lawyers, but whether the internal committee is biased.

If the administration does not face repercussions from Kay's case, they will "still use this to torture faculty."

"They can say 'sue us, we have unlimited funds.'"

Ryan Gabrielson can be reached at Ryan.Gabrielson@wildcat.arizona.edu.