Documents reveal aftermath of Maitland Jones firing
Maitland Jones Jr., the fired NYU professor who made international headlines this week, submitted an extensive appeal letter objecting to the termination of his employment. It was immediately dismissed by university administrators.
October 7, 2022
Fired NYU professor Maitland Jones Jr. attempted to formally protest the sudden termination of his contract with the university this summer, according to previously unpublished documents. But NYU administrators blocked his attempt to file an appeal.
The administrators tasked with passing Jones’ grievance letter on to a faculty-led grievance committee refused to allow the document to even reach the committee, instead determining that Jones was not allowed to appeal his dismissal. Heidi White, a faculty member with a senior role in the dispute review process said that the administrators’ decision was wrong, and that Jones’ grievance should have been allowed.
Most faculty members at NYU are entitled to file a grievance for a number of reasons — including if their contract is terminated. It is a formal explanation of a complaint they have about procedural processes at the university. WSN obtained a copy of Jones’ grievance letter, which had not previously been made public.
“As a method of making decisions goes, this is like hanging a man for murder while insisting at the same time that the decision to hang him is rational even without a trial,” Jones wrote in the letter. “If a student composes a petition and asks other students to sign it, is that now sufficient at NYU to end a professor’s career?”
In his 15 years teaching at NYU, Jones had only been employed on a series of one-year contracts, which had been renewed before the beginning of each academic year. Shortly before the start of the 2022-23 academic year last month, when his contract was up for renewal, he received a blunt email from Gregory Gabadadze, the dean for science, informing him that his contract would not be renewed.
Since Jones’ story made headlines — appearing on the front page of The New York Times on Tuesday — many have criticized the professor’s students for causing his dismissal. Last spring, a group of his students had signed a petition criticizing the professor for limiting access to online lectures, concealing grade averages, and talking down to students in his classes.
“In one of his organic chemistry classes in spring 2022 there were, among other troubling indicators, a very high rate of student withdrawals, a student petition signed by 82 students, course evaluations scores that were by far the worst — not only among members of the chemistry department but among all the university’s undergraduate science courses — and multiple student complaints about his dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading,” John Beckman, an NYU spokesperson, wrote to WSN.
Faculty members have pushed back against criticism of his students, though, pointing to precarious employment terms that non-tenured faculty face at NYU.
This account of Jones’ battle with the university over the sudden loss of his job is based on interviews with several NYU administrators and faculty members, and a review of previously undisclosed documents detailing the conflict.
Jones declined to comment for this article.
Ineligible to Grieve
Each school at NYU has a grievance committee, which is composed of faculty members who are chosen by their peers. The committees investigate and address procedural complaints from faculty, including, but not limited to, those concerning promotion, tenure and reappointment decisions. The committees then bring recommendations to their respective deans, but cannot mandate that anything will be done about the grievance.
If a faculty member wishes to file a grievance, the offense must “involve violation of university-protected rights of faculty members.” The grievance must also assert that either the administration used improper procedures to make their decision, or that the decision “violated the academic freedom” of a faculty member.
Jones was classified under a category called “other faculty” — faculty who are not tenured or full-time contract faculty — meaning that he would not be eligible to file a grievance, according to an NYU spokesperson, John Beckman. Contract faculty members, who by definition are not tenured or on a tenure track, are eligible to file a grievance with the committee if a review of their employment concludes in recommending the termination of their contract.
Beckman did not respond to repeated questions about what parts of Jones’ contract led him to be classified as “other faculty” and not contract faculty, making him ineligible for a grievance claim.
Chemistry department chair Mark Tuckerman said that he was unsure of what made Jones’ contract different from those of other contract faculty members, and said that Jones had negotiated his own contract with the university when he began in 2007.
White — the faculty member with a senior role in the dispute review process — said that NYU administrators did not provide justification in classifying Jones as “other faculty.” She said that the reasoning remains unclear. White is also a member of the University Senate, serving as a senator on the Continuing-Contract Faculty Senators Council and as chair of that council’s Grievance Committee and its Personnel Policies & Contract Issues Committee.
“I confess, I’m baffled as to how the administration could have reached that conclusion,” White said. “To me, it looks like a blunder.”
The Lead-Up to Jones’ Termination
In Jones’ grievance letter, he encloses the notice of his termination from Gabadadze, his curriculum vitae, a timeline of correspondence and events, and letters of support from former students.
“I wish to file a grievance of this decision, and I ask that you convene our school grievance committee to hear my case,” Jones wrote in the letter. “I also ask to be fully reinstated as an NYU faculty member in good standing — until such time as the university’s published policies have been properly carried out.”
The correspondence cited in the grievance letter began on June 11, when Jones sent an email to Tuckerman, the chemistry department chair, asking if he would be reappointed for the following academic year. According to Jones, Tuckerman responded, but did not give a definitive answer. On June 28, an email from Tuckerman told Jones that he hoped he would have an answer in one week. Jones replied the same day.
“As of now I (think) I have not been reappointed,” the June 28 email from Jones reads. “Is that so? Will I be?”
Jones did not receive a response until three weeks later. He then found out, through Tuckerman, that he would not be reappointed by the university. On July 31, Tuckerman followed up with Jones, suggesting that there may be a way for the professor to return to the university.
“I read your email to the deans, and I just wanted to let you know that I share your sense of frustration with the situation,” Tuckerman wrote. “I have met with Greg Gabadadze in the last few days, and what I’ve understood from the conversation is that the Deans’ decision has been framed such that there is an option for the department to offer you a teaching position this semester, if continuing to teach would still be of interest to you.”
Tuckerman said the deans initially did not want to rehire Jones, who they expected would want to retire soon anyway.
“I think they decided, ‘He’s going to retire anyway, is there any real reason for us to renew the contract?’” Tuckerman said. “My recommendation was he should be re-hired for one more year. They felt differently. We disagreed on that.”
He also said that he advocated for Jones to return for one more year in a reduced role because he felt it would be difficult to hire a new professor on short notice. The deans were open to the idea.
Jones, however, was not satisfied with the way that the administration had handled the situation, and did not wish to continue the conversation. The deans, having heard that Jones did not want to speak, decided to stop considering the alternate teaching position, and instead made a final decision to terminate his contract.
“At the end of the day, they seem to find sufficient reason in the complaints they heard from the students and from the evaluations he had,” Tuckerman said.
Days later, on Aug. 2, Gabadadze sent Jones a letter of termination. The letter of termination, which is printed in full, explains to Jones that his one-year contract to teach organic chemistry would not be renewed.
“You were appointed at NYU on a one-year contract for [the academic year] 2021-22 as a non-tenure track professor to teach the undergraduate organic chemistry classes,” the termination reads. “A review of your teaching performance demonstrated that it did not rise to the standards we require from our teaching faculty. As a result, you will not be offered a new contract.”
Jones Protests Sudden Firing
In his grievance letter, Jones referenced NYU’s Faculty Handbook, which outlines that if a full-time professor’s contract finishes on Aug. 31, they must be notified of their termination no later than one year prior. Jones was informed that his contract would not be renewed on Aug. 2 — less than one month before it was set to expire. However, his designation as “other faculty” meant that these deadlines would not apply, according to Tuckerman.
In addition to Jones’ complaints about how the university handled his dismissal, he also claimed that he was never shown the student petition made to protest his teaching methods.
“Despite the assertion made about my teaching, I have never been given the slightest opportunity to know the actual substance, if any, of any complaints about my performance, and I would stress that without giving me that opportunity, the university has no way of knowing whether anything said against me is really true,” Jones wrote. “Whatever evidence might exist for a decision to deny me reappointment, I have been given no chance to see it, refute it, or challenge whether it really entails what one thinks it entails.”
Jones included a May 13 email that he wrote to deans Gabadadze and Merlo about a New York Times opinion essay titled “My Students Are Not OK.” In the email, he wrote that he believed the essay — which argues that pandemic-related loosening of student expectations is contributing to student apathy — describes the situation in his organic chemistry classes “perfectly.”
“There seems to be a strong consensus among teachers that we continue to ask less and less of our students,” Jones writes. “In chemistry 226, we, too, have 30% attendance in the lecture, silent students, empty office hours and plummeting grades on ever-easier exams.”
He went on to write that over the last decade, he had seen “something odd” — students misreading exam questions, even when he utilized boldface and colors to make them more clear. He also pointed to 50 recorded videos that he had created with fellow professors Paramjit Aurora and Keith Woerpel. Jones then listed four guesses he has to explain the “immense tuning out” of students that he said he has witnessed.
“This cohort of students is the victim of three years of Covid ‘learning,’” Jones wrote. “They not only don’t know how to study, many do not seem to even know that they should study.”
Jones concluded the email by reiterating his frustration that the student petition was never shared with him and asking that in the future, the university use a procedure that will better respect the faculty members involved.
Jones also included another email from May 31 from Tuckerman and director of undergraduate studies Marc Walters, which informed his students about grade adjustments and a retroactive withdrawal date for his course. Jones claimed that he was not sent this email, and was not informed of the policies that were included.
On July 11, Walters sent a follow-up email to Jones, explaining that the email was sent to students because deans were concerned about “the specter of a massive withdrawal” from Organic Chemistry II. He wrote that he hoped the email to students would ease tension.
“In hindsight, the deans should have contacted you directly with their concerns, and we should have discussed a reasonable resolution of this matter with you before any actions, or emails were launched,” Walters wrote.
The final section of Jones’ grievance letter included 22 emails from students — all of which expressed remorse that the professor had been terminated. Many directly addressed the petition; some students were unaware that it had been created, and others said that they were strongly opposed to its criticisms of him and the class.
“Shame on us for counting on an educational institution to prioritize education,” one student wrote. “I hope we lose you to Columbia.”
Contact Abby Wilson at [email protected].
Were you a student in one of Maitland Jones’ classes? Are you an NYU employee who can speak to the controversy surrounding the termination of his contract? WSN would like to hear from you!
Mike • Oct 13, 2022 at 6:51 pm
“I hope we lose you to Columbia.”
Indeed. The ultimate answer will be for qualified professors to leave NYU and for their truly capable (i.e. not diversity admissions) to follow them out the door.
hungryteacher • Oct 18, 2022 at 10:12 am
Yikes.
Peter • Oct 9, 2022 at 6:38 pm
From Princeton, where Professor Jones taught chemistry for 40 years, and where he remains Emeritus,
“While he has taught other courses to rave reviews, it is ORGO—the introductory year-long undergraduate course taken by most of the aspiring scientists, engineers, and pre-meds to graduate from Princeton—that is his signature course, one that garners outstanding reviews for its teaching even as it is rated among the toughest courses at Princeton.”
https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/maitland-jones-jr
hungryteacher • Oct 8, 2022 at 11:08 am
While I see all of the same “problems” this guy raises in my own students– he sounds like an awful educator. Our job is to nurture our students by listening to and observing their weaknesses, and do whatever we can to support and aid them in the process of getting up-to-par with the curriculum of the course.
So often I see (generally older) male professors take an adversarial role with their students– if you fall behind it’s because you’re a tuned-out Tik-Tok-brained Zoomer, shaking their fist and grumbling “kids these days”. If you aren’t capable of dedicating yourself to, and raising up those “damaged” kids you loathe, you don’t deserve to be in the position of attempting to do so.
Also, holy heck dude– likening your contract not being renewed to “hanging a man for murder… without a trial” reeks of self aggrandizing privilege.
Stick to doing science, teacher– leave those kids alone.
Bob podolsky • Oct 9, 2022 at 7:19 pm
You make an unfounded assumption and then base all of your conclusions on it. You have no idea what kind of teacher Mait Jones is, or whether he handles his students fairly. I had him for organic chemistry, and he was among the finest of my professors. He also stood his ground when I accused him of grading too harshly, and I am by far a better person for not having had my entitlement encouraged.
hungryteacher • Oct 12, 2022 at 11:49 am
My assumptions are founded on the very things cited in this article and many assessments found on (the of course, negative-biased) Rate My Professor and elsewhere online– a very clear portrait is painted of a professor who isn’t willing to adapt to and nurture his students, but rather one that has something to prove through being immovable in his methods. This archaic, cruel approach, is rampant through STEM. There is of course a point to “weeding out” weaker students to *help* them identify if a field of study is not for them, but taking a categorically antagonistic approach to getting them there isn’t anything students should have to be subjected to.
If we *listen* to students, beyond “the class is too hard”, they tell us that this particular professor is “dismissive”, “unresponsive”, “condescending”, “passive aggressive”, “incoherent”, prone to confusing tangents, “discouraging”, etc.
Just because a teaching style rooted in harsh machismo worked for some of you, does not negate the fact that it is categorically failing so many others. The fact that so much feedback I found said that the TAs were better at clearly explaining concepts is proof that there are many, many people that would be better at teaching this curriculum.
Mike • Oct 13, 2022 at 6:43 pm
Nope. Your assumptions, as the previous comment suggests, are based only on one side’s perspective and presumes that side is being both accurate and honest. Neither appear to be true. I’ll certainly grant more weight to the previous commenter who at least claims (convincingly) to have first hand experience with the professor.
nydoctor1 • Oct 12, 2022 at 4:33 pm
Do you realize the “kids” that are taking O. Chem are mostly pursuing a career in medicine, dentistry or pharmacy? Unfortunately the standard of care that are held by healthcare professionals does not change. There are plenty of classes and training that are way more challenging past an intro O. Chem course. Also organic chem is a subject that hasn’t changed significantly in decades. It’s the same material that I had to study 13 years ago as a freshman in college before I got into medical school. So by your logic, is it ok to lower standards of care or training to make sure the ego of students does not get hurt? I see it all the time with the new med school grads as well. Always complaining about the training and not willing to put in the required effort but quick to post their white coat photos on Instagram. Too many new grads want to “play doctors” but not be real doctors. And I believe that the society and “teachers” who are too afraid to challenge their students are enabling them. This is going to become a huge problem across medical fields soon.
Mike • Oct 13, 2022 at 6:48 pm
I’m afraid it has already become a huge problem. In the past 10 to 20 years I’ve noted an increasing number of doctors who do not come across as credible or well educated. Used to just be military doctors who scared me. Now there are lots of doctors out there whose qualifications to finish undergrad seem a bit questionable.
hungryteacher • Oct 17, 2022 at 10:49 am
By my logic we need to raise the standards of *educators* to meet the evolving learning styles of new generations of students rather than summarize their inability to absorb the material as due to “ego” or “entitlement.”
Joshua Becker • Oct 7, 2022 at 9:52 am
Abby you have done it again! Amazing reporting.