April 19, 2016
Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars
8 W. 38th Street, Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
RE: Professor Dennis Gouws
Dear Mr. Wood,
Your correspondence addressed to President Cooper dated April 4, 2016 regarding Springfield College Professor Deninis Gouws has been forwarded to me for handling. In the future, please direct any further communication regarding this matter to the undersigned. In addition, I am returning material addressed for Mr. John Krieger at The Achelis Foundation that was apparently inadvertently send by your office to President Cooper.
As an initial observation, while the College certainly appreciates your interest in this matter, I would encourage you to ask Professor Gouws to share with you all of the material and other information that been communicated to him by the College regarding the content of the “Men in Literature” course as well as the other matters—such as his sabbatical request—which you reference in your letter. My sense in reading your correspondence suggests that you do not have a complete history of what has transpired nor have you had the benefit of reviewing the College’s curriculum and other policies and procedures which govern these matters—policies and procedures that have been reviewed by the College faculty. In addition, as noted bellow, Professor Gouws has repeatedly been encouraged to meet with the College’s academic leadership to discuss concerns involved—something that at this time he has elected not to pursue.
In any event, to briefly summarize the matter at hand, Professor Gouws was hired by the College as a Professor of English and tasked with, among other required activities, teaching literature courses to fulfill the College’s general education requirements. The course that is the subject of your correspondence was, as required by the College’s adopted curricular policies and procedures, originally approved to meet those requirements. However, Professor Gouws at some point, and without officially receiving approval as required, chose to modify the content of the course. The modification came to the attention of the Department Chair and Dean following inquires and expressed concerns from students regarding the content of the course. Upon subsequent review of the course syllabus, it was apparent that Professor Gouws had shifted the focus of the course from “literature” to “gender studies,” thereby creating a concern that the course was not fulfilling the literature requirement for which it was approved. Despite your suggestion that the expressed concern of the Department Chair and Dean (and now the Provost) is an ideological attack, it is, in fact, a curricular matter.
Moreover, both the Department Chair and Dean, despite being authorized to remove the course from the schedule immediately, permitted Professor Gouws to teach the course for one additional semester to afford him the opportunity to return the content of the course to the required literature-based focus. Despite that opportunity, Professor Gouws chose to wait nearly ten months before resubmitting the course for review. It is his delay—not that of the College—that has resulted in this unfortunate timing of the course not being able to be placed on the fall 2016 semester schedule. I would note that you seem to overlook the Provost’s own assessment that the other literature courses taught by Professor Gouws (“Victorian Manhood” and “English Romantic Literature”) do contain the appropriate and necessary literature focus. Professor Gouws appears quite capable of developing and, as necessary, reformatting, courses to meet the College’s expected literature requirements.
Of course, Springfield College prides itself on its open and productive relationship and dialogue between its faculty and academic administrators.In that regard, Professor Gouws has been repeatedly invited to meet with Provost Wyld and me to further discuss this matter and to address any of his questions or concerns. He had also been encouraged to seek guidance from members of his department if he requires any assistance or support reestablishing the necessary literature focus of the course in question. He has chosen to not take advantage of either of those opportunities. You appear to raise a concern that Professor Gouws is reluctant to meet with me based upon my role as the College’s General Counsel. That comes as a surprise as I have met with Professor Gouws on a number of occasions (including two sessions where it was at his request and just the two of us) and he expressed no apprehension or concern. With that said, and to be clear, there is no requirement that he meet with me and he is welcome to arrange a meeting with the Provost without my presence—he merely needs to request such. He is also invited and encouraged to bring a colleague from the faculty to participate in any such meeting
I hope this letter clarifies the information that you have been provided on this matter and that in your role and in your organization’s stated mission of open, rationale discourse that you would encourage Professor Gouws to take advantage of the opportunities provided to him in an effort to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all involved.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Neronha
