LJWorld.com

• Email
• iPod-friendly
• Print

My monthlong investigation of Sen. Susan Wagle's complaint against KU Prof. Dennis Dailey was thorough and objective. I reviewed class documents, Dailey's qualifications to teach the course, his response to the allegations, testimonials from students who had taken the class and Dailey's teaching evaluations for the past five years. I interviewed Jessica Zahn and reviewed the McGraw-Hill textbook and audiovisual materials used in the course.

I found that the allegations regarding Dailey's teaching of a human sexuality course did not have merit. His teaching methods are not obscene, and I found no occurrences of sexual harassment.

Further, Dailey's teaching evaluations for the past five years are remarkable. For the question "Did (the instructor) show respect for students?" a total of 1,368 students rated his performance "excellent"; only three students rated it "poor." On a scale where 5 is "excellent," his mean scores during this period were never below 4.74.

Since Zahn was the principal source for the senator's complaint, it will surprise no one that the outcome of my investigation disappointed her. Zahn's article repeats old accusations but also raises new charges that require a brief response.

• I was offered the opportunity to listen to audio recordings that Zahn made in secret during the class, but only with her present. I could neither borrow nor copy the tapes for further study. Because of these conditions, I declined her offer. I had no way of knowing the context for the taped comments, nor could I guarantee their authenticity.
• On May 1, I asked Zahn to supply the signed affidavits; on May 6, she declined, saying they were in Sen. Wagle's possession. I immediately asked Wagle for them. She never made the signed affidavits available. I submitted my report to the chancellor on May 9. Signed affidavits would have been considered had they been made available.
• The external grievance procedure of the Kansas Board of Regents calls for a hearing before an "appropriate institutional committee" only if "it is impossible for the complaint or charge to be resolved by the designated official through administrative channels." In this instance, a committee hearing was unnecessary.
• Zahn asserts that current and former students said they were not allowed to file an official complaint against Dailey, or were told by KU officials that doing so might hurt their grades. No names of such students were ever provided to me by Sen. Wagle, so I had no opportunity to investigate their charges directly. There are multiple methods by which students may file complaints against an instructor and ample protections against retaliation.
• Zahn's statement concerning the loss of her husband's job at KU implies that it was an act of retaliation. Such a suggestion is totally false. No one at KU knew the identity of Sen. Wagle's informant until it was divulged in her April 28 news release. The unit where Zahn's husband works initiated action with the appropriate offices March 25 and talked with him April 2 about the inevitability of his job termination due to lack of funding.
• The personal and professional support that Dailey received from his dean, other colleagues and students was spontaneous and had no bearing on the conduct of my investigation. Throughout the course of the inquiry, the chancellor and I made no public statement that could be construed as prejudging the matter. We refrained despite demands that we speak out for or against Dailey. For Zahn to speak of KU as a "biased institution" with a "lack of integrity" is simply not true.

It is time to accept the facts: The charges against Dailey are baseless.

-- David Shulenburger is provost and executive vice chancellor for Kansas University.