Is the University of Kansas engaged in blatant discrimination against those who question religious claims? A new international campaign is launched to support the case of Dr. Fred Whitehead

early two months after his firing from the University of Kansas, things may finally be looking up for embattled freethinker Fred Whitehead. The 56-year-old professor and freethought author/historian was dismissed last June 30th from the KU Medical Center where he headed the Preceptorship Program. The University has never made it clear exactly why Whitehead was being let go after 21 years with the school, although the issue of budget cut-backs was raised during a hearing.

    Whitehead charged that his dismissal was linked to his role as a freethough historian and activist, and the "religion-friendly" climate at the Medical Center. KUMC officials organized numerous seminars and meetings dealing with claims of alleged links between physical well being and spirituality; Whitehead, in turn, organized his conferences and meetings. He also became a leading figure in the battle over evolution and the teaching of creationism in the Kansas public schools.

    University officials were even hesitant to put Whitehead's firing on paper; he was first informed by a Dean that his job was being eliminated, and told that his "research does not fit the mission" of the KUMC. Whitehead eventually filed a complaint with the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission charging that he was victim of religion-based discrimination.

   He told federal investigators that a "clear pattdern of anti-secular humanist prejudice ... had evolved in the school."

    Publicity about Whitehead's case has grown; and supporters say that it is part of a larger problem involving academic institutions, medical schools and religion. They point to pseudoscience claims and questionable or quack regimens such as so-called "Therapeutic touch" which have found an audience within many medical programs and hospitals. Another example which worries some involves questionable programs and studies which claim to link prayer, faith and physical well being.

    An international campaign in support of Whitehead generated hundreds of e-mails, phone calls, faxes and letters on his behalf. University officials, including Chancellor Robert Hemenway, were urged to reconsider the case, especially since the EEOC had not made a final determining of its investigation. None of this prevented the KU from moving hard and fast on Whitehead's dismissal, and after a token hearingin front of a review committee, Whitehead found himself unemployed.

   Worse yet, University officials saw to it that he received no unemployment compensation, and suggested that despite his former status as Assistant Professor, he had been an "administrator" rather than a faculty member.

    This past week, though, the Whitehed case took an unexpected twist when the prestigious American Association of University Professors weighed in with a stinging statement concerning U. of K. policies. The group, which represents 45,000 academics and researchers, had probed the Whitehead case and allegations linking the university to even more cases of discrimination. The charges, which included allegations of tenure irregularities, were described as "troubling" by Delores Futado, who sits on the AAUP's national executive committee. In connection with Whitehead, the AAUP statement notes:

   ¶    Dr. Whitehead's appointed, which for 22 years was determined by faculty peer review, constitutes de facto tenure. He is a member of the faculty, not an "administrator."

   ¶    Whitehead should have been offered the same rights of due process as any tenured member of the University of kansas faculty.

   The AAUP report also excoriated the University over related practices. It noted that KU faculty were not provided access to their personnel files and had to sign the files turned over to review committees without being able to examine their contents for accuracy.

   In addition, the academic group charged that tenure procedures were not clearly spelled out in the faculty handbook, and that existing procedures were "followed nconsistently." The University was accused of not fully and conscientiously examing complaints of discrimination.

    Throughout the Whitehead case, University officials have made constant reference to budget cutbacks. Following his dismissal, U. of K. even challenged Fred's claims for umeployment compensation!

    Supporters of Dr. Whitehead note that his $37,000 annual salary seemed to pale in contrast to that of the Dean at KUMC, Dr. Deborah Powell, who allegedly informed Whitehead that he was being dismissed. She reportedly earns a generous $268,000 per year, which when combined with the $182,000 annual salary of her husbant, pathologist Ralph Powell, yields an income of $450,000.

    The University even disputed a $960 unemployment compensation, saying that Whitehead refused to accept alternative work as a secretary within the University structure. Whitehead notes that doing so would have undermined his case, and shifted the focus from the original firing action.

    A decision rendered on September 6-7, 2000 by the Kansas Department of Human Resources (#006805) now supports Dr. Whitehead, noting that the job offered by the University "was largely a clerical position involving the tracking of paperwork."

    "The claimant is a highly educated and educated professor," noted the Kansas board. "Although the claimant could probably perform the job ... the claimant is vastly overqualified for the position. The claimant should not be expected to accept a position simply because he can perform the work even though the salary is comparable to his old position."

    Hearing Judge Katharine O'Keefe ruled that Dr. Whitehead "is qualified to receive benefits," despite the obstinance of the University.

    American Atheists is launching a new campaign of support on behalf of Dr. Fred Whitehead; we urge Atheists, freethinkers and all those who value the principle of academic freedom to participate by contacting the members of the University of Kansas Board of Regents. An on-line e-mail campaign will forward letters of concern to the Regent's offices, as well as the University Chancellor and legal counsel. We also encourage "snail mail" and phone calls to individual members of the Board.

    More information about the campaign can be found at: http://www.atheists.org/action/

[text only]