|
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE of the PLASMA SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
COMMITTEE of the INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERS Co-Chairman: Dr. Wallace
Manheimer Naval Research
Laboratory Washington, DC
20375 Co-Chairman: Prof. Victor
Granatstein Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering University of
Maryland College Park,
MD 20742 Report
of the human rights committee, ICOPS Banff, May 2002 Last
October’s human rights report (A) mentioned the firing of Jeff Schmidt, an
editor at Physics Today. Many people thought he was fired for the
politics he expressed in a book he wrote, Disciplined Minds, a book
which claims professionals are regimented to toe the “company line” in
various ways. Many hundreds of
individual scientists wrote to Physics
Today to protest. These are
documented on a web site http://disciplinedminds.com. We wrote to Marc Brodsky of the American Institute
of Physics to request more information (B), and his response (C) is
enclosed. He claimed that Schmidt was
fired for using AIP time for private purposes (i.e., freelance writing). Our initial impulse was to think in terms
of some sort of compromise between Schmidt and AIP, and we gently suggested
this by sending each of them our report.
At the time we also thought the matter would be resolved by the
courts. A
few months ago, we got a letter from Schmidt; we have had several others
since then. Among other things he
told us the dispute was not being resolved in the courts. Also he told us he would still be willing
to reach a compromise with AIP and that he has been unable to gain other
employment, largely due to the way he left AIP, i.e., no credible reason, no
recommendation. Also he mentioned
that his savings were largely depleted.
We decided to investigate further. His
web site makes several rather shocking allegations, among them: 1. Schmidt was given a gag order and told not
to talk critically about AIP. 2. He was told that private conversations of
any kind were not permitted in the work place. 3. He was fired despite being given many good
ratings, promotions and salary increases during a 19 year career. 4. The excuse given for firing him was
fraudulent in that many other AIP employees were allowed to, and in fact,
even encouraged to do extracurricular work of a scholarly nature as long as
their AIP deadlines were met. 5. He had gotten in trouble at AIP for
pushing for more diversity in the workplace. 6. After being fired he applied for
unemployment benefits from the Maryland Department of Labor. AIP tried to prevent him from collecting,
but when it came time to make its case against him, did not show up to do so. If
true, these statements would be a sweeping condemnation of employment
practices at AIP, an organization we all feel we are part of in some way. To
further examine this, we contacted 3 former employees who were familiar with
the situation, William Sweet, Paul Elliott, and Jean Kumagai. Sweet’s and Kumagai’s letters are included
(D and E). Elliott sent a very long
statement which we summarize here (F).
They all confirm these allegations (except for number 6, which we were
unable to verify). In fact, if
anything the situation was worse than described on the web site. Once we had these, we wrote once more to
Marc Brodsky. Our letter is included
(G). So far he has not responded,
even though it took him only a day to respond to our first letter. Our
take: It is possible that Schmidt was
fired for the politics expressed in the book. Many physicists believe this and have make their concerns known
to AIP. It is also possible, and in
fact seems more likely to us, that he was singled out for his efforts to bring
more diversity to the workplace and for other instances of workplace
activism. Then, despite a long and
productive career there, AIP subjected him to a two year long smear campaign
designed to damage his standing and reputation there. It then found a totally bogus reason to
fire him without giving him the benefit of honest evaluation or an
opportunity to defend or explain himself.
What is not possible is that Schmidt was fired for the reason stated
by AIP. We
feel that this is inexcusable and an appropriate area of concern for our
committee. This is especially true
where it is in a sense a matter internal to our own community. We feel it is vital that AIP and other
American Physical Society and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers organizations treat their employees according to the highest
standards, not like galley slaves.
Accordingly we ask ExCom to pass the following resolution: Resolved The
Plasma Science and Applications Committee of the IEEE deplores the firing of
Jeff Schmidt by AIP. An investigation
by our Human Rights Committee has convinced us that his termination was
improper and should be reversed. We
urge AIP to rehire Schmidt, openly welcome him back, cease all harassment of
him, and give him back pay for the period of his forced unemployment. [s] Wallace Manheimer [s] Victor Granatstein ------------------------- Exhibit
E To:
Wallace Manheimer From:
Jean Kumagai Dear
Wally, Thanks
so much for giving me the opportunity to help your human rights committee do
something on behalf of Jeff Schmidt and free expression within the science
community. In my previous message, I
gave brief answers to your questions about Jeff’s promotions and pay raises
and about the gag orders at Physics
Today. Below I’ve provided greater
detail on these two issues. I hope
you find this useful for your investigation.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. All
best, Jean ---------- I
was a member of the Physics Today editorial
staff for ten years, leaving just six months before Jeff was fired. As is the case in many workplaces, he and
I and other staff members routinely discussed our interactions with
management, including performance reviews, pay raises, editorial disputes,
and so on. That’s how I know that AIP
always gave Jeff job-performance ratings of “meets job requirements” or “exceeds
job requirements.” (One year,
management lowered his rating from “exceeds job requirements” to “meets job
requirements,” despite the lack of evidence that the quality or quantity of
Jeff’s work had fallen. Jeff
contended, and I agree, that they were punishing him for his workplace
activism.) As
for promotions, I attended the staff meeting where the editor announced that
Jeff had been promoted. Bill Sweet
received a promotion at the same time, and I remember Jeff and Bill
humorously congratulating each other while the rest of us applauded. Promotions at AIP are not automatic, but
are based on careful scrutiny of the employee’s work. The same goes for raises. As a matter of policy, AIP does not give
automatic cost-of-living raises, only merit raises. AIP would not have employed Jeff, promoted him, and given him
merit raises for 19 years if he had not been doing his job to AIP’s
satisfaction. I
think it is crucial to note that AIP, like other employers, regularly
scrutinizes the quality and quantity of each employee’s work. Thus, during my decade at Physics Today, I saw coworkers put on
probation, demoted, or fired for not meeting the magazine’s standards. AIP never did any of these things to Jeff
-- until they saw his critical writing. In
firing Jeff, AIP claimed that he had stolen from the company, referring to
the opening lines of his book (“This book is stolen. Written in part on stolen time, that is.”) This is a laughably baseless charge. In the opening paragraph of his book, Jeff
explains that “written in part on stolen time” means “spending some office
time on my own work.” This describes
common Physics Today workplace
behavior, albeit with an attitude. At
Physics Today there were no
official break times; editorial employees were expected to meet their
deadlines, and they took their breaks whenever they wanted along the
way. All of Jeff’s coworkers
(including me) openly pursued personal interests during their work breaks,
but Jeff was the only one who was punished for failing to make sure that 100
percent of his office time was work time.
The difference was the nature of Jeff’s break-time activities -- his
workplace activism and critical writing. Like
many employers, AIP engaged in “speed-up,” demanding that editors and other
employees do more work in the same amount of time. Jeff was outspoken in opposing this, in the interest of both
staff and readers, but he always adapted to the changing standard
himself. When Jeff was fired, he told
me that he was two months ahead of schedule in meeting the annual work quota
that AIP had set for him -- that he had completed 12 months’ worth of work in
10 months’ time. Having observed his
work style for ten years, I do not doubt this. Management
had to be fully aware of these facts, and therefore fully aware that Jeff’s
book about the politics of work was doing nothing more than expressing a
critical attitude about work. But they
fired him anyway, nine days after they learned of his book and its contents,
a delay that indicates that their action was calculated rather than
emotional. As you may have seen, on 5
April 2002 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported the numerous protests
by physicists against Jeff’s firing.
The reporter apparently asked AIP CEO Marc Brodsky, What if the book’s
opening line was merely a rhetorical device?
Brodsky responded, “Even if it was, it’s not good for the morale of
other employees.” In other words,
Brodsky admits that he was willing to fire Jeff simply for expressing what
Brodsky considers to be a bad attitude.
I think the evidence indicates that that is exactly what Brodsky did. As
for the gag orders, the one placed on Jeff was imposed a few days after the
second staff retreat. The retreat had
been billed as an opportunity for the editorial staff to get together and “brainstorm”
about the magazine’s content and direction.
Much to our surprise and disappointment, however, the managers prepared
a rather rigid agenda for the retreat, one not at all conducive to creative
thinking and open discussion. Near
the beginning of the retreat, after opening remarks by Physics Today publisher Charles Harris, Jeff asked if we could
ask questions. Harris said no. Jeff then argued that staff members SHOULD
be allowed to ask questions at a retreat.
Harris angrily shouted “No, that’s an order!”, ending the
discussion. When Harris later called
on me to speak about my department, I criticized him for shutting Jeff
up. Some others did the same
thing. The staff was quite upset by
the repressive atmosphere that management had established. Needless to say, nothing much was
accomplished at the retreat. The
gag order instructed Jeff not to tell his coworkers that he was being
restricted, but he showed the order to me and other coworkers anyway. That upset Harris, but also led to staff
pressure that forced Harris to rescind the order after about two months
(along with a similar order that had been imposed on another staff editor,
Graham Collins). The
gag orders were soon followed by the ban on private conversations in the
workplace, wherein Physics Today
Editor Stephen Benka announced that all conversations between staff members
had to be open to monitoring by managers.
Unlike the gag order, the ban was not issued in writing but rather
declared verbally to Jeff and another staff editor, Toni Feder. (Toni and I worked very closely to produce
a department of the magazine.) I
heard about the ban immediately from both Jeff and Toni. Although Benka announced the ban to Jeff
and Toni, he said that it applied to the entire staff. Paul Elliott, another editor, overheard
the announcement. The rest of the
staff learned of it, ironically, through private conversations. Unlike the gag orders, the ban on private
conversations in the workplace was never rescinded, even though Jeff formally
appealed it to James Stith, a top official of the American Institute of
Physics. I think the ban was aimed
mainly at silencing Jeff and discouraging other staff members from talking to
him. Since
leaving Physics Today in November
1999, and especially since Jeff’s firing, I’ve often thought about the gag
orders and the conversation ban and the generally repressive environment
there. Unlike a lot of bad memories,
though, these ones don’t fade with time.
I hope that the human rights committee will do whatever it can to
obtain justice for Jeff. In so doing,
I believe you will also be helping to improve the work environment at Physics Today, by compelling AIP to
reconsider its policies and actions, and ultimately benefiting the science
community at large. ------------------------- Exhibit
D To:
Wallace Manheimer From:
William Sweet Dear
Mr. Manheimer, I
cannot comment directly on the circumstances of Jeff Schmidt’s dismissal,
since I left the magazine many years before it occurred. During the eight years I worked as a
colleague of Jeff’s at Physics Today, I knew him to be a
conscientious, competent, and consistently hard-working employee of the
magazine who always got done what he was expected to get done on time and
well. Regarding
the question of working on office time, it was my own experience at Physics
Today that one was permitted to do freelance work or pursue personal
projects, as long as they did not interfere with or detract from one’s
responsibilities to the magazine. I
did a great deal of freelance work openly, much of it appearing in
publications read regularly by Physics Today staff. My
impression is that in journalism and publishing generally, it is taken for
granted that staff -- and especially younger staff -- will do freelance work
or work on scholarly projects, partly to further their careers, partly just
for the money, and partly for the joy of it.
It is not uncommon, indeed, for organizations to positively encourage
such work. For
that reason alone, I strongly suspect that the stated reasons for Jeff’s
dismissal were spurious. As stated at
the outset, however, I am not in a position to speculate about what the real
reasons might have been. Sincerely, Bill
Sweet ------------------------- Exhibit
F Summary
of Paul Elliott’s email: Paul
Elliott worked in a neighboring office to Schmidt for just under 5 years,
from 1995-2000. Schmidt was an editor
for 14 years before Elliott arrived, which was just after AIP hired a
publisher (for the first time), Charles Harris, and an editor in chief,
Steven Benka. From 1995-2000,
according to Elliott, Schmidt was well regarded by the PT staff, met all deadlines and other obligations. But Harris, and Benka particularly
increasingly became openly hostile toward Schmidt from about 1995 through
1997. During that period, Schmidt was
in the forefront of staff efforts trying to get PT to hire more staff with more diversity (virtually the entire
professional PT staff apparently
was white male), as well as bring about other improvements in the staff’s
working conditions. This effort
apparently led to the embarrassment of PT
management in front of higher ups at AIP and the PT advisory committee (I suppose a bunch of senior physicists). At
about this time, in the fall of 1997, Charles Harris not only gave Schmidt a
written and secret gag order, which Elliott saw, but gave one to another
editor, Graham Collins, whom Harris also saw as troublesome. A month of so later, under pressure from PT staff, these orders were
rescinded. However in January 1998,
Elliott heard Benka angrily tell Schmidt that private conversations between
members of the PT staff behind closed
doors were forbidden and had to take place outside after business hours. After this, Schmidt kept a very low
profile at PT. If he had been a “troublemaker” before
this, he certainly ceased being one at this point -- but, said Elliott, there
was no let-up in management’s hostility toward him. Elliott
said that many members of the PT
staff, certainly including Benka, used the work day for other private
purposes. Elliott worked 10 feet from
Schmidt for 5 years and saw no evidence that Schmidt was doing anything but
his job as an editor. He certainly
was not visibly working on a book.
Elliott even pointed out that in late 1998 Schmidt took a 6 month unpaid
leave of absence, and in retrospect, Elliott surmises that it was probably to
work on his book. During that period
too, said Elliott, management continued to openly malign and denigrate
Schmidt. Elliott’s
conclusion was that PT editorial
management thought of Schmidt as a trouble maker, subjected him to “a long
term smear campaign followed by prejudicial termination on a fundamentally
bogus charge,” and fired him as an act of revenge without giving him a chance
to explain or defend himself. ------------------------- Exhibit
G HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE of the PLASMA SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
COMMITTEE of the INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERS Co-Chairman: Dr. Wallace
Manheimer Naval Research
Laboratory Washington, DC
20375 Co-Chairman: Prof. Victor
Granatstein Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering University of
Maryland College Park,
MD 20742 April
17, 2002 Dr.
Marc H. Brodsky Executive
Director and CEO American
Institute of Physics One
Physics Ellipse College
Park, MD 20740 Dear
Dr. Brodsky: We sent
you the enclosed letter concerning the firing of Jeff Schmidt and also
enclosed is your response for which we thank you. We have continued to look into this matter, and we must say
that with our current understanding of the situation, we find the response of
AIP to be not satisfying to us. We
have spoken to several people, and apparently employees at AIP are not fired
for using company time for such private business as free lance writing, as
long as all AIP deadlines were met.
Schmidt and others have claimed that the expression ‘stolen time’ was
not used to confess to larceny, but to emphasize the particular point made in
the book. From what we know now, this
seems reasonable to us. As
far as we are able to discern, Schmidt met all his deadlines at AIP and was a
well regarded worker. Several people
have claimed that internal records in Physics
Today verify this. There
is one factual matter which we were unable to independently verify and we
wonder if you could help us out. On
his web site, Jeff Schmidt claimed that when applying for unemployment
benefits, AIP tried to prevent him from receiving them, but when it came time
for AIP to make its case to the Maryland Department of Labor, it did not show
up to do so. We tried to verify this
with the aforementioned department, but these records are confidential. Let
us tell you what we think may have happened.
We are not certain, but this is the simplest and most reasonable
explanation of the facts which we know.
Around the end of 1997, in a meeting with AIP and Physics Today’s external advisory committee, Jeff Schmidt
embarrassed his supervisors at Physics
Today by complaining to powerful outsiders about lack of diversity in the
workplace. We can certainly believe
that his supervisors would frown on his taking such a complaint so far
outside the chain of command. In some
organizations this might be grounds for dismissal, while in others it would
be acceptable behavior. If Schmidt
had been fired then, for that, we would be much less sympathetic to him. While unquestionably harsh, he would have
suffered a serious consequence for what might have been regarded as a serious
faux pas. The firing would have been
honest on the part of his employer, he would most likely have learned from
the experience, and the negative impact on his reputation would have been
minimized. Instead however, AIP
strung him along for more than two years, a time during which Schmidt was
especially trying to keep out of trouble.
Finally AIP found a bogus reason for firing him, and did so in a way
that would do him maximum harm. This
seems inexcusable to us, and an appropriate area of concern for our
committee; particularly where it involves an organization which we all
support and would hope lives up to the highest standards regarding its
personnel. Anyway,
this is the way we currently see it and it is the way we will present it to
our Executive Committee in mid May.
Do we have it wrong? We invite
your response. (Mail to government
facilities being what it is, if you decide to respond, please fax WMM; US
mail to VLG okay.) There
is one other thing. When we first
looked into this matter, we thought the best solution would be some sort of
compromise between you and Schmidt.
That is why we sent both of you our initial report last October. Even at this late date, could that still
be possible? Schmidt told us he would
be willing to do so. Would AIP? Yours
very truly, [s]
Wallace M. Manheimer [s]
Victor L. Granatstein ------------------------- |