Dr. Antonio Calvo committed suicide April 12 (story, page 12). He was senior lecturer in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Cultures.
During his 10 years at Princeton, Dr. Calvo won the respect of many colleagues and students, including my daughter Flora (’13), a Spanish and Portuguese major. Nonetheless, according to media reports, Princeton planned to terminate his contract and suspended him. Like more than 75 percent of university instructors nationally, Dr. Calvo held a non-tenure-track position. Princeton could fire him easily.
Non-academics imagine universities as collegial. By contrast, Dr. Calvo allegedly described his “months-long wait” to hear about contract renewal as “emotional torture.”
As a veteran of university reviews, I wonder: Did Dr. Calvo understand the criteria against which he would be evaluated? Did he know there were questions about his renewal so he could apply for other positions? Was he apprised of decisions at each stage of the process? Did he have the right — and enough time — to respond to criticism or to appeal an adverse decision?
Princeton expects excellence from its students, staff, and faculty, and the same high standards must apply to the University’s personnel procedures. President Tilghman should appoint an outside committee to critically evaluate faculty-review procedures and report publicly on suggested reforms. The committee should have access to Dr. Calvo’s file.
To quote Sen. William Fulbright, “Power tends to confuse itself with virtue.” The simple fact that Princeton could sack a vulnerable faculty member does not justify the University’s review procedures. An outside committee’s critical look would honor Dr. Calvo’s memory and help ensure that Princeton’s faculty, no matter their rank, are treated fairly and humanely.