Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all?

Question

A female instructor has had conflict with a much younger male co-instructor and has complained to her chair and associate chair about what she experienced as sexist and other difficult behavior. When the new schedule for the following year again has her paired with the same co-instructor, she asks for a different assignment. The entire message is very short, basically, "Oh, please don't pair me again with X. He's an uncooperative young male. You said you'd pair me with Y." Y is also a much younger male, only slightly older than X. She's worked with Y in the past and it's clear she likes him.

Unfortunately, instead of replying only to the associate chair, she accidentally reply-alls to the entire department. She apologizes to the department a few minutes later for copying everyone on what was intended as "a private response". In a private email to the associate chair a few hours later, she makes clear she's complaining about gender bias, that she believes her co-instructor disrespects her in part because she's a woman. (Complaining about gender bias is a protected activity in the US, meaning, e.g., it can't be used as a reason for an "adverse employment action" like denying promotion.)

Most recipients of the reply-all did not know about the previous complaints. The chair and associate chair both knew about the complaints. Only the associate chair also knew about the later email.

A few hours later, the promotion committee begins discussion of her major review, leading up to a vote on her contract and possible promotion. The unfortunate reply-all is discussed and some of the members express shock. Only the chair and associate chair are aware of the previous complaints and neither reveals that information. To the contrary, the chair uses it in his words as an "opening" to argue she was involved in lots of conflict and that questions of who "instigated" the disagreements should "explicitly" be set aside, remarking, "We're really not trying to adjudicate any of the disagreements." So, different people knew different things. In a split vote, the review fails. (Months later, everything becomes more widely known.)

Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all and did that taint the process? To answer, you may need to decide if it was a protected complaint about a gender bias or perhaps something else, and whether the chair and/or associate chair should have disclosed the previous complaints or the follow-up email declaring it to be a complaint about gender bias.

Answer 1

Edit: The question has been modified 19 times so far.

How important is it to know about the previous complaints and the later email to be able to decide she was probably complaining about sexist behavior?

If you are a member of the department who receives an email like this, it is not important because the whole situation is none of your business.

would you likely regard her characterization of her co-instructor as an "uncooperative young male" as a merely an unflattering description, a personal attack, unprofessional, a protected activity, or perhaps something else?

I would describe the inclusion of the words "young" and "male" as both bigotry. Bigotry is unprofessional. Imagine how people would react if the email said "It is fun to teach with this cooperative young male." The implication seems inappropriate.

Complaining that someone's behavior is sexist is fine. Implying that someone's behavior sexist because they are young or male is wrong.

You did not ask, but my advice to the female instructor would be:

• Apologize for mentioning the other instructor's age and gender in that way.
• Pursue complaints about sexist behavior, difficult behavior, and teaching assignments through university policy or legal mechanism.
• Carefully consider the risk of libel/slander accusations before making public complaints.

Answer 2

Edit: the answer below answers OP’s original question, which she has now edited, clarifying that the actual main question of interest is substantially different than what was originally posted. My original answer now appears to be less relevant, but I’m leaving it up since it may still contain some useful insights.

---

Original answer:

I have been a witness to many embarrassing situations stemming from someone’s unintended use of “reply all”. I have often thought that the prevalence of such incidents is largely due to the poor design of email software that should make it more difficult to send emails via reply all. So perhaps we should point the finger of blame where it rightly belongs: software designers. :-)

That being said, there is an aspect of the instructor’s behavior that would be unprofessional even if she had sent the email as a private message. It is never appropriate to imply that a colleague’s gender, age, or combination of gender and age, or combination of gender and age together with certain personality traits, is a valid reason for not wanting to work with the colleague. So, complaining about a colleague for being “uncooperative” is fine. (And complaining about a colleague’s sexist or harrassing behavior, if that’s what she meant, is also perfectly legitimate of course, if she indeed experienced such behavior.) But complaining about an “uncooperative young male” is unprofessional, either in a private message or a public one.

I wish for your instructor female to find a way to move on from this incident. I wish for all of us to be more tolerant of slight human mistakes and transgressions (and I say this as someone who has said some embarrassing things myself on occasion, as I’m sure everyone has), more willing to apply the principle of charity and give people the maximum benefit of the doubt about their intentions being good, and less quick to judge others and cast blame.

But in order to move on, I think it’s important to recognize the facts and not seek shelter in denial and excuse-making. The instructor’s choice of words was unfortunate and wrong, and she would do well to acknowledge that fact when dealing with the aftermath, rather than defend her behavior with the claim (even if it’s a correct claim) that the email was “intended as a private measage”.

Answer 3

My first impressions are that it had something to do with gender (and by extension gender bias). This is for two reasons:

• If details aren't necessary, they won't be given. If the focus of the phrase is on 'uncooperative', then 'young' and 'male' would not be necessary. In the same vein, this is why the phrase is 'uncooperative young male' and not 'uncooperative young human male with a height of [1.8 meters] and who was wearing [a blue blouse] today'. The fact that 'young' and 'male' are given implies they are important to the context, so this had something to do with either gender or age, possibly both.
• The fact that the word used is 'male' instead of the more common 'man' implies the gender angle is more probable.

However: since I lack the details to draw any firm conclusions, I am likely to brush the incident off (unless I am the co-instructor, in which case I cannot predict how I will react).

Answer 4

I am a male and I have been in power position. If someone below me, with whom I do not have much personal relation but only professional relation would write me what the complainer wrote, I would think "wow, she wrote this impulsively, she must really feel uncomfortable working with X".

Additionally, I would see a clear try in avoiding offensive expletive words, I would read young as immature and male as sexist ... so the complainer wrote impulsively, but trying to avoid slandering and defamation.

My (not asked) verdict: possible but unlikely bigotry, more likely impulsive writing moderated by 5 seconds thinking, instead of being stopped by overnight thinking.

Sum-up: I think the chair was correct in bringing up the reply all as an evidence of " she was involved in lots of conflict ", but it may be a classic case of "can't see the wood for the trees": if the "median" instructor is a young, narcistic, male chauvinist person, whoever tries to fight back the "median" instructor attitude would come out as a conflictual person.

Necessary reading: Science falling victim to 'crisis of narcissism'

Answer 5

The questions asked are not about the contents of the email reply but rather

Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all and did that taint the process?

Hard to tell. A candidate's professionalism matters when making personnel decisions, and the language in the reply-all suggests some doubt (not much in my eyes). So perhaps discussing it in the meeting was appropriate.

But if it is to be discussed then the whole history should be known. That didn't happen.

Did the discussion taint the process? I can't offer a legal opinion. Nor can I tell from the data in the question whether the discussion switched votes in the split decision.