In his grievance, Mr. Stepp appeals to the authority of university mission and declared commitment to equal opportunity as applicable standards of assessment. Ms. Bowden concludes that Ms. Anderson made a decision consistent with allowable “discretion” as hiring authority.

Mr. Stepp says: Whatever is wrong here, this is not about people, but about the university living up to its mission. I disagree: This is very much about people who make a significant difference in the daily pursuit of university mission consequent to their daily judgments and decisions within structured positions of authority. I call on the university administration to live up to its AA/EO mission and address basic problems:

• This grievance points to a problem with “supervisors” who exercise their hiring authority consistent with a concept of discretion granted them under university policy and regulation. This discretion is presumed and generally accepted to be inerrant, unimpeachable, and irreversible when exercised, though the exercise of this discretion is subject to “independent” oversight to assure no “abuse” of discretion in either judgment or decision. Ms. Bowden concludes Ms. Anderson manifest no abuse of discretion either in judgment or in decision. Is Ms. Bowden thereby affirming a substantive judgment about the merits/qualifications of the applicant, in contrast to issuing a finding about violation of procedure? What are the boundaries of discretion in judgment or decision in “hiring authority”? What is to be done when a hiring authority acts inconsistent with his or her authority and manifests an exercise of power that acts under the cover of authority, ignoring or dismissing a reasonably defensible recommendation of a hiring committee? “Procedure” is unclear here.

• Ms. Bowden seeks to assure merely that hiring practices do not violate public law or university policy, regulation, or procedure. As long as everyone involved performs according to the letter, there is no legitimate reason to object to judgments or decisions made? What happened to the concept of acting consistent with the positive spirit of equal opportunity? Are we satisfied to pursue the minimum standard? Might we—ought we—instead choose to attain the higher standard, really affording staff such as Mr. Stepp equal opportunity? I submit: Mr. Stepp was not treated fairly by the decision taken to declare a failed first search. My sense of “fairness” is moral. Perhaps moral sense is administratively out of place at UAF.

• What is to happen administratively when a supervisor (1) provides Mr. Stepp with annual performance reviews consistently and uniformly positive over several years, (2) receives positive endorsement from her senior staff to have Mr. Stepp appointed, (3) then dubiously “judges” Mr. Stepp unqualified? Any reasonably objective and impartial observer of these facts would infer: Ms. Anderson (a) prefers not to share direction of the Wood Center “programming” with Mr. Stepp, despite his qualification; (b) judges Mr. Stepp’s fiscal management skills questionable (though she authorized—and is herself first and foremost accountable for—expenditures she could have otherwise disapproved). Conclude: Ms. Anderson does not want to work with Mr. Stepp. That is her “prerogative” as hiring authority. No “legal harm” is done. Nevertheless, a moral wrong is done against Mr. Stepp’s dignity as “good faith” applicant. There is no reciprocal good faith in hiring. The UAF administration tolerates this moral wrong, to its discredit, when neither the Vice Chancellor for Student Enrollment and Services nor the AA/EO officer finds good reason to correct and otherwise discipline either “judgment” or a “decision” taken. To hold discretion in judgment always inerrant, unimpeachable, and irreversible is not to recognize legitimate authority, but only irresponsible deferral to power.