25 April 2016

!!
!!

Dear Amy, Jeff, and Pat:

I have thought deeply about all of our exchanges in these past six weeks and they have been difficult,
arduous, and most importantly, instructive.

Thank you for what each of you have done to clarify the situation regarding my place and position at the
University of Utah in general, and the Environmental Humanities Graduate Program, in particular.

I have sent the Dean a personal letter letting her know I will not be signing a new contract. In spite of the
appearance of good intentions, the contract before me does not reflect the complete story: the painful and
humiliating negotiations, the lack of transparency behind them, and the unwillingness to find another
alternative to a forced phased retirement. I will be leaving my position as the Annie Clark Tanner
Environmental Humanities Fellow on June 30, 2016 when my current contract expires.

My work within the Environmental Humanities program as been the most joyous and meaningful work of
my life. From its beginning in 2003, when Dean Robert Newman and I, with Steve Tatum and Mark
Bergstrom set this idea in motion, it has been an evolving blessing to witness and participate in its vision,
growth and impact on the lives of our extraordinary students. Nothing has mattered more to me than this
teaching, these students.

I feel deep gratitude for all the University of Utah has brought to my life as my alma mater; for the years
I worked at the Museum of Natural History; and in this capacity, as the Annie Clark Tanner Fellow. These
six weeks of arduous negotiations to try and secure my place here, the very place I helped create have been
both difficult and illuminating. I no longer believe this is a place where I can flourish. I want you to know
I tried. The support from the administration is not here.

In my initial meeting with Dean Harris and Amy Wildermuth, I was told I was paid too much for too little,
that there were other fellows and instructors who were teaching four and five classes per semester. I had
been flagged by Human Resources. My being at the University of Utah was no longer sustainable. I was
thanked for my service, offered $20,000, a platinum health care insurance, with no teaching. I was being
forced into phased and early retirement. They encouraged my continued association with the Environmental
Humanities Program. I said I was not leaving.

Carolyn Tanner Irish, who created the endowment for my position as the Annie Clark Tanner Scholar in
Environmental Humanities, had not been consulted or notified of this action. She graciously came forward
with the funding and my salary was for the most part restored. But then I was told, it was no longer about
the money, but that I was not in compliance with Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, that I could not
receive the salary without accepting a phased/early retirement clause. There was no negotiating this point.

I asked if other options could be sought, the possibility of being reclassified as a "Visiting Professor," or
"Visiting Writer," instead of "a fellow," but I was told repeatedly that this was not possible. I was being
classified alongside other fellows, my value seen solely on the basis of how many hours I was teaching, not
what I have written or published or contributed to the wider world.

Other points of engagement were offered and not met with satisfaction on either side, including my role in
fundraising for the Taft-Nicholson Environmental Humanities Center in Montana.
I finally accepted the offer of phased retirement at $80,000.00 for three years followed by early retirement
with health care benefits for two more years. I appreciated the concern and support about health insurance.
Whatever compromises were made were acceptable to me at this point, and I was grateful for the faith and
trust of Carolyn Tanner Irish that enabled me to continue my work with the students and faculty in the
Environmental Humanities Graduate Program. I was ready and looking forward to signing the contract on
Monday, April 18.

But then, on April 16, I received a flurry of emails from the administration delivered through Amy that
once again, I was not in compliance with the University of Utah's policies and procedures, this time it was
regarding my teaching. I was violating my contract by teaching my class, Art, Advocacy, and Landscape
off campus. I was told that my field trips with students to Southern Utah and Centennial Valley were
creating resentment among the students. Amy referenced select student evaluations that supported their
concerns (failing to acknowledge those evaluations that spoke of the transformative aspects of the class)
and suddenly, I was being told where and how I would be teaching.

From Amy:

"I do not think your students have seen the benefits of being off-campus in the way you have. Jeff might
have more details here but my read is that students do not want to continue to travel for your courses. Even
worse, because these are required courses, I fear that [were] we are engendering real resentment toward the
program by requiring the travel. That too is not what any of us would want."
I was told "Art, Advocacy, and Landscape," would no longer be a field course, but would be taught in the
classroom on campus in Salt Lake City. Jeff supported this decision. If I wanted to teach "off campus," I
would need to go through the proper paperwork and protocol and that they were just trying to help make
the "possibility" of this easier.

It did not feel easier, it felt heavy-handed, controlling, and restrictive.

For me, a line was crossed.

What I have realized in these six weeks is this: I can no longer work in an institution or program that
privileges compliance over creativity; that values the language of bureaucracy over relationships and
respect, and that is more concerned over issues of insurance than the assurance of emancipatory curriculum
that benefits our students; and where the Dean of the College of Humanites chooses to speak through the
University of Utah's attorney rather than face to face with one of her faculty members. Had Dianne Harris
chosen to engage with me directly, I believe our outcome would be very different and we could have
reached a collaborative approach to whatever concerns or obstacles we faced. Throughout these
negotiations, fear and scarcity seem to be driving the discussions. My fear is that universities, now under
increased pressure to raise money, are being led by corporate managers rather than innovative educators.

I certainly appreciate and need health care. I, too, want the safety and well being of our students to be
paramount. But I also believe in creative teaching opportunities. Last year, EH, with Jeff McCarthy's full
support, received a $50,000.00 grant from the Compton Foundation, to fund "Reading the Book Cliffs:
Exploring Oil Shale and Tar Sands Mining in America's Redrock Wilderness through the Lens of
Environmental Humanities." This grant was designed in partnership with Geralyn Dreyfous and the Utah
Film Society. The grant included outreach within the communities of Vernal and Moab, towns grappling
with the boom and bust cycles of a fossil fuel economy. In both instances where we showed films, we had
packed audiences with vibrant discussions that followed afterwords led by the students. We were exploring
the stories we tell ourselves at this moment in time and how the humanities help us to understand what it
means to be human in the era of climate change. A second grant was being made available to us for another
$50,000 (but now is on hold) for the 2016 -2017 academic year. Both grants were contingent upon field
work. We all know there is creative discretion at the hand of deans and chairs and directors to tailor the
personality of various programs to their particular mission. To limit our courses to the classroom in
Environmental Humanities without seeing a larger, more expansive vision seems short-sighted.

Jeff wrote:

"Universities need creative teaching, multiple approaches to knowledge and learning. How can we do that
innovative work while also keeping within university standards for accreditation and student safety? That's
the ground we are being instructed to find."

If we say that the Environmental Humanities Graduate Program is a program that encourages our students
to think out of the box and engage in creative and collaborative approaches, if we agree it is our

!2

responsibility to explore the pressing issues of our time, especially regarding the work of advocacy, which
we have identified as a core value of the program, in the name of environmental issues, social issues and
issues of climate justice then shouldnt we have flexibility in our curriculum and with our faculty to
accommodate this? It has been sobering, indeed, to have witnessed first-hand, the box I have been placed in
repeatedly with the new administration within the College of Humanities, as I have tried to secure my
contract that has otherwise, been supported and renewed for the past twelve years.

Although, Dean Harris and Amy Wildermuth said adamantly, that Brooke and my purchases of the BLM oil
and gas leases on February 16, 2016, had nothing to do with my forced phased and early retirement in this
program, even as the Dean's email to me was delivered on February 29, less than two weeks after our action
I am left with many questions.

Life suprises us. One bold action sets other actions in motion. In the end, both our BLM decision and my
decision to leave the University of Utah are decisions about energy: how we choose to define it, where we
feel we receive energy and where we feel energy is being drained. For me, it is not about money or
security. It is about what feels right. I am paying attention and not only trusting my heart, but following it.
It is not without sadness.

I trust my students, past and present within our program, to understand that my leaving the EH program is
not in defiance or anger or bitterness, but rather a personal act that supports my own integrity and selfrespect. The weather system has changed.

What I know is this: I have loved this program will all my heart and it has been a privilege to be part of it.
A community of smart and passionate people has been created in the name of engagement. Our students
have been my greatest teachers and they continue to inspire me. I know Brooke feels the same way.
The colleagues I have worked with have taken on the importance of family. This will not change. I have
done the work I was meant to do during the time I was meant to do it in. I believe both the freedom and
intellectual rigor we have extended to our students has been transformative in support of the gifts that are
theirs. And I also believe that the people we have met and landscapes we have traveled and studied in from
Centennial Valley to Jackson Hole to Castle Valley, have created an enduring love that is wild.

In a world where authentic power is rare, what we need most is empowered students. This is the greatest
success of our program. Our students are not only engaged in the world, they are changing it with their
courage, imagination, and joy.

At our faculty retreat in February, I have never felt more excited or hopeful regarding the future of the
Environmental Humanities Graduate Program, which is why this series of events initiated by the College of
Humanities was so unexpected and heartbreaking.

I trust life. The unknown calls me forward, and I trust the power of open spaces. Brooke and I are
embracing the future and are eager to see what's next, together.

Thank you for your contract. I hope you understand why I cannot give you my signature.

!
!
!

My Deepest Bows,
Terry

!3