In a letter from the fine arts department explaining the 4-3 vote against recommendation to the Committee of Six, the majority explains that when they hired him, they had concerns about the "narrowness of Godfrey's training and background in art, his limited experience of teaching," according to the letter.
The letter also outlined the majority's concerns about Godfrey's teaching. "Several of us have witnessed occasion of rather laconic engagement," stated the letter. It also cited the limited range of Godfrey's drawings and a perceived tendency to focus on certain art forms at the expense of alternative perspectives.
Godfrey has indicated that there may be a procedural irregularity regarding the judgements made about his teaching. "[The judgements] are based on very few observations of studio instruction. Distressingly, no senior faculty visited my courses this fall, immediately preceding the reappointment process, making it very difficult for them to assess my whole performance over the course of two and a half years," stated Godfrey's letter to the department.
Dave Molina '05 feels Godfrey's teaching ability was misrepresented. "He is an incredible professor ... he changed my world view. He welcomed disagreement," said Molina.
Some of Godfrey's colleagues at the College and in the surrounding community have expressed their support for him. "He has been a wonderful colleague in every way," said Professor of Fine Arts Carol Clark. "Students have come to me to express their interest in his work. He has brought great skills to the department and has engaged the students."
Of particular concern to Godfrey and his supporters was the appendix attached to the end of the department's letter, titled "Appendix to Majority View of Teaching: Examples of student comments that have most bothered the majority." "I think [the majority appendix] violates the spirit of the contract we have with the students when we give them these evaluations," said Godfrey. The majority appendix included excerpts from student evaluation letters that are filled out at the end of each course. In his response letter, Godfrey attempted to put into context each of these excerpts.
In one case, the majority appendix included the comment, "Professor Godfrey did not always give the most coherent verbal explanations." In Godfrey's response letter, the full text of the same evaluation read, "Professor Godfrey did not always give the most coherent verbal explanations, but his demonstrations of technique and visual aids greatly facilitated understanding of the concepts."
Godfrey believes official College policy may not have been carefully followed, citing the fact that in three formal and two informal conversations with chairs of the department he was never informed of any major criticisms of his teaching or creative work. "I think the decision [of the department] was not about performance or promise, but there's another agenda and an ideological split," said Godfrey. "This is really, really bad for the students."
The majority cites the lack of artistic work and promise as another reason they voted not to recommend his reappointment. "We have seen little or no development in Professor Godfrey's artistic work, and, in fact, have noted a remarkably small amount of finished work," stated the letter.
The minority responded to these claims in their section of the letter. "Three of the faculty [in the minority] point out that Professor Godfrey has completed three ambitious installation in his two and a half years at Amherst, one shown in New York, one in Santiago, Chile and one here on campus," stated the letter. "In our view Professor Godfrey's work provided intriguing new ways to experience the nature of the environment we encounter every day."
Godfrey believes that his objections have merit due to the unusual decision of the Committee of Six to overturn the departmental recommendation and to recommend his reappointment to Gerety, as well as by the questions the Committee asked to departmental members. According to a document entitled, "Questions for the fine arts department's meeting with the Committee of Six," the Committee showed some skepticism about the majority's claims. "In reading the evaluations by students, we see a strong pattern of improvement," stated the document. "The majority opinion seems to make more negative claims than are apparent from the evaluations."