Muskovitz v. Lubbers ( 1990 )

Marilyn Kelly, J.

(concurring). I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I must disagree, however, that the university’s peer review system is dependent on strict confidentiality and that meaningful participation of the faculty would be chilled without it. I subscribe to the rationale of Univ of Pennsylvania v Equal Employment Opportunity Comm, — US —; 110 S Ct 577, 588; 107 L Ed 2d 571, 589 (1990):

[Cjonfidentiality is not the norm in all peer review systems. . . . [W]e are not so ready as petitioner seems to be to assume the worst about those in the academic community. Although it is possible that some evaluators may become less candid as the possibility of disclosure increases, others may simply ground their evaluations in specific examples and illustrations in order to deflect potential claims of bias or unfairness. Not all academics will hesitate to stand up and be counted when they evaluate their peers.