archive-org.com » ORG » A » AAUP.ORG

Total: 1208

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Some Implications of Tenure for the Profession and Society | AAUP
    alleged PhD glut is a consequence of the increasing use of non PhD faculty in these contingent positions The opportunities for tenure could be increased and the rationing system moderated if even one third of the 700 000 part and full time non tenure track positions were converted back to tenure track We now have a two tier system of faculty appointments with arbitrary standards for many tenure track faculty and inadequate standards for a larger second tier Career oriented faculty unable to achieve tenure often leave the profession Most faculty offered contingent positions lack terminal degrees Few benefit from professional review support and participation Within institutions and across higher education the two tiered system of appointments denies academic careers to many able faculty even as it retains less qualified or professionally supported faculty Non tenure track positions pay less than tenure track and proliferate in disciplines where an oversupply of candidates and an increasing proportion of women permit institutions to offer less advantageous terms of employment Hirschel Kasper On Understanding the Rise in Non Tenure Track Appointments Industrial Relations Section Princeton University Working Paper 211 Mimeo August 1986 p 11 The fact that non tenure track positions offer inferior terms of employment rebuts the view that abolishing tenure would increase compensation and the attraction of the profession On the contrary it is increasing tenure track lines that would both increase faculty quality and diminish the hostility of younger faculty to the tenure system Restoring the tenure system would increase costs To say this however is to recognize that it is not tenure but the inadequately funded expansion of higher education which has frustrated new entrants to the profession The tenure system has attracted able men and increasingly able women to the profession It will continue to do so if it survives the economic constraints which now shape higher education Does Tenure Impair the Free Search for Truth and its Free Exposition The 1940 Statement argues tenure by ensuring academic freedom contributes to the common good through the search for truth and its free expression This argument was well elaborated by Kingman Brewster then president of Yale University This spirit of academic freedom within the university has a value which goes beyond protecting the individual s broad scope of thought and inquiry If a university is alive and productive it is a place where colleagues are in constant dispute defending their latest intellectual enthusiasm attacking the contrary views of others From this trial by combat emerges a sharper insight later to be blunted by other sharper minds It is vital that this contest be uninhibited by fear of reprisal On Tenure AAUP Bulletin Winter 1972 Vol 58 No 4 pp 382 3 Critics respond that many faculty are not risk takers True but faculty should not have to risk their livelihoods to engage in ordinary research and teaching that may become controversial Currently any class discussion of race gender religion evolution or sexuality may erupt in a career threatening controversy Recent research controversies include children s smoking fetal tissue DNA IQ and crime Washington historical exhibit controversies included the Enola Gay Freud slavery and even display of ethnic stereotypes in an exhibit of the Ashcan School Everyday teaching and research require a measure of professional autonomy to assure professional integrity and academic quality Academic Freedom An Everyday Concern Edited by Ernst Benjamin and Donald R Wagner New Directions for Higher Education Number 88 San Francisco Jossey Bass Winter 1994 But it need not follow that the tenure system best affords this protection Critics argue reasonably that probationary faculty as well as faculty on contingent appointments merit academic freedom and that excessive competition for tenure encourages low risk non controversial research and teaching Historically senior faculty were responsible to protect their junior colleagues as part of the task of mentoring their apprenticeship Independent protection came appropriately with full professional qualification Now tenured faculty often avoid involvement with probationary colleagues whom they expect to fall victim to tenure rationing and often ignore contingent faculty Worse wise counsel is too often that non tenured faculty should avoid risk collegial work and even their students to achieve the quantity of publication requisite to tenure Collegial protection has also weakened as university wide review meant to limit tenure rates has diminished departmental authority The desire to avoid litigation and centralized review prompt many universities to rely more on quantity of publication or citation than quality This fosters low risk scholarship counter to the purpose of tenure witness the ivy league provost I heard extoll tenure for assuring a faculty member the 15 years required to produce a single but definitive book and then note that it now takes two books within six years to get tenure Although many faculty objections to tenure system could be nullified by a modest increase in the proportion of tenurable positions many administrators believe that this would impose not only economic costs but institutional rigidity They urge that tenure impedes reallocation of academic resources institutional reorganization and academic innovation Certainly university staffing and curricula must adapt to changes such as the shift in student orientation from the humanities to business begun in the 1970s Many administrators claimed that tenure impeded readjustment as they sought to replace professors of literature and history with professors of business and computer science Even so the demand for new technical faculty so far exceeded supply as to create serious inter disciplinary salary inequities and questions about the quality of new tenure track faculty in the high demand areas In fields with diminished demand institutions shifted to non tenure track appointments These did little to increase flexibility as students remained to be taught but did reduce the places for professionally supported full time faculty As the cost savings realized through conversion of positions from first to second tier were shifted from instruction to other types of expenditures higher education became more dependent on low cost faculty The effort to protect flexibility ultimately substituted cost constraints for

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure/some-implications-tenure-profession-and-society (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • State Conference Committee A Resources | AAUP
    to Administrations The following three letters were written by state Committee A volunteers in response to issues at conference institutions Only one of the letters however was sent over the signature of the state Committee A chair For maximum impact the other two letters were sent over the conference president s signature All three of these letters were reviewed by national Committee A staff before being sent Program discontinuation pdf An unsuccessful attempt to pre empt a decision by the president of a university to eliminate twenty three academic programs without an appropriate degree of faculty participation The president ended up eliminating the programs and with them fourteen full time faculty positions ten of which held tenure Dismissal of part time faculty member pdf This letter responds to the dismissal of a part time professor at a community college after students complained to the administration about comments he had made about the Bible in his section of Western Civilization Termination hearing pdf This letter was written to a college president after he terminated the appointment of a tenured professor of music after eliminating programs in music and would not afford her a hearing Relevant Policy Statements and Reports The essential resource for state and local Committee A work is of course the AAUP s Policy Documents and Reports otherwise known as the Redbook which you can purchase here The particular Redbook documents which you will rely upon most frequently are linked below These and other important Redbook statements and reports are also posted here 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation Sexual Harassment Suggested Policy and Procedures for Handling Complaints Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities Basic Principles Underlying Committee A Work 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure The AAUP s founding document it outlines the philosophy behind the tenure system Protecting Professional Rights The AAUP Approach pdf In this essay originally an address AAUP s former Committee A staff director Jonathan Knight explains to an audience of outsiders the Association s method for successfully promoting academic freedom in American higher education A Little History The First Investigation pdf by Walter Metzger A lively account of the AAUP s first Committee A investigation conducted by A O Lovejoy at the University of Utah in 1915 How National Committee A Operates Today Association Procedures in Academic Freedom and Tenure Cases Appendix II of AAUP Policy Documents and Reports 10th ed The current procedures followed by national Committee A and particularly its staff in pursuing academic freedom and tenure cases Request a free copy of this document Committee A Procedures by David Fellman Originally published in 1962 this report by the chair of Committee A was reprinted in the March April 2005 issue of Academe It describes Committee

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/assembly-state-conferences/conference-support/state-conference-committee (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Frequently Asked Questions – Election of Conference Delegates and Officers | AAUP
    notice of election must be mailed to each member at his or her last known home address at least fifteen calendar days before the delegate election A statement in the conference s constitution or bylaws that the election will be held at a particular time will not substitute for this mailed notice 29 C F R 452 99 What information has to be included in the notice of the election The date time and place of the election and the offices that are being filled In the words of the LMRDA it must be in such form as to be reasonably calculated to inform the members of the impending election 29 C F R 452 99 Will the national office mail the notice of election for my conference If your conference participates in the national AAUP s electronic elections then the national will mail the notice of election for you at the beginning of March Can the notice for the nominations and the election be combined into one notice Yes if it meets the requirements for both notices that is if it is sent at least 15 days before the election and if it apprises members of the method by which to offer nominations 29 C F R 452 99 Are there specific requirements for how the conference conducts the nominating process as opposed to the election for its delegates Generally no Members must be informed of the fact that delegates will be elected as well as the time place and form for submitting nominations But the notice of nomination doesn t have to go out fifteen days before the nominations as the notice of election does and it doesn t have to be mailed It does need to comport with any requirements that the conference s own constitution or bylaws set out 29 C F R 452 56 Can we provide notice of the delegate nomination period by publishing the call for nominations in the conference newspaper Yes as long as the conference newspaper goes to all members the notice in the paper is prominent enough to be seen by all members in good standing and it s timely and sufficiently detailed that is that members receive it in sufficient time to be fully informed about the proper method for making nominations and able to make a nomination if they desire 29 C F R 452 56 Can we provide notice of the delegate nomination period via email Yes as long as it informs all members in good standing in sufficient time to permit them to nominate the candidates of their choice 29 C F R 452 56 Can we make nominations on the floor of a meeting Yes as long as all members have a reasonable opportunity to nominate which may be unlikely at a conference meeting given the dispersal of members over an entire state and the elections themselves are still done by secret ballot of the entire conference membership 29 C F R 452 57 Can

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/assembly-state-conferences/conference-support/frequently-asked-questions-%E2%80%93 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Guidelines for Good Practices for Chapters & Conferences | AAUP
    be said with a fairly high degree of confidence that chapters that conduct their affairs in accord with the standards imposed by law will also be in compliance with the AAUP s constitutional standards Regard for Association Principles Policies and Procedures The source of the Association s influence in higher education is the power of its policies and principles and the integrity and care with which the Association has carried out its work since 1915 On occasion the Association has suffered discredit because of the actions or communications of chapters and conferences Unfortunately only a few such instances can undo decades of painstaking work Administrators legislators the media the public and even faculty colleagues often take the utterances of a chapter or conference as representing the Association s position Care must betaken by chapters and conferences not only to speak responsibly but to state clearly that their positions are their own and not necessarily those of the national Association and that they are not authorized to speak for the national Association Letterhead stationery used by chapters or conferences should also clearly identify the specific organization When Association principles policies or procedures are implicated in a matter being addressed by a chapter or conference advice from the Association s national office may need to be obtained before any public statement of position on the matter is made Good faith and good sense will guide chapter and conference leaders in their determination of what issues require consultation with the national office The higher the stakes the more volatile or contentious the issue the more complex the issue or the more serious the issue the greater the need for consultation 4 The most visible work of the AAUP is its investigation of alleged violations of fundamental principles of the profession its publication of findings and its imposition of censure or sanction In important respects this work of the AAUP is a form of academic jurisprudence scrupulous regard for fair and regular procedures due process thoroughness in assembling all relevant facts a complete record consistency in its determinations the importance of precedent and impartiality in its decisions adherence to principle rather than sentiment The Association s procedures reserve to the General Secretary the exclusive responsibility to authorize an investigation of alleged violations of fundamental principles a decision that is made only after a comprehensive preliminary investigation and consultation with the Staff Committee on Investigations Chapters and conferences therefore must not undertake investigations although if an investigation is authorized the assistance of both is highly desirable in the handling of a case by the national office and by the committee of faculty investigators Chapters and conferences engage in the critical work of the Association by acting to advocate and implement the principles of the profession in their institutions and in their states Most of this work is appropriately undertaken without consultation with the national office The harm that can befall the Association and its reputation for integrity through the missteps of a chapter or a

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/assembly-state-conferences/conference-support/guidelines-good-practices (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • AAUP and the Federal LMRDA: A Compliance Kit for Conferences and Chapters | AAUP
    20037 202 367 5035 phone 515 365 0552 direct fax 202 375 4018 mobile 800 978 6273 ext 75035 toll free What are the LMRDA election requirements The core LMRDA principles ensuring democratic union elections are The union must remain fair and impartial not showing favoritism or even the appearance of favoritism toward any candidate Every member in good standing has the right to nominate candidates run for office and vote by secret ballot The union needs to follow its own election rules provided they meet federal standards The union may not furnish any resources to support or oppose a candidate It must allow all candidates an equal opportunity to campaign at their own expense If a union distributes information about one candidate it must distribute the same information about all candidates A chapter could for example allow every candidate the opportunity to send two emails using the chapter s email list Elections may be conducted in person or by mail ballot Candidates have the right to inspect voter lists and to have an observer present at the polls for in person elections and at the ballot counting Ballots and election records must be retained for at least one year Under the LMRDA AAUP chapters that engage in collective bargaining at private colleges or universities must elect officers at least once every three years These chapters must hold elections by secret ballot among the general membership At higher levels such as the Collective Bargaining Congress the rules are slightly more flexible The LMRDA provides that intermediate bodies those between local chapters and national Council may elect officers by delegates who were themselves elected by secret ballot Although the AAUP Legal Department is counsel to the national Association and not to individual chapters or conferences the office can provide general guidance about compliance with the LMRDA s election requirements AAUP entities may also wish to consult with their own attorneys regarding compliance issues A link to information about LMRDA election compliance including detailed guidelines on electing local union officials is here http www dol gov compliance topics unions elections htm What reports does the LMRDA require a union to file The LMRDA requires private sector labor organizations to file certain reports with the DOL to document governance and financial integrity General information on these reporting requirements and on fiscal controls for unions is here http www dol gov compliance topics unions reporting htm There are three categories of documents that a LMRDA covered entity is required to file Information Report A Labor Organization Information Report needs to be filed only one time ideally at the formation of the entity An amended version should be filed whenever the governing documents are changed The form is known as the LM 1 You can find the LM 1 here http www dol gov olms regs compliance GPEA Forms blanklmforms htm Annual Reports Entities covered by the LMRDA must file certain financial reports annually The forms are known as the LM 2 LM 3 and

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/assembly-state-conferences/conference-support/aaup-and-federal-lmrda (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2012: Resolution on a Charge to the Committee on the Organization of the Association regarding AAUP Elections | AAUP
    Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home 2012 Resolution on a Charge to the Committee on the Organization of the Association regarding AAUP Elections The Council approved the following resolution regarding elections and the AAUP Constitution The Council hereby charges the Committee on the Organization of the Association with reviewing proposed constitutional amendments which were developed with the assistance of outside labor counsel The Council requests that the committee analyze the various permutations relating to the proposed constitutional changes and offer opinion and judgment on the manner in which to amend the constitution to enable the Association to move away from an annual election cycle The Council asks the committee to consult with the Nominating Committee and the Election Committee as necessary for their input based on experiences from the most recent election process and the Council further requests that the Committee on the Organization of the Association prepare and present thoroughly developed constitutional amendment proposals to the November 2012 Council meeting with the stated goal of recommending to the June 2013 annual meeting final amendments to the Association s constitution Kerry Grant chair of the Committee on the Organization of the Association asked Council members to indicate whether they preferred a one year two year or three year election cycle and the members indicated two years He asked about the preference for two year or four year terms of Council membership and they indicated four years The Council also approved the following resolution regarding the status and term on the Council of immediate past chairs of the Assembly of State Conferences and the

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/2012-resolution-charge-committee-organization-association-regarding-aaup-elections (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2011: Resolution on Priorities | AAUP
    at stake In this context the National Council designates the following two majority priority areas for the entire organization including both activists and staff The principal priority is to build the AAUP by increasing membership in both advocacy and collective bargaining chapters organizing new chapters and facilitating greater levels of activism among members Without increasing both the numbers and involvement of our membership the AAUP will not be able to meet successfully the challenges faced by our profession This means AAUP staff and leaders should seek to increase membership and involve greater numbers of faculty graduate students and other academic professionals wherever feasible and in all areas of work In addition the organization should focus its organizing in a series of campaigns strategically designed to build membership and activity in both collective bargaining and advocacy chapters With respective to collective bargaining such campaigns include ongoing efforts at New Mexico State University of Oregon and University of Illinois Urbana Champaign and any other organizing drive initiated either independently or in conjunction with AFT The Executive Committee of the CBC in coordination with the DOS staff shall determine which specific campaigns are of greatest priority With respect to advocacy the focus should be on building membership and involvement in specified geographic areas or large institutions and systems where AAUP has recently played an active role in defense of faculty rights e g Louisiana where faculty rights are under intensified assault e g Texas where the state s plan to measure faculty productivity poses a potential national threat or where new faculty activity or interest has been emerging e g Tennessee and some University of California campuses In this activity the AAUP must maintain its independent and special role but wherever possible we should collaborate with other faculty unions especially through our joint agreement with AFT with contingent faculty groups with national state and local education coalitions and where appropriate with disciplinary organizations Efforts to expand and activate membership will be fruitless if the organization cannot provide concrete services and support to state conferences collective bargaining units advocacy chapters and the membership as a whole Therefore a second priority is to improve the Association s work in providing service to its membership by providing new and additional resources for organizing by improving access to AAUP policy documents publications databases etc and by responding promptly and effectively to member inquiries and requests Both AAUP staff and leadership at the national and state levels must maintain regular contact with chapters and strive as feasible to assist their work especially when chapters report attacks on faculty rights It is critically important to emphasize that these priorities must not be implemented in a manner that might undermine AAUP s ongoing and crucial efforts in support of academic freedom and shared governance through our system of investigations and actions and in the legal arena Policy development can also be an organizing tool as is intervening in critical court cases Indeed as assaults on faculty intensify demand for these

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/resolutions-council/resolution-priorities (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2010: Resolution on the Consolidation of the International Academic Freedom Fund with the Academic Freedom Fund | AAUP
    Students The Academic Bill of Rights Minority Serving Institutions Post Tenure Review Retirement Sexual Diversity Gender Identity Teaching Evaluation Tenure Women in Higher Education Reports Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/2010-resolution-consolidation-international-academic-freedom-fund-academic-freedom-fund (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •