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".
  • Special Committee on Athletics | AAUP
    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 Chapter I Need Help With Workplace

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/special-committee-athletics (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Some Legal Aspects of Collegial Governance (2003) | AAUP
    to Dissolve Itself The Chronicle of Higher Education May 7 2001 Courts sometimes address what type of legal entity faculty senates are when asked to determine whether senate meetings are covered by open meeting laws and therefore must be open to the public Open meeting laws vary from state to state Tafoya v Hastings College of Law 236 Cal Rptr 395 Cal App 1987 Students sued the board of directors deans and faculty alleging violations of the state s open meeting law The students alleged that faculty meetings must be opened to the public The college responded that only the board and certain of its committee meetings must be publicly held not faculty meetings The students reasoned that the board of regents is a state created body and the board delegates some of its authority to faculty Alternatively the students claimed that the faculty served in an advisory capacity to the board In concluding that faculty meetings were not subject to the open meeting law the court noted that statements in the legislative committee report about open meetings included clear language that meetings of the academic senate were not subject to the law III Faculty Handbooks as Enforceable Contracts for Governance Provisions Courts are often asked to decide whether faculty handbooks which include policies rules and procedures under which professors work establish contractual relationships between a professor and an administration While the issue usually arises in the context of individual breach of contract claims in the employment context sometimes litigation arises between trustees and faculty senates about the legal status of faculty handbooks generally and whether governance provisions are enforceable specifically University of Dubuque v University of Dubuque Faculty Assembly No EQCV90784 Iowa Dist 1999 The university s board of trustees apparently in an effort to amend the university s faculty handbook without seeking faculty approval sued 46 faculty members The board sought a court order declaring that the faculty handbook used at the university was not a contract but simply a formal institutional policy statement The faculty members argued that the handbook provided for faculty approval of handbook revisions The trustees argued in state court where they sought a declaratory judgment that the faculty handbook was a guidepost because if it were otherwise the board would be stymied by the faculty senate The court noted that the faculty handbook was incorporated into each individual faculty member s letter of appointment The court further observed that the preamble of the faculty handbook stated that the handbook was legally binding Accordingly the court concluded that the university faculty handbook was legally binding and enforceable upon both parties At the same time the court found that two provisions of the handbook conflicted and resolved that potential conflict in favor of the trustees Specifically one clause provided for modifications of the handbook by the trustees only and another provision established procedures for faculty approval of handbook revisions The board claimed victory in the lawsuit because the court allow ed the Board of Trustees to adopt and incorporate into the Handbook any proposed modification submitted to the Amendment and Revision Committee regardless of whether the same has been approved by the faculty at large Tabbox v Indiana State University Board of Trustees Cause No 84D01 9203 CP 445 Vigo Superior Court Indiana Apr 1992 Seventy eight members of the Indiana State University faculty sought a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against their board for continuing a presidential search and appointing a new president in violation of their faculty handbook which provided that faculty members serve on the search committee of the university The court was asked to review not only the specific violation of the presidential search provision of the handbook but also the larger issue about the legal status of the handbook as a contract between the Faculty and the University The parties settled The settlement agreement did not directly address whether the faculty handbook was enforceable as a contract Rather it affirmed that the handbook provide s for meaningful faculty participation in University governance Faculty for Responsible Change v Visitors of James Madison University 38 Va Cir 159 Va Cir 1995 An association of faculty sued the university for breaching faculty employment contracts by closing some academic programs without having first obtained the recommendation from various faculty bodies including the faculty senate The faculty handbook which was incorporated into individual letters of appointment provided that JMU faculty had the primary role in the development modification and review of the curriculum while the president of JMU had the final authority and responsibility for curricular matters The administration announced that it was merging one of its colleges with another and that it was closing a number of academic programs The administration announced these changes without obtaining the recommendations of the University Council the Undergraduate Curriculum Council the Graduate Council or the Faculty Senate The court noted that FRC does not allege that its claim is formally supported by the JMU faculty as a political body The court found no breach of contract The court reviewed the faculty handbook language and noted that the dictionary definition of recommendation does not require a recipient to be bound to follow it The court also noted that the president had final authority over all curricular matters The court reasoned These governance provisions expressed the parties hopes and expectations with respect to faculty reorganizations and curriculum changes but as applied to the facts of this case they are not an enforceable contract between the administration and the faculty as to the faculty s mandatory participation in the curriculum changes which the President made and which the Board of Visitors has not rescinded FRC s remedy as a group in this case is political not legal Ahmadieh v University of Southern Colorado 767 P 2d 746 Co App 1988 The appointments of a number of tenured faculty members were terminated as a result of a university reorganization of academic programs The dismissed professors sued the university arguing that the administration had violated their due process rights The lower court reasoned that the failure of the Board to refer its recommended program changes to the university curriculum committee and the faculty senate prior to their adoption violated a provision of the handbook which had been incorporated into plaintiffs employment contracts The appellate court reversed framing the primary issue as whether the president was required to refer the reorganization plan to the curriculum committee or the faculty senate The court found that the board did not intend to vest control over the curriculum in the faculty Any construction of the handbook s language which inferred such vestment of control would constitute an improper delegation of authority vested by the General Assembly in the Board and would render such handbook provisions unlawful and void IV Faculty Enforcement of Statutory Shared Governance Protections The California Experience From time to time faculty senates go to court to enforce state statutory requirements that the administration consult with them or seek their recommendations California is one state where faculty have sought to enforce their authority under state law in the courts with mixed results Irvine Valley College Academic Senate v Board of Trustees of the South Orange Community College District Case No 03CC05351 June 20 2003 The academic senates of Saddleback and Irvine Valley community colleges are suing their district chancellor and trustees in state court over a newly issued district wide hiring policy that shifts decision making powers from the faculty to the administration The case arises under California s education code which provides that hiring policies be developed and agreed upon jointly by the district and the senate The faculty senates sought to set aside the hiring policy because it was not approved in advance by each college s faculty senate The trial court ruled that the faculty senates had standing to sue the district because they are statutorily created bodies and have a clear beneficial interest in the litigation The court next interpreted the statute as requiring that faculty senates have a real and meaningful role a joint role in the creation and revision of hiring criteria policies and procedures If the faculty senates decline to so participate the District may nevertheless promulgate such revisions in accordance with due process standards Alternatively if the faculty senates are afforded a real and meaningful role so that indeed they have had a true opportunity jointly to develop the criteria policies and procedures formal and technical agreement may not be possible and therefore cannot be statutorily required The relevant provisions of the Education Code taken together cannot be found to give the Senates a de facto veto or ability to frustrate reform The court found that in this case the faculty senates had not been afforded an opportunity to jointly develop the revised policy because a lthough the process began in February of 2002 the faculty senates were not informed until May Furthermore when the faculty senates were informed the solicitation of their input was insufficient because b y that point in time the real work had been done Accordingly the court stayed the implementation of the new hiring policies The case remains in litigation See Faculty Senates Sue Districts Over Hiring Rules Black Issues in Higher Education 17 May 8 2003 Munsee v Horn California State University Long Beach 139 Cal Rptr 373 Cal App 1977 The chair of the academic senate sued the college president seeking a judicial order that the senate s interpretation of campus procedures for appointment promotion and tenure were binding on the president Section 42701 of the California Administrative Code requires that faculty be consulted on academic personnel matters by the trustees The court ruled that the senate s interpretation was advisory only unless and until approved by the college president In so ruling the court noted that the past practice of the previous college president was not binding on the current administration Searle v Regents of the University of California 100 Cal Rptr 194 Cal App 1972 The court described this case as one of essentially whether the regents or the faculty shall control university policy in determining whether credit is to be given for courses conducted by nonmembers of the faculty The regents delegated to the academic senate the authority to supervise all courses and curricula At the same time the regents retained the authority to make faculty appointments The regents later adopted a resolution that limited the ability of non faculty members to conduct course lectures for credit When a lecture course Dehumanization and Regeneration in the American Social Order was taught by Eldridge Cleaver who was not a faculty member the students were not granted academic credit Students and faculty members sued the regents seeking a ruling that the university grant the academic credit and rescind its resolution The court acknowledged the board s delegation of authority over curricula to the academic senate but found the authority to be neither exclusive nor irrevocable The court further opined that the constitutional right of free expression does not include the right to receive or bestow university credit for the listening to or for the choosing of the speaker V Shared Governance No Confidence Votes and the Matters of Public Concern Test Faculty senates sometimes take no confidence votes on the performance of presidents or trustees See e g Faculty at Rockland Community College Votes No Confidence The Chronicle of Higher Education July 12 2002 Whether faculty participation at public institutions in such no confidence votes specifically or speaking out on governance issues generally is protected speech under the First Amendment varies Courts have applied the matters of public concern balancing test to the expression of faculty members at public institutions See Pickering v Board of Education 391 U S 563 568 1968 a court must balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees Under Pickering and its progeny courts first determine whether a professor is speaking on a matter of public concern and if so whether the professor s speech outweighs the state s interest in an efficient academic workplace The content form and context of a given statement is examined by courts in determining whether a particular topic addresses a matter of public concern Connick v Myers 461 U S 138 147 48 1983 The difference between a matter of public concern and a matter of private interest is difficult to delineate Compare Landrum v Eastern Kentucky University 578 F Supp 241 E D Ky 1984 ruling as unprotected speech professor s comments about school s real estate curriculum because the comments constituted a personal grievance with Johnson v Lincoln University 776 F 2d 443 3rd Cir 1985 holding as protected speech professor s comments on faculty reductions student enrollment and grade inflation even though the topics were an outgrowth of personal disputes within the chemistry department because questions of educational standards and academic policy are broad and implicate matters of public concern Is faculty advocacy around a no confidence vote protected speech Different panels in the same court have looked at similar facts and reached opposite conclusions Clinger v New Mexico Highlands University 215 F 3d 1162 10th Cir 2000 cert denied 531 U S 1145 2001 A faculty member who was denied tenure sued the university on a number of grounds including the claim that she was retaliated against in part for her advocacy before the Faculty Senate of a no confidence vote with respect to four members of the Board of Regents in light of their purported failure to comply with an internal policy on the appointment of a new president She argued that such speech was protected under the First Amendment The court rejected that argument finding the challenge essentially one about the internal structure and governance of the university and concluding that such matters of this nature rarely transcend the internal workings of the university to affect the political or social life of the community And so the court concluded that t he First Amendment does not require public universities to subject internal structural arrangements and administrative procedures to public scrutiny and debate Gardetto v Mason Eastern Wyoming College 100 F 3d 803 10th Cir 1996 A female professor s speech was found to be protected under the matters of public concern test She spoke out in favor of a no confidence vote against the college president and criticized in public the president s reduction in force RIF plan The court found her call for the no confidence vote as implicat ing broader concerns about the president s possible misrepresentation of his educational status his lack of integrity and leadership and the corresponding decline in student enrollment at the college The court further found her comments about the RIF plan a matter of public concern because she had a well informed perspective on expenditures of public funds in the debate For commentary criticizing the application of the matter of public concern test to professors see Alisa W Chang Resuscitating the Constitutional Theory of Academic Freedom A Search for a Standard Beyond Pickering and Connick 53 STAN L REV 915 938 2001 The first and perhaps most fundamental problem with the automatic application of the Pickering Connick rules to academic contexts is the fact that university professors are not employees in the traditional sense Matthew W Finkin Intramural Speech Academic Freedom and the First Amendment 66 Tex L Rev 1323 1988 critiquing the application of Connick to intramural faculty speech Query Faculty senates have recently spoken out against cooperating with the U S Departments of Justice and Homeland Security in Patriot Act investigations One such case is the faculty senate at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh See e g Michael Arnone Faculty Senate at Oshkosh Urges Professors Not to Cooperate With Patriot Act Investigations The Chronicle of Higher Education Mar 11 2003 Do you think such expression by faculty at public institutions would be protected speech under the matter of public concern test VI Faculty Unions and Faculty Senates What is the role of faculty senates when the faculty chooses to unionize In some court cases faculty senates have disbanded after the election by faculty of collective bargaining See e g In re Keene State College Educ Ass n 120 N H 32 1980 eliminating faculty committees within managerial prerogative of university administration Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v Knight 465 U S 271 1984 abolishing faculty senates and establishing meet and confer sessions for faculty union members Such governance changes are sometimes initiated by the administration and other times by faculty unions In other situations unions delegate some authority to the senate whereby the union deals with economic concerns and the senate with academic ones In still other cases collective bargaining has not modified faculty senate jurisdiction In at least one early case the NLRB raised the question but did not determine whether the Northeastern University faculty senate itself constituted a faculty union The board opined Undoubtedly this will affect the ability of faculty members to utilize existing governance structures in dealing with the administration over rates of pay wages hours of employment or other conditions of employment The precise impact which selection of a bargaining representative will have upon such existing structures however is impossible to predict at this time It is unwise for this Board to create the impression that selection of a bargaining representative need not necessarily have an impact on existing governance structures Northeastern University 218 NLRB 247 1978 See generally the November December 1987 issue of Academe Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors which focuses on collective bargaining and faculty governance The issue includes the following articles Larry E Glenn The Faculty Senate and the AAUP at Southern Connecticut State University at 16 R Thomas McDonald Governance on Trial at 20 Susan Davidson

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/governance-colleges-universities/legal-aspects (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Evaluation of Shared Governance | AAUP
    Bargaining Hiring and Promotions Discrimination Diversity Affirmative Action Ethics Faculty Work Workload Family Work Grading Graduate 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 Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Evaluation of Shared Governance Introduction The following list of questions is designed to allow for the immediate evaluation of the state of shared government at institutions of higher education An institution can use these questions to prepare assessment reports for external reviews as well as to evaluate and enhance the institutional system of shared governance The questions are largely drawn from a short monograph by Keetjie Ramo entitled Assessing the Facultyʹs Role in Shared Governance Implications of AAUP Standards 1998 Each question can be answered with a ʺyesʺ or ʺno ʺ When areas for concern

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/governance-colleges-universities/evaluation (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Introduction to "Indicators of Sound Governance" | AAUP
    Others disproportionately emphasized some governance issues over others The compendium I completed in 1994 Assessing Faculty s Role in Shared Governance arose from the need for a set of questions that faculty members could use to measure their own situations against AAUP standards Still the compendium s length and detail discouraged its use by for example senate officers Therefore the Committee on College and University Governance again called for a checklist Some suggested that the questions raised in the compendium be winnowed and made into a questionnaire I volunteered to head up the task The Committee looked at a number of versions of the document before it developed its present form While not yet completed the instrument seems to address the necessary if not sufficient conditions that exist when governance is sound Because of this just filling out the instrument can inform respondents where gaps and violations of standards exist on their campuses As you know the instrument has proved to be a good tool for raising faculty members consciousness about sound governance This has held true on the dozen or so campuses where committee members ran a pilot test Those test runs brought forth a number of good suggestions for further revisions In addition AAUP members consistently ask how their institutions measure up score wise I have not yet fine tuned the questionnaire to address the suggestions and the need for an accurate scale of scores I expect to do so in the coming academic year Nonetheless I encourage faculty members to use the present iteration Though it doesn t yet yield a meaningful score users have found it very useful I need to emphasize that using the instrument as a satisfaction survey will render the results meaningless The questions are intended to reflect observable conditions at colleges and

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/governance-colleges-universities/indicators-sound-governance (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Lindenwood College | AAUP
    Ethics Faculty Work Workload Family Work Grading Graduate 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

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/lindenwood-college (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Miami Dade Community College | AAUP
    Membership Join Renew Benefits of Membership Meet Some Members AAUP Shirts and Gear Issues Academic Freedom Shared Governance Contingent Faculty Positions Faculty Compensation Copyright Distance Ed Intellectual Property Accreditation Sexual Harassment Assault Academic Research Civility Conflicts of Interest Collective Bargaining Hiring and Promotions Discrimination Diversity Affirmative Action Ethics Faculty Work Workload Family Work Grading Graduate 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 Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Miami Dade Community College College and University Government Miami Dade Community College Report concerning the action taken by the administration of Miami Dade Community College to abolish the existing system of academic government at the institution following a faculty vote in favor of collective bargaining and to replace it with a wholly new system of governance

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/miami-dade-community-college (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Governance Investigations | AAUP
    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 Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Governance Investigations College and University Governance Idaho State University Report prepared by the Association s staff concerning the decision by the Idaho State Board of Education to suspend the operation and bylaws of the faculty senate at Idaho State University and to direct ISU president Arthur C Vailas to implement an interim faculty advisory structure Read more about College and University Governance Idaho State University College and University Governance The University of Virginia Governing Board s Attempt to Remove the President This report documents a major breakdown in governance at UVA focusing on the role of the board of visitors and its rector Helen Dragas who initiated the effort to force the president s resignation It finds that the events at the university resulted from a failure by those charged with institutional oversight to understand the institution over which they presided and to engage with the administration and the faculty in an effort to be well informed Read more about College and University Governance The University of Virginia Governing Board s Attempt to Remove the President Academic Freedom Tenure and Governance Violations at Northeastern Illinois University This report deals with the Chicago university s denying tenure to a candidate who had opposed administrators Read more about Academic Freedom Tenure and Governance Violations at Northeastern Illinois University Academic Freedom Tenure and Governance Violations at NEIU

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/governance-investigations (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sadid v. Idaho State University, 265 P.3d 1144 (Idaho 2011), motion to stay denied; Sadid v. Idaho State Univ., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32985 (D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2012) | AAUP
    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 Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Sadid v Idaho State University 265 P 3d 1144 Idaho 2011 motion to stay denied Sadid v Idaho State Univ 2012 U S Dist LEXIS 32985 D Idaho Mar 12 2012 In 2001 Civil Engineering Professor Habib Sadid published a letter to faculty and administrators criticizing Idaho State University s plan to merge two colleges including the College of Engineering Several years later he spoke to a state newspaper about the plan Sadid claimed that in retaliation for his comments he did not receive faculty evaluations was not appointed to a chair position was defamed in an email and received the lowest possible salary increase and that his First Amendment rights were therefore violated Invoking the decision in Hong v Grant the Idaho state trial court concluded that Sadid s letters related to his personal grievances rather than to a matter of public concern In addition relying primarily on cases that arose outside of the academic context the court reasoned that government employers need a significant degree of control over their employees words and actions The court therefore disagreed with Sadid s assertion that because his job description did not include writing letters to the newspaper critiquing the ISU administration he was writing as a private citizen rather than as a public employee The court decided that the tone of Sadid s letters is that of an employee of ISU and added that Sadid should understand that he has limitations of his speech that he accepted when becoming a state employee Finally the court noted

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/sadid-v-idaho-state-university-265-p3d-1144-idaho-2011-motion-stay-denied-sadid-v-idaho-state (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •