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".
  • Selected Readings | AAUP
    centennial Academe devoted two special issues to the Association s role in American higher education over the past hundred years and to the opportunities and challenges of the next century The January February 2015 issue looks back on the organization s first century of existence and includes articles on the history of the AAUP in the courts the history of AAUP collective bargaining the work of the Association in academic freedom and shared governance over the past century and other topics The November December 2015 issue looks forward at the AAUP s second century Academe Blog marked the centennial with a series of centennial blog posts highlighting key figures in the Association major investigations of the past century and other historical topics A selection of articles and reports related to the AAUP s origins and history is below Selected Readings in AAUP History AAUP 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure AAUP Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Conditions at the University of Utah July 1915 Benjamin Ernst How Did We Get Here Academe January February 2015 38 45 Gerber Larry G College and University Governance Academe January February 2015 31 37 Gray Mary W The AAUP and Women Academe January February 2015 46 52 Knight Jonathan The AAUP s Censure List Academe January February 2003 44 49 Metzger Walter P The First Investigation AAUP Bulletin Autumn 1961 206 10 Metzger Walter P Origins of the Association AAUP Bulletin Summer 1965 229 37 O Neil Robert M The AAUP in the Courts Academe January February 2015 6 14 Pollitt Daniel H and Jordan E Kurland Entering the Academic Freedom Arena Running The AAUP s First Year Academe July August 1998 45 52 Schrecker Ellen One Historian s Perspective on Academic Freedom and the AAUP Academe January

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/history/selected-readings (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • AAUP Archives | AAUP
    housed at George Washington University in Washington DC Researchers wishing to use the archives should contact the special collections department at the university s library Historical Recordings The AAUP s archives include several Dictaphone recordings of interviews from the late 1950s and early 1960s with Arthur O Lovejoy the Johns Hopkins University philosophy professor who played a key role in the founding of the AAUP Audio excerpts from these interviews are presented below The Ross Case 2 41 In 1900 economist Edward Ross was dismissed from his faculty position at Stanford University at the behest of Jane Lathrop Stanford the widow of the university s railroad magnate founder after Ross had criticized railroad monopolies and the use of immigrant labor Ross s dismissal prompted Lovejoy and six others to resign from their faculty positions at Stanford and the case made a lasting impression on him In this recording Lovejoy recalls the circumstances surrounding Ross s dismissal Organizing Meeting 1 38 Lovejoy was appointed to the faculty at Johns Hopkins University in 1910 and he soon began organizing his colleagues to take the first steps toward establishing a professional association for faculty members In this clip Lovejoy speaks of how he helped to lay the foundation for an organizing meeting that preceded the formation of the AAUP John Dewey 3 45 The public founding of the AAUP in New York in January 1915 was made possible by the planning work done by Lovejoy and others In this recording Lovejoy continues to discuss the process of building support for the Association among professors and speaks about the recruitment of John Dewey a nationally known professor of philosophy at Columbia University as the first president of the AAUP The First Investigation 4 29 In March 1915 just months after the founding of the

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/history/aaup-archives (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Committee A Procedures | AAUP
    of successful defense of academic freedom and tenure than the known public record would suggest It is hardly necessary to point out that the conciliation processes consume time and effort If and when our efforts at conciliation fail it is necessary for the general secretary again to consider whether to close the case file or go forward Again the decision involves a weighing of the significance and relationship of relevant factors If the decision is affirmative the procedures that then follow are concerned with the definition of the issues on the spot investigation by a special investigating committee the writing editing and publication of a report and action by the AAUP s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the Association s annual meeting As a first step the general secretary appoints a special ad hoc investigating committee but the setting up of these committees is no easy task Finding volunteer investigators is a time consuming and very often a disappointing business We seek top caliber people for these committees but this very quality of excellence often tends to make them less available for these are the very people who are in great demand for all sorts of purposes Geographical propinquity is for economic reasons a factor in the search for investigators but this is also a deterrent because academic people are understandably reluctant to become involved in nearby conflicts The hunt goes on until the right individuals are found but alas time also marches on The Washington office at this point prepares a detailed summary of the case for use by the investigating committee The major known facts are stated relevant documents are summarized the factual issues as tentatively seen by the staff are spelled out the names of persons to see and talk to are listed and explained and the relevant principles that seem to relate to the controversy are stated These summaries are prepared with great care and frequently constitute very substantial documents It is very important that our staff with its experience and expertise should analyze for the benefit of ad hoc committees what seem to be the relevant principles and precedents relating to the particular case at hand Then with the aid of the Washington office the ad hoc committee makes a campus visit It is usually though not always received by the administration of the institution and given a place to work The committee hears the complaining party or parties and the administration and whatever witnesses they care to suggest or may otherwise be available Documents and records are inspected Then the members of the investigating committee return to their respective homes and by a process of exchanging views usually through correspondence arrive at a consensus and agree to a draft report Here again delay is built into the system for since we are committed to investigation by teams we require collaborative reports In the delicate field of freedom professional rights and academic due process topics about which so many people regard themselves as expert and have strongly held views it is often extremely difficult to achieve consensus Time can be consumed in the process of resolving intra committee friction When the ad hoc committee completes its draft report it then goes to the Washington staff thereafter it goes to Committee A for review and if necessary additional revision and a vote on whether or not to publish the report Some revision is invariably found to be necessary and often extensive revision is indicated It is not at all surprising that the Washington office and Committee A are obliged to revise reports After all the amateur investigator is bound to make mistakes and needs the corrective hand of those who have continuous experience and a practiced skill Furthermore not all professors write with equal effectiveness styles differ very long reports must be cut down unclear reports must be redrafted inconsistencies must be reconciled During this stage there is a great deal of coming and going among members of the staff and of Committee A and of the investigating committee Negotiations of complexity and delicacy must be undertaken It is by no means a simple matter to produce a report that can in good confidence be presented to the academic profession for its approval The initial authors of a report may often object to the mutilation of their manuscript Frequently as a consequence protracted negotiations ensue There is the added problem of achieving consensus among the members of Committee A I can testify from very considerable personal experience that the members of this committee not only take their functions seriously but also have minds of their own I should add that even as an abstract proposition you must agree that getting more than a score of professors to agree to a report is at best no easy task Furthermore the members of Committee A are scattered all over the country they have their normal academic functions to fulfill and each has a right to express opinions about the draft report and suggest changes As a result a generous supply of comment can flow into the office of the general secretary on every conceivable point ranging from minor grammatical items to substantial discussion of basic questions of high principle All of this is bound to take time though I should add that members of Committee A are almost invariably prompt in making reply to inquiries from the office But differences of opinion do develop occasionally very fundamental differences and in some fashion they must be reconciled At this point it is the function and high responsibility of the general secretary to rationalize and fit the various suggestions and criticisms that come in into a coherent report acceptable to Committee A This often involves the general secretary in protracted negotiations with the members of the investigating committee as well as the members of Committee A Reports are often so thoroughly rewritten at this point that they must be recirculated among members of Committee A so that

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/committee-procedures (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Censure List | AAUP
    of the institution This censure does not affect the eligibility of nonmembers for membership in the Association nor does it affect the individual rights of members at the institution in question Members of the Association have often considered it to be their duty in order to indicate their support of the principles violated to refrain from accepting appointment to an institution so long as it remains on the censure list Since circumstances differ widely from case to case the Association does not assert that such an unqualified obligation exists for its members it does urge that before accepting appointments they seek information on present conditions of academic freedom and tenure from the Association s Washington office and prospective departmental colleagues The Association leaves it to the discretion of the individual possessed of the facts to make the proper decision Learn more about censure Institutions are listed in chronological order according to when their administrations were placed on the censure list The list contains only administrations which are still under censure many others have been removed from the list after improving their practices and procedures Reports through 2009 were published in the AAUP Bulletin or Academe and the issue of publication is indicated in the Report Published column Starting in 2010 reports were published first on the AAUP website in the month and year indicated in the Report Published column with print publication following in the next issue of the Bulletin of the AAUP In rare cases a supplemental report has been issued after the initial report Clicking on the institution title will take you to a pdf of the report Note To quickly find a particular institution use your browser s search page option Institution Name Report Published Year Grove City College March 63 15 24 1963 Frank Phillips College Dec 68 433 38 1969 Concordia Seminary April 75 49 59 1975 Murray State University Dec 75 322 28 1976 State University of New York Aug 77 237 60 1978 Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas May 78 93 98 1978 Nichols College May 80 207 12 1980 American International College May June 83 42 46 1983 Metropolitan Community College Mar Apr 84 23a 32a 1984 Talladega College May June 86 6a 14a 1986 Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico May June 87 33 38 1987 Husson University May June 87 45 50 1987 Hillsdale College May June 88 29 33 1988 Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary May June 89 35 45 1989 The Catholic University of America Sept Oct 1989 27 40 1990 Dean College May June 91 27 32 1992 Baltimore City Community College May June 92 37 41 1992 Loma Linda University May June 92 42 49 1992 Clarkson College May June 93 46 53 1993 North Greenville College May June 93 54 64 1993 Savannah College of Art and Design May June 93 65 70 1993 University of Bridgeport Nov Dec 93 37 45 1994 Benedict College May June 94 37 46 1994 Supplementary Report

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/censure-list (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure | AAUP
    be agreed in writing that the new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years even though thereby the person s total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years 8 Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the expiration of that period 9 During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have 10 Termination for cause of a continuous appointment or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment should if possible be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution In all cases where the facts are in dispute the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars either from the teacher s own or from other institutions Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties at the institution 11 Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide Endorsers The 1940 Statement of Principles has been endorsed by more than 240 scholarly and education groups Endnotes 1 The Introduction to the Interpretive Comments notes In the thirty years since their promulgation the principles of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have undergone a substantial amount of refinement This has evolved through a variety of processes including customary acceptance understandings mutually arrived at between institutions and professors or their representatives investigations and reports by the American Association of University Professors and formulations of statements by that association either alone or in conjunction with the Association of American Colleges These comments represent the attempt of the two associations as the original sponsors of the 1940 Statement to formulate the most important of these refinements Their incorporation here as Interpretive Comments is based upon the premise that the 1940 Statement is not a static code but a fundamental document designed to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing times and circumstances Also there have been relevant developments in the law itself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts on due process within the academic community which parallels the essential concepts of the 1940 Statement particularly relevant is the identification by the Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected by the First Amendment As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v Board of Regents 385 US 589 1967 Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom Back to text 2 The word teacher as used in this document is understood to include the investigator who is attached to an academic institution without teaching duties Back to text 3 First 1970 comment The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors have long recognized that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities Both associations either separately or jointly have consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy statements providing guidance to professors in their utterances as citizens in the exercise of their responsibilities to the institution and to students and in their conduct when resigning from their institution or when undertaking government sponsored research Of particular relevance is the Statement on Professional Ethics adopted in 1966 as Association policy AAUP Policy Documents and Reports 11th ed Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press 2015 145 46 Back to text 4 Second 1970 comment The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is controversial Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject Back to text 5 Third 1970 comment Most church related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement and we do not now endorse such a departure Back to text 6 Fourth 1970 comment This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation adopted by the sponsors of the 1940 Statement immediately following its endorsement If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher s fitness for his or her position it may proceed to file charges under paragraph 4 of the section on Academic Tenure In pressing such charges the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom in the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances Policy Documents and Reports 31 which

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom | AAUP
    Freedom is given to an American college or university administrator or trustee or to a board of trustees as a group in recognition of an outstanding contribution to academic freedom preferably during the preceding year Nominations are due March 15 Please contact Donna Banks at the AAUP s Washington office for more information Recipients of the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom 1958 President Eldon L Johnson and the Board of Trustees of the University of New Hampshire 1959 Chancellor Ethan A H Shepley of Washington University St Louis 1960 Dean Guerdon David Nichols of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences of the University of Arkansas 1961 Dr Robert W Mance a trustee of Allen University 1962 President Arthur S Flemming of the University of Oregon 1963 Mr Henry L Bowden chairman of the Board of Trustees of Emory University 1964 President Clark Kerr and the Board of Regents of the University of California 1965 President Willis M Tate of Southern Methodist University 1966 President Mason W Gross and the Board of Governors of Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 1968 President J W Maucker of the University of Northern Iowa 1969 President George W Starcher of the University of North Dakota 1970 Reverend Theodore M Hesburgh C S C president or the University of Notre Dame 1973 President Thomas E O Connell of Berkshire Community College 1975 The Board of Trustees of the University of Maine 1978 The Board of Trustees of Wake Forest University 1984 Vice President for Academic Affairs Dale Nitzschke and Dean of the Graduate College James F Adams of the University of Nevada Las Vegas 1988 President W Randall Lolley of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1995 President Sean Fanelli of Nassau Community College New York 1998 President Roger W Bowen of the State

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/awards/alexander-meiklejohn-award-academic-freedom (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Resources on Governance | AAUP
    The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters 1972 Financial Exigency Academic Governance and Related Matters 2004 Governance Standards in Institutional Mergers and Acquisitions 1981 Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians 1973 The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics 1989 Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics 1991 The Faculty Role in the Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics Principles and Recommended Practices 2002 Confidentiality and Faculty Representation in Academic Governance 2013 Faculty Communication with Governing Boards Best Practices 2014 Legal Round Up What s New and Noteworthy for Higher Education By AAUP Counsel These yearly legal roundups summarize and highlight significant court decisions and legal developments on this topic Academic Freedom Shared Governance and the First Amendment after Garcetti v Ceballos pdf February 2011 By Rachel Levinson Senior Counsel Presentation for Stetson University College of Law 31st Annual National Conference on Law and Higher Education Some Legal Aspects Of Collegial Governance 2003 By Donna R Euben AAUP Counsel Presentation made to the AAUP 2003 Governance Conference Making Teamwork Work How Unions Strengthen Shared Governance A Response to a Chronicle of Higher Education Opinion Piece By Ernst Benjamin Senior Consultant AAUP Actions Initiatives Webinar on Developing Shared Governance Presented by Hans Joerg Tiede Ralph S Brown Award for Shared Governance Other Useful Links Faculty Senates Selected Institutions Updated September 2014 By Robert V Labaree A tool for finding lists of faculty governance organizations by state Colleges and Universities United States A list of home pages for American universities and colleges Colleges and Universities International Links to institutions of higher education worldwide Resources on Surveying the Governance Climate AAUP Policy Analysis Some Legal Aspects Of Collegial Governance 2003 By Donna Euben AAUP Other AAUP Resources Evaluation of Shared Governance AAUP A list of questions designed to

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/our-programs/shared-governance/resources-governance (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sanctioned Institutions | AAUP
    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 Our Programs Shared Governance Academic Freedom Shared Governance Resources on Governance Sanctioned Institutions Research Legal Program Government Relations Education Training Coalitions Awards Sanctioned Institutions The following institutions have been sanctioned for infringement of governance standards after Association investigations revealed serious departures from generally accepted standards of college and university government endorsed by this Association as set forth in the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities and derivative governance documents Institutions are placed on or removed from this sanction list by vote of the Association s annual meeting The publication of these sanctions is for the purpose of informing Association members the profession at large and the public that unsatisfactory conditions of academic government exist at the institutions in question Reports through 2009 were published in the AAUP Bulletin or Academe and the issue of publication is indicated below the report Starting

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/our-work/shared-governance/sanctioned-institutions (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •