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".
  • Statement on Academic Government for Institutions Engaged in Collective Bargaining | AAUP
    will take a variety of forms appropriate to the kinds of situations encountered The various parties engaged in the governance of a college or university bring to higher education differing perspectives based on their differing but complementary roles in the academic effort Traditional shared governance integrates those differing roles into productive action that will benefit the college or university as a whole It is in the best interest of all parties to ensure that the institutions of shared governance function as smoothly and effectively as possible Collective bargaining is one means to that end As the Association s Statement on Collective Bargaining 1 asserts collective bargaining can be used to increase the effectiveness of institutions of faculty governance by extending their areas of competence defining their authority and strengthening their voice in areas of shared authority and responsibility Collective bargaining should not replace but rather should ensure effective traditional forms of shared governance The types of governance mechanisms appropriate to a particular college or university are dictated by that institution s needs traditions and mission Since those basic factors are not necessarily affected by the emergence of collective bargaining at a campus bargaining does not necessarily entail substantive changes in the structure of shared governance appropriate for that institution Collective bargaining on a campus usually arises at least in part in response to agencies or forces beyond the scope of institutional governance When problems in institutional governance do contribute to the emergence of collective bargaining these problems generally stem less from inadequacy in the structure for shared governance than from a failure in its proper implementation Bargaining can contribute substantially to the identification clarification and correction of such difficulties Collective bargaining contributes to problem solving in three primary ways Formal negotiation can improve communication between the faculty and the administration or governing board Such communication is essential if the joint planning and effort urged by the Statement on Government is to be productive Collective bargaining can secure consensus on institutional policies and procedures that delineate faculty and administrative participation in shared governance Finally collective bargaining can ensure equitable implementation of established procedures Collective bargaining should ensure institutional policies and procedures that provide access for all faculty to participation in shared governance Employed in this way collective bargaining complements and supports structures of shared governance consistent with the Statement on Government From a faculty perspective collective bargaining can strengthen shared governance by specifying and ensuring the faculty role in institutional decision making Specification may occur through bargaining of governance clauses that define faculty responsibilities in greater detail assurance of the faculty s negotiated rights may be provided through a grievance procedure supporting the provisions of the negotiated contract From an administration perspective contractual clarification and arbitral review of shared governance can reduce the conflicts occasioned by ill defined or contested allocation of responsibility and thereby enhance consensus and cooperation in academic governance The sharing of authority in the governance of colleges and universities as the Statement on Governmen t asserts is

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/statement-academic-government-institutions-engaged-collective-bargaining (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Academic Freedom and National Security in a Time of Crisis | AAUP
    without doing grave damage to the academic enterprise and to advances in science a limited classified research system can serve as a model against which to evaluate other government regulations and initiatives aimed at restricting research Not only are fewer restrictions better than more but restrictions on research to the extent that any are required must be precise narrowly defined and applied only in exceptional circumstances These seem to be the lessons the academic community has drawn from its past experiences with classified research Export Controls As has been noted academic research funded by the government can under specified conditions be classified But two regulatory regimes unconnected to any federal sponsorship or funding also bear on the conduct of teaching and research and the dissemination of research results involving foreign nationals the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ITAR administered by the Department of State and the Export Administration Regulations EAR administered by the Department of Commerce The major revisions to these regulations that are of interest to the higher education community were adopted before September 11 and no changes have been made since then that alter their basic character To the extent however that these regulatory systems do not apply to exchanges with foreign scholars and students when the relevant research is nonproprietary when the results in other words are expected to be shared broadly or are not restricted by the sponsor of the research they have the perhaps unintended consequence of reinforcing the importance of openness in the free exchange of scientific information The potential is present however for the rules to be redrafted The academic community must remain vigilant and insist upon rigorous adherence to the guiding principle set out in the introduction to this report namely that any curtailment of free inquiry or limitation on the free circulation of research would have to be justified not by speculation but by the demonstrable failure or inadequacy of the existing rules The International Traffic in Arms Regulations The Export Control Act requires that a license be obtained before the export of any defense articles and defense services and technical data related to them as designated in a complex of regulations called the U S Munitions List 25 Under the act export encompasses disclosing including oral or visual disclosure or transferring technical data to a foreign person whether in the United States or abroad 26 Classroom discussion or collaborative research with a foreign national the presentation of a paper inside or outside the United States to an audience that includes a non Canadian foreign national and even informal conversations may be subject to the act depending on what has been disclosed or learned Violations of the act may incur criminal sanctions Concerns expressed to the State Department in the late 1970s and early 1980s about the broad sweep of the act led to the narrowing of its application in the academic setting The act exempts information concerning general scientific mathematical or engineering principles commonly taught in schools colleges and universities or information in the public domain The act defines information in the public domain as that generally accessible or available to the public through various means including unlimited distribution at a conference meeting seminar trade show or exhibition generally accessible to the public in the United States and information accessible or available t hrough fundamental research in science and engineering at accredited institutions of higher learning in the United States where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community Fundamental research is defined to mean basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community as distinguished from research the results of which are restricted for proprietary reasons or specific U S Government access and dissemination controls University research will not be considered fundamental research if i The University or its researchers accept other restrictions on publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the project or activity or ii The research is funded by the U S Government and specific access and dissemination controls protecting information resulting from the research are applicable 27 The Export Administration Regulations The statutory bases for EAR are complex but the rules have remained in force despite shifts in statutory and presidential authority 28 Like ITAR EAR covers the export of a long list of items It defines items as commodities software and technology and it defines export as transmission of these items out of the United States or release of technology or software to a non Canadian foreign national inside the United States 29 A release may occur by oral exchange in the United States or abroad However EAR exempts from its coverage release or publication of fundamental research and it defines fundamental research more broadly than ITAR does University based research 1 Research conducted by scientists engineers or students at a university normally will be considered fundamental research University means any accredited institution of higher education located in the United States 30 But there is a caveat University based research is not considered fundamental research if the university or its researchers accept at the request for example of an industrial sponsor other restrictions on publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the project or activity Scientific and technical information resulting from the research will nonetheless qualify as fundamental research once all such restrictions have expired or have been removed EAR devotes considerable care to defining what constitutes publication Information is published when it becomes generally accessible to the interested public in any form including 1 Publication in periodicals books print electronic or any other media available for general distribution to any member of the public or to a community of persons interested in the subject matter such as those in a scientific or engineering discipline either free or at a price that does not exceed the cost of reproduction and distribution 4 Release at an open conference meeting seminar trade show or other open gathering i A conference or gathering is open if all technically qualified members of the public are eligible to attend and attendees are permitted to take notes or otherwise make a personal record not necessarily a recording of the proceedings and presentations ii All technically qualified members of the public may be considered eligible to attend a conference or other gathering notwithstanding a registration fee reasonably related to cost and reflecting an intention that all interested and technically qualified persons be able to attend or a limitation on actual attendance as long as attendees either are the first who have applied or are selected on the basis of relevant scientific or technical competence experience or responsibility iii Publication includes submission of papers to domestic or foreign editors or reviewers of journals or to organizers of open conferences or other open gatherings with the understanding that the papers will be made publicly available if favorably received 31 Further EAR exempts the release of educational information and defines this category as instruction in catalogue courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions 32 Research for a dissertation is subsumed under the treatment accorded all university based research outlined above The Department of Commerce offers question and answer guidance in an appendix to the regulations This guidance makes plain that EAR does not cover publication or submission for publication in a foreign journal presentations at foreign conferences so long as they are open under EAR s regulations or instruction of students from countries for which an export license would otherwise be required The regulations also make clear that some apparent restrictions for example on the circulation of a copy of a dissertation not otherwise published or the sharing of unpublished research data with a visiting foreign national do not in fact apply if the contents meet the definition of fundamental research It should be noted that EAR includes a separate and exacting provision for encryption commodities and software 33 Prior regulations had subjected encryption source codes to licensing review Daniel Bernstein a professor of mathematics statistics and computer science at the University of Illinois Chicago challenged this requirement as an impermissible prior restraint on free speech and his position was sustained in 1999 by the U S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 34 However the court was at pains to distinguish prepublication licensing of source codes from export controls imposed on encryption commodities object codes and technology In January 2000 the Department of Commerce revised EAR to exempt from prior licensing encryption source codes that are publicly available 35 After the government changed the regulations the appellate court sent the case back to the U S District Court In January 2002 Bernstein resurrected his challenge to the revised encryption regulations The case is pending In 2000 the Sixth Circuit reached a similar decision in an encryption case titled Junger v Daley In this case Peter D Junger who teaches a course on computers and the law at Case Western Reserve University sued the Department of Commerce He asserted his First Amendment rights and challenged federal regulations that prohibited him from posting to his website encryption programs that he had written to show his students how computers work In a unanimous decision the court held that the First Amendment protects computer source code 36 Sensitive but Unclassified Information The meaning of sensitive but unclassified information is in one regard straightforward It refers to information that does not warrant classification but that cannot be released to the public without authorization Information of this kind includes personnel information about millions of government employees law enforcement information and information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act The number and kinds of stamps or markings affixed to sensitive documents suggest the sheer variety of this kind of information A 1997 report on government secrecy identified at least fifty two different protective markings being used on unclassified information approximately forty of which are used by departments and agencies that also classify information Included among these are widely used markings such as Sensitive But Unclassified Limited Official Use Official Use Only and For Official Use Only 37 Well before September 11 2001 the government citing considerations of national security invoked the term sensitive but unclassified as a rationale for not releasing government information or academic research funded by the government The government s efforts were met with stiff criticism In 1984 for example National Security Decision Directive 145 concluded that sensitive but unclassified government or government funded information the loss of which could adversely affect the national security interest should be protected in proportion to the threat of exploitation and the associated potential damage to the national security 38 The Government Accounting Office was skeptical that the directive would have a limited application U nclassified sensitive civil agency information affecting national security interests could include hazardous materials information held by the Department of Transportation flight safety information held by the Department of Aviation and monetary policy held by the Federal Reserve 39 Although the directive was withdrawn in 1990 the term sensitive but unclassified did not vanish It found new leases on life notably after the events of September 11 and the deaths soon thereafter caused by the anthrax virus The focus of concern was no longer the Soviet Union and its nuclear weapons capabilities as it had been in the early 1980s but individuals groups and countries considered capable of launching terrorist attacks against the United States Soon after September 11 federal agencies cut off public access to thousands of documents on the Internet ordered information in government deposit libraries to be withheld or destroyed and stopped providing information that had been routinely made available to the public In March 2002 the White House instructed the heads of federal agencies and departments to undertake an immediate reexamination of current measures for identifying and protecting information concerning weapons of mass destruction as well as other information that could be misused to harm the security of our nation and the safety of our people 40 Federal agencies given ninety days to conduct this review and report to the newly established Office of Homeland Security moved quickly into compliance The Homeland Security Act of 2002 followed suit by requiring federal agencies to identify and safeguard homeland security information that is sensitive but unclassified 41 Before considering the responses of the academic community over the past two years to the government s initiatives we need to describe the government s position in support of those efforts The capabilities of terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States have expanded at an alarming pace The government fears that the openness of our borders and the unfettered flow of scientific ideas and information across national borders and in our colleges and universities could contribute to the expansion of the terrorists capabilities Terrorist groups have also made good use of rapid strides in commercial technologies such as computers and cellular telephones The government s classification system and export regulations are suitable for restricting the release of information that could result in sudden and drastic gains by terrorists The difficult problem relates to the results of unclassified research that in the aggregate can reveal highly sensitive information The challenge is to restrain the dissemination of only that research which if disclosed could harm national security The margin of effectiveness provided to terrorists through scientific research may be crucial and no one wishes to help place a weapon in the hands of a potential adversary And yet there are formidable obstacles to creating a system of government restraints based on a determination that research is too sensitive to be released but does not warrant classification Consider first the views of an ad hoc faculty committee at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published in a 2002 report on access to and disclosure of scientific information Increasingly of late MIT has seen the attempt by government contracting officials to include a requirement that research results be reviewed prior to publication for the potential disclosure of sensitive information Such a request implies potential restrictions on the manner in which research results are handled and disseminated and may also restrict the personnel who have access to this material The difficulty with this approach is that the term sensitive has not been defined and the obligations of the Institute and the obligations of the individuals involved have not been clarified and bounded This situation opens the Institute and its faculty students and staff to potential arbitrary dictates from individual government contracting agents however well intended We are aware that many universities have had similar experiences To date MIT has refused in all cases to accept this restriction in any of its government contracts We applaud this approach and believe that a bright line policy is appropriate in this area MIT has chosen to engage in classified research at Lincoln Laboratory under well defined obligations but does not and should not accept arbitrary restrictions on its research environment 42 Consider next a joint statement by the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine Restrictions are clearly needed to safeguard strategic secrets but openness is also needed to accelerate the progress of technical knowledge and enhance the nation s understanding of potential threats A successful balance between these two needs security and openness demands clarity in the distinctions between classified and unclassified research We believe it to be essential that these distinctions not include poorly defined categories of sensitive but unclassified information that do not provide precise guidance on what information should be restricted from public access Experience shows that vague criteria of this kind generate deep uncertainties among both scientists and officials responsible for enforcing regulations The inevitable effect is to stifle scientific creativity and to weaken national security 43 Legislators have also been wary of efforts to create a category of research that is subject to governmental restraints but is not classified Representative Sherwood L Boehlert chair of the House Committee on Science opened a hearing in October 2002 with the question Is sensitive but unclassified research legitimate 44 The witnesses from the higher education community all criticized government restrictions that relied on the category of sensitive but unclassified information As one witness observed sensitive research as a halfway restriction is doomed to failure 45 Perhaps mindful of attitudes in the academic community John H Marburger director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy voiced caution in the hearing that the development of guidelines for federal agencies on the subject of sensitive information is in the formative stage 46 As of the writing of this report the administration has not come forward with a definition of sensitive information that is acceptable to the academic community This seeming delay may be partly a response to the frosty reception by researchers and their institutions but it may also be a recognition of the voluntary restraints the academic community has imposed on itself The historical precedents are instructive In early 1940 the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council established an advisory committee on scientific publications The committee served as a channel of communication between nuclear scientists and the scientific community without any government involvement and it created a voluntary mechanism to limit the circulation of research results within the United States Within a year the committee had secured the cooperation of 237 scientific journals covering every field of research that was judged to relate to national defense 47 Similarly during World War II researchers at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University themselves suppressed an article on germ warfare and ways to protect against it The article was eventually published in 1947 No doubt the government s interest in these research subjects ran high and no doubt also government officials told scientists about the dangers to the nation that could result from indiscriminate release of their research results Some scientists may have acted to avoid government restraints Still what is striking even in retrospect is that the scientists imposed the restraints on themselves without government command and they implemented the restraints through devices of their own choosing A different precedent emerged in 1981 The National Security Agency NSA which develops monitors and breaks military and diplomatic codes had proposed a statutory system of prior review of articles and monographs about cryptography A study group convened by the American Council on Education rejected this approach and instead proposed on an experimental basis a voluntary system of prior review by the NSA of cryptography manuscripts If a researcher agreed to submit a manuscript to the NSA the agency would then determine whether in its view changes deletions or delays in publication were needed Researchers could appeal to a five member board composed of two people appointed by the NSA director and three appointed by the science adviser to the president from a list of nominees provided by the president of the National Academy of Sciences The proposal came under a barrage of criticism That a researcher was free to decide whether or not to participate in the system of prior review or could withdraw a paper at any point during the review process did not mollify critics who saw nothing positive in the government s determining what constituted acceptable academic research 48 Over the past year the scientific community has followed the path of self review established by scientists in the 1940s The American Society for Microbiology took the lead issuing policy guidelines for the society s eleven journals in processing manuscripts dealing with microbiological sensitive issues According to the policy all manuscript reviewers must alert their editors about any manuscript that describes misuses of microbiology or of information derived from microbiology After further initial screening of such a manuscript the regular review continues or the manuscript is declined and returned to the author 49 In 2002 the society s journals reviewed some 14 000 papers submitted for publication Approximately 250 dealt with select agents of this number two raised sufficient concerns to be reviewed by the society s full publications board Both papers were revised and then accepted for publication In a similar vein thirty two of the world s leading journal editors and scientist authors issued the Statement on Scientific Publication and Security in January 2003 to address the possibility that new information published in research journals might give aid to those with malevolent ends 50 According to this statement decisions about the processes used to review papers that raise security issues should be left to scientists and their journals as should decisions about whether a paper should be modified or not published In sum the government has advanced plausible but inconclusive arguments that terrorists might use some published research against the nation The academic community has rejected the idea that the government should police the dissemination of scientific research arguing that such a practice would be an unneeded and dangerous enlargement of the government s role in academic life Scientists today have rightly asserted that the responsibility must lie with them to draw up any measures necessary to determine whether papers submitted for publication raise national security issues and if so how they will handle the matter But a caution is necessary the academic community must be careful not to impose on itself a regulatory burden that differs from the government s only in the locus of administration No evidence suggests that self governance by the scientific community has been purchased at the price of individual freedom Indeed if the experience of the American Society for Microbiology with potentially controversial manuscripts is representative good reason exists to think that no evidence is likely to surface Still in times of crisis a realistic appraisal of what the scientific community is doing to monitor its own members requires us to be aware of the possibility that researchers and journal editors might exercise their responsibilities with too much rigor and thus inadvertently give too little attention to freedom s needs IV Restrictions on Individuals The previous section discussed measures aimed at concealing information that could be useful to terrorists But as the discussion of the USA Patriot Act indicated the government strives not only to keep information away from terrorists but also to keep dangerous people away from information This goal has led to the development of programs to screen out people presumed to be dangerous before they can do harm This section discusses the measures that the government is using to ensure that foreign students and scholars do not have access to information that could be turned against the United States The difficulty is determining which student or which scholar cannot be trusted Aside from an obvious but tiny category of people known or suspected to be trained in terrorism uncertainties abound Foreign Students and Scholars In 2002 more than 580 000 international students attended colleges and universities in the United States Over the past twenty years noncitizens have accounted for more than 50 percent of the growth in the number of Ph D s earned in this country The growth has been especially significant in the biological and agricultural sciences and in mathematics and computer science The largest concentration of students some 60 percent have been from Asia China Taiwan India and South Korea followed by Canada Brazil Turkey Greece Germany and Mexico Students from countries in the Middle East have earned slightly less than 5 percent of all doctoral degrees during this period 51 These numbers help to explain why many agree that foreign students contribute greatly to U S higher education and to society Attorney General Ashcroft expressed a common sentiment on May 10 2002 Allowing foreign students to study here is one of the ways we convey our love of freedom to foreign students who will one day return to their countries and take on leadership positions 52 For the higher education community the March 2003 remarks of American Council on Education president David Ward before the House Science Committee are representative I believe that international students and exchange visitor programs are enormously beneficial to the United States They dramatically increase the knowledge and skills of our workforce They boost worldwide appreciation for democracy and market based economics and give future world leaders first hand exposure to America and Americans At the same time international education generates billions of dollars in economic activity every year 53 Although the importance of foreign students and scholars to the U S academic community is ordinarily undisputed the ordinary was cast aside after September 11 One of the hijackers had entered the country on a student visa and visas were issued for two of the terrorists six months after they had died A new consensus quickly emerged in Washington The president ordered federal officials to undertake a thorough review of the student visa system and the attorney general followed his defense of the love of freedom quoted above with a pointed caution We can no longer allow our hospitality to be abused he said The State Department gave concrete form to this shift in priorities when it announced in November 2001 that it would impose more rigorous screening on men seeking visas from twenty five designated countries 54 Legislators did not lag behind in joining the new consensus and sometimes rushed ahead of it Senator Diane Feinstein proposed a six month moratorium on all student visas but promptly retreated after she encountered significant opposition from higher education associations The House of Representatives passed a version of the USA Patriot Act that would have prevented foreign students from working in research laboratories The Senate did not embrace the House s enthusiasm for isolation Ultimately the main tools used to deal with foreign students and scholars in this country have been the USA Patriot Act and SEVIS the automated system administered originally by the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Services to monitor foreign students and visiting scholars while they are in the United States In March 2003 the INS became part of the Department of Homeland Security and its functions were divided among bureaus of that department A new bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within Homeland Security now administers SEVIS Problems with Sevis All colleges and universities must participate in SEVIS as a condition for accepting foreign students and visitors 55 An institution enters information in the SEVIS computer system about the foreign students it has accepted and about other noncitizens who plan to visit the campus When the student or visitor arrives at a U S port of entry the college or university is notified through SEVIS that the individual is in the country and should be reporting for class or to those who will be hosting the visit The institution must maintain current information about the student including details about any changes in the student s course of study employment and address until the student either completes the academic program and departs the country or changes immigration status The institution must also report to federal authorities for investigation and enforcement students who fail to enroll or who are no longer enrolled Full implementation of SEVIS was scheduled for January 30 2003 but serious problems continue to plague the system and it is not yet fully operational Higher education organizations and college and university administrations have complained that information that colleges and universities provide to the government through SEVIS is frequently lost that campus personnel and federal enforcement staff have not been provided adequate training and that SEVIS often does not provide embassies and consulates with real time access to its data with the result that some students are incorrectly told that they cannot apply for visas The State Department issues visas and SEVIS links consular records with student records maintained by colleges and universities Delayed issuance of visas is the most common inefficiency of the new system and the most troublesome one for foreign students and scholars Students apply for admission to programs that have specific starting dates and foreign scholars are invited to participate in scheduled conferences The time limits associated with those programs or conferences can affect applicants eligibility for visas The State Department warns prospective students that June July and August are the busiest months in most consular sections and interview appointments are the most difficult to get during that period Yet it also informs students that they should not apply more than ninety days before the registration date of the visa application 56 After students have entered the country they can encounter further delays under the SEVIS system As noted above colleges and universities must notify the government of any change in a foreign student s major field of study The SEVIS profile of students includes a list of preselected majors drawn from a list developed by the Department of Education But the government recognizes that the Department of Education s list and hence the list used by SEVIS does not offer an exact match for all schools It advises institutions that choosing the most similar major or area of study should not pose a problem for the student at a later date One might have greater confidence in the government s optimism if SEVIS had more success in simply listing a change in an academic major According to American Council on Education president David Ward In one instance a field of study change took forty seven days to complete 57 Some in the academic community doubt whether SEVIS can ever operate efficiently and question even whether the benefits of an efficiently operating system would outweigh the inevitable impact on the vital flow of international visitors SEVIS s goal of tracking foreign students and scholars is reasonable but the wider the reach of the government s regulatory arm the more difficult its task of identifying the truly dangerous Terrorists and would be terrorists are notoriously difficult to identify and locate and the government will therefore have to resort to inferences and presumptions to identify individuals whose academic records suggest that they might be dangerous Between those who might be dangerous and those who are dangerous lies a large realm of speculation The government has tried to narrow the bounds of speculation by narrowing the focus of its screening and tracking programs The aim is laudable but the result goes in the opposite direction Sensitive Countries and Academic Subjects The State Department maintains a list of countries that are designated as supporters of terrorism A student from a country on the list Cuba Iran Iraq Libya North Korea Sudan and Syria who wants to study in the United States will need a visa approved by the secretary of state and the attorney general These are not the only countries however whose citizens are subject to more rigorous visa screening As was noted above the State Department has identified additional nations that trigger more intense scrutiny But even that list does not include all the countries that federal departments consider sensitive For example the Department of Energy s national laboratories host thousands of foreign visitors each year many of whom are researchers The department maintains a list of countries designated as sensitive including Russia China and India which are not identified by the State Department as supporters of terrorism and do not appear on the department s list of twenty five The expansion of the number of sensitive countries is matched by a broadening of the academic subjects seen as sensitive For many years the State Department has maintained a Technology Alert List It was established to help maintain technological superiority over Warsaw Pact nations and other Communist powers The list was revised in August 2002 to include not only academic fields such as genetic engineering pharmacology immunology and virology but also architecture community development environmental planning geography housing landscape architecture and urban design 58 One result of this expansion of the list is that consular offices are requesting security clearances for more foreign students and scientists The review is carried out in Washington under the Visas Mantis program A security clearance opinion is required before the consular office can approve or deny the visa application Still another government initiative was unveiled in May 2002 The Interagency Panel of Advanced Science and Security grew out of a presidential directive that prohibit s certain international students from receiving education and training in sensitive areas The panel will screen foreign graduate students postdoctoral fellows and scientists who apply for visas to study sensitive topics The meaning of sensitive topics will be decided on a case by case basis focusing on information that is uniquely available in the United States 59 The panel will also review the status of foreign students already in the country who wish to study a sensitive topic The enlargement of the lists of sensitive countries and sensitive academic subjects has resulted in a massive backlog of visa applications In fall 2002 this backlog was estimated at 25 000 It is difficult to assign numbers to the consequences of such delays how many students have missed the start of classes how many scientists have had to cancel travel to attend a conference or how many students are enrolling in universities in other countries because of the cumbersome and burdensome visa screening mechanisms Some data are available however An online survey conducted by the Institute of International Education in February 2003 found that 53 percent 189 of the total number of reporting institutions had students who were delayed in arriving for the fall 2002 semester and that of the 53 percent nearly 25 percent reported that many students did not arrive for the start of the spring 2003 semester The most commonly cited reason for delay was visa problems The survey also found that 30 percent of the reporting institutions 106 experienced declines in the total number of international students enrolled in their programs for the 2002 03 academic year with thirteen experiencing declines of 30 percent or more The sharpest declines in new enrollments were for students from Indonesia Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with 20 percent or more of the respondents reporting a drop in the newly admitted students from these countries and many fewer reporting increases The survey concludes The possibilities of further deteriorating enrollments from countries in the Middle East Africa and Southeast Asia cannot be ruled out prompted by various factors including visa approval delays financial problems political concerns and attractive opportunities to study elsewhere 60 Of course these gross figures while important can only hint at the actual difficulties encountered by foreign students in trying to enter the United States or the problems they may face after they are on our campuses The government monitors the academic progress of foreign students as it has for years but it would not be surprising to learn that these students now try to maintain lower profiles on and off the campus than they would have done in the past For behind the government s watchfulness lies the specter of expulsion from the country That is not a hypothetical concern In March 2003 more than one hundred FBI agents fully armed in riot gear raided graduate student housing at the University of Idaho in the early dawn hours to arrest a Saudi graduate student charged with visa fraud and making false statements to the government He is facing deportation If these things happen to noncitizens who have violated the terms of their entry or of their stay in the country one might say that it serves them right The issue however is not that some might deserve harsh treatment but that many will feel that the government s extreme response to an alleged visa violation means that they should be even more careful in their academic lives to avoid drawing attention to themselves To the extent that cautions of this sort prevail academic life is surely impoverished This sense of vulnerability is probably felt most strongly among

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-national-security-time-crisis (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Report of an AAUP Special Committee: Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans Universities | AAUP
    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 AAUP Policies Reports Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigative Reports College and University Governance Reports Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports Audit Reports View All Reports Back to Reports and Publications AAUP Redbook The eleventh edition of the Redbook contains foundational AAUP policy documents as well as reports on new issues in higher education Buy yours now Report of an AAUP Special Committee Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans Universities This report was published in the May June 2007 issue of Academe Please note these documents are in pdf format Special Committee on Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans Universities Contents I Introduction II Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center III University of New Orleans IV Southern University at New Orleans V Loyola

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/report-aaup-special-committee-hurricane-katrina-and-new-orleans-universities (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos | AAUP
    Freedom and Tenure the joint formulation of the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges now the Association of American Colleges and Universities This development occurred outside the context of the law and the constitutional right to free speech One aspect of academic freedom asserted in the 1940 Statement is the role of the faculty member in institutional life as a citizen or an officer of the institution The academic freedom of a faculty member pertains to both 1 speech or action taken as part of the institution s governing and decision making processes for example within a faculty committee or as part of a grievance filing and 2 speech or action that is critical of institutional policies and of those in authority and takes place outside an institution s formal governance mechanisms such as e mail messages sent to other faculty members In its 1994 statement On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom the AAUP affirmed the inextricable connection between academic freedom in teaching and research and the free and effective participation of faculty in institutional governance Although the principle of academic freedom developed outside the law beginning in the 1950s the Supreme Court began to interpret the First Amendment to include some protections for academic freedom for faculty at public institutions In Keyishian v Board of Regents 1967 a majority of the Court recognized academic freedom as a First Amendment interest The subcommittee report emphasizes however that such protection did not extend to private institutions since First Amendment protections apply only to restrictions on speech by arms of government Moreover the First Amendment protections provided to faculty at public institutions while often quite helpful never fully incorporated the AAUP s understanding of the scope of academic freedom Soon after the Keyishian ruling the Supreme Court began to hand down a series of decisions addressing public employee speech more broadly In Pickering v Board of Education 1968 the Court strengthened the free speech rights of public employees by qualifying the long standing legal doctrine that the First Amendment did not restrain the government when it functioned as an employer That doctrine had been encapsulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1892 when he stated that a policeman may have a constitutional right to talk politics but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman In Pickering a case decided in favor of a public employee s free speech rights the Supreme Court balanced the interests of a public employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern against the interests of the State as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees In subsequent decisions regarding public employee speech prior to Garcetti the Court began to limit employee speech protection to a more restricted definition of matters of public concern so Garcetti ought not to have been a total surprise The threat to academic freedom implicit in Garcetti s pinched reading of public employees free speech rights became

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/protecting-independent-faculty-voice-academic-freedom-after-garcetti-v-ceballos (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Endorsers of the 1940 Statement | AAUP
    1969 American Risk and Insurance Association 1965 American Society for Aesthetics 1992 American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies 1992 American Society for Legal History 1977 American Society for Theatre Research 1990 American Society of Agronomy 1990 American Society of Church History 1986 American Society of Criminology 2001 American Society of Plant Biologists 1968 American Society of Plant Taxonomists 2006 American Sociological Association 1963 American Speech Language Hearing Association 1968 American Statistical Association 1975 American Studies Association 1963 American Theatre and Drama Society 2014 Americans for the Arts 1972 Animal Behavior Society 1990 Archaeological Institute of America 1964 Arizona Nevada Academy of Science 1965 Association for Asian Studies 1975 Association for Canadian Studies in the United States 1999 Association for Communication Administration 1981 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 1966 Association for Jewish Studies 1976 Association for Psychological Science 1989 Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas 2006 Association for Social Economics 1967 Association for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies 1976 Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies 1994 Association for Slavic East European and Eurasian Studies1986 Association for the Sociology of Religion 1967 Association for the Study of Higher Education 1988 Association for Theatre in Higher Education 1999 Association for Symbolic Logic 2000 Association for Women in Mathematics 1997 Association of American Colleges and Universities 1941 Association of American Geographers 1963 Association of American Law Schools 1946 Association of Ancient Historians 1999 Association of Black Sociologists 2005 Association of College and Research Libraries 2007 Association of Literary Scholars and Critics 2006 Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication 1971 Association of Social and Behavioral Scientists 1968 Association of Theological Schools 1970 Central European History Society 2014 Central States Communication Association 2014 Chinese Historians in the United States 2001 Chinese Language Teachers Association 2014 Classical Association of the Middle West and South 1964 College Art Association of America 1970 College English Association 1968 College Forum of the National Council of Teachers of English 2006 College Language Association 1973 College Theology Society 1967 Community College Humanities Association 2002 Coordinating Council for Women in History 2014 Council for Chemical Research 1988 Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders 1996 Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences 1992 Council of Independent Colleges 1965 Council of Teachers of Southeast Asian Languages 1994 Council on Social Work Education 1967 Crop Science Society of America 1990 Czechoslovak Studies Association 2007 Dante Society of America 1980 Dictionary Society of North America 2005 Eastern Communication Association 1999 Eastern Finance Association 1968 Eastern Psychological Association 1950 Eastern Sociological Society 2001 Ecological Society of America 2014 German Studies Association 2006 History of Education Society 1969 History of Science Society 1987 Illinois Community College Faculty Association 1990 Immigration and Ethnic History Society 2002 Institute for American Religious and Philosophical Thought 2014 International Society of Protistologists 1990 Italian American Studies Association 2014 Iowa Higher Education Association 1977 John Dewey Society 1967 Labor and Working Class History Association 2014 Latin American Studies Association 1992 Law and

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/endorsers-1940-statement (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • January-February 2015 | AAUP
    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 Current Issue Previous Issues Contact Advertising Submissions Subscriptions Check out the current issue Visit the Academe Blog The Academe Blog is an extension of the magazine exploring a wide range of topics including academic freedom governance of colleges and universities working conditions and more AAUP Redbook The eleventh edition of the Redbook contains foundational AAUP policy documents as well as reports on new issues in higher education Buy yours now January February 2015 Volume 101 Issue 1 Download the whole issue as a pdf AAUP member login required Member only file January February 2015 Academe The AAUP in the Courts Investigative Procedures in Academic Freedom and Tenure Cases Ten Decades

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issue/january-february-2015 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • November-December 2015 | AAUP
    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 Current Issue Previous Issues Contact Advertising Submissions Subscriptions Check out the current issue Visit the Academe Blog The Academe Blog is an extension of the magazine exploring a wide range of topics including academic freedom governance of colleges and universities working conditions and more AAUP Redbook The eleventh edition of the Redbook contains foundational AAUP policy documents as well as reports on new issues in higher education Buy yours now November December 2015 Volume 101 Number 6 Download the whole issue as a pdf AAUP member login required Does Academic Freedom Have a Future The Professoriate Reconsidered Improving the Legal Landscape for Unionization at Private Colleges and Universities Academia Academe and Intellectual Property The AAUP s Role in a Globalized Competitive Higher Education Landscape Community Colleges in the AAUP Critical Thinking and the Liberal Arts

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issue/november-december-2015 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • College and University Governance | AAUP
    was at best a work in progress in most American institutions of higher education At that time as now a great many faculty members served in what today are called contingent positions as instructors serving on one year appointments Moreover professors of higher ranks were also routinely excluded from shared governance According to a 1920 report issued by Committee T the majority of institutions the committee had surveyed restricted direct governance responsibilities to full professors In general American college and university governing boards and administrations were slower to adopt the practices of shared governance than they were to recognize indefinite tenure and the need for academic freedom Nevertheless over the next half century the AAUP would play a critical role in winning greater acceptance of the principles of shared governance These efforts would culminate in 1966 when representatives of the AAUP the American Council on Education ACE and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges AGB reached agreement on a jointly drafted Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities that recognized at least in broad terms the desirability of affording the faculty a major role in institutional governance The earlier 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure which the AAUP drafted together with the Association of American Colleges and which helped gain widespread acceptance of tenure and academic freedom protections as norms for higher education had important implications for the faculty s role in college and university governance The 1940 statement called for the involvement of a faculty committee if possible in any dismissal proceeding and thereby recognized the importance of utilizing the professional expertise of faculty in making what amounted to an academic decision about competency In the 1950s the AAUP promulgated a set of Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure which have undergone numerous revisions over the years that not only detailed what rights individual faculty members holding tenure should have but also what the collective faculty s appropriate role should be in determining whether the declaration of a condition of financial exigency or the closure of individual programs that might lead to the termination of faculty appointments was justified Not until the drafting of the 1966 Statement on Government however was a broad consensus reached on how faculty expertise ought to inform the full spectrum of academic decision making The idea of a joint statement on governance was initially proposed by John Millett the chair of the ACE s Commission on Administrative Affairs The final statement was the product of several years of discussions and negotiations among the AAUP the ACE and the AGB with Committee T chair Ralph S Brown playing a principal role in the statement s final drafting The ACE and the AGB both recognized the statement as a significant step forward in the clarification of the respective roles of governing boards faculties and administrations and commend ed it to the attention of their members In 1966 the AAUP s governing Council adopted the statement as official Association policy The Statement on Government recognizes that with few exceptions the governing board is the final institutional authority and plays a central role in matters of budgeting and safeguarding an institution s resources It also describes an institution s president as the chief planning officer responsible for providing essential institutional leadership including the need at times with or without support to infuse new life into a department Nonetheless in many areas of institutional decision making such as long range planning budgeting the setting of general educational policy and the selection of a president the statement emphasizes the need for joint effort and joint action and the inescapable interdependence among governing board administration faculty students and others In matters relating directly to carrying out the teaching and research missions of an institution of higher learning the statement recognizes that members of the faculty should exercise primary responsibility by virtue of their academic expertise Thus in such fundamental areas as curriculum subject matter and methods of instruction research faculty status and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process where the faculty should generally have primary decision making authority the statement asserts that the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons communicated to the faculty Nonconcurrence with the faculty judgment the statement further asserts should occur only in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail The 1966 statement quickly became a starting point for discussions of college and university governance Thus for example the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education chaired by former University of California president Clark Kerr issued a special report on governance in 1973 that declared It is our view that faculties in most if not all institutions should have approximately the level of authority recommended by the American Association of University Professors We give this a high level of priority In the late 1960s and early 1970s many individual colleges and universities incorporated references to the statement in their faculty handbooks or other official institutional policies and the governing boards of statewide systems in both California and Illinois formally recognized the statement as a guide for governance at their systems institutions Although developments in American higher education since the mid 1970s have seriously challenged the shared governance model at the heart of the Statement on Government its provisions remain the best guide for an effective system of institutional decision making Because the 1966 statement offered only broad guidelines for college and university governance the AAUP through a series of subsequent policy statements spelled out in greater detail how the principles of shared governance outlined in the 1966 statement should be applied to such areas of institutional decision making as budgeting the selection of administrators and athletics In 1972 the AAUP Council adopted a policy approved by the governance committee on The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters To implement the concept of joint effort the new statement called for colleges and universities to establish an elected institution level budget committee representative of the entire faculty that would participate in the preparation of the budget and have access to all information required to perform its task effectively The statement noted the particular importance of faculty involvement in budgetary decisions directly affecting the academic program of an institution for which the faculty had primary responsibility While acknowledging that the governing board and administration had final authority in budgetary matters the 1972 statement pointed out the significant assistance that a faculty budget committee could provide to an institution in mediating the financial needs and the demands of different groups within the faculty This was particularly true in times of serious financial difficulties The statement declared that faculty members including those who were nontenured should be significantly involved in any decisions that might eliminate programs and positions or change the basic character and purpose of the institution Finally the statement more fully specified what the AAUP saw as the necessity of faculty participation in decisions relating to salary policies and procedures including the development of clear and open policies as to how salaries were determined In 1974 the AAUP Council adopted a committee approved statement on Faculty Participation in the Selection and Retention of Administrators later expanded and revised in 1981 to include a discussion of the faculty role in the evaluation of administrators While the 1966 statement dealt at some length with the faculty role in the selection of a president and of department chairs or heads and more briefly with its role in the selection of other academic officers the later statements addressed the importance of faculty involvement in the periodic review of other academic administrators in addition to the president and in decisions about the retention or nonretention of these administrative officers Since 1966 the AAUP has also issued policy guidelines on several governance issues not addressed in the Statement on Government These include the relationship between collective bargaining and governance the role that faculty members on contingent appointments should play in institutional governance and the faculty role in the oversight of athletics At the time the Statement on Government was drafted faculty collective bargaining in American institutions of higher education was in its infancy and many AAUP members considered faculty unions to be incompatible with a collaborative model of shared governance that was based on a recognition of the professional nature of the academic calling Unionism however spread rapidly on American college and university campuses in the late 1960s and early 1970s In 1971 after considerable internal debate within the organization the Association s Council adopted a statement declaring that the AAUP would pursue collective bargaining as a major additional way of realizing the Association s goals in higher education a position endorsed by the AAUP s annual meeting in 1972 and formally expressed in its 1973 Statement on Collective Bargaining revised in 1984 and again in 1993 The AAUP s embrace of unionism was predicated on the recognition that collective bargaining was not incompatible with the principles and practices of traditional shared governance and indeed when properly used was essentially another means to achieve the AAUP s longstanding programs of enhancing academic freedom and tenure due process and sound academic government The AAUP leadership came to support what some referred to as dual track bargaining in which a faculty union took responsibility for negotiating economic issues while traditional mechanisms of faculty governance such as senates represented the faculty in decisions about educational policies and other academic matters The AAUP s entry into collective bargaining in fact was partly motivated by the fear that other organizations seeking to unionize faculty members were not so sensitive as the AAUP was to traditional governance concerns and by the hope that AAUP collective bargaining chapters might successfully embed in legally binding contracts provisions that ensured a significant faculty role in academic decision making Some currently involved in AAUP collective bargaining may support dual track bargaining but others argue that it is better to include educational policy in the collective bargaining agreement where it will be part of a legally binding contract Another issue not directly addressed in the Statement on Government was whether all members of the faculty were entitled to participate equally in institutional governance The statement repeatedly referred to the role of the faculty but did not define who was to be included in that category In the 1960s the majority of faculty members held full time tenured or tenure track appointments and the assumption on most campuses was that these were the faculty members most appropriately involved in institutional governance In fact when the AAUP was first organized membership was limited to faculty with ten years of experience a requirement that was soon changed as the AAUP sought to become more broadly representative of the professoriate As increasing numbers of faculty are to be appointed on a contingent basis with little or no prospect of ever gaining tenure or in many cases even full time employment the AAUP has come to recognize a need to pay greater attention to this growing segment of the professoriate and ultimately to make an explicit commitment to involve all faculty members in at least some aspects of governance Starting in the 1970s the AAUP began issuing reports and policy statements calling for fairer compensation better working conditions and greater job security for nontenured part and full time faculty members In 2012 the Council adopted a comprehensive policy statement on The Inclusion in Governance of Faculty Members Holding Contingent Appointments The statement called for institutional policies to define as faculty and include in governance bodies at all levels and in most aspects of institutional decision making individuals whose appointments consist primarily of teaching or research activities conducted at a professional level regardless of full or part time status It recommended that while faculty holding contingent appointments may be restricted from participating in the evaluation of tenured and tenure track faculty they should have the opportunity to contribute to the evaluation of contingent faculty The statement also recognized that in order to make their involvement in governance effective these faculty members needed stronger protections for their academic freedom through affordance of the right to academic due process It urged the establishment of policies explicitly protecting faculty members from retaliation for their participation in governance activities Finally it recommended that faculty holding contingent appointments be compensated in a way that takes into consideration the full range of their appointment responsibilities which should include service Another governance issue that in recent decades has attracted the attention of the AAUP has been the faculty s responsibility for overseeing intercollegiate athletics In 1989 in response to growing concerns that intercollegiate athletics posed a major governance problem for American colleges and universities an AAUP Special Committee on Athletics formulated a statement on The Role of Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics This document was followed two years later by the Council s adoption of a Statement on Intercollegiate Athletics that called for institutions engaging in intercollegiate athletics to establish committees elected by the faculty to monitor the institution s compliance with its own policies and standards relating to admissions the progress toward graduation and the integrity of the course of study of student athletes In addition the statement advised that elected faculty representatives should comprise a majority of the campus committee that formulates campus athletic policy and that such a committee should be chaired by an elected faculty member Continuing problems with intercollegiate athletics led the AAUP s Committee on Teaching Research and Publication in 2002 to issue a more detailed report on The Faculty Role in the Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics Principles and Recommended Practices that took the Statement on Government as a starting point but elaborated on the means for ensuring the appropriate faculty role called for in earlier AAUP statements on athletics Governance Investigations From its first year of existence the AAUP has conducted formal investigations of institutions for possible academic freedom and tenure violations In 1930 the Association adopted procedures that allowed investigations carried out under the auspices of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure to lead to the annual meeting s placing offending administrations on a censure list The Association did not begin to conduct formal Committee T investigations focusing specifically on governance issues until 1960 when Monmouth College and the University of Miami became the first two institutions to be the subject of such an investigation Monmouth had only recently undergone a transition from being a two year to a four year institution but had retained many of the autocratic governance practices then still common in community colleges The University of Miami investigation represented the AAUP s first effort to examine the particular problems associated with governance of medical schools The dismissal of thirty one faculty members at New York s St John s University in 1965 led the AAUP for the only time in its history to authorize separate investigations into the state of both academic freedom and shared governance at the institution Not long after the publication of the AAUP s governance investigation report in 1965 the St John s faculty formed one of the earliest AAUP collective bargaining chapters Governance investigations did not become as numerous as Committee A investigations in part because unlike academic freedom and tenure cases where violations of an individual faculty member s rights provided a clear focus and possibility for measurable redress governance cases have involved a broader and often more difficult assessment of the overall extent of faculty involvement in institutional governance To date a total of seventeen governance investigations have taken place each leading to the publication of a substantial report These governance investigations have become a crucial aspect of the AAUP s efforts to promote good governance practices In 1991 the Council approved a procedure that allowed for Committee on Governance investigations to lead to the annual meeting s possible sanctioning of an institution for substantial noncompliance with standards of academic governance Decisions to conduct governance investigations are made with the same scrupulous care as decisions to undertake Committee A investigations and are carried out in a like fashion see the AAUP s Standards for Investigations in the Area of College and University Government in the AAUP s Policy Documents and Reports and Debra Nails s essay in this issue of Academe The establishment of this new procedure represented an effort to highlight the Association s concerns with governance standards at a time when the earlier consensus on governance norms represented by the formulation of the 1966 Statement on Government seemed to be breaking down Lindenwood College now Lindenwood University in 1994 became the first college or university to be placed on the AAUP s newly established list of institutions sanctioned for infringement of governance standards The sanction resulted from the administration s unilateral dismantling of the institution s existing faculty governance structures Since that time six other institutions Elmira College Francis Marion University Miami Dade College Antioch University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Idaho State University have been placed on the list for similarly suspending or eliminating existing mechanisms for meaningful input by faculty in institutional decision making The Antioch case is particularly noteworthy because it involved the closing with virtually no faculty input into decision making of the multicampus system s original home campus for supposed financial reasons Until now only one institution Francis Marion has taken actions following the selection of a new president that led to the reestablishment of effective faculty governance structures and subsequent removal from the sanction list In the most highly publicized of all governance investigations the AAUP published a report detailing the resignation in June 2012 of University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan forced by the university s governing board in a secretive action that did not explain the panel s specific grounds for its displeasure with her performance The Association

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/college-and-university-governance (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •