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".
  • The AAUP in the Courts | AAUP
    precepts cited by Frankfurter Early Friends of the Court It was however Barenblatt v United States that would inaugurate the AAUP s engagement in the litigation of academic freedom claims Following Ralph Fuchs s inspired suggestion to file amicus curiae briefs in carefully selected cases the AAUP s national leadership was ready to authorize the preparation and submission to the Supreme Court of a brief supporting Barenblatt s cause though prospects for success were at best uncertain despite Sweezy which the Barenblatt decision would distinguish Yet the crucial precedent for intervention had now been firmly established The AAUP s brief on Barenblatt s behalf built on Frankfurter s concurrence in Sweezy enhancing the case for academic freedom also to reflect a strongly cautionary premise The brief stressed the need for a balance between the legislature s demands and interests needing protection It continued with a caveat Nor does the Association s position depend on the individual rights to the First Amendment freedoms which teachers possess in common with other people Rather it emphasizes the immunity from unwarranted coercion which adheres to a member of the academic community as a representative of that community That immunity protects the workable autonomy that academic institutions require in order to carry out their educational and research responsibilities Given the temper of the times and the still quite uncertain outcome of the case this did not seem the occasion for bold rhetoric in support of academic freedom and free expression That would come later A divided Supreme Court ruled simply that Barenblatt s conviction for contempt of Congress did not violate his constitutional rights since HUAC was empowered to compel a college professor to respond to questions regarding his Communist Party membership By the mid 1960s as the AAUP marked its first half century a splendid occasion for intervention arrived Five faculty members at the State University of New York at Buffalo agreed to join together in a suit against the board of trustees They alleged that the state s compelled loyalty disclaimer oath abridged their free speech and academic freedom Each of the plaintiffs was promptly notified that his refusal to certify as New York state law demanded that he was not a Communist placed him at legal risk and would soon result in the termination of his salary and academic position Initially a federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled that a special district panel of three judges must be convened because the suit challenged a state statute on constitutional grounds That first level tribunal soon ruled that the statutory oath requirement was constitutionally valid The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal and the opportunity for the AAUP to submit a quite different sort of amicus brief now presented itself The constitutional context for the adjudication of the Keyishian case as it came to be called was dramatically different from what it had been at the time of Barenblatt Justice Frankfurter had now retired and Justice Arthur Goldberg had not only succeeded him but also had become a durable First Amendment ally of Justice Brennan A more speech sensitive tribunal now seemed eager to endorse a more protective concept of academic freedom The legal posture of Keyishian involving a facial rather than an applied challenge to the New York loyalty law now enhanced the opportunity to develop in the AAUP s amicus brief the full constitutional case for protection of academic freedom in a way that no prior court had managed to do The national AAUP s submission turned out to play a dominant role and undoubtedly inspired Brennan s majority opinion striking down the oath requirement on both due process and free speech grounds In stark contrast to the tentative approach of the Barenblatt brief the Keyishian argument fully and boldly embraced basic AAUP policies and principles Building on Frankfurter s Sweezy concurrence this brief promised a forceful emphasis on substantive precepts that had been nurtured throughout the AAUP s first half century It might be noted moreover that while Sweezy is commonly regarded as protecting the freedom of the university against external forces Keyishian is seen primarily as protecting the freedom of the university s teachers and scholars against the university as well as against outside forces and threats Those compelling interests of the academic profession now seemed ready for Justice Brennan s imprimatur The hope was that a clear majority would follow Brennan in crafting a far broader protection for free speech and academic freedom than even Sweezy provided To that task Brennan was more than equal though along the way as a staunch defender of stare decisis or legal precedent he needed to distinguish a couple of uncongenial rulings that he then proceeded in effect to overrule in substance In the course of his opinion he developed fully for the first time clear recognition of academic freedom in several places Specifically Brennan warned that the danger of a chilling effect upon the exercise of vital First Amendment rights must be guarded against by sensitive tools which clearly inform teachers what is being proscribed Later and even more forcefully Brennan declared in his majority ruling that 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 The classroom is particularly the marketplace of ideas The Nation s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues rather than through any kind of authoritative selection While scholars today may differ on which of Justice Brennan s rulings is entitled to the highest esteem Keyishian is a strong candidate especially within the AAUP where its recurrent citation attests to its durability Within months of the Keyishian ruling the Supreme Court had allayed any doubts about the scope of the newly declared constitutional protection for academic freedom The ensuing case Whitehill v Elkins involved Maryland s Ober Law and the loyalty oath which that statute imposed on state employees On the merits this case should have been unambiguous since the justices had only recently invalidated nearly identical laws from the states of Florida and Washington noting the imprecision of both mandates The actual challenge however proved elusive since Maryland authorities had managed to moot such cases by ensuring the timely deposit of the paycheck of any potential nonsigners such as professor Howard Whitehill Yet in this one instance officials in Annapolis somehow overlooked Whitehill When he brought suit in federal court with active AAUP support the Ober Law was finally ripe for constitutional challenge Not surprisingly this first post Keyishian decision quickly reinforced Justice Brennan s ruling The AAUP brief reinforced the academic freedom precepts that the high court had just announced While the focus of academic freedom litigation shifted somewhat during the end of the decade one case of special note arose during the height of the Vietnam War In 1970 a group of mid Atlantic colleges and universities challenged the constitutionality of a regulation of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency PHEAA that compelled academic institutions to report to authorities in Harrisburg any campus incident involving an offense committed in the course of disturbing interfering with or preventing the orderly pursuit of academic activities on the campus The sanction for such an infraction was immediate loss of student financial aid without recourse to a hearing or other form of review Clearly the agency s target was student protest as broadly encompassed by the regulatory language A group of students and colleges filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia and because of the constitutional challenge a three judge court was convened in accordance with later abandoned judicial practice In Corporation of Haverford College v Reeher the court ruled solidly against the PHEAA regulation on multiple grounds that amply reflected its unbridled vagueness and lack of procedural safeguards The agency s challenged rule soon thereafter received a decent judicial burial with no further legal proceedings even contemplated The Pennsylvania experience appears to have been unique in terms of active AAUP engagement in the litigation and eventual vindication of academic freedom claims given the extreme overreach of the statute in restricting the free expression of state assisted Pennsylvania students Judicial Recognition of AAUP Statements A wholly different dimension of AAUP in the Courts emerges from myriad federal and state court opinions that have recognized and embraced Association policies and declarations on academic freedom While many such cases merely refer to or cite such documents in passing a few have clearly relied on the substance of these declarations What is striking during this past half century is the consistency of positive recognition and even endorsement of such policies A few pertinent examples may suffice The US Supreme Court has on several occasions conveyed its approval of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure In Tilton v Richardson 1971 for example in the course of recognizing the special status of religiously affiliated institutions the justices noted officially that the colleges and universities in question were characterized by an atmosphere of academic freedom rather than religious indoctrination More precisely as the court later noted in Roemer v Board of Public Works of Maryland 1976 the salient fact that each college subscribes to and abides by the 1940 Statement indicates that the Catholic colleges receiving an annual state subsidy were not pervasively sectarian Numerous other examples of such citations recur in the lower courts both state and especially federal For example the federal appeals court for the Fourth Circuit noted in Krotkoff v Goucher College 1978 that probably because it was formulated by both administrators and professors all of the secondary authorities seem to agree it the 1940 statement is the most widely accepted academic definition of tenure The federal appeals court for the Third Circuit has periodically noted with approval relevant AAUP policies and statements notably in Kunda v Muhlenberg College 1980 where both the 1940 statement and the derivative Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments were invoked consistently and favorably throughout the opinion Within the same circuit court one judge noted the following in Skehan v Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College 1982 I agree with the American Association of University Professors AAUP which filed an amicus brief that it is unnecessary for this Court to reach the question whether certain AAUP policy statements should be read into the institution s manual When a college has chosen to adopt the policy statements of the AAUP such statements can serve a valuable function in encouraging the internal resolution of faculty disputes without the necessity of judicial interference In the present case I would be reluctant to read the opinion as foreclosing future use of AAUP statements in interpreting ambiguous college teaching contracts Another federal circuit court has added significantly to such encomia The District of Columbia Circuit often called the most influential of the lower federal tribunals has on several occasions conveyed its approval of AAUP policy One finds such supportive language for example in McConnell v Howard University 1987 Scholars and administrators alike have long recognized that tenure is important to the success of our system of higher education Thus tenure normally carries with it an expectation that absent demonstrable cause to terminate a faculty member s appointment a tenured professor will enjoy the freedom to carry out his or her duties free from the fear of dismissal Finally state supreme courts have also embraced these precepts in published opinions The Washington Supreme Court for example observed in Barnes v Washington State Community College Dist No 22 1975 that the most authoritative source regarding the meaning and purpose of tenure is the American Association of University Professors Further citation of such references might seem redundant It should be clear that in contrast to the absence of comparably protective declarations from other national higher education organizations the AAUP for at least a quarter of a century has been judicially recognized as a uniquely valued and respected source of such guidance and counsel And increasingly the specialized academic media such as the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed have featured coverage of such emerging legal developments in print and on their websites and blogs In that sense the AAUP has indisputably earned centennial recognition Academic Speech within Official Duties Let us bring our analysis of the AAUP and the courts full circle in a context that is still unfolding We should begin by recognizing how strikingly recent is the Supreme Court s recognition of constitutional protection for public employee speech Until the Pickering v Board of Education decision in 1968 few government workers could insist on greater protection than their counterparts in the private sector As remains true today expression by government employees incurred important limits when it disrupted the efficiency of the workplace endangered or impaired morale unduly preempted assigned duties undermined client confidence or simply demonstrated an employee s incompetence After Pickering government workers enjoyed substantial protection unless they spoke with reckless disregard of the truth or engaged in deliberate falsification qualifications the Court had earlier imposed in granting First Amendment protection to those who spoke or wrote on matters of public concern At least one dimension however has remained curiously ambiguous When a public employee speaks or writes pursuant to official duties some critics have argued First Amendment protection should be denied Until the Supreme Court s 2006 decision in Garcetti v Ceballos however every federal circuit that had previously ruled on that issue had refused to treat such expression as unprotected despite the nexus between the speaker and his or her official duties Such consistency in protecting official speech persisted until a dissenting judge in the Ninth Circuit ventured a dissonant view Close observers now feared the worst despite the unanimity of protective views on the official duties issue So when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Richard Ceballos a deputy district attorney in California dismissed and transferred after publicly criticizing the policies of his agency and the actions of his superiors notably District Attorney Gil Garcetti change seemed to be in store A majority of Supreme Court justices now seemed ready to rule that when government workers made statements pursuant to their official duties their speech no longer warranted First Amendment protection For the general run of public employees like Ceballos such a curtailment of constitutional protection for their freedom to speak was clearly worrisome But when the speaker was a public college or university professor this revision posed a far greater threat Fearing the worst the AAUP and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression TJC jointly filed an amicus brief to warn the court of potential risks to academic expression A blanket rule their brief argued that no job related speech by public employees is constitutionally protected could undermine the First Amendment protections traditionally afforded faculty speech and ignore the special sensitivity this Court has paid in applying the First Amendment to colleges and universities Despite the emerging division within the Supreme Court five of its members seemed to heed the cautions in this and other amicus briefs The four liberal justices would have followed the guidance of the lower federal circuits including a commitment to continue protection to outspoken government workers like Ceballos whether or not pursuant to official duties The four conservative justices insisted that official duties created an exception for all public employees Justice Anthony Kennedy however recognized the need for qualification in his prevailing opinion He noted cautiously There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court s customary employee speech jurisprudence Justice David Souter was even clearer in expressing his concern about the apparent import of the majority s rationale Writing for himself and three colleagues in dissent Souter worried that the majority s sharp reversal on the official duties issue could imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities The significance of Garcetti for professors at public institutions thus remained puzzlingly uncertain four justices fully accepted Garcetti while four others rejected it leaving Justice Kennedy as has often been the case as the intermediary Although Garcetti limited First Amendment protection for much public employee speech it specifically reserved for later resolution the question of protection of academic speech A bit more should be said about the perverse nature of the Garcetti doctrine and its special import for public college and university professors As the dissenters and Justice Kennedy noted there is an ironic reverse correlation between a professor s assigned subject and the proximity of a contentious statement Thus a professor who talks about issues remote from his or her discipline or offers essentially a layperson s perspective seems to be fully protected while the genuine expert seems at correspondingly greater risk There is a second and quite different concern The line between speech within one s official duties and speech as a citizen imprecise even for a factory worker or a custodian seemed hopelessly vague when it came to an academic expert Hence the special irony of this correlation The scope of First Amendment protection for professorial speech which should have been far more extensive than comparable coverage for a custodian or even a research assistant turned out in the majority s view to be just the opposite Justice Souter clearly recognized this perverse correlation and Justice Kennedy knew that something was amiss In this troubling context the AAUP s Committee A released in 2009 a special subcommittee report Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice Academic Freedom after Garcetti v Ceballos addressing the issues in Garcetti and recommending possible ameliorative and protective language that governing boards might wish to adopt as

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


  • One Historian’s Perspective on Academic Freedom and the AAUP | AAUP
    faculty members as well as adjuncts and other less favorably situated academic professionals The AAUP has not always succeeded in its mission Even when institutions jump through all the procedural hoops there is no guarantee that the professoriate will protect its squeakiest wheels During World War I for example the Association s leaders blinked at the cases of faculty members dismissed because of their less than enthusiastic support for the conflict The organization s record during the McCarthy era was little better Whether because of timidity or bureaucratic inertia the AAUP did not deal with any of that era s serious violations of academic freedom until after the witch hunt had largely abated It did do better during the 1960s when it tried to confront the mounting caseload produced by that decade s political turmoil But we are taking too narrow a perspective on academic freedom if we focus only on the kinds of classic academic freedom cases that come from the reports of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure Though attacks on politically controversial professors have not disappeared today s main threat to academic freedom and to the autonomy of college and university teachers is structural At most institutions faculties no longer control the conditions of their employment With nearly three quarters of the nation s academic work in the hands of part timers and people with temporary appointments who have little or no job security does the kind of academic freedom the AAUP was formed to protect still exist Has the near disappearance of tenure destroyed the professoriate s power and autonomy We are now living with the shards of a formerly influential profession Beginning in the late 1960s economic instability and the rightward shift of American political culture demoted the faculty from its oncecentral position within the nation s institutions of higher learning Officially of course professors never ran their institutions Legally the final say belonged to the trustees and practically to top administrators But at least until the 1970s shared governance on many campuses protected the faculty s autonomy and ensured that professors would have considerable control over their institutions main academic decisions and their own careers Their leverage came from the massive expansion of higher education after World War II By the late 1950s college teachers were in demand a situation that gave them more power than they had ever had or might ever have again That so called golden age ended in the early 1970s and with it ended the economic security that undergirded faculty governance and academic freedom Buffeted by the instability accompanying the end of the postwar expansion American colleges and universities found themselves in a financial bind as of course did most other sectors of the economy In part as a result of tax revolts and reduced revenues and in part as a result of popular hostility to the campus unrest of the previous decade state legislatures and the federal government cut back on their funding of higher education Private institutions suffered as well Confronted with diminishing resources academic administrators struggled to maintain solvency In the process they focused increasingly on their bottom lines basing almost every decision on its economic rather than its educational consequences Desperate for savings and impatient with the presumed inefficiency of shared governance these administrators emulated the corporate world s decision making practices by clawing back much of the faculty s power In a process that mirrored similar moves within the private sector they transformed the academic labor market turning secure well paying jobs into part time and temporary ones The hiring frenzy of the previous decade ended while older professors retired without being replaced Even though the contingent workforce was still only about 30 percent of the faculty perceptive individuals especially younger ones blindsided by the sudden setback to their careers identified the crisis Too many tenured faculty members at the top of the academic pyramid either assumed that the bad times were temporary or closed their eyes to the coming professional collapse But others who faced stagnating salaries and deteriorating working conditions decided to explore collective bargaining Turn to Collective Bargaining The AAUP was torn While there was strong grassroots pressure from its state conferences some of the Association s members and leaders especially ones from major research universities and similarly elite campuses were initially ambivalent about unions Because the labor movement was traditionally associated with blue collar workers these academics felt that collective bargaining was incompatible with their professional status Some also opposed it on ideological grounds insisting as did administrators and trustees that it would inject an unwanted element of class conflict into the community of scholars Ultimately however the AAUP s leaders concerned that the survival of their organization was at stake decided to support those chapters that wanted to bargain collectively For many though by no means all of the Association s activists it was a reluctant decision propelled in part by the belief that although unionism on the industrial model as one eminent individual termed it might be acceptable at Henry Ford Community College Central Michigan University or New York City s St John s it was inappropriate for selective colleges or major research universities Unfortunately for the AAUP and the academic profession in general many status conscious academics felt contaminated by remaining in an organization that embraced collective bargaining Within a few years more than 20 percent of AAUP members from elite campuses had quit Today with the AAUP s membership roughly half what it was in the early 1970s and the academic profession in decline it is imperative that the Association reach out to every member of the academic profession If we have learned anything over the past few decades it is that the AAUP s insistence on academic freedom faculty governance and economic security was never incompatible with collective bargaining In fact once the Association s leaders decided to join the labor movement they justified participation on the grounds that their negotiators unlike those from

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/one-historian%E2%80%99s-perspective-academic-freedom-and-aaup (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ‘To Make Collective Action Possible’: The Founding of the AAUP | AAUP
    Volume 5 To Make Collective Action Possible The Founding of the AAUP Religion Sectarianism and the Pursuit of Truth Reexamining Academic Freedom in the 21st Century Tenure Matters An Historian s Perspective The Two Cultures of Higher Education in the Twenty First Century and their Impact on Academic Freedom The Case of the Student Racist Facebook Message Emergencies and Due Process Developing an Involuntary Emergency Leave Policy at the University of Delaware Opportunities of Our Own Making The Struggle for Academic Freedom Open Access to Technology Shared Governance of the Academy s Virtual Worlds On the Pros and Cons of Being a Faculty Member at E Text University On the Ground in Kansas Social Media Academic Freedom and the Fight for Higher Education Volume 6 2015 AAUP Bookstore To Make Collective Action Possible The Founding of the AAUP By Hans Joerg Tiede Abstract The article reviews the developments that led to the founding of the American Association of University Professors AAUP The AAUP was not founded specifically as the primary defender of academic freedom that it subsequently became Its broader goal was to further the professionalization of the professoriate Locally the Association s founders hoped to reform university governance by shifting the balance of power away from presidents and lay governance boards Nationally the Association was to serve as a body to speak for the profession as a whole in response to organized efforts to standardize American higher education efforts that did not provide an adequate voice to the burgeoning profession Events before during and following the founding meeting in 1915 as well as the efforts of two of its founders Arthur Lovejoy and E R A Seligman brought about the early focus on academic freedom The major achievements of the AAUP in 1915 were the investigation of the University

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/journal-academic-freedom/volume-5-2014/%E2%80%98-make-collective-action-possible%E2%80%99 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Academic Freedom and Tenure: Grove City College | AAUP
    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 Academic Freedom and Tenure Grove City College Download Grove City College pdf Although a faculty member had been criticized adversely by the administration of Grove City College for his grade distribution and for his performance in teaching the Ancient History course these criticisms apparently had not been presented to him as a warning concerning possible dismissal action Although the dismissal of the faculty member was for stated cause the administration denied this faculty member due process and neither a Board committee nor the Board announced a formal decision regarding the teacher s dismissal The absence of due process in this case raises grave doubts regarding the academic security of any persons who may hold appointment at Grove City College under existing administrative practice The dismissal action in this case was accompanied by collateral controversy disclosure of unusual attendant circumstances and frequent display of emotion Many of these elements were reported in the press and by radio and television broadcast Therefore the investigating committee additionally issued a set of Supplementary Observations and these are included in this report The text of this report was written by the members of the investigating committee In accordance with Association practice that text was sent a to the Association s standing

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

  • Academic Freedom and Tenure: Frank Phillips College | AAUP
    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 Academic Freedom and Tenure Frank Phillips College Download Frank Phillips College pdf The administration of Frank Phillips College dismissed a faculty member without providing cause without providing for a hearing and the other requisite elements of academic due process and without providing for any payment of salary beyond the date of notification of dismissal With the absence of any relevant institutional regulations with no system of tenure and with highly inadequate practices relating to faculty appointment the concepts of academic freedom and tenure were found to be absent at Frank Phillips College The text of this report was written by the members of the investigating committee In accordance with Association practice the text was sent to the Association s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure to the professor at whose request the investigation was conducted to the administration of Frank Phillips College and to other persons directly concerned in the report In the light of the suggestions received and with the editorial assistance of the Association s

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

  • Academic Freedom and Tenure: Concordia Seminary | 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 Academic Freedom and Tenure Concordia Seminary Download Concordia Seminary pdf Despite the recommendations of his colleagues and inadequate notice of the termination of his services the administration of Concordia Seminary terminated a faculty member His request for a statement of the reasons for the action against him was not honored Ecclesiastical authorities external to the academic structure of the Seminary participated actively in departure from previous practice in evaluating the professor s candidacy for retention and these authorities eventually determined that he not be retained This decision to terminate his services was manifestly based on displeasure with his views on matters that fell within his academic competence and therefore on considerations violative of his academic freedom which was not subject to specific limitation under the terms of his initial appointment to the faculty of Concordia Seminary Subsequent revisions in the stated policies and procedures reflect some improvements in procedure but the revised regulations are still deficient Particularly troublesome is a new statement placing limitations on academic freedom and reinforced provisions allowing external ecclesiastical authorities to control academic decisions at Concordia Seminary The text of this report was written by the members of the investigating committee In accordance with Association practice the text was sent to the Association s Committee

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

  • Academic Freedom and Tenure: Murray State University | AAUP
    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 Academic Freedom and Tenure Murray State University Download Murray State University pdf The administration of Murray State University terminated the services of nine members of the faculty who had attained tenure under the provisions of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure These nine faculty members therefore should have been subjected to the termination of their services only for adequate cause and with requisite academic due process Adequate cause for terminating their services has not been demonstrated and they have been denied the safeguards of due process Additionally the administration disregarded the appropriate role of the faculty in reaching decisions on faculty status The text of this report was written by the members of the investigating committee In accordance with Association practice the text was sent to the Association s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure to the teachers at whose request the investigation was conducted to the administration of Murray State University to the chapter president and to other persons directly concerned in the report In the light of the

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

  • Academic Freedom and Tenure: State University of New York | AAUP
    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 Academic Freedom and Tenure State University of New York Download State University of NY pdf The retrenchments at the State University of New York in 1975 and 1976 were initiated by the University administration without appropriate consultation with the faculty and without any showing of a financial exigency which actually threatened the continuance of the University They were overseen by the administration with disregard for the rights of tenure for due notice and for the role of the faculty in institutional government The actions of the administration both the central administration and that of campuses cited in effecting the successive budget cuts have produced a climate in which academic freedom is gravely endangered A primary purpose of tenure is to protect the faculty s right of dissent including the right to oppose the administration on issues important to the faculty Under the circumstances that now prevail no faculty member can be certain of his position for it is possible for the administration under the recently negotiated Agreement as well as under the old to so define a program that a particular individual can be targeted for retrenchment In situations where tenure has not been honored where faculty participation has been thwarted and where administrative prerogatives have been graphically invoked few will venture openly to disagree with administrative decisions In such an atmosphere learning and the transmission of knowledge cannot be expected to flourish The text of this

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-tenure-state-university-new-york (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive