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".
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities | AAUP
    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 Association of American Colleges and Universities 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure Statement promoting public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to ensure them in colleges and universities Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition Read more about 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings Joint statement supplementing the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by providing a formulation of the academic due process that should be observed in

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/association-american-colleges-and-universities (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom | AAUP
    must be accorded great respect In short the 1966 Statement derives the weight of the faculty s voice on an issue that is the degree to which the faculty s voice should be authoritative on the issue from the relative directness with which the issue bears on the faculty s exercise of its various institutional responsibilities There are at least three reasons why the faculty s voice should be authoritative across the entire range of decision making that bears whether directly or indirectly on its responsibilities For each of these reasons it is also essential that faculty members have the academic freedom to express their professional opinions without fear of reprisal In the first place this allocation of authority is the most efficient means to the accomplish ment of the institution s objectives For example as the Statement on Government maintains the educational effectiveness of the institution is the greater the more firmly the institution is able to protect this allocation of authority against pressures from outside the institution Moreover scholars in a discipline are acquainted with the discipline from within their views on what stu dents should learn in it and on which faculty members should be appointed and promoted are therefore more likely to produce better teaching and research in the discipline than are the views of trustees or administrators More generally experienced faculty committees whether constituted to address curricular personnel or other matters must be free to bring to bear on the issues at hand not merely their disciplinary competencies but also their first hand under standing of what constitutes good teaching and research generally and of the climate in which those endeavors can best be conducted The second reason issues from the centrality of teaching and research within the array of tasks carried out by an academic institution teaching and research are the very purpose of an academic institution and the reason why the public values and supports it This means that the faculty who are responsible for carrying out those central tasks should be viewed as having a special status within the institution The Association has taken this view from its earliest days Its first statement the 1915 Declaration of Principles 3 declares that members of a faculty are the appointees but not in any proper sense the employees of the trustees they are partners with the trustees and as the 1915 Declaration states the office of faculty member should be indeed it is in the public interest that the office of faculty member should be one both of dignity and of independence Allocation of authority to the faculty in the areas of its responsibility is a nec essary condition for the faculty s possessing that dignity and exercising that independence The third reason is the most important in the present context allocation of authority to the faculty in the areas of its responsibility is a necessary condition for the protection of academic freedom within the institution The protection of free expression takes many forms

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/relationship-faculty-governance-academic-freedom (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters | AAUP
    levels for the ensuing fiscal period and decisions on the allocation of university funds with in the current budget levels should be made by the university level all faculty committee as well as by the faculty agencies directly concerned 2 The question of faculty salaries as an aspect of faculty status is treated separately below Circumstances of financial exigency obviously pose special problems At institutions experi encing major threats to their continued financial support the faculty should be informed as early and as specifically as possible of significant impending financial difficulties The faculty with substantial representation from its nontenured as well as its tenured members since it is the for mer who are likely to bear the brunt of any reduction should participate at the department col lege or professional school and institution wide levels in key decisions as to the future of the institution and of specific academic programs within the institution The faculty employing accepted standards of due process should assume primary responsibility for determining the status of individual faculty members 3 The question of possible reductions in salaries and fringe benefits is discussed in the section below The faculty should play a fundamental role in any decision that would change the basic character and purpose of the institution including trans formation of the institution affiliation of part of the existing operation with another institution or merger with the resulting abandonment or curtailment of duplicate programs Before any decisions on curtailment become final those whose work stands to be adversely affected should have full opportunity to be heard In the event of a merger the faculties from the two institutions should participate jointly in negotiations affecting faculty status and the academic programs at both institutions To the extent that major budgetary considerations are involved in these decisions the faculty should be given full and timely access to the financial information necessary to the making of an informed choice In making decisions on whether teaching and research programs are to be curtailed financial considerations should not be allowed to obscure the fact that instruction and research constitute the essential reason for the existence of the university Among the various considerations difficult and often competing that have to be taken into account in deciding upon particular reductions the retention of a viable academic program necessarily should come first Particular reductions should follow considered advice from the concerned departments or other units of academic concentration on the short term and long term viability of reduced programs Faculty Participation in Decisions Relating to Salary Policies and Procedures The Statement on Government asserts that the faculty should actively participate in the deter mination of policies and procedures governing salary increases Salaries of course are part of the total budgetary picture and as indicated above the faculty should participate in the decision as to the proportion of the budget to be devoted to that purpose However there is also the question of the role of the faculty as a body in the determination of

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/role-faculty-budgetary-and-salary-matters (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Financial Exigency, Academic Governance, and Related Matters | AAUP
    be terminated but with the recognition that the recommendation of a faculty body concerning these matters will be considered presumptively valid and the criteria that have been applied in the particular case Regulation 4 c goes on to caution that the appointments of tenured faculty members should not be terminated because of financial exigency in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result In addition before a faculty appointment is terminated for financial reasons the institution with faculty participation is to make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position within the institution As for the faculty member whose appointment is actually terminated the RIR calls for at least one year of notice or severance salary for the individual who has served at least eighteen months at the institution In addition released professors are granted recall rights Their places will not be filled by a replacement for a period of three years unless the affected individuals have been offered reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer III Selected Case Studies Colleges and universities react in different ways to serious budget shortfalls On many campuses the administration has worked effectively with the faculty to identify measures such as cutting tuition and fees to increase enrollments reducing programs in foreign countries selling off local properties or increasing alumni contributions that are intended to help the institution survive and perhaps even prosper Other institutions have reacted with what an outside observer might characterize as panic with the administration and governing board making decisions precipitately with little or no regard for discussing proposed actions with the faculty In these latter cases the financial problems have been compounded by serious rifts between the faculty and administration the resulting distrust has exacerbated the financial woes by further damaging the institution Because such a large proportion of a college or a university s operating expenses is linked to salaries and benefits it is obvious why the payroll is often the first target for budget reductions And because faculty salaries and benefits account for a significant portion of an institution s total payroll expenses complaints from faculty about personnel decisions especially decisions that result in the termination of faculty appointments are the typical spurs for the AAUP to become involved in a campus case In its early years the AAUP conducted a handful of investigations into cases in which serious reasons existed to doubt that an administration had considered alternatives short of terminating faculty appointments as a remedy for the institution s financial problems 6 But the AAUP s ongoing engagement with the termination of faculty appointments for financial reasons began in 1974 In the spring of that year the Association published a report on Bloomfield College in New Jersey and began work on a revised and expanded text of the applicable provisions of the RIR published in final form in 1976 As indicated above the latter document has become the benchmark against which the AAUP has judged actions taken by administrations and governing boards to resolve their institutions financial problems Beginning with the Bloomfield College report the AAUP has published twenty eight reports involving terminations of faculty appointments for financial reasons They deal with a broad range of institutions in every region of the country and an equally broad range of departures from Association supported standards and procedures 7 The comments that follow focus on three recurrent areas of concern whether the financial condition of the institution necessitated the termination of faculty appointments whether the institution s faculty had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decisions leading to the terminations and whether the individual faculty members facing termination of appointment were afforded a hearing before faculty peers on disputed issues 1 Institutional Financial Conditions To the question whether institutional finances have been truly exigent the AAUP s published reports indicate that in most cases the answer was no In only four of the twenty eight reports those dealing with the City University of New York Westminster College of Salt Lake City Saint Bonaventure University and the University of the District of Columbia did the investigating committee conclude that the financial condition of the institution was indeed exigent although in each of these cases the termination of faculty appointments was marred by significant procedural flaws With respect to the remaining reports the investigating committees questioned whether the institutions were confronting such severe financial problems as to necessitate the termination of faculty appointments In the case at Eastern Oregon State College the institution had a budget of just over 8 million and faced an initial budget shortfall of 58 000 which subsequently fell to approximately 12 000 This amount of money the AAUP investigating committee observed did not approach the order of magnitude of a financial exigency as the term is generally understood In the Sonoma State University case the investigating committee found that during what the administration called a financial crisis the university president allocated more than 30 000 for a new presidential assistant In addition two new associate deanships were created monies were added to the budget for intercollegiate athletics and about a dozen new faculty members were appointed Under the circumstances the investigating committee concluded the university s difficulties relating to funding and enrollment fell far short of a genuine financial exigency In the Morgan State University case the investigating committee found that although student enrollment at the university had fallen sharply state appropriations for fiscal 1985 per full time equivalent student were within the range of the allocations awarded to other public universities in Maryland The committee also found that the proportion of state appropriations that accounted for the university s total revenues in the same fiscal year was similar to what it was at the state s other four year colleges and universities none of which experienced termination of appointments on financial grounds The committee concluded that the administration terminated tenured faculty appointments in the absence of a demonstrated financial exigency In the North Greenville College case the investigating committee questioned whether the institution was in a condition of financial exigency in spring 1992 when it terminated the services of a tenured faculty member While the college had numerous financial problems the committee reported that there were also signs of recovery including a balanced budget increased student enrollments and a surplus in the college s bank account A similar pattern was identified in the Bennington College case The investigating committee did not doubt that the college had dire budgetary problems but also pointed to developments suggesting positive financial trends plans to establish new academic programs to add administrative positions to purchase new administrative computing equipment and to appoint new and replacement faculty 2 Faculty Participation In nearly all of the twenty eight cases AAUP investigating committees found that faculty involvement in decisions leading to terminations was either inadequate or nonexistent In the University of Idaho case the university s faculty council recognized that Idaho s system of higher education was in a financially perilous condition The investigating committee found however that the faculty members most directly concerned in the decisions affecting faculty status namely the faculty in the College of Agriculture did not at any point participate meaningfully in the decisions that resulted in the termination of tenured appointments At Goucher College the administration and the board of trustees declared a state of financial exigency and determined how to cope with it No faculty body had significant opportunity to contribute to these decisions Many of the same issues arose at Essex Community College where the faculty was not consulted about major decisions affecting academic programs and faculty appointments In the Alaska Pacific case the administration responded to a budget shortfall by proposing to eliminate all degree programs in two departments and combining the department into a single smaller one A no frills budget was presented to a joint faculty administration committee No papers were distributed to the committee in advance of its meeting note taking was prohibited during the meeting and voluminous materials that included thirty seven pages of tables could not be taken from the room The reasons the faculty s role in these cases was limited sometimes to the vanishing point are not the same for each institution Yet several assumptions about the faculty were common to them that the involvement of the faculty would have delayed decisions that needed to be made quickly that faculty members immersed in their academic specialties did not have the broad perspective essential to seeing the institution as a whole and that the faculty was essentially conservative and would thus reject anything new These perceptions about the faculty have a long lineage and no doubt will persist in some quarters well into the future To note their durability however is not to concede their general validity It is simply not true that due deliberation by the faculty is inconsistent with reaching timely decisions concerning an institution s financial health Nor is it true that faculty members focused on their teaching and research are incapable of understanding and dealing with the larger world around them or less inclined to favor innovation than are administrations and boards of trustees Were these perceptions accurate the exercise of strong faculty authority would in all likelihood be unusual But the opposite is often the case especially at those institutions commonly viewed as among the best colleges and universities in the United States Remarks made more than forty years ago by a leading authority on academic government are still to the point In the very best colleges the faculties generally have much authority in the very worst colleges virtually none That much authority becomes lodged in the hands of faculty members in the best colleges is no accident but is an intrinsic part of the institution s achieving and maintaining a pre eminent position 8 3 Hearing for Terminated Faculty For most of the institutions that were the subject of an AAUP investigation the individual faculty members facing termination of appointment did not receive a hearing before faculty peers on disputed issues Before we look at some of the published case reports it is worth emphasizing that the RIR asserts unambiguously that faculty members before their appointments are terminated will have the right to a full hearing before a faculty committee The termination of an appointment for financial reasons should not unlike a dismissal for cause present issues concerning a faculty member s fitness to serve and therefore does not typically implicate the individual s professional reputation Nevertheless the impact of termination even for financial reasons on a professor s livelihood is likely to be grave The hearing is an opportunity for the concerned faculty member to raise issues that no one else may have raised notably about why he or she has been singled out for release Even when the faculty through its designated bodies has been significantly involved in decisions addressing the institution s financial condition those decisions no matter how reasonable they may seem to faculty and administrators alike are not immune to questions and challenge A hearing if fairly conducted can protect not only the career of the individual but also an institution against a false charge that it has acted in a hasty or unprincipled manner A hearing can also play a vital role in a financial exigency case if an academic freedom issue surfaces As a federal court explained The obvious danger remains that financial exigency can become too easy an excuse for dismissing a teacher who is merely unpopular or controversial or misunderstood a way for the university to rid itself of an unwanted teacher but without according him his important procedural rights 9 In the University of Texas of the Permian Basin case the two faculty members facing termination of appointment could appeal only to a committee appointed by the president who had defined the procedure for appeal without faculty involvement or knowledge Moreover the two professors had to carry the burden of proving why the terminations were not necessary to relieve the institution s financial burden At Sonoma State University faculty members notified of layoff had the opportunity to file a grievance and the faculty as a whole viewed the grievance procedure as generally fair But the report of the AAUP investigating committee pointed out that the administration did not bear the burden of proof and that the grievances could not readily challenge the administration s educational judgments and their application to individual cases The burden of proof was also shifted to the affected faculty members in the Bennington College case an inappropriate condition that was compounded by the fact that the president appointed the faculty committee hearing the appeals Additionally the college administration barred the appeal committee from considering the bona fides of the financial exigency In the Southern Nazarene University case the dismissed professors were offered no opportunity for an appeal At St Bonaventure University the opportunity for an appeal was offered and accepted by some but the investigating committee identified serious departures from Association supported standards there was not even a pretense of an on the record adjudicative hearing the faculty members facing termination of appointment were not permitted to challenge the existence and extent of the financial exigency the hearings were limited to one hour the burden of persuasion rested on the appellants and presence of counsel was not allowed 4 Effective Collaboration This discussion of selected AAUP cases has focused on what might be described as the underside of the academic world situations in which principles of tenure academic due process and academic governance have been sorely abused The discussion has also indicated albeit in a general way that faculties administrations and governing boards can work well together to resolve an institution s financial problems A recent example of effective collaboration was the merger in 2002 of Marymount College a Catholic women s institution in Tarrytown New York with Fordham University a comprehensive Jesuit institution in New York City The college s financial problems were deep and long standing and its prospects for independent survival were slim Drawing on years of joint planning and effort with the faculty through its local AAUP collective bargaining representatives college administrators met regularly with faculty leaders to provide updated information about the college s financial condition student enrollments alumnae services facilities management and institutional computing Initially the administration offered no guarantee that college faculty appointments would be continued after the merger was completed In the end however the memorandum of agreement approved by the Fordham University board of trustees and the Marymount College faculty establishing Marymount College of Fordham University recognized the tenure of the college s continuing tenured faculty members and provided five year appointments for the college s continuing nontenured faculty members With variations that do not alter the chief features of the case other than that merger is not a typical solution for financially strapped institutions this illustration could be reproduced for many campuses A key point is that institutions that do not have policies and procedures for effective joint action on budgetary issues in normal times are unlikely to have them or perhaps even want them during a financial crisis Policies and procedures are not self operating They need to be interpreted and followed Faculty members administrators and members of governing boards need to work conscientiously together to ensure that sound policies and procedures are not frustrated ignored or sabotaged Having stated policies and procedures does not guarantee effective decision making on budgetary matters but they are the indispensable basis for good practice when an institution is experiencing significant financial shortfalls Of course policies and procedures currently in effect should be regularly reviewed and as necessary revised Here too joint effort by the faculty administration and governing board best serves the institution 5 Reorganization While a college or university s financial problems can precipitate the termination of faculty appointments terminations are sometimes carried out with a view to reorganization as well as to economy Reorganization whether the result is to reduce discontinue or merge academic programs or departments is commonplace in higher education and indeed can be a sign that an institution is striving to improve itself An institution s financial hard times may be a genuine reason for reorganization It may also be an excuse for it At times reorganization is championed because change is seen as the desirable characteristic of institutional health Drastic shifts in institutional structure have been justified on grounds that students potential benefactors and the public need to be shown that those in authority are in command and are taking fresh steps to infuse the institution with vitality Such reorganizations Such reorganizations typically rely on business managerial techniques to reduce or close programs and departments with scant respect for principles of tenure academic due process and academic governance In nine of the twenty eight published AAUP case reports reorganization in one form or another played a part in the administration s action to terminate faculty appointments 10 In each of the nine cases the part played was deeply flawed procedurally At Alaska Pacific University for example the investigating committee found that although two academic departments were closed a new department was established with several openings for which the faculty members who had been released were qualified but with one exception were not engaged More broadly a common procedural defect among the nine cases was the open ended nature of the meaning of reorganization In the Bennington College case a faculty position could be terminated under the policies then in force at the college if a change in educational policy requires the elimination of that teaching position The investigating committee pointed out that under this flawed standard the mere assertion of a change in educational policy can provide the requisite rationale for the elimination of any faculty at any time Even more open ended and therefore posing an

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/finexg.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics | AAUP
    is to be allocated among the governing board the president and the faculty consistent with the responsibility that each component appropriately claims within the overall governance structure Even where primary responsibility rests with one component the other affected parties may have a legitimate participatory role 1 The Importance of Full Disclosure of Information About the Athletic Program In the past the governance of athletics has been made more difficult because administrators and others have treated information about the athletic program as highly secret Often information critical of admissions policies the educational experience of athletes and financial arrangements with coaches and booster clubs is revealed only as a result of scrutiny by outside agencies such as the press or the NCAA Such secretiveness is unacceptable in an intellectual environment that is committed to fostering open and candid discussion It is also antithetical to effective governance For the future the presumption must be that all aspects of the operation of the athletic department including the education of athletes and the finances of booster clubs are open to scrutiny by the university community A special effort should be made to ensure the confidentiality of information where that is needed to protect the privacy of individual athletes and employees In general however policies with respect to athletics should be subject to the same openness of debate that attends other financial and educational issues within the academic community 2 The Primacy of Faculty Responsibility for the Athlete s Educational Experience The faculty has primary responsibility for those aspects of an athlete s experience that involve education Thus it is the faculty s duty to ensure that the athlete has a full opportunity to participate in the educational process and that a proper balance is achieved between the athletic and educational experiences Especially in the present era of intensive highly commercialized college sports there are often pressures within the athletic program that draw athletes away from the type of preparation review and class attendance that are fundamental to a meaningful education The faculty has the primary obligation to ensure that pressures are tempered and that athletes have adequate opportunity to pursue educational goals Review of faculty decisions in this area may be allocated to other governing components but that review is to be exercised with appropriate regard for the primacy of the faculty s role 3 The Faculty s Role in Policy Making in Other Aspects of the Athletic Program Other issues involving athletic policy have substantial administrative components and thus come within the range of authority of other units of the university Almost all of these however may have important educational implications and thus are legitimately of concern to the faculty Among the matters warranting attention are questions such as the level of competition at which the university will participate and more specific questions concerning the length of playing seasons and policies with respect to team travel A decision to move to a higher level of competition for example will often mean that athletes face increased pressures on their academic schedules In the same vein long playing seasons may present a significant barrier to regular class attendance Because of their mixed educational and administrative character such issues of athletic policy will call for joint participation by faculty administration and where appropriate other components of the university In addition to its particular concerns about the impact of athletics on educational programs the faculty has a shared interest in planning for the long range development of the university The faculty should also play an appropriate role in decisions about the allocation of resources within the university Policy making with respect to athletics affects both of these governance functions and thus the faculty is properly involved Faculty involvement is particularly important with respect to the budgetary deliberations undertaken in connection with the athletic program even with the understanding that ultimate budgetary authority may reside in another body The allocation of money to and within the athletic program can be a direct determinant of the level of competition that is pursued and hence greatly influences the degree of nonacademic pressure that participants experience In addition athletics increasingly involves major decisions on allocation of resources that should properly be viewed in the context of more general institutional needs and goals A mechanism should exist for meaningful faculty participation in the budgetary decisions that determine the overall size and scope of the athletic program 4 The Institution s Relationship with Outside Regulatory Bodies Outside regulatory bodies such as the NCAA and athletic conferences play an important role in establishing policies that affect the internal functioning of a university s athletic programs An individual institution s limited influence over such external entities requires special attention in the institution s internal governance structure The coordination and execution of a university s participation is properly a function of the president or chancellor On the other hand the legislative deliberations of the outside body will frequently affect areas over which the faculty has primary internal responsibility Each institution should develop mechanisms that recognize the role of the chief executive officer in speaking for the institution but which also afford an opportunity for faculty participation in the formulation of the institution s response Consistent with the principles set forth above responsibility in this area will typically be shared with other components of the university with the weight given to the faculty s voice dependent on the particular issues and the degree of the faculty s responsibility in the area of concern The Mechanisms for Faculty Participation 1 Oversight of the Educational Experiences of Athletes The importance of the faculty s role in defining and monitoring the educational experiences of athletes cannot be overstated A candid appraisal of major intercollegiate athletic programs will reveal that the internal incentives for educational achievement are modest at best Refinement of the athlete s physical talents requires a commitment of time and a level of attention that can easily become all consuming External pressures in athletic programs on coaches often lead

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/athgov.htm (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Confidentiality and Faculty Representation in Academic Governance | 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 Confidentiality and Faculty Representation in Academic Governance Download confidentiality and governance pdf This report argues that requiring faculty members to sign confidentiality agreements as a requirement to serve on university committees is in most cases inconsistent with widely accepted standards of shared governance and with the concept of serving as a representative This argument does not apply to faculty serving on promotion and tenure committees and similar bodies where faculty do not serve as representatives

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

  • Faculty Communication with Governing Boards: Best Practices | AAUP
    of functions This traditional division which assigns financial control to the trustees and educational policy to the faculty is sound and should be protected in the interest of the faculty s independence in educational matters In order that the faculty may be genuinely represented in such conference committees it must necessarily participate in the selection of its conferees The Association in 1966 issued the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities jointly for mulated with the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges AGB Adopted as policy by the AAUP and commended by the other two organizations to their membership the Statement on Government addresses the need for adequate communication among the key constituents of institutions of higher education The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an inescapable interdependence among governing board administration faculty students and others The relationship calls for adequate communication among these components and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort It further delineates the means of communication between these constituents The means of communication among the faculty administration and governing board now in use include 1 circulation of memoranda and reports by board committees the administration and faculty committees 2 joint ad hoc committees 3 standing liaison committees 4 membership of faculty members on administrative bodies and 5 membership of faculty members on governing boards Whatever the channels of communication they should be clearly understood and observed While the Statement on Government does not identify a preferred method for the conduct of faculty board communication the preceding survey indicates the central role that the institution of a faculty board conference or liaison committee has played in the development of the Association s position on academic governance with the elements of such a committee having been succinctly summarized by Dewey in 1915 III Recommendations and Conclusions College and university governance works best when each constituency within the institution clearly under stands its role and relationship to the other constitu ents and when communication among the governing board the administration and the faculty is regular open and unmediated Too often the president serves as the sole conduit for faculty board communication While this practice may be efficient it is not always effective in enhancing understanding between govern ing boards and faculties In 2009 the AGB issued a report presenting the results of a survey of presidents board chairs and chief academic officers regarding faculty board relations 6 The report recommended providing opportunities for faculty and trustees to interact in meaningful ways in formal as well as informal settings including through faculty membership on board committees or participation in committee meetings as a way of improving communication between faculties and governing boards The report stated that 87 percent of the 417 institutions surveyed included faculty presentations on board meeting agendas and that about one fourth of surveyed institu tions 27 percent included faculty representatives as members of the governing board In 14 percent of the institutions the head of the faculty senate was a member of the board More than half of respondents 56 percent reported faculty membership on board committees The report also stated that it was almost twice as common for faculty members to serve on committees of boards of independent colleges and universities 61 percent as on boards of public institu tions 32 percent Because governing boards tend to accomplish much of their work in committees standing committees of the board including the executive committee should include a faculty representative In addition faculty representatives should be able to attend the business meetings of the full governing board As the AGB report notes in some cases these faculty representa tives are members presumably with voting privileges of the standing committees Certainly in the case of an honorary degrees committee an academic affairs committee or other committees of the board that deal with areas that are the primary responsibility of the faculty the case can be made that the faculty represen tative should be a voting member of the committee This arrangement acknowledges the significant exper tise that faculty members can bring to these areas It does differ however from a model in which faculty members serve on the full board as faculty trustees for example since committees make recommenda tions to the full board but are not responsible for final action If faculty representatives on board committees do not have voting privileges they should at least partici pate fully in discussions As a first step the position held by the faculty member should have a designa tion such as faculty representative rather than faculty visitor or faculty observer to indicate that his or her role is not passive While perhaps mostly symbolic the position s title may help to shape the role that the fac ulty representative assumes when attending committee and board meetings Consistent with this committee s recommenda tions in the 2013 statement Confidentiality and Faculty Representation in Academic Governance faculty representatives to the governing board and its committees should regularly report to the faculty on board activities and actions and should seek out the views of the faculty members they represent As the statement noted the ability of faculty representa tives to convey the views of their constituents should lend more authority to their statements Both the 1938 Committee T statement and the Statement on Government assert that faculty members who serve as representatives of the faculty should be selected by the faculty according to procedures determined by the faculty A genuinely representative faculty member can claim more legitimacy in his or her role than an administrative appointee As the University of Virginia investigating committee noted with respect to presidential appointments of faculty members to the governing board nomination by the senate of candidates for appointment to the board s committees would conduce toward greater confidence in faculty representation without sacrificing competence The AGB report recommended including new fac ulty representatives to the governing board in trustee orientation sessions

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/faculty-communication-governing-boards-best-practices (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Ralph S. Brown Award for Shared Governance | AAUP
    after the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom was established in 1998 It was created in memory of Ralph S Brown who served as AAUP president and general counsel and headed many AAUP committees during his forty four years of service to the Association Professor Brown taught law at Yale University Eligibility The award is given to an American college or university administrator or trustee or to a board of trustees as a group in recognition of an outstanding contribution to shared governance preferably during the previous year Guidelines Nominations are submitted in the form of supporting letters and biographical material The local AAUP chapter traditionally provides the primary nomination for the award Candidates should have demonstrated achievement in the realm of shared governance that either goes above and beyond what one would normally expect of an individual or governing board or significantly extends the conception and scope of shared governance The criteria to be discussed in the nomination letters are Demonstration of the candidate s strong commitment to shared governance Ability of the candidate to work with multiple constituencies with supporting evidence provided Capability to bring about effective change Capacity to communicate to multiple constituencies about the importance of shared governance Rather than award the Ralph Brown Award annually the Association reserves the distinction for those occasions when some accomplishment in the area of shared governance is identified as so outstanding as to merit being singled out Nominations are due March 15 Please contact Hans Joerg Tiede at the AAUP s Washington office for more information Recipients of the Ralph S Brown Award for Shared Governance 1999 Santa Clara University Board of Trustees and President Paul Locatelli S J 2002 Luther F Carter President Francis Marion University 2005 Phillip Dudley Jr President Hastings College 2006 Barbara R Gitenstein President

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/about/awards/ralph-s-brown-award-shared-governance (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •