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".
  • On Partnerships with Foreign Governments: The Case of Confucius Institutes | AAUP
    and laws to justify practices that the American Association of University Professors AAUP and the Canadian Association of University Teachers CAUT would not tolerate on North American campuses In 2009 our two organizations adopted a joint statement On Conditions of Employment at Overseas Campuses setting forth appropriate employment standards for overseas campuses of North American universities and stating our commitment to see that those standards are met Globalization has also meant that university administrators have welcomed involvement of foreign governments corporations foundations and donors on campuses in North America These relationships have often been beneficial But occasionally university administrations have entered into partnerships that sacrificed the integrity of the university and its academic staff Exemplifying the latter are Confucius Institutes now established at some ninety colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1 Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom Their academic activities are under the supervision of Hanban a Chinese state agency which is chaired by a member of the Politburo and the vice premier of the People s Republic of China Most agreements establishing Confucius Institutes feature nondisclosure clauses and unacceptable concessions to the political aims and practices of the government of China Specifically North American universities permit Confucius Institutes to advance a state agenda in the recruitment and control of academic staff in the choice of curriculum and in the restriction of debate Confucius Institutes appear designed to emulate the cultural ambassadorship and programming associated with for example the British Council the Goethe Institut and L Alliance Franςaise These latter three entities are clearly connected to imperial pasts ongoing geopolitical agendas and the objectives of soft power but none of them is located on a university or college campus Instead their connections to national political

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

  • Statement on Intellectual Property | AAUP
    invention by voluntary assignment as was the case at most universities prior to 1980 Some universities have sought to make their ownership of all faculty patent rights a condition of employment citing the use of university facilities as a justification for asserting their ownership Some also insist that externally funded research contracts specify that the university will manage all the resulting intellectual property Though these strategies are increasingly preferred by many universities there is little to indicate that such ownership claims advance university interests whether taken narrowly as the pursuit of income from patent licenses or broadly in terms of the social value of research and access to its results The 2011 Stanford v Roche ruling affirmed that such rationales for the nonvoluntary confiscation of faculty intellectual property are often unfounded For many years university policies recognized that faculty members owned their intellectual property but required that they share profits with the institution when patentable intellectual property was commercialized The AAUP regards such policies as fair and reasonable so long as the faculty inventor or creator determines whether and how the work is to be marketed Faculty members should have the right to distribute some work software being a common example for free if they choose Universities have often distinguished between copyrightable and patentable intellectual property ceding faculty ownership of the former and asserting institutional ownership of the latter But both are products of scholarship and protected by academic freedom which provides for control by faculty authors over dissemination of their works A fundamental problem that arises from university ownership of patent rights to faculty inventions is that it tends to create institutional conflicts of interest between the university s governance role and its financial and competitive interests in exploiting patented inventions for its own benefit It is all too easy for universities to conflate royalty income with their public service mission to enhance economic growth while failing to perceive or to acknowledge the conflict that arises with respect to other institutional responsibilities and the university s long standing commitment to the broad dissemination of knowledge Inventions despite distinctions often drawn in university policy statements are a natural outgrowth of scholarly activities The scholarly nature of university based inventions does not simply disappear with the addition of a potential patent or other intellectual property rights Thus the fundamental rights of faculty members to direct and control their own research do not terminate when they make an invention or other research discovery these rights properly extend to decisions involving invention management intellectual property licensing commercialization dissemination and public use Faculty inventor assignment of an invention to a management agent including the university that hosted the underlying research should be voluntary and negotiated rather than mandatory unless federal statutes or previous sponsored research agreements dictate otherwise 3 Faculty inventors and investigators retain a vital interest in the disposition of their research inventions and discoveries and should therefore retain rights to negotiate the terms of their disposition The university or its management agents

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

  • Statement on Intellectual Property | AAUP
    faculty invention by voluntary assignment as was the case at most universities prior to 1980 Some universities have sought to make their ownership of all faculty patent rights a condition of employment citing the use of university facilities as a justification for asserting their ownership Some also insist that externally funded research contracts specify that the university will manage all the resulting intellectual property Though these strategies are increasingly preferred by many universities there is little to indicate that such ownership claims advance university interests whether taken narrowly as the pursuit of income from patent licenses or broadly in terms of the social value of research and access to its results The 2011 Stanford v Roche ruling affirmed that such rationales for the nonvoluntary confiscation of faculty intellectual property are often unfounded For many years university policies recognized that faculty members owned their intellectual property but required that they share profits with the institution when patentable intellectual property was commercialized The AAUP regards such policies as fair and reasonable so long as the faculty inventor or creator determines whether and how the work is to be marketed Faculty members should have the right to distribute some work software being a common example for free if they choose Universities have often distinguished between copyrightable and patentable intellectual property ceding faculty ownership of the former and asserting institutional ownership of the latter But both are products of scholarship and protected by academic freedom which provides for control by faculty authors over dissemination of their works A fundamental problem that arises from university ownership of patent rights to faculty inventions is that it tends to create institutional conflicts of interest between the university s governance role and its financial and competitive interests in exploiting patented inventions for its own benefit It is all too easy for universities to conflate royalty income with their public service mission to enhance economic growth while failing to perceive or to acknowledge the conflict that arises with respect to other institutional responsibilities and the university s long standing commitment to the broad dissemination of knowledge Inventions despite distinctions often drawn in university policy statements are a natural out growth of scholarly activities The scholarly nature of university based inventions does not simply disappear with the addition of a potential patent or other intellectual property rights Thus the fundamental rights of faculty members to direct and control their own research do not terminate when they make an invention or other research discovery these rights properly extend to decisions involving invention management intellectual property licensing commercialization dissemination and public use Faculty inventor assignment of an invention to a management agent including the university that hosted the underlying research should be voluntary and negotiated rather than mandatory unless federal statutes or previous sponsored research agreements dictate otherwise 3 Faculty inventors and investigators retain a vital interest in the disposition of their research inventions and discoveries and should therefore retain rights to negotiate the terms of their disposition The diversity or its

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/statement-intellectual-property-0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Defending the Freedom to Innovate: Faculty Intellectual Property Rights After Stanford v. Roche | AAUP
    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 Defending the Freedom to Innovate Faculty Intellectual Property Rights After Stanford v Roche Download Intellectual Property Report pdf This statement was prepared by a subcommittee of the Association s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure was and approved for publication by that committee The comment period ended on December 13 and all comments received before that date are being considered by the committee Tensions over faculty control of the fruits of their scholarship have been slowly building since the 1980s but they have also intensified since late 2011 There have long been differences of opinion over ownership of patentable inventions but over the last two years a number of universities have categorically asserted that they own these products of faculty research And there is increasing evidence of institutional interest in declaring ownership of faculty intellectual property subject to copyright as well The most notable example of the latter is those universities that demand full ownership of online courses and other instructional materials a trend that did not begin escalating until the 2012 13 academic year This report is being issued in the midst of these fundamental changes in the character of faculty rights and academic freedom The purpose of this report is to put the dialog on intellectual property on a new foundation one that leads to a principle based restoration

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/defending-freedom-innovate-faculty-intellectual-property-rights-after-stanford-v-roche (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships | 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 Recommended Principles to Guide Academy Industry Relationships A version of this report was completed in spring 2012 and published for comment in June 2012 Based on the extensive feedback we received and supplemented by further research it was extensively revised for publication as a book The 2012 draft is thus no longer appropriate for quotation or guidance Instead please consult the final report released in January 2014 and

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/recommended-principles-guide-academy-industry-relationships (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Very Slow Recovery: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2011-12 | AAUP
    college tuition published tuition price and net tuition cost Published tuition price is the sticker price colleges and universities print in their admissions materials It s the price paid by students who aren t receiving any financial aid Net tuition cost is the published tuition price minus grant aid tax credits and tax deductions it represents the out of pocket tuition costs for students and families Colleges and universities have learned to set tuition in much the same way that airlines set ticket prices charging different people different rates for the same service In economics this would be referred to as price discrimination Students who pay full price help subsidize the grants that lower the costs for students receiving need or merit based aid Parents politicians and the press tend to focus on increases in published tuition prices Although that measure overstates the rate of increase it does contribute to the sticker shock that may discourage some students from pursuing higher education According to the College Board s Trends in College Pricing 2011 for the most recent five year period between 2006 07 and 2011 12 average published tuition and fees at four year colleges increased by 5 1 percent more than inflation But net tuition and fees increased by just 1 4 percent above the inflation rate during the same period and some two thirds of all students receive at least some form of financial aid Tuition prices are rising and are a source of anxiety for many middle class families although the net effect may not be as great as many people think So why is the price of college tuition rising AAUP survey data demonstrate that contrary to a persistent myth full time faculty salaries are not the cause of rising tuition prices over the last three decades as shown in table B During the 1980s increases in inflation adjusted published tuition and fees at private four year colleges and universities were more than double the increases in full time faculty salaries Tuition prices increased at three times the rate of faculty salaries in public four year colleges and at more than four times the rate in community colleges And this was during a decade when full time faculty salaries were rising to compensate for significant losses against inflation in the previous decade During the 1990s increases in both tuition and fees and full time faculty salaries slowed somewhat Nonetheless the pattern of tuition prices rising several times faster than faculty salaries continued Tuition and fees in four year colleges once again rose three or four times as fast as full time faculty salaries on average And the inflation adjusted published tuition and fees in public two year colleges increased by 5 4 percent even while real faculty salaries declined by 2 1 percent In the most recent decade the tuition trends at public and private institutions diverged substantially As figure 1 illustrates with data from the independent Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs Productivity and Accountability state and local appropriations for public higher education declined between 1999 and 2009 after adjusting for inflation and increasing enrollment Public colleges and universities had little choice but to raise tuition prices to make up for the decline in government support and figure 2 indicates that at public colleges and universities net tuition revenues per full time equivalent FTE student increased between 35 and 50 percent between 1999 and 2009 By the end of this period tuition was nearly as large a source of revenue as state and local appropriations for public research and master s universities although it had reached only about half the level of appropriations in community colleges The final column of table B depicts the dramatic impact of these changing revenue streams on the published tuition prices over the last ten years and the substantial differences between public and private sectors Published tuition and fees at public two year colleges increased by 44 8 percent above the inflation rate during the last decade while average full time faculty salaries at these institutions declined by 2 5 percent in real terms At public four year institutions published tuition and fees increased a whopping 72 percent more than inflation while full time faculty salaries barely budged and indeed declined significantly at public master s universities Private four year colleges and universities increased their published tuition rates by 28 9 percent more than inflation while faculty salary increases ranged from 1 9 to 7 7 percent The separate Delta Project data indicate that net tuition revenues per FTE student at four year private colleges rose between 21 and 27 percent between 1999 and 2009 The relatively lower tuition price increases in private nonprofit colleges may be partly explained by their greater reliance on income from the investment of endowment assets Although endowments fell dramatically during the 2007 09 recession over the long run growth in the market value of these funds has provided a financial cushion AAUP data clearly indicate that full time faculty salaries have not been driving up the costs of higher education over the last three decades But figure 3 provides additional compelling evidence that the revenue from increased tuition prices is not being invested in faculty members As has been discussed repeatedly in this annual report the proportion of full time tenured and tenure track faculty members has been falling precipitously During this period the proportion of faculty members working part time has increased substantially at rates of pay that are only a fraction of what full time faculty members receive The evidence is unequivocal faculty pay is not the source of rising tuition prices And we re not the only ones reaching that conclusion The Delta Project concluded in its Trends in College Spending 1998 2008 that over the 1998 to 2008 period the share of instruction spending declined against increased spending for academic support libraries and computing institutional support administration and student services The common myth that spending on faculty is responsible for continuing cost escalation is not true 1 One factor partly responsible for rising tuition prices is the increased employment of noninstructional staff Some of this hiring is attributable to increased federal and accreditor mandated reporting requirements Another factor is the increased use of computer and other equipment which necessitates larger information technology departments Enrollments have increased as well However data from the US Department of Education show steady declines in student to staff ratios between 1976 and 2009 There are more students and more nonfaculty staff members but the latter category has grown more rapidly While the student to faculty ratio in public institutions remained constant between 1976 and 2009 at about seventeen to one the student to staff ratio declined from nine to one to six to one Private nonprofit colleges and universities lowered their ratios from seven students per staff member to four during this same time period The student to faculty ratio at these private institutions also declined from fourteen to one to eleven to one but the increased use of non tenure track faculty members has offset the costs that lower ratios might otherwise have produced Our answer to the parent at Central Bucks High School West is that college tuition is definitely not increasing because of escalating faculty salaries Presidential Salaries A classic leadership principle is to lead by example An extraordinary demonstration of this principle is to be found in General Charles Krulak retired commandant of the US Marine Corps and former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was selected to serve as the thirteenth president of Birmingham Southern College in March 2011 In June 2010 Birmingham Southern had announced it would be making budget cuts of approximately 20 percent because of mismanagement in awards of financial aid under the prior president combined with revenue reductions resulting from the Great Recession What was the general s first action following the public announcement of his appointment He stated that he would forego his first year s salary in order to demonstrate his commitment to the college and the need to restore its fiscal health How do other college and university presidents compare on this gauge of leadership as the worst recession since the Great Depression has diminished institutional revenues Have they made the same sacrifices they have asked faculty and staff members to make through pay freezes and cuts Figure 4 provides some evidence of where the burden has fallen comparing annual percentage changes in inflation adjusted median salaries of presidents and full time faculty members between 2007 08 and 2010 11 Although the starting point of the Great Recession was later established as December 2007 it was not until fall 2008 that the first warning bells began to sound in real time By that time budgets for the 2008 09 academic year had mostly already been set Further the rate of inflation between December 2007 and December 2008 was only 0 1 percent As was noted in the 2008 09 edition of this report after six years of stagnation inflation adjusted full time faculty salaries were up on average for 2008 09 because inflation was running at its lowest rate in decades The first two years of annual salary changes in figure 4 occurring before budgets had felt the full impact of the recession show presidents generally collecting salary increases well above those granted to faculty members Between 2006 07 and 2007 08 the presidential salary gains of 1 6 percent net of inflation fell short of the increases awarded to community college faculty members But compared with faculty members at four year institutions who experienced real decreases presidents clearly were able to protect their own incomes In the second year of prerecession budgets 2007 08 to 2008 09 presidential salary increases exceeded those of faculty members at all institutional types Similarly while the recession officially ended in June 2009 the feeble recovery didn t begin to show until after 2010 11 budgets were finalized The second two years of salary changes reflect institutional budgets formulated during the Great Recession Between 2008 09 and 2009 10 median faculty salaries at all types of institutions decreased after adjusting for inflation In the following year inflation adjusted faculty salaries increased by a negligible 0 1 percent at master s universities while falling further at all other types of institutions By contrast college and university presidents median salaries continued their upward climb during both years even if by only a small amount in 2010 11 Consideration of the full four year period vividly illustrates the same pattern in the not for profit higher education sector rising CEO pay in the face of stagnating pay for workers that is manifest in the for profit sector of the economy Over the four year period inflation adjusted median presidential salaries increased by 9 8 percent By contrast full time faculty salaries remained flat at doctoral universities increased by less than half a percent at baccalaureate and community colleges and rose by less than 2 percent at master s universities Extraordinary examples aside shared sacrifice has not been practiced by the presidents of our colleges and universities Union Impact During 2011 collective bargaining rights came under attack from legislators and governors in Wisconsin Ohio Michigan Florida and other states and the attacks have continued in 2012 in Indiana Arizona and elsewhere These attacks have focused particularly on public employees resting to a significant extent on a false assertion that public sector workers are overpaid relative to workers in the private sector Last year s edition of this report cited two studies that demonstrated this claim is false when jobs requiring similar levels of education were compared Several more state specific studies emerged during the course of 2011 confirming that public sector workers are not more generously paid than workers in the private sector Partly in response to these attacks and also in light of the continuing disinvestment in public higher education faculty members around the country have expressed renewed interest in forming unions to protect their academic freedom and preserve a faculty voice in institutional decision making Full time faculty members at Bowling Green State University in Ohio voted in 2010 to form an AAUP affiliated union as did faculty members at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 2011 and at the University of Oregon last month The latter two chapters will be jointly affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers In many cases the primary motivation for these unionization drives is a desire for a more equitably shared process of institutional governance or to arrest the continuing shift away from fulltime tenure track faculty appointments But another significant reason to form a union is to improve compensation Numerous academic studies have treated the impact of a faculty union on compensation However many of these analyses are quite dated or are limited to a few institutions or one particular sector Table C provides current data as a means of evaluating the effect of unionization on full time faculty salaries The data summarized in table C do not take into account all of the different variables that affect faculty compensation Even so they do include three of the major factors influencing full time faculty salaries in addition to unionization institutional sector public and private category based on degrees awarded and faculty rank The data are drawn from the AAUP Faculty Compensation Survey and supplemented with information on unionization from the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College of the City University of New York and other sources The table presents average 2010 11 academic year salaries for full time instructional faculty members at more than 1 300 colleges and universities that provided data to the AAUP Table C indicates that the effect of unionization on fulltime faculty salary varies between institutional types Overall average salaries are 2 6 percent lower in unionized public doctoral universities and 5 9 percent lower in unionized private doctoral universities when all ranks of faculty are combined There is a large salary advantage for unionized non tenure track faculty members in doctoral universities however amounting to 7 4 percent in public universities and 15 7 percent in private universities Unionized associate professors also earned more on average than their nonunion counterparts At other types of institutions the positive effect of unionization on salary is quite substantial between 7 and 16 percent Full time faculty members at public master s universities earn an average of 15 6 percent more than their counterparts at nonunionized master s universities In the private sector the corresponding union salary advantage is 13 6 percent At baccalaureate colleges faculty members in unionized settings earned an average of 11 3 percent more in the public sector and 13 0 percent more in private colleges For faculty members in public community colleges the union premium was 15 5 percent in colleges that assigned faculty ranks and 9 6 percent in those that did not The positive effect of unionization on full time faculty salaries appears to be related to union density indicated in the table by the percentage of faculty members in each category who are unionized Union density is lower in doctoral universities than in other types of institutions and is much lower in the private sector as a result of the US Supreme Court s 1980 Yeshiva decision which makes it nearly impossible for fulltime faculty members in that sector to form new unions With union organizing campaigns under way or successfully completed recently at major public doctoral universities the salary differential in that sector may shift in years to come In sum union membership appears to provide an advantage in earnings for full time faculty members at nearly all types of institutions consistent with the aggregate advantage found for unionized workers across occupations The faculty earnings advantage is stronger in sectors where unionization is more prevalent giving support to the adage that there is strength in numbers In the face of attacks on collective bargaining across the country which would clearly result in further stagnation of faculty pay the need for organized resistance has never been greater Part Time Faculty Pay For many years this annual report has included whatever data were available on the growth of what is now the largest segment of the academic workforce our academic colleagues employed in contingent positions Figure 3 shows that contingent academics full time non tenure track and part time faculty members along with graduate student employees made up more than 75 percent of the total instructional staff as of fall 2009 the last year for which comparable data are available Compensation data for these positions have been extremely limited however Data on part time faculty pay have not been part of the annual AAUP compensation survey because our institutional contacts often do not have the same access to centralized part time faculty wage data and because part time pay is tied to actual courses taught rather than to annual salary allocations The US Department of Education s National Study of Postsecondary Faculty which included part time faculty members but not graduate student employees last collected data for fall 2003 and is now defunct Other national compensation datasets such as those compiled by Oklahoma State University and the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources do not include part time faculty members and do not provide a separate analysis of non tenure track compensation A separate data collection project on contingent academic compensation has clearly been needed for some time The AAUP is one of the founding members of the Coalition on the Academic Workforce CAW which is committed to addressing issues associated with deteriorating faculty working conditions and their effect on college and university students in the United States In 2010 CAW resolved to help address the lack of data on contingent academic compensation and working conditions by surveying individuals employed in those positions The questionnaire developed by CAW

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2011-12salarysurvey (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Regional Accreditation Standards Concerning Academic Freedom and the Faculty Role in Governance | AAUP
    scholarly research 11 3 7 North Central Association of Colleges and Schools the Higher Learning Commission The current version of this commission s Handbook of Accreditation includes shared governance under the first of its five Criteria for Accreditation specifically under core component 1d which states that the organization s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission The explanatory paragraphs that follow describe shared governance without defining it as a long standing attribute of most colleges and universities in the United States adding the qualification whatever the governance and administrative structures they need to enhance the organization s capacity to fulfill its mission Among the examples of evidence that might indicate compliance with this core component is this Faculty and other academic leaders share responsibility for the coherence of the curriculum and the integrity of academic processes Under criterion 2a The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends explanatory paragraphs describe shared governance as serving as a check and balance to ensure academic integrity 8 While the North Central commission s handbook does not employ the phrase academic freedom under criterion 4a The organization demonstrates through the actions of its board administrators students faculty and staff that it values a life of learning it does include the following example of evidence relevant to this bedrock concept The board has approved and disseminated statements supporting freedom of inquiry for the organization s students faculty and staff and honors those statements in its practices 9 The North Central Association offers an alternative accreditation process the Academic Quality Improvement Program which emphasizes continuous self assessment rather than periodic reviews and employs a different set of criteria In order to determine whether or not criterion 1 Helping Students Learn is being met institutions can ask a number of questions one of which is the following By what means do you create and maintain a climate that celebrates intellectual freedom inquiry reflection respect for intellectual property and respect for differing and diverse opinions 10 Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities The accrediting handbook of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities includes some of the strongest affirmations of the faculty s role in shared governance Among its twenty eligibility requirements for institutions seeking initial accreditation which also apply to institutions seeking reaccreditation the commission includes this statement under requirement 7 Faculty Faculty are involved in the formulation of institutional policy participate in academic planning curriculum development and review student academic advising and institutional governance and are evaluated in a periodic and systematic manner 11 Among its nine standards for accreditation are several that contain similar language A subsection of standard 4 Faculty asserts that faculty participate in academic planning curriculum development and review academic advising and institutional governance 4 A 2 Standard 6 Governance and Administration includes this statement The system of governance makes provision for the consideration of faculty student and staff views and judgments in those matters in which these constituencies have a direct and reasonable interest 6 A 3 This section also includes the following assertion The role of faculty in institutional governance planning budgeting and policy development is made clear and public faculty are supported in that role 6 D 12 The Northwest commission also includes strong affirmations of academic freedom among its requirements and standards One eligibility requirement is entitled Academic Freedom and states The institution s faculty and students are free to examine and test all knowledge appropriate to their discipline or area of major study as judged by the academic educational community in general Regardless of institutional affiliation or sponsorship the institution maintains an atmosphere in which intellectual freedom and independence exist 13 The standards contain similar statements The institution fosters and protects academic freedom for faculty 4 A 7 Faculty are accorded academic freedom to pursue scholarship research and artistic creation consistent with the institution s mission and goals 4 B 7 The institution demonstrates through its policies and practices its commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge consistent with the institution s mission and goals 9 A 5 14 They also contain one of most elaborate discussions of academic freedom to be found among the standards of all the regional accrediting bodies First adopted in 1966 and revised in 1978 this lengthy statement makes up the greater part of standard 9 Institutional Integrity and should be quoted in its entirety By academic tradition and by philosophical principle an institution of higher learning is committed to the pursuit of truth and to its communication to others To carry out this essential commitment calls for institutional integrity in the way a college or university manages its affairs which can be seen in the way it specifies its goals selects and retains its faculty admits students establishes curricula determines programs of research and fixes its fields of service The maintenance and exercise of such institutional integrity postulates and requires appropriate autonomy and freedom Put positively this is the freedom to examine data to question assumptions to be guided by evidence to teach what one knows to be a learner and a scholar Put negatively this is a freedom from unwarranted harassment which hinders or prevents a college or university from getting on with its essential work A college or university must be managed well and remain solvent but it is not a business or an industry It must be concerned with the needs of its community and state and country but an institution of higher learning is not a political party or a social service It must be morally responsible but even when church related it is not a religion or a church A college or university is an institution of higher learning Those within it have as a first concern evidence and truth rather than particular judgments of institutional benefactors concerns of churchmen public opinion social pressure or political proscription Relating to this general concern corresponding to intellectual and

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/regional-accreditation-standards-concerning-academic-freedom-and-faculty-role-governance (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Evaluation of Administrators | AAUP
    administrators that is those at a level above the administrator who is the subject of a review a rational basis for the decision whether or not to reappoint an individual and at the same time they should provide the person under review with guidance on improving his or her performance The more constructive and developmental the evaluation the greater the desirability of confidentiality sufficient to encourage the individual to undertake a midcourse correction The question of confidentiality has other bearings to which we shall return later in this report again see Resulting Report and the Question of Confidentiality below The credibility of the evaluation depends in large measure on the commitment of all parties to a generally understood and agreed upon procedure for jointly carrying out the review On occasion the instigation for a review may come from a body of the faculty that has reason or believes it has reason to be sharply critical of or to dissent from some aspect of an administrator s performance for example when a faculty senate passes a vote of no confidence in the president or a chief administrative officer Usually such a move results from a serious breakdown in some part of the institutional structure although it needs to be noted that a vote of this kind can drive the governing board to close ranks behind a beleaguered president Moreover such a vote may also breed or exacerbate divisions in the ranks of the faculty It is important therefore to observe that before such a faculty move is initiated the burden is all the greater on the faculty despite the heat of the moment to observe the most scrupulous fairness in proceeding and particularly to offer the administrator the opportunity to respond fully Finally although our focus is on the evaluation rather than the selection of academic administrators in any case in which the appointment of an administrator has taken place over faculty objections and without an adequate response to faculty concerns or where the faculty has reason to believe that it was insufficiently consulted in the appointment for example when the recommendation of a search committee was ignored without good reason the appointee faces a burden of proving his or her worth that may impair her or his ability to function It is therefore a matter of simple administrative prudence as well as sound academic principle that the appointing administrator take the faculty voice into account prior to making such an appointment provide compelling reasons stated in detail to justify any overriding of the faculty judgment and make every effort to ensure that the appointee is advised of faculty concerns and given the opportunity to respond to them We also observed that at a few institutions where the faculty has exercised an appropriate role in the selection of administrators particularly where the administrator has come from outside the institution the practice has developed of keeping the search committee in place for a year or so after the appointment has been made to serve as an informal advisory body to the administrative newcomer This mechanism provides a reality check to both parties the administrator can report to the faculty whether he or she was adequately prepared for on campus realities and the faculty can examine the relationship between the presumptions that lay behind the original offer of appointment and the actual results of the administrator s performance to date The Level of Faculty Participation in Review In the spirit of the Statement on Government see Conclusions below any administrative review process needs to distinguish the appropriate level of faculty involvement in that particular review The provost or other chief academic officer and the dean or director of a college or school occupy positions directly involved in faculty personnel decisions including appointment reappointment promotion and tenure as well as other matters governing faculty status and academic programs that fall within the primary responsibility of the faculty Faculty participation in the evaluation of a president or other chief executive officer such as a chancellor is likewise conditioned on that person s role as an institutional leader and spokesperson but should recognize that other constituencies students staff alumni and in terms of ultimate authority as well as delegation of responsibilities the board of trustees have equally important roles to play In general the faculty voice is likely to be weightiest at the department and decanal levels and more diluted by the necessary presence of other institutional constituencies in the review of administrators above the level of dean Broadly speaking we would argue that many of the same considerations that govern the formation of a search committee such as the identification of the constituency with a primary relationship to the office for which a person is being sought should be applied in the composition of a review committee The evaluation of department chairs or heads is a partially separate or separable matter 3 The tendency of AAUP policy has been to view such persons as faculty rather than as administrators Local practices however as well as some unit determinations in collective bargaining elections that class departmental executive officers as supervisors may well point in another direction In the most democratic model in which a department chair is periodically elected by a majority vote of departmental colleagues the election is a summary evaluation or at the very least an acknowledgment that no one else in the ranks is better fitted or willing to serve In cases where a departmental executive officer is appointed by a dean albeit with faculty input the kinds of evaluation addressed in this statement are more germane particularly so when there is no automatic presumption that continuance is guaranteed or that a replacement will necessarily come from the ranks of the present faculty Somewhat different considerations figure in the case of those administrators particularly chief financial officers who are in a position to make critical budgetary recommendations affecting teaching research and faculty status as well as the composition of the faculty whether for example the institution can afford to appoint new faculty In making such administrative appointments presidents and governing boards are obliged to take into account a number of competencies that may not reflect an academic background and do not normally lend themselves to academic evaluation of the sort that faculty members are accustomed to practice moreover the confidence of the president and the board are essential to ensure the continuance of a vice president for finance or whatever title may be used in office In such cases faculty do retain a legitimate though not determinative role in evaluation but it may be as important in such a context to interpret evaluation as the providing of i nformation that will assist the administrator in understanding the academic consequences of fiscal or budgetary decisions Both faculty members and administrators from their respective sides of the divide may sometimes tend to underestimate the willingness of the other party to learn about their own perspective and therefore may move too quickly to an antagonistic or critical position when in fact all parties should have the same interest in a stable and healthy educational environment In still other cases the level of faculty involvement may depend on institutional type In a small college where faculty members may be more directly involved in day to day matters of student life their evaluation of a dean of students may be more salient than in a complex and highly bureaucratized environment in which a specialized corps of student personnel administrators attend to such issues as housing financial aid or student judicial actions that do not engage most faculty A healthy institution however through the agency of a broad based faculty body such as a senate will always be alert to ways in which special kinds of faculty interests for example in athletics buildings and grounds and the like may be represented in the evaluation of a particular administrator We need to take note of one objection that might be made at this point and that is that our remarks so far imply that over the years the relationship of faculty to administration has remained essentially unchanged In reality the growth of large administrative staffs that carry out much of the work of academic planning or other duties that have some degree of academic impact has sometimes tended to decrease direct interaction between faculty and administration or to deflect faculty members toward dealing with appointees who whatever their professional skills are not necessarily alert to the faculty dimensions of an issue or even particularly responsive to them No magic bullet in the Association s governance standards can be developed for this particular problem We can here only observe that one aspect of an administrator s performance that ought to be subject to faculty evaluation is how he or she appoints staff and delegates duties to them to the extent that this activity falls within the range of faculty observation Evaluative Procedures What follows is a set of considerations for a comprehensive review in which the expectations for procedural formality are fairly high though some of these procedures may be invoked if a single substantive midterm review is being conducted of the sort envisioned in Broad Principles above As previously indicated there also such reviews should be conducted as part of normal institutional business along procedural lines generally understood to apply to all such evaluations In instances in which the faculty has a primary role to play it is important that by whatever other means they may be involved in the evaluation a body composed entirely of faculty members has the opportunity to reach distinct faculty recommendations In other cases we have envisioned a mixed body representing different constituencies may be appropriate Whether such a faculty committee should be a standing or an ad hoc body is probably best determined by circumstances internal to the institution A standing body for example the executive committee of the senate in the case of a campus level administrator or a standing body of a constituent college or department signals what we have described as a desirable regularity in process On the other hand an ad hoc faculty body elected by the faculty or constituted as a partly elected and partly appointed body has the potential advantage of tapping fresh insights through broader faculty involvement The danger of the first procedure is that in some places there may be a perception of the process as being controlled by a faculty oligarchy The danger of the second in its purely elected form is the worry that the result will be the election of opportunistic faculty members with axes to grind In a case of mixed election and appointment for example with some faculty elected by the faculty or appointed by the senate and other faculty named by the administration what is required is a degree of trust and a perception of fairness on both sides What is essential in any case is that such a body however constituted be perceived as credible and fair neither rubber stamping a preconceived outcome nor acting vindictively in its pursuit of an unpopular administrator and able to protect confidentiality as much as is required during the process while being as honest and open as possible two requirements that to say the least are often difficult to realize in tandem At a flagship research university in the West a review committee is impaneled in somewhat the same manner as a grievance committee is constituted at that institution for the review of a dean for example the provost must pick at least four names put forward by the faculty but may appoint three others plus representatives from other university constituencies as long as the result is less than 50 percent of the committee At least one member must be a department head In the review of a department head the faculty elects three committee members the dean may appoint up to two others plus representatives of other constituencies again under the operation of the less than 50 percent rule Another institution requires that at least three faculty members reviewing the executive officer come from outside the department Two public universities in our sample have an all university faculty committee for evaluating administrators which in one of the two institutions oversees reviews in years three and five of a five year administrative appointment The standing committee is composed of nine members of the faculty assembly six of whom are chosen one each by the six divisions one by library faculty and one by each of two regional campuses At still another state university a standing committee of seven five of whom must be distinguished senior faculty appointed by the chancellor oversees the process and appoints review committees for each administrator with the president of the faculty senate appointing the chair of the standing committee itself Some of the issues involved in the details of establishing the reviewing body become less contentious if it is remembered that the designation of a committee is only a first step What really matters is that the committee however designated proceeds in such a way as to maximize the sense that faculty of diverse shades of opinion can participate in the process and see it as fair and legitimate Normally such a committee will first meet with the administrative officer or perhaps in the case of a president the governing board to whom or to which it is reporting the results of the review and then with the person being reviewed In the first of these meetings the parties need to reach a clear understanding of the timelines for the review and though we cannot specify standards for the timelines themselves they should be sufficient to allow for a considered faculty evaluation an equally considered response to the results by the person under review and due deliberation by those charged with making a final decision At the second of these meetings the person under review should be invited to submit any information about past performance or prospective plans that he or she believes will assist the committee in its deliberations as well as a list of persons to whom the committee should speak and there should be no bar to the receipt of further oral or written communication after this initial meeting The next task is for the review committee to agree on its method of operation and as soon as possible after it meets to submit this plan to the faculty as a public document specifying its procedure and the nature of any rules governing the confidentiality of proceedings In any solicitation of opinion the committee should identify persons or groups with whom it wishes to meet and it should state its openness to meeting within reasonable time limits with any individual or group that seeks access to its deliberations When there is reason to fear that this may result in an overly protracted process the committee may wish to subdivide for purposes of maximizing the receipt of relevant information but this requires a very careful agreement on the nature and format of such information including if necessary a template that will ensure some reasonable degree of standardization or at least provide a basis for thoughtful comparison An effective way of ensuring as wide a spectrum of faculty participation as desired by the faculty is the development of a questionnaire All the plans scrutinized by the subcommittee had some form of a questionnaire that could be widely distributed If a standard questionnaire geared either to a specific administrative office or to all administrative appointments does not already exist the committee may wish to devise one if necessary with expert assistance from faculty with survey method competencies or if agreed upon by all parties an outside professional consultant that is sufficiently specific to address all areas believed to be of importance and that may allow also for brief written commentary In keeping with our earlier comments about structuring the review so that the faculty voice is perceived as meaningful we would add that the use of a survey fosters the expectation that the results will be released in some form at an appropriate time Evaluative Criteria Evaluative criteria vary widely but the same core areas and considerations in one form or another tend to recur from institution to institution The areas may be stated as subject categories in the case of a dean for example attention to leadership a category that of course knows no boundaries by administrative position faculty and program development fairness and ethics and communication skills these from a large public research university or in the form of questions does the administrator actively promote an environment for scholarly and teaching excellence consult faculty adequately before making important decisions make sound administrative appointments and inspire confidence At another large research university the areas are stated somewhat differently leadership commitment to diversity strategic management functional competence and interpersonal skills At a third those areas cited also include communications response to work demands budgeting and use of resources and the internal functioning of the dean s office In the case of a department executive officer subject to a formal evaluation the most salient issues are likely to turn on his or her effectiveness in identifying and responding to departmental needs and in representing the department effectively to the college and campus both fiscally and in terms of personnel and concern for students alertness to developments in the profession including research directions which may affect future hiring fair treatment of and good counseling to nontenured faculty a strong commitment to teaching and curricular development and commitment to democratic procedures in departmental affairs When the person being evaluated is either the chief academic officer or especially the president the net may be cast wider but there may also be somewhat less depth in areas that are especially relevant to a department chair or a dean The criteria for evaluating a chancellor at a public nonflagship campus include interaction with faculty

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/report/faculty-evaluation-administrators (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •