ED 080 102 American Association of Univ.- Professors ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 080 102 BE 004 640...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 080 102 BE 004 640

TITLE AAUP Policy Documents and Reports.INSTITUTION American Association of Univ.- Professors, Washington,

D.C.PUB DATE 73NOTE 88p.

EDRS PRICE MF-40.65 HC-43.29DESCRIPTORS *Administrative Policy; College Faculty;

*Organizational Development; *Organizations (Groups);*Policy Formation; *Professors

IDENTIFIERS *American Association of University Professors

ABSTRACTThis document presents a wide range of policy

documents and reports determined by the American Association of -

University Professors.. The areas of concern include academic freedom,tenure, due process, college and university government, coil' -- tverepresentation, professional ethics, student rights and freedc.-4,college and university accreditation, research and teaching, andcollateral benefits..The constitution of the Association is alsoincluded. (MJM)

7

(NIC=1r-4C.CO:CD

C3LU

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION I WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPROOuEE0 EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATiNG IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL iNSTi TUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Policy Documentsand

Reports

The American Association of University ProfessorsSuite 500

One Dupont CircleWashington, D. C. 20036

Western Regional OfficeSuite 1406 582 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94104

Northeastern Regional OfficeSuite 2107 155 East 44th StreetNew York, New York 10036

Introduction

For more than 55 years, The American Association of University Professors has worvedfor the acceptance by the academic community of the Association's standards for responsiblepractice. Today the Association is regarded as the authoritative voice of the academic pro-fession.

This volume presents in convenient format the wide range of policies as they have beendetermined by the Association's national Council and by the Annual Meeting of the member-ship, working with the assistance of standing and special committees and at times in coopera-tion with other organizations.

Another significant document for persons interested in Association procedures on mattersof academic freedom and tenure is the Handbook, Academic Freedom an Tenure, edited byLouis Joughin, until recently a senior member of the Washington Office staff. The Handbookwas first published by the University of Wisconsin Press in 1967, and a revised edition ap-peared in 1969. Of special importance in that volume is the description of customary case pro-cedure followed by the Association when a member of the profession brings to the attention ofthe Association's General Secretary a complaint alleging violation of academic freedom andtenure.

The names of the Association's officers, Council, and staff are printed on the reverse of thetitle page of each issue of the AAUP Bulletin. Association committees and their membershipare listed in each winter issue of the Bulletin. An examination of the AAUP Constitution (re-printed in this volume), together with the Council, staff, and committee rosters noted above,provides a convenient outline of the Association's structure.

Active membership in the AAUP is open to teachers and research scholars holding facultystatus in accredited institutions, or in institutions which are candidates for accreditation, iftheir appointments are for at least one year and their work consists of at least half-time teach-ing or research. Librarians and department chairmen are eligible even though they do notteach. Counselors and staff members of university presses are eligible if they hold facultystatus.

Graduate Student membership is open to persons presently, or within the past five years,enrolled in graduate studies in accredited institutions, and who are not eligible for Activemembership.

Associate membership is reset ved for Active or Graduate Student members who becomeadministrative officers with less than half-time teaching or research. Emeritus membership isopen to members retired for reasons of age from teaching or research positions.

Inquiries concerning membership or the policies supported by AAUP for the communityof higher education should be addressed to the Washington or Regional Offices of the Asso-ciation. Members and nonmembers alike are also referred to local chapter and regional confer-ence leaders for advice and counsel on matters of concern.

CONTENTS*

ACADEMIC FREEDOM, TENURE, AND DUE PROCESS

Academic Freedom and Tenure, 1940 Statement of Principles and 1970Interpretive Comments I

(Vol. SC No. 3, Autumn. 1970, pp. 323-326.1

Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings (1958) 5(Vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 439-441.)

Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments (1971) 8(Vol. 57, No. 2, Summer, 1971, pp. 206-210.)

The Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment (1964) 13(Vol. 53, No. 4, Winter, 1967, page 407.)

Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances (1964) 14(Vol. 51, No. 1, Spring, 1965, page 29.)

1972 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure 15(Vol. 58, No. 4, Winter, 1972, pp. 428.433.)

Statement on Professors and Political Activity (1969) 21(Vol. 55, No. 3, Autumn, 1969, pp. 388.389.)

Faculty Appointment and Family Relationship (1971) 23(Vol. 57, No. 2, Summer, 1971, page 221.)

Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security (1956; 1958) 24(Vol. 42, No. 1, Spring, 1956, pp. 54-61.)

Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Ineligible forTenure (1969) 30(Vol. 52, No. 3, Autumn, 1966, pp. 280-282.)

Report on Retirement and Academic Freedom (1968) 33(vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 425-426.)

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (1966) , 35(Vol. 52, No. 4. Winter. 1966, pp 375.379.)

The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters (1972) 40(Vol. 58, No. 2, Summer. 1972, pp. 170.172.)

On Institutional Problems Resulting from Financial Exigency:Some Operating Guidelines (1972) 43

...

Faculty Participation in the Selection and Retention of Administrators:A Report of Committee T (1972) 45(Vol. 58, No. 2, Summer, 1972, pp. 173-174.)

Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians (1972) 47(Vol. 58, No. 4, Winter, 1972, pp. 434.435.)

Student Participation in College and University Government:A Report of Committee T (1970) 49(Vol. 56, No. I, Spring, 1970, pp. 33.35.)

COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATION

Statement on Collective Bargaining (1972) 52(Vol. 58, No. 4, Winter, 1972, pp. 423424.)

Faculty Participation in Strikes (1968) 54(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, pp. 155-159.)

*Volume citat:ons refer to most recent publication in the AAUP Bulletin

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Statement on Professional Ethics (1966) 59

(Vol. 55. No. 1, Spring, 1969. pp. 86.87).

A Statement of the Association's Council: Freedom and Responsibility (1970) 61

(Vol. 56. No. 4, Linter. 1970, pp. 375-376.)

Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members ( 1961) 63

(Vol. 54. No. 3, Autumn. 1968, pp. 363-364.)

A Report from Committee B: Late Resignation and Professional Ethics (1966) 65

(Vol. 54. No. 3, Autumn, 1968. pp. 362-363.)

STUDENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (1967) 67

(Vol. 54, No. 2. Summer. 1968, pp. 258-261.)

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ACCRENTATION

The Role of the Facuay in the Accrediting of Colleges and Universities (1968) 71

(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, pp. 264-265.)

RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Statement on Faculty Workload (1970) 73

(Vol. 56, No. I. Spring, 1970. pp. 30-32.)

On Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Government-Sponsored Researchat Universities (1965)

76

(Vol. 51, No. 1. Spring. 1965. pp. 42-43.)

Statement on Instructional Television (1969) 78

(Vol. 55, No. 2, Summer, 1969, pp. 270 -272.)

COLLATERAL BENEFITS

Statement of Principles on Academic Retirement and Insurance Plans (1969) 81

(Vol. 55, No. 3. Autumn, 1969, pp. 386.387.)

Statement of Principles on Leaves of Absence (1972) 83

(Vol. 58, No. 2, Summer, 1972, pp. 244-245.1

CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of the Association 85

(Vol. 58, No. 2, Summer, 1972, pp. 175-177.)

Academic Freedom and Tenure

1940 Statement of Principles and Interpretive Comments

In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 1934, representatives of the American Associa-tion of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges agreed upon a restatement ofprinciples set forth in the 1925 Conference .tatement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This restatementis known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

The 1940 Statement is printed below, followed by Interpretive Comments as developed by representa-tives of the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges during1969.

The following organizations officially endorsed the 1940 Statement 'it the years indicated.

Association of American Colleges 1941American Association of University Professors 1941American Library Association (adapted for librarians) 1946Association of American Law Schools 1946American Political Science Association 1947American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education' 1950American Association for Higher Education' 1950Eastern Psychological Association 1950American Philosophical Association:

Western Division 1952Eastern Division 1953

Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology 1953American Psychological Association 1961American Historical Association 1961Modern Language Association of America 1961American Economic Association 1962American Farm Economic Association 1962American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division 1962Midwest Sociological Society 1963Organization of American Historians' 1963American Philological Association 1963American Council of Learned Societies 1963Speech Association of America 1963American Sociological Association 1963Southern Historical Association 1963American Studies Association 1963Association of American Geographers 1963Southern Economic Association 1963Classical Association of the Middle West and South 1964Southwestern Social Science Association 1964Archaeological Institute of America 1964Southern Management Associat-m 1964American Educational Theatre Assus.'.ition 1964South Central Modern Language Assoc'. 'IA 1964Southwestern Philosophical Society 1964Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges 1965Mathematical Association of America 1965Arizona Academy of Science 1965American Risk and Insurance Association... .............. 1965

Endorsed by predecessor, American Association of TeachersColleges, in 1941.

'Formerly the Association for Higher Education. NationalEducation Association.

'Formerly the Mississippi Valley Historical Association.

Academy of Management 1965American Catholic Historical Association 1966American Catholic Philosophical Association 1966Association fos Eaucation in Journalism 1966Western History Association 1966Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference........ 1966Society of American Archivists... 1966Southeastern Psychological Association 1966Southern Speech Association 1966American Ass6ciation for the Advancement of

Slavic Studies 1967American Mathematical Society 1967College Theology Society 1967Council on Social Work Education 1967American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy 1967

_American Academy of Religion 1967American Catholic Sociological Society 1967American Society of Journalism School Administrators 1967John Dewey Society for the Study of

Education and Culture 1967South Atlantic Modern Language Association 1967American Finance Association 1967Catholic Economic Association 1967United Chapters of Phi Bet? Kappa 1968American Society of Christian Ethics 1968American Association of Teachers of French 1968,Appalachian Finance Association 1968Association of Teachers of Chinese Language

and Culture '968American Society of Plant Physiologists 1968University Film Association 1968American Dialect Society 1968American Speech and Hearing Assogiation 1968Association of Social and Behavioral Scientists 1968College English Association 1968National College Physical Education Association

for Men 1969American Real Estate and Urban Economics

Association 1969History of Education Society 1969Council for Philosophical Studies 1969American Physicists Association 1969American Musicological Society 1969American Association of Teachers of Spanish

asillPortuguese 1969unior College Teachers Association 1970

College Art Association of America 1970

Society of Professors of Education . ..1970American Anthropological Association 1970American Association of Theological Schools 1970American Association of Schools and Departments

of Journalism 1971American Business Law Association... 1971Amencan Council for the Arts in Education 1972

The purpose of this statement is to promote publicunderstanding and support of academic freedom andtenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them incolleges and universities. Institutions of higher educationare conducted for the common good and not to further theinterest of either the individual teachers or the institutionas a whole. The common good depends upon the freesearch for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes andapplies to both teaching and research. Freedom in researchis fundamental to the advamement of truth. Academicfreedom in its teaching aspeci is fundamental for the pro-tection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of thestudent to freedom in learning. It carries with it dutiescorrelative with rights. [1].

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: ( I)Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activi-ties and (2) a sufficient' degree of economic security tomake the profession attractive to men and women of abil-ity. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, areindispensable to the success of an institution in fulfillingits obligations to its students and to society.

Academie Freedom(a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research

and in the publication of the results, subject to the ade-quate performance of his other academic duties; but re-search for pecuniary return should be based upon an under-standing with the authorities of the institution.

(b) The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroomin discussing his subject, but he should be careful not tointroduce into his teaching controversial matter which hasno relation to his subject. [2] Limitations of academic free-dom because of religious or other aims of the institutionshould be clearly stated in writing at the time of the ap-pointment. [3]

(c) The college or university teacher is a citizen, amember of a learned profession, and an officer of an edu-cational institution. When he speaks or writes as a citizen,he should be free from institutional censorship or disci-pline, bu his special position in the community imposesspecial odigations. As a man of learning and an educa-tional officer, he should remember that the public mayjudge his profession and his institution by his utterances.Hence he should at all times be accurate, should exerciseappropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinionsof others, and should make every effort to indicate that heis not an institutional spokesman. [4]

lle word "teacher" u used in this document is understood toinclude the investiptor who is attached to an academic institutionwithout teaching duties.

'Bold-face numbers in brackets refer to Interpretive Commentswhich follow.

2

Academic Tenure(a) After the expiration of a probationary period, teach-

ers or investigators should have perArent or continuoustenure. and their service should be lc: rainated only foradequate cause. except in the case of retirement for age.or under extraordinary circuristances because of financialexigencies.

In the interpretation of t .is principle it is understoodthat the following representg acceptable academic practice:

(I) The precise terms and conditions of every appoint-ment should be stated in writing and be in the possessionof both institution and te,,:her before the appointment isconsummated.

(2) Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-timeinstructor or a higher rank, [5] the probationary periodshould not exceed seven years, including within this periodfull-time service in all institutions of higher education: butsubject to the proviso that when, after a term of probation-ary service of more than three years in one or more institu-lions, a teacher is called to another institution it may beagreed in writing that his new appointment is for a proba-tionary period of not more than four years. even thoughthereby the person's total probationary period in the aca-demic profession is extended beyond the normal maximumof seven years. [6] Notice should be given at least one yearprior to the expiration of the probationary period if theteacher is not to be continued in service after the expirationof that period. [7]

(3) During the probationary period a teacher shouldhave the academic freedom that all other members of thefaculty have. [8]

(4) Termination for cause of a continuous appointment,or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to theexpiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, beconsidered by both a faculty committee and the governingboard of the institution. In all cases where the facts are indispute, the accused teacher should be informed before thehearing in writing of the charges against him and shouldhave the opportunity to be heard in his own defense by allbodies that pass judgment upon his case. He should bepermitted to have with him an adviser of his own choosingwho may act as counsel. There should be a full steno-graphic record of the hearing available to the parties con-cerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence thetestimony should include that of teachers and other schol-ars. either from his own or from other institutions. Teach-ers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for rea-sons not involving moral turpitude should receive theirsalaries for at least a year from the date of notification ofdismissal whether or not they are continued in their dutiesat theinstitution. [9]

(5) Termination of a continuous appointment becauseof financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

1940 InterpretationsAt the conference of representatives of the American

Association of University Professors and of the Associa-tion of American Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, thefollowing interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Princi-

pies on Academic Freedom and 7.,1:ure were agreed upon:I. That its operation should not be retroactive.2. That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the

endorsement should be determined in accordance withthe principles set forth in the 1925 Conference State-ment on Academic Freedom and Tenuie.

3. If the administration of a college or university feels thata teacher has not observed the admonitions of Para-graph (c) of the section on Academic Freedom and be-lieves that the extramural utterances of the teacher

have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning hisfitness for his position, it may proceed to file chargesunder Paragraph (a) (4) of the section on AcademicTenure. In pressing such charges the administration

-......should remember that teachers are citizens and shouldbe accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases theadministration must assume full responsibility and theAmerican Association of University Professors andthe Association of American Colleges are free to makean investigation.

1970 Interpretive Comments

Following extensive discussions on the :940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure with leadingeducational associations and with individual faculty mem-bers and administrators, a Joint Committee of the AAUPand the Association of American Colleges met during 1969to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the basis of thecomments received, and the discussions that ensued, theJoint Committee felt the preferable approach was to for-mulate interpretations of the Statement in terms of theexperience gained in implementing and applying the State-ment for over thirty years and of adapting it to currentneeds.

The Committee submitted to the two Associations fortheir consideration the following "Interpretive Com-ments." These interpretations were approved by the Coun-cil of the American Association of University Professors inApril. 1970, and endorsed by the Fifty-sixth Annual Meet-ing as Association policy.

In the thirty years since their promulgation, the princi-ples of the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure have undergone a substantial amountof refinement. This has evolved through a variety of proc-esses, including customary acceptance, understandingsmutually arrived at between institutions and professors ortheir representatives, investigations and reports by theAmerican Association of University Professors, and for-mulations of statements by that Association either alone orin conjunction with the Association of American Colleges.These comments represent the attempt of the two associa-tions, as the original sponsors of the 1940 Statement, toformulate the most important of these refinements. Theirloco n here as Interpretive Comments is basedupon the premise that the 1940 Statement is not a staticcode but a fundamental document designed to set a frame-work of norms to guide adaptations to changing times andcircumstances.

Also, there have been relevant developments in the lawitself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts on dueprocess within the academic community which parallelsthe essential concepts of the 1940 Statement; particularlyrelevant is the identification by the Supreme Court ofacademic freedom as a right protected by the First Amend-ment. As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board ofRegents 385 U.S. 589 (1967), "Our Nation is deeply com-

mitted to safeguarding academic freedom, which is oftranscendent value to all A us and not merely to the teach-ers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concernof the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws thatcast a pat' of orthodoxy the classroom."

The numbers refer to the designated portion of the1940 Statement on which interpretive comment is made.

1. The Association of American Colleges and theAmerican Association of University Professors have longrecognized that membership in the academic professioncarries with it special responsibilities. Both Associationseither separately or jointly have consistently affirmed theseresponsibilities in major policy statements, providing guid-ance to the professor in his utterances as a citizen, in theexercise of his responsibilities to the institution and stu-dents, and in his conduct when resigning from his institu-tion or when undertaking government-sponsored research.Of particular relevance is the Statement on ProfessionalEthics, adopted by the Fifty-second Annual Meeting ofthe AAUP as Association policy and published in theAAUP Bulletin (Autumn, 1966, pp. 290-291).

2. The intent of this statement is not to discouragewhat is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of thefree academic inquiry which the entire statement is de-signed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the needfor the teacher to avt- id persistently intruding materialwhich has no relation to his subject.

3. Most church-related institutions no longer need ordesire the departure from the principle of academic free-dom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not nowendorse such a departure.

4. This paragraph is the subject of an Interpretationadopted by the sponsors of the 1940 Statement immedi-ately following its endorsement which reads as follows:

If the administration of a college or university feels that ateacher has not observed the admonitions of Paragraph to ofthe section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extra-mural utterances of the teacher have been such as toraise gravedoubts concerning his fitness for his position, it may proceed tofile charges under Paragraph (a) (4) of the section on AcademicTenure. In pressing such charges the administration shouldremember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded thefreedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must as-sume full responsibility and the American Association of Uni-versity Professors and the Association of American Collegesare free to make an investigation.

Paragraph (c) of the 1940 Statement should also be

3

interpreted in keeping with the 1964 "Committee A State-

ment on Extramural Utterances" (AAUP Bulletin. Spring,1965, p. 29) which states inter alia: "The controlling prin-

ciple is that a faculty member's expression of opinidn as acitizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it

clearly demonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his

position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon thefaculty member's fitness for his position. Moreover, a final

decision should take into account the faculty member'sentire record as a teacher and scholar."

Paragraph V of the Statement on Professional Ethicsalso deals with the nature of the "special obligations" ofthe teacher. The paragraph reads as follows:

As a member of his community. the professor has the rights

and obligations of any citizen. He measures the urgency of these

obligations in the light of his responsibilities to his subject, tohis students, to his profession, and to his institution. When he

speaks or acts as a private person he avoids creating the impres-

sion that he speaks or acts for his college or university. As a citi-

zen engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for Itshealth and integrity, the professor has a particular obligation topromote conditions of free inquiry and to further public under-

standing of academic freedom.

Both the protection of academic freedom and the re-quirements of academic responsibility apply not only tothe full-time probationary as well as to the tenured teacher,

but also to all others, such as pan-time and teaching assist-

ants, who exercise teaching responsibilities.S. The concept of "rank of full-time instructor or a

higher rank" is intended to include any person who teactt-sa full-time load regardless of his specific title.*

6. In calling for an agreement "in writing" on the

amount of credit for a faculty member's prior service at

other institutions, the Statement furthers the general policyof full understanding by the professor of the terms and

conditions of his appointment. It does not necessarilyfollow that a professor's tenure rights have been violated

because of the absence of a written agreement on this mat-ter. Nonetheless, especially because of the variation inpermissible institutional practices, a written understanding

concerning these matters at the time of appointment is par-ticularly appropriate and advantageous to both the indi-vidual and the institution.

7. The effect of this subparagraph is that a decision ontenure, favorable or unfavorable. must be made at least

twelve months prior to the completion of the probationaryperiod. If the decision is negative, the appointment for the

following year becomes a terminal one. If the decision is

affirmative, the provisions in the 1940 Statement with re-spect to the termination of services of teachers or investi-

gators after the expiration of a probaticinary period should

apply from the date when the favorable decision is made.The general principle of notice contained in this para-

graph is developed with greater specificity in the Standards

for Notice of Nonreappointment, endorsed by the Fiftieth

Annual Meeting of the American Association of Univer-

For a discussion of this question, see the "Report of the Spe-cial Committee on Academic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure,"AA UP Bulletin, Autumn, 1966. pp. 280-282.

4

sity Professors (1964). These standards are:Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to

recommend reappointment to the governing board, should

be given in writing in accordance with the following stand-

ards:( 1) Not later than March 1 ofthe first academic year of

service, if the appointment expires at the end of that

year: or, if a one-year appointment terminates during

an academic year, at least three months in advance of

its termination.(2) Not later than December 15 of the second aca-demic year of service, if the appointment expires at the

end of that year; or, if an initial two-year appointmentterminates during an academic year, at least six months

in advance of its termination.(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of anappointment after two or more years in the institution.Other obligations, both of institutions and individuals,

are described in the Statement on Recruitment and Resig-

nation of Faculty Members, as endorsed by the Associa-

tion of American Colleges and the American Association

of University Professors in 1961.8. The freedom of probationary teachers is enhanced

by the establishment of a regular procedure for the periodic

evaluation and assessment of the teacher's academic per-formance during his probationary status. Provision should

be made for regularized procedures for the consideration

of complaints by probationary teachers that thei- academic

freedom has been violated. One suggested procedure toserve these purposes is contained in the RecommendedInstitutional Regulations on Academic Freedom andTenure, prepared by the American Association of Univer-

sity Professors.9. A further specification of the academic due process

to which the teacher is entitled under this paragraph is

contained in the statement on Procedural Standards in

Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, jointly approved by theAmerican Association of University Professors and the

Association of American Colleges in 1958. This interpre-

tive document deals with the issue of suspension, about

which the 1940 Statement is silent.The 1958 Statement provides: 'Suspension of the fac-

ulty member during the proceedings involving him is justi-

fied only if immediate harm to himself or others is threat-

ened by his continuance. Unless legal considerations for-

bid, any such suspension should be with pay." A susnen-

sion which is not followed by either reinstatement or the

opportunity for a hearing is in effect a summary dismissal

in violation of academic due process.The concept of "moral turpitude" identifies the excep-

tional case in which the professor may be denied a year's

teaching or pay in whole or in part. The statement applies

to that kind of behavior which goes beyond simply war-

ranting discharge and is so utterly blameworthy as to make

it inappropriate to require the offering of a year's teaching

or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities ofpersons in the particular community have been affronted.

The standard is behavior that would evoke condemnation

by the academic community generally.

Statement on Procedural Standardsin Faculty Dismissal Proceedings

The following Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedingswas prepared by a joint committee representing the Association of American Collegesand the American Association of University Professors and was approved by. thesetwo associations at their annual meetings in 1958. It supplements the 1940 State-ment of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by providing a formulation ofthe "academic due process" that should be observed in dismissal proceedings. Theexact procedural standards here set forth, howevei, "are not intended to establisha norm in the same manner as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Free-dom and Tenure, but are presented rather as a guide. . . ."

Introductory Comments

Any approach toward settling the difficulties which havebeset dismissal proceedings on many American campusesmust look beyond procedure into setting and cause. Adimlissal proceeding is a symptom of failure; no amountor use of removal process will help strengthen highereducation as much as will the cultivation of conditions inwhich dismissals rarely if ever need occur.

Just as the board of control or other governing body isthe legal and fiscal corporation of the college, the facultyare the academic entity. Historically, the academic cor-poration is the older. Faculties were formed in the Middle.Xges, with managerial affairs either selfarranged orhandled in course by the parent church. Modern collegefaculties, on the other hand, are part of a complex andextensive structure requiring legal incorporation, withstewards and managers specifically appointed to dischargecertain functions.

Nonetheless, the faculty of a modern college constitutean entity as real as that of the faculties of medieval times,in terms of collective purpose and function. A necessaryprecondition of a strong faculty is that it have first-handconcern with its own membership. This is properlyreflected both in appointments to and in separations fromthe faculty body.

A well-organized institution will reflect sympatheticunderstanding by trustees and teachers alike of their re-spective and complementary roles. These should be spelledout carefully in writing and made available to all. Trusteesand faculty should understand and agree on their severalfunctions in determining who shall join and who shallremain on the faculty. One of the prime duties of theadministrator is to help preserve understanding of thosefunctions. It seems clear on the American college scene

that a close positive relationship exists between the excel-lence of colleges, the strength of their faculties, and theextent of faculty responsibility in determining facultymembership. Such a condition is in no wise inconsistentwith full faculty awareness of institutional factors withwhich governing boards must be primarily concerned.

In the.effective college, a dismissal proceeding involvinga faculty member on tenure, or one occurring during theterm of an appointment, will be a rare exception, causedby individual human weakness and not by an unhealthfulsetting. When it does come, however, the college shouldbe prepared for it, so that both institutional integrity andindividual human rights may be preserved during theprocess of resolving the trouble. The faculty must bewilling to recommend the dismissal of a colleague whennecessary. By the same token, presidents and governingboards must be willing to give full weight to a facultyjudgment favorable to a colleague.

One persistent source of difficulty is the definition ofadequate cause for the dismissal of a faculty member.Despite the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure and subsequent attempts to buildupon it, considerable ambiguity and misunderstandingpersist throughout higher education, especially in therespective conceptions of governing boards, administrativeofficals, and faculties concerning this matter. The presentstatement assumes that individual institutions will haveforinulated their own definitions of adequate cause fordismissal, bearing in mind the 1940 Statement and stand-ards which have developed in the experience of academicInstitutions.

This statement deals with procedural standards. Thoserecommended are not intended to establish a norm in thesame manner as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Ara-

5

demic Freedom and Tenure, but are presented rather as aguide to be used according to the nature and traditionsof particular institutions in giving effect to both facultytenure rights and the obligations of faculty members inthe academic community.

Procedural Recommendations

I. Preliminary Proceedings Concerning the Fitness -of aFaculty Member

When reason arises to question the fitness of a collegeor university faculty member who has tenure or whose termappointment has not expired, the appropriate administra-tive officers should ordinarily discuss the matter with himin personal conference. The matter may be terminated bymutual consent at this point; but if an adjustment doesnot result, a standing or ad hoc committee elected by thefaculty and charged with the function of rendering con-fidential advice in such situations should informally in-quire into the situation to effect an adjustment if possible'net, if none is effected, to determine whether in its viewformal proceedings to consider his dismissal should beinstituted. If the committee recommends that such pro-ceedings should be begun, or if the president of theinstitution, even after considering a recommendation ofthe committee favorable to the faculty member, expressesIsis conviction that a proceeding should be undertaken,action should be commenced under the procedures whichfollow. Except where there is disagreement, a statementwith reasonable particularity of the grounds proposed forthe dismissal should then be jointly formulated by thepresident and the faculty committee; if there is disagree-ment, the president or his representative should formulatethe statement.

2. Commencement of Formal Proceedings

The formal proceedings should be commenced by acommunication addressed to the faculty member by thepresident of the institution, informing the faculty memberof the statement formulated, and informing him that, ifhe so requests, a hearing to determine whether he shouldbe removed from his faculty position on the grounds statedwill be conducted by a faculty committee at a specified timeand place. In setting the date of the hearing, sufficienttime should be allowed the faculty member to prepare hisdefense. The faculty member should be informed, in de-tail or by reference to published regulations, of theprocedural rights that will be accorded to him. The facultymember should state in reply whether he wishes a hearingand, if so, should answer in writing, not less than one weekbefore the date set for the hearing, the statements in thepresident's letter.

3. Suspension of the Faculty Member

Suspension of the faculty member during the proceed-ings involving him is justified only if immediate harm tohimself or others is threatened by his continuance. Unlesslegal considerations forbid, any such suspension should bewith pay.

6

4. Hearing Committee

The committee of faculty members to conduct thehearing and reach a decision should either he an electedstanding committee not previously concerned with the caseor a committee established as soon as possible after thepresident's letter to the faculty member has been sent. Thechoice of members of the hearing committee should be onthe basis of their objectivity and competence and of theregard in which they are held in the academic community.The committee should elect its own chairman.

5 Committee Proceeding

The committee should proceed by considering the state-ment of grounds for dismissal already formulated and thefaculty member's response written before the time of thehearing. If the faculty member has not requested a hear-ing, the committee should consider the case on the basisof the obtainable information and decide whether heshould be removed: otherwise the hearing should go for-ward. The committee, in consultation with the presidentand the faculty member, should exercise its judwrient asto whether the hearing should be public or private. Ifany facts are in dispute. the testimony of witnesses andother evidence concerning the matter set forth in thepresident's letter to the ft.,:ulty member should be received,

The president should have the option of attendant!during the hearing. He may designate an appropriaterepresentative to assist in developing the case; but thecommittee should determine the order of proof, shouldnormally conduct the questioning of witnesses, and, if

necessary, should secure the presentation of evidence im-portant to the case.

The faculty member should have the option of assistanceby counsel. whose functions should be similar to those ofthe representative chosen by the president. The facultymember should have the additional procedural rights setforth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure and should have the aid of the com-mittee, when needed, in securing the attendance ofwitnesses. The faculty member or his counsel and therepresentative designated by the president should have theright, within reasonable limits, to question all witnesseswho testify orally. The faculty member should have theopportunity to be confronted by all witnesses adverse tohim. Where unusual and urgent reasons move the hearingcommittee to withhold this right, or where the witnesscannot appear, the identity of the witness, as well as hisstatements, should nevertheless be disclosed to the facultymember. Subject to these safeguards, statements may whennecessary be taken outside the hearing and reported to it.XII of the evidence should be duly recorded. Unless specialcircumstances warrant, it should not be necessary to followformal rules of court procedure

6. Consideration by Hearing Committee

The committee should reach its decision in conference,on the basis of the hearing. Before doing so, it should giveopportunity to the faculty member or his counsel and therepresentative designated by the president to argue orallybefore it. If written briefs would be helpful, the commit-

tee may request them. The committee may proceed todecision promptly, without having the record of the hear-ing transcribed, where it feels that a just decision an bereached by this means; or it may await the availability ofa transcript of the hearing if its decision would be aidedthereby. It should make explicit findings with respect toeach of the grounds of removal presented, and a reasonedopinion may be desirable. Publicity concerning the cum-mittee's decision may properly be withheld until considera-tion has been given to the case by the governing body ofthe institution. The president and the faculty membershould be notified of the decision in writing and shouldbe given 2 copy of the record of the hearing. Any releaseto the pullic should be made through the president's office.

7. G.,nsideration by Governing Body

Tb president should transmit to the governing bodythe full report of the hearing committee, stating its action.On the assumption that the governing board has acceptedthe principle of the faculty hearing committee, acceptanceof the committees decision would normally be expected.If the governing body ch9oses to review the case, its review

should be based on the record of the previous hearing,accompanied by opportunity for argument, oral or writtenor both, by the principals at the hearing or their repre-sentatives. The decision of the hearing committee shouldeither be sustained or the proceeding be returned to thecommittee with objections specified. In such a case thecommittee should reconsider, taking account of the statedobjections and receiving new evidence if necessary. Itshould frame its decision and communicate it in the samemanner as before. Only after study of the committee'sreconsideration should the governing body make a finaldecision overruling the committee.

8. Publicity

Except for such simple announcements as may be re-quired, coveri "c' 'he time of the hearing and similar mat-ters, r ,ts about the case by either the facultymem. Im...ttrative officers should be avoided so fatas possum.; until the proceedings have been completed.Announcement of the final decision should include a state-ment of the hearing committee's original action, if this hasnot previously been made known.

Statement on Procedural Standardsin the Renewal or Nonrenewal

of Faculty Appointments

The Statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee Aon Academic Freedom and Tenure. It was first published In somewhat differentformat as a draft report in the March, 1970, AAUP Bulletin, with commentssolicited from members, chapters, and conferences. It was adopted by the Councilof the American Association of University Professors in April, 1971, and endorsedby the Fifty-seventh Annual Meeting as Association policy.'

Introduction

The steady growth in the number of institutions new tocollege and 'university traditions, and in the number ofprobationary faculty members, has underscored the needfor adequate procedures in reaching decisions on facultyrenewals and for the protection of the probationary fac-ulty. member against decisions either in violation of hisacademic freedom or otherwise improper. Related to thisneed has been a heightened interest in providing thefaculty member with a written statement of reasons for adecision not to offer him reappointment or to grant himtenure. At the Association's Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting,held on April 30 and May 1, 1969, a motion was adoptedurging Committee A

. .. to consider adoption of the position that notice of non-reappointment of probationary faculty be given in writingand th.,t it includl the reasons for the termination of theappointment. In any allegation that the reasons are false,or unsupported by the facts, or violative of academic free-dom or procedures, the proof should rest wka the facultymember.

The position which the Annual Meeting urged Com-mittee A to consider had been the primary topic of dis-cussion at the December 14-15, 1968, meeting of theCommittee A Subcommittee on Nontenured Faculty, andit was discussed at length again at the subcommittee'smeeting on October I 1, 1969, at the regular ConimitteeA meetings of April 27-28 and October 29-30, and at aspecial meeting of Committee A on January 9-10, 1970.The present statement embodies the consensus arrived atduring those meetings.

1 These procedures do not apply to special appointments,clearly designated in writing at the outset as involving onlya brief association with the institution for a fixed period oftime.

8

It has long been the Association's position, as stated inThe Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment, that"notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to rec-ommend' reappointment to the governing board, shouldbe given in writing." Although the Association has notattempted to discourage the giving of reasons, either orallyor in writing, for a notice of nonreappointment, it hasnot required that reasons be given.

In considering this question, Committee A endeavoredto appraise the advantages and disadvantages of theAssociation's present policy and the proposed policy interms of the Association's traditional concern for thewelfare of higher education and its various components,including probationary faculty members. The committeealso examined the question of giving reasons in the contextof the entire probationary period. As a result, thisstatement goes beyond the question of giving reasons tothe more fundamental subject of general fairness in theprocedures related to renewal or nonrenewal of termappointments and the granting of tenure.

StatementThe Probationary Period: Standards and Crftarla

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Free-dom and Tenure prescribes that "during the probationaryperiod a teacher should have the academic freedom thatall other members of the faculty have." A number ofthe nontenured faculty member's rights provide supportfor his academic freedom. He cannot, for example, bedismissed before the end of a term appointment exceptfor adequate cause which has been demonstrated throughacademic due processa right he shares with tenured

members of the faculty. If he asserts that he has beengiven notice of nonreappointment in violation of aca-demic freedom, he is entitled to an opportunity toestablish his claim in accordance with Section 10 ofCommittee A's Recommended Institutional Regulations.He is entitled to timely notice of nonreappointment inaccordance with the schedule prescribed in the statementon The Standards for Notice of Nonreappolntment.2

Lacking the reinforcement of tenure, however, theacademic freedom of the probationary faculty memberhas depended primarily upon the understanding and sup-

, port of his faculty colleagues, the administration, andprofessional organizations, especially the Association. Inthe 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges andUniversities, the Association and other sponsoring orga-nizations have asserted that "faculty status and relatedmatters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this areaincludes appointments, reappointments, decisions not toreappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dis-missal." It is Committee A's view that collegial de-liberation of the kind ur 'isioned by the Statement onGovernment will minimize the risk both of a violationof academic freedom and of a decision which is arbitraryor based upon inadequate consideration.

Frequently the young faculty member has had notraining or experience in teaching, and his first majorresearch endeavor may still be uncompleted at the timehe starts his career as a college teacher. Under thesecircumstances, it is particularly important that there bea probationary perioda maximum of seven years underthe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenurebefore tenure is granted. Such a periodgives the individual time to prove himself, and his col-leagues time to observe and evaluate him on the basisof his performance in the position rather than on thebasis only of his education, training, and recommenda-tions.

Good practice requires that the institution (department,college, or university) define its criteria for reappointmentand tenure and its procedures for reaching decisions onthese matters. The 1940 Statement of Principles pre-scribes that "the precise terms and conditions of everyappointment should be stated in writing and be in thepossession of both institution and teacher before theappointment is consummated." Committee A also be-lieves that fairness to the faculty member prescribes thathe be informed, early in his appointment, of the substan-tive and procedural standards which will be followed in

2 The Standards for Notice are as follows:(1) Not later than March 1 of the first academic year

of service, if the appointment expires at the end ofthat year; or, if a one-year appointment terminatesduring an academic year, at least three months inadvance of its termination.

(2) Not later than December 15 of the second academicyear of service, if the appointment expires at theend of that year; or, if an initial two-year appoint-ment terminates during an academic year, at leastsix months in advance of its termination.

(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of anappointment after two or more years in the insti-tution.

determining whether or not his appointment will be re-newed or tenure will be granted.

We accordingly make the following recomi ,endation:

I. Criteria and Notice of Standards. The faculty membershould be advised, early in his appoimmeat, of the sub-stantive and procedural standards generally employed indecisions affecting renewal and tenure. Any specialstandards adopted by his department or school shouldalso be brought to his attention.

The Probationary Period: Evaluation and Decision

Tlie relationship of the senior and junior faculty shouldbe one of colleagueship, even though the nontenuredfaculty member knows that in time he will be judgedby his senior colleagues. Thus the procedures adopted forevaluation and possible notification of nonrenewal shouldnot endanger this relationship where it exists, and shouldencourage it where it does not. The nontenured facultymember should have avaiiable to him the advice andassistance of his senior colleagues; and the ability ofsenior colleagues to make a sound decision on renewal ortenure will be enhanced if an opportunity is providedfor a regular review of the qualifications of nontenuredfaculty members. Total separation of tr faculty rolesin counseling and evaluation may not be possible andmay at times be unproductive: for example, an evalua-tion, whether interim or at the time of final determinationof renewal or tenure, can be presented in such a manneras to assist the nontenured faculty member as he strivesto improve his performance.

Any recommendation regarding renewal or tenureshould be reached by an appropriate faculty group inaccordance with procedures approved by the faculty.Because it is important both to the faculty member andthe decision-making body that all significant informationbe considered, he should be notified that a decision is tobe made regarding renewal of his appointment or thegranting of tenure and should be afforded an opportunityto submit material in. writing which he believes to berelevant to that decision.

We accordingly make the following recommendations:

2. (a) Periodic Review. There should be provision forperiodic review of the faculty member's situation duringthe probationary service.2. (b) Opportunity To Submit Material. The facultymember should be advised of the time when decisionsaffecting renewal and tenure are ordinarily made, and heshould be given the opportunity to submit material whichhe believes will be helpful to an adequate considerationof his circumstances.

Observance of the practices and procedures outlinedabove should minimize the likelihood of reasonable com-plaint if the nontenured faculty member is given noticeof nonreappointment. He will have been informed ofthe criteria and procedures for renewal and tenure; hewill have been- counseled by faculty colleagues; he ..11have been given an opportunity to have all materialrelevant to his evaluation considered; and he will have

9

received a timely decision representing the view of faculty .colleagues.

Notice of Reasons

With respect to giving reasons for a notice of non-reappointment, practice varies widely from institution toinstitution, and sometimes within institutions. At some,

in accordance with the institution's regulations, the fac-ulty member is provided with a written statement ofthe reasons. At others, generally at the discretion of thedepartment chairman, he is notified of the reasons, either

orally or in writing, if he requests such notification. Atstill others, no statement of reasons is provided even upon

request, although information is frequently provided in-

formally by faculty colleagues.Resolving the question of whether a faculty member

should be given a statement of reasons, at least if he re-quests it, requires an examination of the needs both ofthe institution and of the individual faculty membet.

A major responsibility of the institution is to recruit

and retain the best qualified faculty within its means. In

a matter of such fundamental importance, the institution,through the appropriate faculty agencies, must be ac-corded the widest latitude consistent with academicfreedom and the standards of fairness. Committee Arecognizes that the requirement of giving reasons maylead, however erroneously, to an expectation that the

decision-making body must justify its decision. A noticeof nonreappointment may thus become confused withdismissal for cause, and under these circumstances the

decision-making body may become reluctant to reach

adverse decisions which may culminate in grievance pro-cedures. As a result there is a risk that the importantdistinction between tenure and probation will be eroded.

To be weighed against these important institutionalconcerns are the interests of the individual faculty mem-ber. He may be honestly unaware of the reasons for anegative decision, and the decision may be based on ajudgment of shortcomings which he could easily remedyif informed of them. A decision not to renew an ap-pointment may be based on erroneous information whichthe faculty member could readily correct if he were in-formed of the basis for the decision. Again, the decisionmay be based on considerations of institutional policy orprogram development which have nothing to do with thefaculty member's competence in his field, and if not in-formed of the reasons he may mistakenly assume that ajudgment of inadequate performance on his part has beenmade. In the face of a persistent refusal to supply thereasons, a faculty member may be more inclined to attrib-ute improper motivations to the decision-making bodyor to conclude that its evaluation has been based uponinadequate consideration. If he wishes to request a re-consideration of the decision, or a review by anotherbody, his ignorance of the reasons for the decision willcreate difficulties both in reaching a decision whether toinitiate such a request and in presenting his case forreconsideration or review.

After careful evaluation of these competing concerns,Committee A has concluded that the reasons in support

10

of the faculty member's being informed outweigh the

countervailing risks. Committee A emphasizes that inreaching this conclusion it does not consider it appro-priate to require that every notice of nonreappointmentbe accompanied by a written statement of the reasons fornonreappointment. It may not always be to the advantage

of the faculty member to be informed of the reasons,particularly in writing. If he is informed of them, hecan be placed under an obligation to divulge them to the

appointing body of another institution if it inquires why

he is leaving his present position. Similarly, a writtenrecord is likely to become the basis for continuing re-

sponses by his former institution to prospective appoint-

ing bodies and may thus jeopardize his chances for

obtaining positions over an extended period.

At many institutions, moreover, the procedures of

evaluation and decision may make it difficult, if notimpossible, to compile a statement of reasons which

precisely reflects the basis of the decision. When a num-ber of faculty members participate in the decision, they

may oppose a reappointment for a variety of reasons,

few or none of which may represent a majority view.To include every reason, no matter how few have held it,

in a written statement to the faculty member may mis-

represent the general view and damage unnecessarily both

the faculty member's morale and his professional future.

In many situations, of course, a decision not to reap-point will not reflect-adversely upon the faculty member.

An institution may, for example, find it necessary forfinancial or other reasons to restrict its offerings in agiven department. A number of institutions appoint morefaculty members than they expect to give tenure; at suchinstitutions a limit has been placed on the number offaculty at each rank, and the acquisition of tenure de-

pends not only upon satisfactory performance but alsoupon an opening in the ranks above instructor or assistantprofessor. Nonrenewal in these cases is not likely to be

psychologically damaging or to suggest a serious adverse

judgment.In these situations, providing a statement of reasons,

either written or oral, should pose no difficulty, and sucha statement may in fact assist the faculty member in hissearch for a new position. In other situations, in spiteof his awareness of the considerations cited above, thefaculty member may ask to be advised of the reasonswhich contributed to his nonreappointment, and Com-mittee A believes that he should be given such advice.It believes also that he should have the opportunity torequest a reconsideration by the decision-making body.

We accordingly make the following recommendation:

3. Notice of Reasons. In the event of a decision not torenew his appointment, the faculty member should beinformed of the decision in writing, and, if he so requests,he should be advised of the reasons which contributed tothat decision. He should also have the opportunity torequest a reconsideration by the decision-making body.

Written Reasons

Having been given orally the reasons which contributed

to his nonreappointment, the faculty member, to avoidmisunderstanding, may request that they be confirmedin writing. He may wish to petition the appropriatefaculty committee, in accordance with Section 10 ofCommittee A's Recommended Institutional Regulations,to consider an allegation that the reasons he was givenviolate his academic freedom, or that the primary rea-sons for the notice of nonreappointment were not statedand constitute a violation of his academic freedom. Hemay wish to petition a committee, in accordance withSection 15 of the Recommended Institutional Regula-tions, to consider a complaint that the decision resultedfrom inadequate consideration and was therefore unfairto him. He may feel that a written statement of reasonsmay be useful to him in pursuing his professional career.

If the department chairman or other appropriate insti-tutional officer to whom the request is made feels thatconfirming the oral statement in writing ma :. be damagingto the faculty member on grounds such as those citedearlier in this statement, Committee A believes that itwould be desirable for him to explain the possible adverseconsequences of confirming the oral statement in writing.If in spite of this explanation the faculty member continuesto request a written statement, Committee A believesthat his request should be honored.


4. Written Reasons. If the faculty member expresses adesire to petition the grievance committee (such as isdescribed in Sections 10 and 15 of Committee A's Recom-mended Institutional Regulations), or any other appro-priate committee. to use its good offices of inquiry,recommendation, and report, or if he makes the requestfor any other reason satisfactory to himself alone, heshould have the reasons given in explanation of the non-renewal confirmed in writing.

Review Procedures: Allegations ofAcademic Freedom Violations

The best safeguard against a proliferation of grievancepetitions on a given campus is the observance of soundprinciples and procedures of academic freedom andtenure and of institutional government. Committee Abelieves that observance of the procedures recommendedin this statementprocedures which would provide guid-ance to nontenured faculty members, help assure them ofa fair professional evaluation, and enlighten them con-cerning the reasons contributing to key decisions of theircolleagueswould constitute a fu -they step in the achieve-ment of harmonious- faculty relationships and the devel-opment of well-qualified faculties.

Even with the best practices and procedures, however,faculty members will at times feel that they have beenimproperly or unjustly treated and may wish anotherfaculty group to review a decision of the faculty bodyimmediately involved. Committee A believes that fairnessboth to the individual and the institution requires thatthe institution provide for such a review when it is re-quested. A possible violation of academic freedom is ofvital concern to the institution as a whole, and where a

violation is alleged it is of cardinal importance to thefaculty and the administration to determine whether sub-stantial grounds for the allegation exist. The institutionshould also be concerned to see that decisions respectingreappointment are based upon adequate consideration.and provision should thus be made for a review of allega-tions by affected faculty members that the considerationhas been inadequate.

Because of the broader significance of a violation ofacademic freedom, Committee A believes that the pro-cedures to be followed in these two kinds of complaintsshould be kept separate. Section 10 of the Recom-mended Institutional Regulations, mentioned earlier inthis statement. provides a specific procedure for the reviewof complaints that academic freedom has been violated.3

If a faculty member on probationary or other nontenuredappointment alleges that considerations violative of aca-demic freedom significantly contributed to a decision notto reappoint him, his allegation will be given preliminaryconsideration by the [insert name of committee], whichwill seek to settle the matter by informal methods. Hisallegation shall be eccompanied by a statement that heagrees to the presentation, for the consideration of thefaculty committees, of such reasons and evidence as theinstitution may allege in support of its decision. If thedifficulty is unresolved it this stage. and if the committeeso recommends, the matter will be heard in the mannerset forth in Regulations 5 and 6, except that the facultymember making the complaint is responsible for statingthe grounds upon which he bases his allegations, and theburden of proof shall rest upc.. him. If be succeeds inestablishing a prima facie case, it is incumbent upon thosewho made the decision not to reappoint him to come for-ward with evidence in support of their decision.


5. Petition for Review Alleging an Academic FreedomViolation (Section 10, Recommended Institutional Regu-lations). Insofar as the petition for review alleges aviolation of academic freedom, the functions of thecommittee which reviews the faculty member's petitionshould be the following:

(a) To determine whether or not the notice of non-reappointment constitutes on its face a violation ofacademic freedom.(b) To seek to settle the matter by informal methods.(c) If the matter remains unresolved, to decide whetheror not the evidence submitted in support of the petitionwarrants a recommendation that a formal proceedingbe conducted in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 ofthe Recommended Institutional Regulations, with theburden of proof -rallItgupon the complaining facultymember.

Review Procedures: Allegations ofinadequate Consideration

Complaints of inadequate consideration are 'likelyto relate to matters of professional judgment, where

3Beeause the Recommended Institutional Regulations re-main under review by Committee A, faculties processingcomplaints urder Sections 10 and 15 may wish to secure thefurther advice of the Association's Washington Office.

11

the department or departmental agency should haveprimary authority. For this reason, Committee A be-lieves that the basic functions of the review committeeshould be to determine whether adequate considerationwas given to the appropriate faculty body's decision and,if it determines otherwise, to request reconsideration bythat body.

It is easier to state what the standard "adequate con-sideration" does not mean than to specify in detail whatit does. It does not mean that the review committeeshould substitute its own judgment for that of membersof the department on the merits of whether the candidateshould be rea-mointed or given tenure. The conscientiousjudgment of the candidate's departmental colleagues mustprevail if the invaluable tradition of departmental auton-omy in professional judgments is to prevail. The term"adequate consideration" refers essentially to proceduralrather than substantive issues: Was the decision consci-entiously arrived at? Was all available evidence bearingon the relevant performance of the candidate sought outand considered? Was there adequate deliberation by thedepartment over the import of the evidence 13 the lightof the relevant standards? Were irrelevant and improperstandards excluded from consideration? Was the decisiona bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment?These are the kinds of questions suggested by the standard"adequate consideration."

If in applying this standard the review committee con-cludes that adequate consideration was not given, itsappropriate response should be to recommend to thedepartment that it assess the merits once again, this timeremedying the inadequacies of its prior consideration.

An acceptable review procedure, representing one pro-cedural system within which such judgments may bemade, is outlined in Section 15 of the RecommendedInstitutional Regulations, as follows:

If a faculty member feels that he has cause for grievancein any matter other than dismissal proceedingssuch mat-ters as salaries, assignment of teaching duties, assignmentof space or other facilities, and propriety of conducthemay petition the elected faculty grievance committee (here

12

name the committee] for redress. The petition shall setforth in detail the nature of the grievance and shall stateagainst whom the grievance is directed. It shall containany factual or other data which the petitioner deems per-tinent to his case. The committee will have the right todecide whether or not the facts merit a detailed investiga-tion. Submission of a petition will not automatically entailinvestigation or detailed consideration thereof. The com-mittee may seek to bring about a settlement of theissue satisfactory to the parties. If in the opinion of thecommittee such a settlement is not possible or is notappropriate, the committee will report its finding andrecommendations to the petitioner and to the appropriateadministrative officer and faculty body [here identify],and the petitioner will, at his request, be provided anopportunity to present his case to them.

The grievance committee will consist of three [or someother number] members of the faculty who have tenureand who are elected at large. No department chairman oradministrative officer shall serve on the committee.


6. Petition for Review Alleging Inadequate Consideration(Section 15, Recommended Institutional Regulations).Insofar as the petition for review alleges inadequate con-sideration, the functions of the committee which reviewsthe faculty member's petition should be the following:

(a) To determine whether the decision of the appro-priate faculty body was the result of adequate con-sideration in terms of the relevant standards of theinstitution, with the understanding that the reviewcommittee should not substitute its judgment on themerits for that of the faculty body.(b) To request reconsideration by the faculty bodywhen the committee believes that adequate considera-tion was not given to the faculty member's qualifica-tions. (In such instances, the committee should indicatethe respects in which it believes the consideration mayhave been inadequate.)

(c) To provide copies of its report and recommenda-tion to the faculty member, the faculty body, and thepresident or other appropriate administrative officer.

The Standards for Noticeof Nonreappointment

Approved by the Council of the American Association of UniversityProfessors in October, 1963, and endorsed by the Fiftieth AnnualMeeting in 1964 as Association policy.

Because a probationary appointment, even though for a fixed or stated tern,carries an expectation of renewal, the faculty member should be explicitly informedof a decision not to renew his appointment, in order that he may seek a positionat another college or university. Such notice should be given at an early date, sincea failure to secure another position for the ensuing academic year will deny thefaculty member the opportunity to practice his profession. The purpose of thisStatement is to set forth in detail, for the use of the academic profession, thosestandards for notice of nonreappointment which the Association over a period ofyears has actively supported and which are expressed as a general principle in the1940 Statement q Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

The Standards for Notice

Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointmentto the governing boerd, should be given in writing in accordance with the followingstandards:

(1) Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointmentexpires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates duringan academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination.

(2) Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if theappointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year appoint-ment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance ofiu termination.

(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after twoor more years in the institution.

13

Committee A Statementon Extramural Utterances

The Statement which follows was approved by the Association's Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure in October, 1961. Its purpose is to clarify thosesections of the 1910 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenurerelating to the faculty member's exercise of his freedom of speech as a citizen. TheStatement emphasizes the essential considerations and procedures when a facultymember's utterances raise grave doubts cones ing his fitness for his position.

The 1940 Statement of Principles asserts the facultymember's right to speak or write, as citizen, free frominstitutional censorship or discipline. At the same time itcalls attention to the faculty member'ispecial obligationsarising from his position .. the community: to be accurate,to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for theopinions of others, and to make every effort to indicatethat he is not an institutional spokesman. An interpreta-tion of the 1940 Statement, agreed to at a conference ofthe AAC and the AAUP held on November 8, 1940, statesthat an administration may file charges in accordance withprocedures outlined in the Statement if it feels that afaculty member has failed to observe the above admoni-tions and believes that his extramural utterances raisegrave doubts concerning his fitness for his position.

In cases involving such charges, it is essential that thehearing should be conducted by an appropriateprefer-ably electedfaculty committee, as provided in Section 4of the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings.' The controlling principle is that afaculty member's expression of opinion as a citizen can-not constitute grounds for dismissal unless it dearlydemonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his posi-tion. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the facultymember's fitness for his position. Moreover, a final de-cision should take into account the faculty member's entire

14

re 3rd as a teacher and scholar. In the absence of weightyes fence of unfitness, the administration should not preferch rges; and if it is not clearly proved in the hearing thatth, faculty member is unfit for his position, the facultyco innate should make a finding in favor of the faculty

:tither concerned.Committee A asserts that it will view with particular

gravity an administrative or board reversal of a favorablefaculty committee hearing judgment in a case involvingextramural utterances. In the words of the 1940 Statementof Principles, "the administration should remember thatteachers pre citizens and should be accorded the freedomof cit:uns." la a democratic society freedom of speech isan int, wuzahle right of the citizen. Committee A will

vigorow.; .y.cold that right.

section 4 provides:The committee of faculty members to conduct the hear-ing and reach a decision should either be an electedstanding committee not previously concerned with thecase or a committee established as soon as possible afterthe president's letter to the faculty member has beensent. The choice of members of the hearing committeeshould he on the basis of their objectivity and competenceand of the regard in which th.-; are held in the aca-demic community. The committee should elect its ownchairman.

1972 Recommended InstitutionalRegulations on Academic Freedom

and Tenure

Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure setforth, in language suitatile for use by an institution of higher education, rules whichderive from the chief provisions and interpretations of the 1Q40 Statement of Principleson Academic Freedom and Tenure and of the 1958 Statemc. u on Procedural Standardsin Faculty Dismissal Proceedings. The Recommended Institut enal Regulations were firstformulated by Committee 4 on Academic Freedom and Tenure in 957. A revised andexpanded text, approved by Committee A in 1968, reflected ti P der, 'opment of Associ-ation standards and proced Ira as set forth in the 1961 Statement c a Recruitment andResignation of Faculty Met sbers, the 1964 Statement on the Standards for Notice ofNonreappointment, and the 1966 Statement on Government of College. and Universities.

The current revision, approved by Committee A in 1972, is based upon theAssociation's continuing experience in evaluating regulations actually in force at par-ticular institutions. The 1972 revision is also based upon further definition of thestandards and procedures of tee Association as set forth in the 1970 Interpretive Com-ments of the 1940 Statement of Principles, the 1971 Council Statement on Freedom andResponsibility, the 1971 Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Non-renewal of Faculty Appointments, and the 1972 Statement of Principles on Leaves ofAbsence. The Association will be glad to assist-in interpretation of the regulations or toconsult about their incorporation in, or adaptation to, the rules of a particular collegeoruniversity.

Committee A will welcome comment on the 1972 Recommended Institutional Reg-ulations from Association members, chapters, conferences, and other interested personsand organizations.

Foreword

These regulations are designed to enabP: the (named in-stitution) to protect academic freedom and tenure and therequirements of academic due process. Tne principlesimplicit in these regulations are for the benefit of all whoare involved with or are affected by the policies andprograms of the institution. A college or university is amarketplace of ideas, and it cannot fulfill its purposes oftransmitting, evaluating, and extending knowledge if itrequires conformity with any orthodoxy of content andmethod. In the words of the United States SupremeCourt, "Teachers and studer.ts must always remain free toinquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturityand understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnateand die."

Statement of Terms of Appointment0,1 The terms and conditions of every appointment

the faculty will be stated or confirmed in writ-ing, and a copy of the appointment documentwill be supplied to the faculty member. Anysubsequent extensions or modifications of anappointment, and any special understandings, orany notices incumbent upon either party to pro-vide, will be stated or confirmed in writing anda copy will be given to the faculty member.

(b) With the exception of special appointmentsclearly limited to a brief association with theinstitution, and reappointments of retiredfaculty members on special conditions, all full-time appointments to the rank of instructor or

15

higher are of two kinds: ( I) probationary ap-pointments; (2) appointments with continuoustenure.

(c) Except for faculty members who have tenurestatus, every person with a teaching or researchappointment of any kind will be informed eachyear in writing of his appointment and of all

matters relative to his eligibility for the acquisi-tion of tenure.

2. Probationary A ppointments(a) Probationary appointments may be for one year,

or for other stated periods, subject to renewal.The total period of full-time service prior to theacquisition of continuous tenure will not exceed_____ years,' including all previous full-time serv-ice with the rank of instructor or higrer in otherinstitutions of higher learning, [except that theprobationary period may extend to as much asfour years, even if the total full-time service inthe profession thereby exceeds seven years; theterms of such extension will be stated in writingat the time of initial appointment.? Scholarlyleave of absence for one year or less will countas part of the probationary period as if it wereprior service at another institution, unless theindividual and the institution agree in writing toan exception to this provision at the time theleave is granted.

(b) The faculty member will be advised, at the timeof initial appointment, of the substantive stand-ards and procedures generally employed in de-cisions affecting renewal and tenure. Any specialstandards adopted by the faculty member'sdepartment or school wilt also be brought to hisattention. The faculty member will be advisedof the time when decisions affecting renewal ortenure are ordinarily made, and will be giventhe opportunity to submit material which hebelieves will be helpful to an adequate consid-eration of his circumstances.

(c) Regardless of the stated term or other provisionsof any appointments, written notice that a pro-bationary appointment is not to be renewed willbe given to the faculty member in advance ofthe expiration of his appointment, as follows:(1) Not later than March 1 of the first aca-demic year of service if the appointment expires

at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appoint-ment terminates during an academic year, atleast three months in advance of its termination;(2) not later than December 15 of the secondacademic year of service if the appointmentexpires at the end of that year; or, if an initialtwo-year appointment terminates during an aca-demic year, at least six months in advance of its

2 [Under the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure, this period may not exceed seven years.]

2 [The exception here noted applies only to an institutionwhose maximum probationary period exceeds four years.]

i6

termination; (3) at least twelve months beforethe expiration of an appointment after two ormore years of service at the institution. Theinstitution will normally notify faculty membersof the terms and conditions of their renewals byMarch 15, but in no case will such informationbe given later than ______:1

(d) When a faculty recommendation or a decisionnot to renew an appointment has first beenreached, the faculty member involved will beinformed of that recommendation or decision inwriting by the body or individual making theinitial recommendation or decision, and, if heso requests, he will be advised of the reasonswhich contributed to that decision. The facultymember may request a reconsideration by therecommending or deciding body.

(e) If the faculty member so requests. the reasonsgiven in explanation of the nonrenewal will beconfirmed in writing.

( f ) Insofar as the faculty member alleges that thedecision against renewal by the appropriatefaculty body was based on inadequate consid-eration, the committee which reviews the ii, 1

faculty member's allegation will determine", :whether the decision was the result of adequateconsideration in terms of the relevant standardsof the institution. The review committee willnot substitute its ;udgment on the merits for that

of the faculty body. If the review committeebelieves that adequate consideration was notgiven to the faculty member's qualifications, itwill request reconsideration by the faculty body,indicating the respects in which it believes theconsideration may have been inadequate. It willprovide copies of its findings to the faculty mem-ber, the faculty body, and the president or otherappropriate admintarative officer.

3. Termination of Appointment by the Faculty MemberA faculty member may terminate his appoint-ment effective at the end of an academic year.provided that he gives notice in writing at theearliest possible opportunity, but not later thanMay 15, or 30 days after receiving notificationof the terms of his appointment for the coming

year, whichever date occurs later. The facultymember may properly request a waiver of thisrequirement of notice in case of hardship or !ri a

situation where he would otherwise be deniedsubstantial professional advancement or otheropportunity.

4. Termination of Appointments by the Institution(a) Termination of an appointment with continuous

tenure, or of a special or probationary appoint-ment before the end of the specified term, maybe effected by the institution only for adequatecause.

rI

3 (April 15 is the recommended date.]

(b) If termination takes the form of a dismissal, itwill be pursuant to the procedure specified inRegulation 5.

(c) Where termination of an appointment with con-tinuous tenure, or of a nontenured appointmentbefore the end of the specified term, is basedupon bona fide financial exigency or discon-tinuance of a program or department of in-struction, Regulation 5 will not apply, but fac-ulty members shall be able to have the issuesreviewed by the faculty, or by an appropriatefaculty committee (such as the faculty's griev-ance committee). with ultimate review of allcontroverted issues by the governing board. Inevery case of financial exigency or discontinu-ance of a program or department of instruction,the faculty member concerned will be givennotice or severance salary not less than as pre-scribed in Regulation 8. Before terminating anappointment because of the abandonment of aprogram or department of instruction, the insti-tution will make every effort to place affectedfaculty members in other suitable positions. Ifan appointment is terminated before the endof the period of appointment, because offinancial exigency, or because of the discontinu-ance of a program of instruction, the releasedfaculty member's place will not be filled by a re-placement within a period of two years, unlessthe released faculty member has been offeredreappointment and a reasonable time withinwhich to accept or decline it.

(d) Termination of a tenured appointment, or of anontenured or special appointment before theend of the period of appointment, for medicalreasons, will be based upon clear and convincingmedical evidence. The decision to terminate willbe reached only after there has been appropriateconsultation and the faculty member or his rep-resentative has been informed of the basis of theproposed action, and has been afforded an op-portunity to present his position and to respondto the evidence. If the faculty member so re-quests, the evidence will be reviewed by theFaculty Committee on Academic Freedom andTenure [or whatever title it may have] before afinal decision is made by the governing boardon the recommendation of the President of theinstitution. As

5. DismissalDismissal Procedure('(a) Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related,

directly and substantially, to the fitness of thefaculty member in his professional capacity as ateacher or researcher. Dismissal will not be usedto restrain faculty members in their exercise ofacademic freedom or other rights of Americancitizens.

(b) Dismissal of a faculty member with continuoustenure, or with a special or probationary ap-

pointment before Cie end of the specified term.will be preceded by: ( I ) discussions betweenthe faculty member and appropriate administra-tive officers looking toward a mutual settlement;(2) informal inquiry by the duly elected facultycommittee [insert name of committee] whichmay. failing to effect an adjustment, determinewhether in its opinion dismissal proceedingsshould be undertaken, without its opinion beingbinding upon the President; (3) a statement ofcharges, framed with reasonable particularity bythe President or the President's delegate.

(c) A dismissal, as defined in Regulation 5(a). willbe preceded by a statement of reasons, and theindividual concerned will have the right to beheard initially by the elected faculty hearingcommittee [insert name of committee].; Mem-bers deeming themselves disqualified for bias orinterest shall remove themselves from the case,either at the request of a party or on their owninitiative. Each party will have a maximum oftwo challenges without stated cause.5

(I) Pending a final decision by the hearingcommittee, the faculty member will be sus-pended, or assigned to other duties in lieu ofsuspension, only if immediate harm to himselfor others is threatened- by his continuance. Be-fore suspending a faculty member, pending anultimate determination of his status through theinstitution's hearing procedures, the administra-tion will consult with the Faculty Committee onAcademic Freedom and Tenure [or whateverother title it may have] concerning the propriety,the length, and the other conditions of the sus-pension. A suspension which is intended to befinal is a dismissal, and will be treated as such.Salary will continue during the period of thesuspension.

(2) The hearing committee may, with theconsent of the parties concerned, hold joint pre-hearing meetings with the parties in order to (i)simplify the issues, (ii) effect stipulations offacts, (iii) provide for the exchange of docu-mentary or other information, and (iv) achievesuch other appropriate pre-hearing objectives aswill make the hearing fair, effective, and ex-peditious.

(3) Service of notice of hearing with specificcharges in writing will be made at least twentydays prior to the hearing., The faculty membermay waive a hearing or may respond to thecharges in writing at any time before the hear-ing. If the faculty member waives a hearing,but denies the charges against him or asserts

4 [This committee should not be the same as the committeereferred to in Regulation 5(b) (2).]

5 [Regulations of the institution should provide for alter-nates, or for some other method of filling vacancies on thehearing committee resulting from disqualification, challengewithout stated cause, illness, resignation, or any other reason.]

17

c

18

that the charges do not support a finding of ade-quate cause, the hearing tribunal will evaluateall available evidence and rest its recommenda-tion upon the evidence in the recori.

(4) The committee, in consultation with thePresident and the faculty member, will exerciseits judgment as to whether the hearing shouldbe public or private.

(5) During the proceedings the faculty mem-ber will be permitted to have an academic ad-visor and counsel of his own choice.

(6) At the request of either party or thehearing committee, a representative of a respon-sible educational association shall be permittedto attend the proceedings as an observer.

(7) A verbatim record of the hearing orhearings will be taken and a typewritten copywill be made available to the faculty memberwithout cost. at the faculty member's request.

(8) The burden of proof that adequate cause'exists rests with the institution and shall be satis-fied only by clear and convincing evidence in therecord considered as a whole.

(9) The hearing committee will grant adjourn-ments to enable either party to investigate evi-dence as to which a valid claim of surprise ismade.

(10) The faculty member will be afforded anopportunity to obtain necessary witnesses anddocumentary or other evidence. The adminis-tration will cooperate with the hearing commit-tee in securing witnesses and making availabledocumentary and other evidence.

(11) The faculty member and the adminis-tration will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where the witnessescannot or will not appear, but the committeedetermines that the interests of justice requireadmission of their statements, the committeewilt identify the witnesses, disclose their state-ments, and if possible provide for interroga-tories.

(12) In the hearing of charges of incom-petence. the testimony shalt include that ofqualified faculty members from this or otherinstitutions of higher education.

(13) The hearing committee will not behound by strict rules of legal evidence, and mayadmit any evidence which is of probative valuein determining the issues involved. Every pos-sible effort will be made to obtain the mostreliable evidence available.

(14) The findings of fact and the decisionwill be based solely on the hearing record.

(15) Except for such simple announcementsas may be required, covering the time of thehearing and similar matters, public statementsand publicity about the case by either the facultymember or administrative officers will beavoided so far as possible until the proceedings

have been completed, including consideration bythe governing board of the institution. ThePresident and the faculty member will be noti-fied of the decition in writing and will be givena copy of the record of the hearing.

( I 6) If the hearing committee concludes thatadequate cause for dismissal has not been estab-lished by the evidence in the record. It will soreport to the President. If the President rejectsthe report, he will state his reasons for doing so,in writing, to the hearing committee and to thefaculty member, and provide an opportunity forresponse before transmitting the case to thegoverning board. If the hearing committee con-cludes that adequate cause for a dismissal hasbeen established, but that an academic penaltyless than dismissal would be more appropriate, itwill so recommend, with supporting reasons.

6. Action by the Governing BoardIf dismissal or other severe sanction is recom-mended, the President will, on request of thefaculty member, transmit to the governing boardthe record of the case. The governing board'sreview will be based on the record of the com-ittee hearing, and it will provide opportunity10L. argument, oral or written or both, by theprincipals at the hearings or by their representa-tives. The decision of the hearing committeewill either be sustained, or the proceeding re-turned to the committee with specific objections.The committee will then reconsider, taking intoaccount fhe stated objections and receiving newevidence if necessary. The governing board willmake a final decision only after study of thecommittee's reconsideration.

7. Procedures for Imposition of Sanctions Other thanDismissal

If the administration believes that the conduct ofa faculty member, although not constituting ade-quate cause for dismissal, is sufficiently grave tojustify imposition of a severe sanction, such assuspension from service for a stated period, theadministration may institute a proceeding toimpose such a severe sanction; the proceduresoutlined in Regulation 5 shall govern such aproceeding.If the administration believes that the conductof a faculty member justifies imposition of aminor sanction, such as a reprimand, it shallnotify the faculty member of the basis of theproposed sanction and provide him with an op-portunity to persuade the administration thatthe proposed sanction should not be imposed.A faculty member who believes that a majorsanction has been incorrectly imposed under thisparagraph, or that a minor sanction has beenunjustly imposed, may, pursuant to Regulation15, petition the faculty grievance committee forsuch action as may be appropriate.

(a)

(b)

8. Terminal Salary or Notice

If the appointment is terminated, the facultymember will receive salary or notice in ac-cordance with the following schedule: at leastthree months. if the final decision is reached byMarch I (or three months prior to the expira-tion) of the first year of prcbationary service;at least six months, if the decision is reached byDecember 15 of the second year (or after ninemonths but prior to eighteen months) of proba-tionary service; at least one year, if the decisionis reached after eighteen months of probation: r,service or if the faculty member has tenure.This provision for terminal notice or salary neednot apply in the event that there has been a find-ing that the conduct which justified dismissalinvolved moral turpitude. On the recommenda-tion of the faculty hearing committee or thePresident, the governing board, in determiningwhat, if any, payments will be made beyond theeffective date of dismissal, may take into ac-count the length and quality of service of thefaculty member.

9. Academic Freedom

All members of the faculty, whether tenured ornot, are entitled to academic freedom as setforth in the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, formulated bythe Association of American Colleges and theAmerican Association of University Professors.

10. Reappointment of Nontenured Faculty

If a faculty member on probationary or othernontenured appointment alleges that a decisionnot to reappoint him was based significantly onconsiderations violative of ( I ) academic free-dom or (2) governing policies on making ap-pointments without prejudice with respect torace, sex, religion, or national origin, the allega-tion will be given preliminary consideration bythe [insert name of committee], which will seekto settle the matter by informal methods. Theallegation shall be accompanied by a statementthat the faculty member agrees to the presenta-tion, for the consideration of the faculty com-mittees, of such reasons and evidence as theinstitution may allege in support of its decision.If the difficulty is unresolved at this stage, andif the committee so recommends, the matter wiltbe heard in the manner set forth in Regulations5 and 6, except that the faculty member making

Cthe complaint is responsible for stating the' grounds upon which he bases his allegations, and

the burden of proof shall rest upon him. If thefaculty member succeeds in establishing a primafacie case, it is incumbent upon those who madethe decision not to reappoint him to comeforward with evidence in support of theirdecision.

11. Admini3trative Personnel

The foregoing regulations apply to administra-tive personnel who hold academic rank. but onlyin their capacity as faculty members. Where anadministrator alleges that a consideration viola-tive of academic frenlom significantly con-tributed to a decision to terminate his appoint-ment to an administrative post. or not to reap-point him, he is entitled to the procedures setforth in Regulation 10.

12. Political Activities of Faculty MembersFaculty members, as citizens. are free to engagein political activities. Where necessary. leavesof absence may be given for the duration of anelection campaign or a term of office, on timelyapplication. and for a reasonable period of time.The terms of such leave of absence shall be setforth in writing, and the leave will not affectunfavorably the tenure status of a faculty mem-ber, except that time spent on such leave willnot count as probationary service unless other-wise agreed to.n

[NOTE. Regulations 13, 14, and 15 are suggested intentative form, and will require adaptation to the specificstructure and operations of the institution; the provisionsas recor:mended here are intended only to indicate thenature of the provisions to he included, and not to offerspecific detail.]

13. Graduate Student Academic Stall

(a) The terms and conditions of every appointmentto a graduate or teaching assistantship will bestated in writing, and a copy of the appointmentdocument will be supplied to the graduate orteaching assistant.

(b) In no case will a graduate or teaching assistantbe dismissed without having been provided witha statement of reasons and an opportunity to beheard before a duly constituted committee. (Adismissal is a termination before the end of theperiod of appointment.)

(c) A graduate or teaching assistant who establishesa prima facie case to the satisfaction of a dulyconstituted committee that a decision not toreappoint him was based significantly on consid-erations violative of ( I ) academic freedom or(2) governing policies on making appointmentswithout prejudice with respect to race, sex,religion, or national origin, will be given a state-ment of reasons by those responsible for thenonreappointment and an opportunity to beheard by the committee.

(d) Graduate or teaching assistants shall have accessto the faculty grievance committee, as providedin Regulation 15.

il Nee "Statement on Professors and Political Activity,"AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1969, pp. 388-389.]

19

14. Other Acudemic Stall(a) In no case will a member of the academic staff 7

who is not otherwise protected by the precedingregulations which relate to dismissal proceedingsbe dismissed without having been provided witha statement of reasons and an opportunity to beheard before a duly constituted committee. (Adismissal is a termination before the end of theperiod of appointment.)

(b) With respect to the nonreappointment of a mem-ber of such academic staff who establishes aprima ;acie case to the satisfaction of a dulyconstituted committee that a considerationviolative of academic freedom significantly con-tributed to the nonreappointment, he will begiven a statement of reasons by those respon-sible for the nonreappointment and an oppor-tunity to be heard by the committee.

15. Grievance ProcedureIf any faculty member feels that he h. causefor grievance in any Matter not covered by theprocedures described in the foregoing Regula-tions, he may petition the elected faculty griev-arre committee [here name the committee] forredress. The petition shall set forth in detail thenature of the grievance and shall state againstwhom the grievance is directed. It shall containany factual or other data which the petitionerdeems pertinent to his case. The committee willhave the right to decide whether or not the factsmerit a detailed investigation. Submission of apetition will not automatically entail investiga-tion or detailed consideration thereof. The com-mittee may seek to bring about a settlement of

[Each institution should define with particularity who aremembers of the academic staff.]

20

the issue satisfactory to the parties. If in theopinion of the committee such a settlement isnot possible or is not appropriate, the committeewill report its findings and recommendations tothe petitioner and to the appropriate administra-tive officer and faculty body, and the petitionerwill, at his request, be provided an opportunityto present his case to them. The grievance com-mittee will consist of three [or some other num-ber] elected members of the faculty. No officerof administration shall serve on the committee.

Note on Implementation

The Recommended Institutional Regulations here pre-sented will require for their implementation a number ofstructural arrangements and agencies. For example, theRegulations will need support by:

(a) channels of communication between all the in-volved components of the institution, and between themand a concerned faculty member,

(b) definitions of corporate and individual facultystatus within the college or university government, and ofthe role of the faculty in decisions relating to academicfreedom and tenure,

(c) appropriate procedures for the creation and oper-ation of faculty committees, with particular regard to theprinciples of faculty authority and responsibility.

The forms which these supporting elements assume willof course vary from one institution to another. Conse-quently, no detailed description of the elements is at-tempted in these Recommended Institutional Regulations.With respect to the principles involved, guidance will befound in the 1966 Statement on Government of Collegesand Universities, jointly formulated by the AmericanCouncil on Education, the Association of GoverningBoards of Universities and Colleges, and the AmericanAssociation of University Professors.

4

.!,

Statement on Professors andPolitical Activity

The Statement which follows was prepared by a subcommittee of Committee Aon Academic Freedom and Tenure and approved by Committee A. It was ap-proved by the Council of the American Association of University Professors inMay, 1969, and endorsed by the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

Introduction

The institutional regulations of many colleges and uni-versities govern the participation of professors in politicalactivity and public office holding. These regulations varyfrom absolute prohibitions against holding public office,campaigning for public office, or participating in themanagement of political campaigns, to requirements thatprofessor* engaging in such political activities merely i.form administrative authorities in the college or univer-sity of their activities.

Some idea of the variety of regulations is suggested bythe following examples. A large private institution in theSouthwest states that when a member of the faculty accepts"appointment to or becomes a candidate for any publicoffice whatever" his connection with the university is"automatically severed." A state university in the Southdeclares that when any staff member "becomes a candi-date for public office or takes an active part in the supportof any political party or a candidate for office, he therebyautomatically severs his connection with the university."A state college in the Northwest prohibits its faculty andother employees from holding "any political party office"or participating in the "management of a partisan politi-cal campaign." A less common regulation is found at aMidwestern state university which requires nontenuredfaculty members to resign before seeking full-time publicoffice but allows a faculty member on tenure to request aleave of absence. This same university allows politicalactivity only in parties that are qualified to place candi-dates on the ballot in that state. Given the widespreadtendency of states to make it difficult for "third parties"to get on the ballot, such a regulation could prove to bevery restrictive.

Some institutions allow participation only in lb: al politi-cal activities. For example, one Southern state universityrequires a professor to resign before participating in apolitical campaign, as a candidate or manager, for stateor federal office, but permits political activity the local

level. Other institutions prohibit professors from seekingor holding salaried public office but, by implication atleast, permit them to hold nonpaying positions. OneSouthern state has such a regulation for all its public in-stitutions of higher education. One university in thatsystem, however, also prohibits holding appointive orelective public office without pay. One private universityin the far West allows faculty members to hold remunera-tive part-time public offices while their uriversity salariesare continued, but requires that they turn over to theuniversity all compensation received for serving in thepublic office.

A number of colleges and universities require that pro-fessors obtain permission from administrative officers be-fore engaging in political activity. Very few of those withsuch requirements specify the terms under which suchpermission will be granted or withheld, thus allowing forarbitrary decisions. Other institutions simply require thatadministrative officers be informed of the intent to seek oraccept appointment to public office. A number of collegesand universities, including some state institutions, haveregulations which conform to the principlzs stated below.

Some institutional regulations make reference to fed-eral law governing political activities of federal employees..since faculty members frequently receive federal funds.There seems to be some misunderstanding of the relevanceof this law. The federal Hatch Act prohibits federal em-ployees and employees of state and local agencies paidwholly or in part from federal funds, among other things,to "take any active part in political management or politi-cal campaigns." It was amended in 1942 to exempt ex-plicity from this quoted provision and certain others notinvolving oppressive or corrupt conduct any officer oremployee of any educational or research institution, estab-lishment, agency, or system which is supported in wholeor in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, orby the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Ter-ritorial possession of the United States; or by any rec-ognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural organiza-

21

tion," even though payment of salaries comes from federalfunds. This amendment, which was stated to embody theoriginal understanding and intent of Congress, was sup-ported by expressions of confidence in the teaching pro-fession and of the value attached to political activity byits members, subject to proper state, local, and institu-tional limitations.

Some states, in laws designed to restrict the politicalactivities of state employees, have not been as careful asthe federal Hatch Act to exclude from the terms of suchlaws the employees of educational institutions. Thus, someof these laws are ambiguous regarding the freedom ofprofessors in public institutions to engage in politicalactivity. For example, the statutes of one state say that"Contributions to aid the election of any other person topublic office shall not be made or accepted by holders ofnonelective public positions?' Another state prohibits aholder of a public office not filled by election from con-tributing to the election of any person to public office orparty position.

In view of the range and variety of institutional andlegislative restrictions on political activities of professors.the American Association of University Professors feelsthe need of a definition of rights and obligations in this4.:*a. The following statement is offered as a guide topractice. It is hoped that colleges and universities willformulate and publish regulations consistent with theseprinciples.

Statement

1. The college or university faculty member is a citizenand, like other citizens, should be free to engage in politi-cal activities so far as he is able to do so consistently withhis obligations as a teacher and scholar.

2. Many kinds of political activity (e.g., holding part-time office in a political party, seeking election to any

22

office under circumstances that do not require extensivecampaigning, or serving by appointment or election in apart-time political office) are consistent with effectiveservice as a member of a faculty. Other kinds of politicalactivity (e.g., intensive campaigning for elective office,serving in a state legislature, or serving a limited termin a full-time position) will often require that the pro-fessor seek a leave of absence from his college or univer-sity.

3. In recognition of the legitimacy and social impor-tance of political activity by professors, universities andcolleges should provide institutional arrangements to per-mit it, similar to those applicable to other public or pri-vate extramural service. Sucia arrangements may indudethe reduction of the faculty member's workload or aleave of absence for the duration of an election cam-paign or a term of office, accompanied by equitable adjust-ment of compensation when necessary.

4. A faculty member seeking leave should recognizethat he has a primary obligation to his institution and tohis growth as an educator and scholar; he should bemindful of the problem which a leave of absence cancreate for his administration, his colleagues, and his stu-dents; and he should not abuse the privilege by too fre-quent or too late application or too extended a leave. Ifadjustments in his favor are made, such as a reduction ofworkload, he should expect them to be limited to a rea-sonable period.

5. A leave of absence incident to political activityshould come under the institution's normal rules and reg-ulations for leaves of absence. Such a leave should notaffect unfavorably the tenure status of a faculty member,except that time spent on such leave from academicduties need not count as probationary service. The termsof a leave and its effect on the professor's status should beset forth in writing.

Faculty Appointmentand Family Relationship

The following statement, prepared initially by the Association's Committee Won the Status of Women in the Academic Profession, was approved by that Com-mittee and by Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The statementwas adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Professorsin April, 1971, and endorsed by the Fifty-seventh Annual Meeting as Associationpolicy. It was endorsed by the Board of Directors of the Association of AmericanColleges at its June, 1971, meeting.

In recent years, and particularly in relation to efforts to define and safeguard therights of women in academic life, members of the profession have evidenced in-creasing concern over policies and practices which prohibit in blanket fashion theappointment, retention, or the holding of tenure of more than one member of thesame family on the faculty of an institution of higher education or of a school ordepartment within an institution (so-called "antinepotism regulations"). Suchpolicies and practices subject faculty members to an automatic decision on a basiswholly unrelated to academic qualifications and liMit them unfairly in their oppor-tunity to -practice their profession. In' addition, they are contrary to the bestinterests a the institution which is deprived of qualified faculty members on thebasis of an loappropriate criterion, and of the community which is denied a suffi-cient utilization of its resources.

The Association recognizes the propriety of institutional regulations which wouldset reasonable restrictions on an individual's capacity to function as judge or advo-cate in specific situations involving members of his or her immediate family.Faculty members should neither initiate nor participate in institutional decisionsinvolving a direct benefit (initial appointment, retention, promotion, salary, leaveof absence, etc.) to members of their immediate families.

The Association does not believe, however, that the proscription of the oppor-tunity of members of an immediate family to serve as colleagues is a souild methodof avoiding the occasional abuses resulting from nepotism. Inasmach as they con-stitute a continuing ibuse to a significant number of individual members of theprofession and to the profession as a body, the Association urges the discontin-uance of these policies and practices, and the rescinding of laws and institutionalregulations which perpetuate them.

23

Academic Freedom and Tenure inthe Quest for National Security

A special committee, appointed by authority of the Council in 1955, presentedthe following report to the Council in 1956. The second section of the report,"Relevant General Principles," was adopted by the Council as own statement,

and these principles were then adopted by the 1956 Annual Meeting. A precedingsection was introductory in nature and a following section presented a record of

particular events and a group of specific recommendations.Subsequent to the 1956 adoption of the "Relevant General Principles" of the

report of the special committee, Committee A spent much time in on effort toclarify the position to be defended when a faculty member refuses to make dis-closures to his own institution. The result, printed in the Spring, 1958, issue ofthe AAUP Bulletin, was "A Statement of the Committee on Academic Freedom

and Tenure, Supplementary to the 1956 Report, 'Academic Freedom and Tenurein the Quest for National Security "; this statement is printed here immediatelyfollowing the 1956 "Relevant General Principles."

RELEVANT GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. The justification of academic freedom

The maintenance of freedom of speech, publication,religion, and assembly (each of which is a componentof intellectual freedom) is the breath of life of a demo-cratic society. The need is greatest in fields of higherlearning, where the use of reason and the cultivationof the highest forms of human expression are the basicmethods. To an increasing extent, society has come torely upon colleges and universities as a principal meansof acquiring new knowledge and new techniques, ofconveying the fruits of past and present learning4thecommunity, and of transmitting these results totions to come. Without freedom to explore, to criticizeexisting institutions, to exchange ideas, and to advocatesolutions to human problems, faculty members and stu-dents cannot perform their work, cannot maintain theirself-respect. Society suffers correspondingly. The libertythat is needed requires a freedom of thought and expres-sion within colleges and universities, a freedom to carrythe results of honest inquiry to the outside, and a free-dom to influence human affairs in the same manner asother informed and unprejudiced persons do. Nor is thevalue of freedom lessened because error at times arisesfrom its exercise. teaming, intellectual development, andsocial and scientific progress take place on a trial-and-erfor basis, and even the unsound cause or hypothesismay call forth the truth that displaces it. The error ofone scholar has, indeed, stimulated others to discover thecorrecting truth.

24

The demand we of the academic world make for aca-demic freedom is not made primarily for our own bene-fit. We enjoy the exercise of freedom; but the purposesof liberty lie, in a democracy, in the common welfare.It has recently been said, "With regard to some occupa-tions, it is eminently in the interest of society that usemen concerned speak their minds without fear of retri-bution. . . . The occupational work of the vast majorityof people is largely independent of their thought andspeech. The professor's work consists of his thought andspeech. If he loses his position for what he writes orsays, he will, as a rule, have to leave his profession,and may no longer be able effectively to question andchallenge accepted doctrines or effectively to defend chal-lenged doctrines. And if some professors lose their posi-tions for what they write or say, the effect on manyother professors will be such that their usefulness totheir students and to society will be gravely reduced." 1

We ask, then, for the maintenance of academic free-dom and of the civil liberties of scholars, not as a specialright, but as a means whereby we may make our ap-pointed contribution to the life of the commonwealthand share equitably, but not more than equitably, in theAmerican heritage. Society has the power to destroy orimpair this freedom; but it cannot do so and retain thevalues of self-criticism and originality fostered by highereducation. Again, in the words of the Princeton Univer-sity Chapter:

1Friu Mach1up, "On Some Misconceptions Concerning Aca-demic Freedom," AAUP Bulletin, Winter, 1955. p. 756.

The spirit of free inquiry is not a privilege claimed fora single profession, but the touchstone of our characteras a people, the proved source of our national strength.Its defilement in any area of our society is a threat tothe entire body politic. . . .

As teachers, loyal to the country and to the ideal offree inquiry which has sustained our nation's material,humanitarian, and spiritual progress, we cannot fail tocondemn any inimical force whether proceeding from anavowed enemy or from a misguided friend within. In doingso we take our guidance from our conscience, from outsense of justice, and from the convictions of one of ourFounding Fathers, who declared: The opinions of menare not the object of civil government, nor under itsjurisdiction" and "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrudehis powers into the field of opinion and to restrain thepkofession or propagation of principles on supposition oftheir ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy." This belief waspurchased through centuries of struggle extending far backinto history beyond the discovery of the New World. butwhen enacted into law in the infancy of our nation wasgreeted in the Old World as "an example of legislativewisdom and liberality never before known." It would beone of the supreme ironies of history and one of thegreatest tragedies if the confidence we exhibited in theweakness of youth should be destroyed through fear in thestrength of our maturity.

2. The claims of military securityWe accept unhesitatingly the application to colleges

and universities of needed safeguards against the misuseof specially classified information important for militarysecurity, to the extent to which these are applied else-where. We insist, however, that these safeguards shouldextend only to persons who have access to such informa-tion; in no degree do they justify the proscription ofindividuals because of their beliefs or associations, un-less these persons were knowingly participants in crim-inal acts or conspiracies, either in the past or at present. ,Inquiry into beliefs and associations°should be restrictedto those that are relevant to the discovery of such actualor threatened offenses.

3. Vigilance against subversion of tic educationalprocess

The academic community has a duty to defend societyand itself from subversion of the educational processby dishonest tactics, including political conspiracies todeceive students and lead them unwittingly into accept-ance of dogmas or false causes. Any member of theacademic profession who has given reasonable evidencethat he uses such tactics should be proceeded againstforthwith, and should be expelled from his position ifhis guilt is established by rational procedure. Instancesof the use of such tactics in the past by secret Communistgroups in a few institutions seem to have occurred, andvigilanx against the danger of their occurrence in thefuture is clearly required.

4. Disclaimer oaths and general investigations ofcollege and university teachers

Nothing,in the record of college and university teachersas a group justifies the imputation to them of a tendencytoward disloyalty to the government or toward subversiveintent with respect to the nation's institutions. In thisregard they are not different from all other people. We

deplore entire recent tendency to look upon personsor groups suspiciously and to subject their charactersand at nudes to special tests as a condition of employ-ing them in responsible positions. This country's great-ness is founded upon a belief in the individual's impor-tance and upon a trust in his ability and worthiness toserve his fellow-men in accordance with his capacity.Only by gross misconduct, proved by means of due proc-ess, should the right to this trust be lost, and then onlyto the extent necessary to defend the common interest.The confidence reposed in the individual and in hisintegrity, and the independence of decision and actiongranted him, have been vindicated throughout our his-tory by the loyalty of our citizens, and by their willing-ness to make sacrifices in times of crisis. With infrequentexceptions, even those who have pursued false causesand have seemed at times to threaten the nation's funda-mental principles have done so, as history generally rec-ognizes, out of concern for the general welfare as theysaw it.

For all these reasons, and because of the unhappy dis.ruption of normal academic work which extreme actionsin the name of security entail, as well as because of theirevident fruitlessness, we oppose the imposition of dis-claimer oaths, whereby individuals are compelled to swearor affirm that they do not advocate or have not advocated,or that they are not or have not been members of anyorganizations which advocate, overthrow of the govern-ment. For similar reasons, we oppose investigations ofindividuals against whom there is no reasonable suspicionof illegal or unprofessional conduct or of an intent toengage in such conduct. On the same grounds we opposelegislation which imposes upon supervisory officials theduty to certify that members of their staffs are free ofsubversive taint. We particularly object to these measureswhen they are directed against members of the academicprofession as a special class apart from the populationas a whole. Not only is the stigma of such a discrimina-tion unjustified, but the application of these discrimina-tory measures denies the particular need for freedomfrom pressures and restrictions, which is a productiverequirement of the academic profession and, for similarreasons, of lawmakers, judges, clergymen, journalists, andthe members of certain other professions. We urge theacademic profession not to be lulled, by the hope ofpossible nonenforcement or by a merely routine appli-cation of these measures, into an acquiescence in theirmaintenance as "paper" requirements. They should notbe tolerated even as relic from which life might appearto have departed; for they would not only be an evilheritage unworthy of our traditions and our goals; theirrevivification would always be an ugly possibility. Theyshould be steadfastly opposed until they are eliminated.At the same time, we cannot condemn educational in-stitutions or teachers for yielding to the constraint oflaws embodying such requirements, even though we re-gard the laws containing them as pernicious.

5, Grounds of adverse actionAction against a faculty member cannot rightly be

25

taken on grounds that limit his freedom as an individual,as a member of the academic community, or as a teacherand scholar. This principle was defined in the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Ten-ure, adopted by the Association of American Collegesand the American Association of University Professorsand approved since by other organizations. Implicit inthat Statement is the proposition (rendered explicit inlater reports of committees of the American Associationof University Professors and resolutions of its AnnualMeetings) that a faculty member's professional fitnessto continue in his position, considered in the light ofother relevant factors, is the question to be determinedwhen his status as a teacher is challenged. No rule de-manding removal for a specific reason not clearly deter-minathe of professional fitness can validly be imple-mented by an institution, unless the rule is imposedby law or made necessary by the institution's particularreligious coloration. Any rule which bases dismissal uponthe mere fact of exercise of constitutional rights violatesthe principles of both academic freedom and academictenure. By eliminating a decision by a faculty member'speers, it may also deny due process. This principlegoverns the question of dismissal for avowed past orpresent membership in the Communist Party taken byitself. Removal can be justified only on the ground,established by evidence, of unfitness to teach because ofincompetence, lack of scholarly objectivity or integrity,serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige,gross personal misconduct, or conscious participation inconspiracy against the government. The same principleapplies, a fortiori, to alleged involvement in Communist-inspired activities or views, and to refusal to take atrustee-imposed disclaimer oath.

6. Refusal to testify as ground for removalIt follows that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment

by a faculty member under official investigation cannotbe in itself a sufficient ground for removing him. TheAmendment's protection is a constitutional privilege.

The exercise of one's constitutional privilege againstself-incrimination does not necessarily or commonlyjustify an inference of criminal guilt; and even if it wereto be ruled otherwise, it would not follow that the lossof an academic position should automatically result froma legal offense, whether proved in court or establishedby inference, without consideration of the relation of theoffense to professional fitness. Invocation of the FifthAmendment is to be weighed with an individual's otheractions in passing a judgment on him. The same may besaid with regard to refusals to testify on other grounds,such as the assertion of a right of silence thought to beconferred by the free-speech provision of the First Amend-ment, or because of a claim of lack of authority in theinvestigating body, an unwillingness to inform uponother persons, or a reluctance to cooperate in an investi-gation deemed oppressive or dangerous to the publicinterest.

7. Grounds for preliminary inquiry by an employinginstitution

The administrations of colleges and universities should,

26

of course, take note of indications of the possible unfit-ness of faculty members. If a faculty member invokesthe Fifth Amendment when questioned about Commu-nism, or if there are other indications of past or presentCommunist associations or activities, his institution can-not ignore the possible significance for itself of thesematters. There is then a possibility of his involvementin activities subversive of education itself, or otherwiseindicative, to an important degree, of his unfitness toteach. As in other instances of possible unfitness, pre-liminary inquiry into this possibility is warranted andcan become a duty. The aid of other faculty membersmay be sought in such an inquiry; but the inquiry shouldbe confidential in so far as possible, and should not besubstituted for the hearing to which the faculty memberhas a right if formal charges are brought against him.If, after- consideration of a faculty member's wholecareer, as well as the circumstances surrounding his in-vocation of the Fifth Amendment, probable cause tobeliele that he may be unfit is not disclosed, the mattershould end at this stage; but if probable cause for beliefin his unfitness is shown, charges leading to a formalhearing should be brought.

8. Procedural due process in tenure casesThe principles of procedural due process contained in

the 1940 Statement of Principles are as applicable to in-stances in which a faculty member's tenure is challengedby his institution or its officials on grounds related toloyalty, national security, or alleged connections withCommunism, as they are to instances of challenge onother grounds. Whenever charges are made against afaculty member with it view to his removal, he has aright to a fair hearing, to a judgment by his academicpeers before adverse action is taken, and to a decisionbased on the evidence. The principal elements of dueprocess in such proceedings are set forth in the 1940Statement of Principles, while other procedures, theneed for which appears in some of the sitimtions thiscommittee has reviewed, are still to be specified.

There should be adequate faculty participation in anysuch proceedings, although no particular form of facultyparticipation or means to assure it is stipulated in theprinciples as now stated. It is an important safeguardthat whatever procedure is used should be one that thefaculty of the institution has itself endorsed prior to theoccurrence of the case. It is desirable to have proceduralmatters vested in a standing committee chosen in ad-vance to deal with matters of academic freedom andtenure; ad hoc committees may be subject to manipulation or to the suspicion of it. Faculty members shouldbe willing to accept the difficult responsibility of servingon' such committees and, when cases are presented,should accept the painful need to reach decisions. Onoccasion, problems have ar;sen because faculty commit-tees have defaulted in their responsibility to render un-equivocal advice to administrative officers and trustees.

Public hearings before committees with power to rec-ommend or decide are not regarded as desirable. Theaccused faculty member should be permitted. however,to have persons of his choice present along with counsel;

......r,

and observers from legitimately interested outside groups,such as the American Association of University Professors,should also be permitted to attend. In accordance withestablished principles of justice, the burden of proofshould rest upon the administrative officer bringing thecharge, and should not be placed on the faculty mem-ber, whether he is being heard for invoking the FifthAmendment or for other reasons. Because such hearingsare not legal trials but are processes of a more informalsort, and the purpose is to establish clearly the fitness orunfitness of a particular person to teach, the introductionof new issues during the course of the hearings is notinconsistent with due process, provided sufficient op-portunity to meet these issues is afforded. The decisionshould be based solely on evidence disclosed at thehearing.

9. The faculty member's obligation of disclosureThe fact that a faculty member has refused to dis.

close information to his own institution is relevant tothe questior. of fitness to teach, but not decisive. If therefusal appears to be based upon evasiveness and a desireto withhold evidence of illegal conduct which would dis-qualify him as a member of the faculty, the refusal wouldbe a weighty adverse factor. On the other hand, a re-fusal to answer questions which arises from a sincerebelief that a teacher is entitled to withhold even fromhis own institution his political and social views shouldbe accorded respect and should be weighed with otherfactors in the determination of his fitness to teach.Nevertheless, members of the teaching profession shouldrecognize that sincerity cannot be judged objectively andthat a college or university is entitled to know the factswith which it must deal. This is especially true when afaculty member's activities, whether or not they areblameworthy, have resulted in publicity hurtful to hisinstitution. Accordingly, in any proper inquiry by hisinstitution, it is the duty of a faculty member to dis-close facts concerning himself that are of legitimate con-cern to the institution, namely, those that relate to hisfitness as a teacher, as enumerated above in the sections,Grounds of Adverse Action, and Grounds for PreliminaryInquiry by an Employing Institution. This obligation

diminishes if the institution has announced a rigid policyof dismissal in such a way as to prejudge the case.

We are aware that statements made by a faculty mem-ber to his institution are not legally privileged and thathis interrogators may be compelled in a later official pro-ceeding to testify that he made them. If such statementstend to incriminate him, he may in effect lose the pro-tection of the Fifth Amendment. But we believe thatthe institution's right to know facts relevant to fitnessto teach should prevail over this consideration.

10. Suspension

Suspension of a faculty member during the time ofinquiry and decision by the institution is justified onlyin certain instances in which the reasons for proceedingrender it highly probable not only that he is unfit tocontinue as a faculty member but that his unfitness is ofa kind almost certain to prejudice his teaching or re-search. Even in such instances, the suspension shouldbe with full salary. By his own desire the faculty mem-ber may, of course, be temporarily relieved of his dutiesin order to prepare his defense.

11. Faculty members not on tenureAcademic freedom should be accorded not only to

faculty members with tenure but also, during the termsof their appointments, to others with probationary ortemporary status who are engaged in teaching or research.Moreover, neither reappointment nor promotion to ten-ure status should be denied. nor any other adverse actiontaken, for reasons that violate academic freedom. Dis-missal or other adverse action prior to the expiration ofa term appointment requires the; same procedures asdoes the dismissal of a faculty member- with tenure;but no opportunity for a hearing is normally requiredin connection with failure to reappoint. If, however,there are reasonable grounds to believe that a nontenurestaff member was denied reappointment for reasons thatviolate academic freedom, there should be a hearing be-fore a faculty committee. In such a hearing the burdenof proof is on the persons who assert that there wereimproper reasons for the failure to reappoint. If aprima facie case of violation of academic freedom ismade, the administration of the institution is then re-quired to come forward with evidence in rebuttal.

A Statement of the Committee on AcademicFreedom and Tenure

Supplementary to the 1956 Report, "Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security"

Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,recognizing the validity of legally based assertions ofthe right to rev air silent under a variety of circuit'stances, or declaring the invalidity of official action ad.verse to an individual because of his refusal to yield in-formation about his possible Communist connections,

go far to justify the position taken by the Association'sSpecial Committee on these matters in its report, "Aca-,!emic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for Nationalcomity," which was published in the Spring, 1956, issue

o ,.he AAUP Bulletin and was approved by the Am.elation's Council and Forty-second Annual Meeting. Some

27

of these involve situations closely analogous to academicdismissal proceedings.'

Several of the reports of investigating committees [notpublished here] deal with cases in which dismissed facultymembers followed their refusals to. answer questions be-fore Congressional committees with refusals to makedisclosures to representatives of their own institutions,when their previous conduct gave rise to questions.These cases may be visualized as falling into a spectrumextending from a complete refusal to discuss questionsdealing with political or social views or associations, tothe most complete willingness to answer all such ques-tions even in a formal, open hearing. At one end ofthe spectrum, that of complete refusal to answer ques-tions of this type on the claim of principle, is foundthe case of Professor Stanley Moore at Reed College.To this may be added the case of Professor Horace B.Davis at the University of Kansas City, already pub-lished in the AAUP Bulletin (April, 1957, !supplement)but not yet a -ted upon by the Association. Fartherdown the spectrum is the stand of Professor L R.LaVallee at Dickinson College, who seems to have an-swered questions relating to previous political associa-tions in certain private conferences but bluntly refusedto answer similar questions in his hearing. Two casesfall near the middle of the spectrum. One is the caseof Dr. H. Chandler Davis at the University of Michigan,who answered some questions relating to his integrity,but declined to answer questions directed toward hispolitical views. The other is that of Associate ProfessorEdwin Berry Burgum, at New York University, who inhis hearing denied any corrupting influence of hisalleged Communist connections, any advocacy of violentoverthrow of the government, or any dictation of hisviews by an outside source; but who nevertheless refusedto answer certain other questions regarding his politicalviews and activities, and in particular concerning hispossible engagement in recruiting students into theCommunist Party. Farther toward the end marked bycompliance with questioning is the special case of Pro-fessor Alex B. Novikoff, at the University of Vermont.Professor Novikoff answered frankly all questions re-lating to the period dating from his appointment to theUniversity, but he refused to discuss questions directedat certain associations alleged to have existed in earlieryears. Yet ultimately he offered to answer even thesequestions if his testimony could be made off the recordin private instead of public hearing, an offer which theboard of hearing did not see fit to accept. Finally, atshe extreme of the spectrum, is the case of AssociateProfessor Mark Nickerson, at the University of Michigan.Professor Nickerson undertook to answer all questionsdirected to him.

It may be further noted that in the case of Mr.Andries Deinum, at the University of Southern California,no opportunity at all was given him to answer ques.dons or charges or to have a hearing. In the early caseof Associate Professor Lyman Bradley, at New YorkUniversity, there was, on the other hand, a hearing oncharges, but refusal to answer, or lack of candor towardcollege authorities, did not become an issue. These cases

See, in particular, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education,350 US. 551 (1958) ; Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178(1957) ; Sweet, v. State of New Hampshire, 354 US. 234(1957); Kohipberg v. State Bar of California, 353 US. 252(1957).

28

may be regarded as extending the two ends of the spec-trum into the invisible.

Each case mentioned here expresses the judgmentof its authors upon the situation presented, when judgedin the light of Association principles still undergoingrefinement and application. Committee A has beencharged with the function of elaborating those principleson the basis of further thought and of the experiencereflected in these reports It is first desirable to restatepertinent passages from the 1956 Report of the SpecialCommittee, as follows:

The administrations of colleges and universities should,of course, take note of indications of the possible unfitnessof faculty members. If a faculty member invokes the FifthAmendment when questioned about Communism, or ifthere are other indications of past or present Communistassociations or activities, his institution cannot ignore thepossible significance for itself of these matters. There isthen a possibility of his involvement In activities sub-versive of education itself, or otherwise indicative, to animportant degree, of his unfitness to ;each. As in otherinstances of possible unfitness, preliminary inquiry intothis possibility is warranted and can become a duty. Theaid of other faculty members may be sought in such aninquiry; but the inquiry should be confidential in so far aspossible, and should not be substituted for the hearingto which the faculty member has a right if formal chargesare brought against him. If, after consideration of a facultymember's whole career, u well u the circumstances sur-rounding his invocation of the Fifth Amendment, prob-able cause to believe that he may be unfit is not db.closed, the matter should end at this stage; but if prob-able cause for belief in his unfitness is shown, chargesleading to a formal hearing should be brought.. . . r.rjhe invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a facultymember under ofidal investigation =not be in itself asufficient ground for removing him. The Amendment'sprotection is a constitutional privilege. The exercise ofone's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination doesnot necessarily or commonly justify an inference of crim-inal guilt; and even if it were to be ruled otherwise, itwould not follow that the las of an academic positionshould automatically result from a legal offense, whetherproved in court or established by inference, without con-sideration of the relation of the offense to professionalfitness. Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Is to be weighedwith an individual's other actions in paring a judgmenton him. The same may be said with regard to refusals totestify on other grounds, such as the assertion of a rightof silence thought to be conferred by the free-speech pro-vision of the First Amendment, or because of a claim oflack of authority in the investigating body, an unwilling-ness to inform upon other persons, or a reluctance to co-operate in an investigation deemed oppressive or dangerousto the public interest.

The fact that a faculty limber has refused to discloseinformation to his own institution is relevant to the querdoe of fitness to teach, but not decisive. If the refusal ap-pears to be based upon evasiveness and a desire to with-hold evidence of illegal conduct which would disqualifyhim as a member of the faculty, the refusal would be aweighty adverse factor. On the other band, a refusal toanswer questions which arise from a sincere belief thata teacher is entitled to withhold even from his own in.sdtution his political and social views should be accordedrespect and should be weighed with other factors in thedetermination of his fitness to teach. Nevertheless, mem-bers of the teaching profession should recognise thatsincerity cannot be judged objectively and that a collegeor university is entitled to know the facts with which itmust deal. This is especially true when a faculty member'sactivities, whether or not they -are blameworthy, have

resulted in pblidty hurtful to his institution. According-ly, in any proper inquiry by his institution, it is the dutyof a faculty member to disclose facts concerning himselfthat are of legitimate concern to the institution.. . . Thisobligation diminishes it the institution has announced arigid policy of dismissal in such a way as to prejudgethe case.

We are aware that statements made by a faculty memberto his institution are not legally privileged and that hisinterrogators may he compelled in a later official pro-ceeding to testify that he made them. If such statementstend to incriminate him, he may in effect lose the pro-tection of the Fifth Amendment. But we believe that theinstitution's right to know facts relevant to fitness to teachshould prevail over this consideration.

. Removal can be justified only on the ground, estab-lished by evidence, of unfitness to teach because of in-competence, lack of scholarly objectivity or integrity,serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige.gross personal misconduct, or conscious participation inconspiracy against the government. The same principleapplies, a fortiori, to alleged involvement in Communist-inspired activities or views.

The most urgent need for elaboration of the principlesenunciated in 1956 concerns the relative weight thatmay properly, in the context of all other pertinent con-siderations, be given, in reaching a final decision, tothe reasons for the faculty member's continued refusalto make ,disclosures to his own institution. As the 1956report recognizes, such refusal, in itself, may not bediscreditable to the faculty member if it is based onhonest adherence to principlefor example, a principleof freedom, or belief in the right of privacyever ifothers disagree with his view. This is true even wheresuch silence may follow a refusal on Fifth Amendmentor other grounds to testify before a Congressional com-mittee or other governmental agency. On the other hand,the faculty member's continued silence may reflect un-favorably upon him if his purpose is to conceal derog-atory information he knows to he pertinent to the ques-tion of fitness.

The assertion by a faculty member of the right towithhold from his institution information which is per-tinent to his fitness casts upon him the burden of ex-plaining his refusal. Following such an explanation.the responsible tribunal or authorities may find it neces-sary to determine, as one element in gauging his fitnessto continue as a teacher, what his actual reasons forsilence are, even though this will not always be aneasy determination to make.

Even if the tribunal finds that the faculty member'sreasons for silence are discreditable to him, this adversefactor must be judged in the context of all the otheravailable evidence as to his professional fitness, for here,as in all other aspects of dismissal proceedings. the de-ciding tribunal or authority is always under a duty toreach a just conclusion in the light of the faculty mem-ber's full record. The tribunal also has an obligationto state the reasoning that lies back of its decision in amanner that will show the considerations that have af-fected the decision and how they have been balanced.On his part, the faculty member who persists in silencewithin his own institution must remember that, althoughthe burden of proof rests on those who are bringingcharges against him, his withholding of information

sought by his institution may well leave unchallengedother evidence tending to show him unfit. To put itsomewhat differently, the institution may properly con-cern itself with the facts falling within the area of theteacher's silence as they bear upon the issue of his fit-ness and arrive at a judgment concerning them.

The faculty member may find himself facing anotherdilemma. He may run the risk of losing the protectionof the Fifth Amendment if he answer. questions in apublic hearing and on the record, or, conversely, of beingmisjudged if he remains silent. If, in such straits, heoffers to answer privately, and off the record, questionshe has previously refused to answer, the tribunal shouldeither accept the offer or recognize that the offer is initself some evidence of candor and sincerity on the partof the teacher. Such private. off-the-record testimonywould not, in this committee's judgment, violate the re-quirement of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Aca-demic Freedom and Tenure that "There should be a fullstenographic record of the hearing available to theparties concerned." It is well to remember that a dis-missal proceeding is r bound by strict legal rules, andthat the aim of the tribunal is to arrive, by all fairmeans, at the fullest truth relevant to the charges. Off-the-record testimony is properly regarded with suspicionand therefore generally forbidden in academic dismissalproceedings. particularly for witnesses testifying againstthe accused faculty member. But its limited use for goodcause by the faculty member, who enjoys the benefit ofthe doubt in the proceedings and on whom the duty ofcandor is being urged, may well enable the tribunal toreach a fair and just decision. In explaining its decision,it may. of course, draw inferences, whether favorable orunfavorable, from such off-the-record testimony, eventhough the testimony itself may not be disclosed.

If the tribunal refuses to accept an honorable reasonoffered by a faculty member in justification of his non-disclosure, there being no rational basis in the recordfor this refusal, and he is then dismissed solely becauseof this silente, the action is censurable because a sufficientground for dismissal has not been established. If, onthe other hand, a decision to dismiss is found to havebeen reached fairly and to be supportable on the recordwhen judged by the foregoing considerations, the Asso-ciation is not entitled to dispute it.

Further comment should he made concerning thestatement in the 1956 Report that the "obligation [of afaculty member to disclose facts concerning himself thatare of legitimate concern to his institution] diminishesif the institution has announced a rigid policy of dis-missal in such a way as to prejudge the cast." Theobjection here is not to the fact that an institution maywish to enumerate in a general statement justifiablegrounds for the removal of members of its faculty, suchas those found in the 1956 Report of the Special Com-mittee, for it is often desirable that conduct deemed tobe improper should be defined in advance. Where, how-ever, a rigid policy, in effect predetermining the questionof fitness, is based on inadequate grounds, such as in-vocation of the Fifth Amendment or the simple fact ofmembership in an organization, the faculty member maybe justified in refusing to become party to ar. intra-mural form of self-incrimination.

29

Report of the Special Committee onAcademic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure

The report which follows was approved by the Association's Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure in Octofter, 1969.I,

Preamble

The Special Committee considered problems with re-gard to nontenure positions particularly as they concernthree categories of academic people: (I) pan-time teachers,(2) full-time teachers who are not considered regularmembers of faculties, and (3) persons who are appointedto full-time research positions. The Special Committee'sfirst effort has been to survey and analyze the policiesand practices of reputable universities with regard tonontenure positions, reports of which were previouslymade to the Council and Committee A. Its second con-cern has been to examine these practices in relation tothe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure of the Association of American Colleges andthe American Association of University Professors. Itsthird and final effort has been to formulate an interpre-tation of the 1940 Statement that might serve to guidethe Association in advising interested persons about prob-lems and disputes involving nontenure appointments.

The Special Committee soon concluded that the 1940Statement could not be interpreted as guaranteeing ten-ure rights to part-time teachers. Its provisions for a pro-bationary period apply explicitly to "... appointment tothe rank of full-time instructor or higher rank." TheSpecial Committee feels, however, that the Associationshould continue to be actively concerned with cases be-longing to this category, and should use its influence topersuade institutions to adopt and use suitable grievanceprocedures so that disputes involving part-time teacherscan be judiciously resolved within the institutions. Wheresuch procedures are inadequate or lacking, the Associa-tion should vigorously uphold the right of part-timeteachers to the same academic freedom that teachers withtenure have. This policy should of course apply equallyto full-time teachers during their probation period.

There has been much discussion by the Special Com-mittee, as there has been among other organs of the

30

Association, of the question whether the increasing useof people without doctors' degrees as full-time teacherscalls for clarification of the probationary requirementsset forth by the 1940 Statement. That is, does an educa-tional institution have to count years of full-time serviceaccumulated by a tenure candidate before he has re-ceived his doctorate in determining when the decision togrant or not grant tenure must be made? Or, conversely,is it legitimate for an institution to appoint a doctoralcandidate as a full-time teacher, in a rank below, ordifferent from, that of instructor, and consider that histerm of probation for tenure begins only if and when hereceives the doctorate? The 1940 Statement, whether in-tentionally or not, appears to leave room for the secondinterpretation by saying that the probationary periodshould begin with appointment at the rank of instructoror a higher rank. It does not, however, say at what ranka full-time teacher with the doctorate must be appointed.After full discussion, the Special Committee is unani-mously agreed that the first interpretation should beAssociation policy; that is, any person whom an institu-tion appoints to a full-time teaching position should betreated as a candidate for tenure under the requirementsof the 1940 Statement, no matter what rank or title hemay be given by the institution. If an institution wantsto exclude a doctoral candidate (or any other personwhom it considers inadequately qualified for regularfaculty membership and status) from tenure candidacy,it should not appoint him as a full-time teacher. TheSpecial Committee believes that less injustice will bedone, both to teachers and to institutions, if this policyis enforced than if the apparent loophole is left open.A serious doctoral candidate ought not to do full-timeteaching anyhow; it is not in his interest or that of theinstitution to have his attainment of the degree delayedor prevented by overwork. Nor are academic salariesany longer so low, or financial support in the form offellowships and loans so difficult to attain, that a serious

doctoral candidate cannot survive a few years on part-timepay. The Special Committee feels particularly stronglythat an institution which is unable to recruit enoughdoctors to fill all its full-time teaching positions t,ught notto deny tenure to full-time teachers lacking doctors'degrees.' Institutions should do all they can to increasethe number of qualified teachers. The Special Committeebelieves that anyone who does an instructor's work shouldbe given appropriate rank and privileges. In short, theSpecial Committee wishes to eliminate the second problemcategory by refusing to grant that, for purposes of the1940 Statement, there is any such thing as a full-timeteacher at a rank below that of instructor.

The third problem category, that of research peoplewho are not teachers, is relatively new to higher edu-cation. It was not foreseen, and its full effect on theregulation and conduct of academic institutions is not yetforeseeable. In particular, it seems clear to the SpecialCommittee that the two associations had no majorcategory of such academic people in mind when theyformulated the 1940 Statement. A question may be,therefore, whether it is possible for the Special Commit-tee to apply the 1940 Statement to this category. Itsdeliberations may in fact have led to another question:does the 1940 Statement itself need some revision,amendment, or supplement in order to provide properguidance for Association policy in this area? The 1940Statement' plainly assumes that the normal basic activityof university professors as teaching and that research is afunctionally related activity by means of which teachingis enriched and extended. On this assumption it is en-tirely reasonable and proper to maintain, as the 1940Statement evidently does, that a researcher is the samething as a teacher insofar as his right to academic free-dom, his status as a faculty member, and his entitlementto tenure are concerned. In 1940, with negligible excep-tions, researchers in universities were teachers, part ofwhose teaching was by word of mouth and part by themedium of print. The two parts served the same purposeof transmitting the teacher's individual ideas into thearena of public discussion, and the same principles offreedom and of responsibility applied to both.

Now, however, there are an important number of re-searchers working in universities and university-operatedagencies to whom this assumption does not so clearlyapply. Workers on Department of Defense and AtomicEnergy Commission projects offer the extreme example;but anyone who works on a project which is defined bya contract between the employing institution and a spon-soring agency, government, industry, or foundation islikely to be more or less limited in his freedom to decidefor himself what line of investigation he will pursue. Thequestion arises whether universities ought to be engagedin this kind of contract research at all. The Special Com-mittee regards this as an important question, but not one

Three sentences, which appeared here in the original re-port of the Special Committee and alluded to employmentoonditicis then current, are omitted as being no longer ap.plicable.

that can be settled at this time by a component of theAAUP. The fact is that many of the best universitiesare so engaged, and the question to be answered is whatthe AAUP policy should be toward the people involved,particularly concerning the conditions of academic freedomand tenure under which they work.

The Special Committee recognizes that many and per-haps most of the researchers doing contract work arequalified by education and training to be members ofteaching faculties. What makes them different is theirfunction. A related consideration, which administratorsare quick to point out, is that the shifting character ofthe financial support for contract work imposes a specialproblem in relation to tenure. It is not so much a matterof the total amount of money available as it is of thefact that individual research contracts run for limitedterms, and that researchers are not always transferablefrom one contract project to another within the sameinstitution. Administratively, the logical solution is tolet the individual researcher's contract run for not longerthan the term of the project contract. The situation isroughly parallel to that which arises when an institutiondecides to discontinue a course or department or college.The AAUP recognizes that legitimate academic reasonsmay require such a change, and that it is not alwayspossible for the institution to retain all the people whosepositions are eliminated. Such a situation, rare in teach-ing faculties, is normal and frequent in contract research.

These problems are closely related to the fact thatmany research projects are carried out by teams of re-searchers under the supervision of project directors. Thedirector of a project, often a faculty member with tenure,and very often a kind of entrepreneur in proposing theproject and attracting financial support for it from sourcesoutside the institution, has a legitimate need for freedomin the selection and rejection of team members, and foradequate authority to assign their tasks and coordinatetheir activities. Furthermore, individual team membersare not free to publish results of work they have doneon the project without the consent of other membersand especially of the director. For th reasons, tradi-tional concepts of academic freedom and tenure do notapply to the activities of contract research teams. TheSpecial Committee has gone as far as it believes possible,under the circumstances, in asserting and defending inthe statement which follows such academic freedom andjob security as can be had. Its members feel that aneffort to go beyond the limits imposed by the facts ofthe situation would make the statement weaker, notstronger.

The Special Committee is by no means indifferent tothe conditions under which members of contract researchproject teams have to work, nor does it advocate indif-ference on the part of the AAUP. It believes that goodadministrative and personnel policies ought to operatein this area as in all other areas of academic life, andthat the AAUP should try to define good policies andencourage institutions to apply them. It also believesthat, whenever academic institutions designate full-timeresearchers as faculty members, either by formal appoint-

31

ment or by conferring the titles of instructor, assistantcr associate professor, or professor, those researchersshould have all the rights of other faculty members, andthat the AAUP should apply the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples to them as strictly as to anyone else.

Statement of the SpecialCommittee on Academic

Personnel Ineligible for Tenure

A clear definition of acceptable academic practice inAmerican colleges and universities requires some ampli-fication and interpretation of the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Most ofthe 1940 Statement applies without change to the opera-tion of the universities today. The academic freedomstatement however leaves some question about the free-dom of research for the secondary staff of large researchprojects restricted by government or industrial supportand security. The academic tenure provisions leave somedoubt about the tenure rights of part-time teachers andof persons appointed with titles other than those of thefour ranks of instructor to professor.

To make quite clear that the policy of the Associationprovides protection in matters of academic freedom toall teachers at all ranks and on any fractional appoint-ment and to all investigators with university appoint-ments, the following amplifying statement is proposed:

(I) The academic freedom of all teachers and investi-gators with full-time or part-time appointments ina university should have 'lie full protection ofthe Association.

The committee recognizes that it is appropriate to have,within the university, faculty members with instructor orprofessional status who are exclusively investigators. Theseprofessors should be selected by the faculty and shouldhave the full privileges of other professors. The followingstatement is within the 1940 Statement but more directlydescribes the status of the research faculty member with anacademic appointment:

(2) Full-time teachers and investigators who are ap-pointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Pro-fessor, Associate Professor, and Professor should have

32

the rights and privileges appropriate to their rankinduding tenure or the eligibility for tenure afterthe appropriate probationary period.

Acceptable academic practice for tenure is described inthe 1940 Statement of Principles only for full-time ap-pointments beginning with the rank of instructor. TheSpecial Committee recommends that these provisions beextended to include all full-time teacher appointments inthe university. Part-time appointments are often given toscholars who are still working on their advanced degreeprograms. If, however, a full-time appointment can bemade as a lecturer or acting instructor, without obligatingthe institution to a limited probation period, it willdiminish the protection of the Association's statement ofpolicy on tenure. To provide for protection of the youngteachers' tenure rights, the committee proposes:

(3) All full-time teachers, but not investigators, in theuniversities regardless of their titles should acquiretenure after a probationary period as provided forappointments to the rank of full-time instructor ora higher rank in the 1940 Statement.

The Association extends the full protection of academicfreedom to all teachers and investigators on full-time orpart-time university appointments. The policy for thetenure of investigators with full-time university appoint-ments without one of the usual academic ranks has notbeen adequately determined. In the science and tech-nology areas of the twenty largest universities, there arenow twice as many full-time investigators as full-tuneacademic appointments. Most of these investigator ap-pointments are made from research grants of short dura-tion that are subject to frequent and uncertain renewal.The selection and termination of appointees is made bythe project director without the usual procedures of re-view involved in departmental academic appointments.Until the funds for the support of investigators are as-sured for substantial periods and until the universitydetermines policies for the distribution and use of thesefunds it will be difficult for the university to assume theobligation for continuous tenure appointments. Thecommittee makes no recommendation for a tenure policyfor investigators who do not have regular academicappointments.

Report on Retirementand Academic Freedom

This report was prepared by a subcommst ammittee A. Its publication wasauthorized by Committee A and the Council in October, 1968.

An earlier Statement of Principles on Academic Re-tirement, endorsed jointly in 1958 by the AmericanAssociation of University Professors and the Associationof American Colleges,' contains recommendations on re-tirement policy and on plans for retirement annuities.It calls for "a fixed and relatively late retirement age,the same for teachers and administrators," and it statesthat "in the present circumstances the desirable fixedretirement age would appear to be from 67 to 70."

However, a recent survey by the American Associationof University Professors of practices regarding retirementshows that academic institutions currently tend to followtwo different patterns. At some institutions there is afixed age for retirement, with the professor retired priorto that age only by his own choice or by permanentlyincapacitating illness. The usual retirement ages are foundto be 65, 68, or 70 years. The American Association ofUniversity Professors continues to support the concept ofa fixed and relatively late retirement age.

At other institutions the pattern is flexible, with arelatively early age at which tenure ceases (frequently65 years), with the possibility of reappointment forlimited periods, often on an annual basis. At these in-stitutions there are possible threats to the academicfreedom of faculty members who are approaching retire-ment age or who have been reappointed after reachingthat age.

Many professors desire to remain in active service attheir institutions as long as possible. Definite financialadvantages accompany later retirement. Frequently, thereis strong reluctance to sever one's professional contactsuntil the latest possible age.

The text Of this Statement was published in the AA L'P Bulk-tin, Summer, 1958. pp. 513.5. A joint committee of AAUP andthe Association of American Colleges later prepared a revision ofthe Statement, which was adopted by the AAUP Council andendorsed by the Fiftyfifth Annual Meeting in 1969 as Associationpolicy, under the title. "Statement of Principles on Academic Re-tirement and Insurance Plans." (See AAUP Bulletin, Autumn,1969, pp. 386-387.)

In institutions with a flexible retirement age at whichdecisions on retirement are made by administrators, aprofessor who wishes to continue his academic workbeyond the minimum retirement age may hesitate toexpress opinions contrary to administrative policy, todefend an outspoken colleague, or otherwise to takeposition, contrary to those who have the power to retirehim. The occasional victimization of a bold professorwould give reality to this fear. Also, self-restriction offreedom may result from the possibility of nonreappoint-ment. In contrast, where there is a fixed retirement age,with no possibility of deviation, the professor is notnormally subject to penalty, no matter how critical hemay be of institutional policy or how much outside in-fluence for his nonreappointment is brought to bear onthe institution.

The number of people who suffer from the threat ofnonreappointment may not be large. As people becomeolder, some become more outspoken in the defense ofdebatable ideas; others, recognizing the validity of argu-ments on both sides of a question, see less need tochampion locally unpopular causes. However, freedomfor the entire academic community, including its oldermembers, must be scrupulously preserved.

At the present time, a shorta1e of qualified facultywould usually cause an institution to wish to retainfaculty members as long as possible. However, employ-ment conditions at a given institution may change. Also,with the increased need for faculty, more professors whohave reached the minimum retirement age are beingemployed, either by their own or other institutions.Therefore, the number of instances of possible infringe-ment of academic freedom of professors who are nolonger protected by tenure may increase.

At institutions which have flexible retirement ages,what safeguards are or should be available to facultyduring the period in which tenure no longer protectsthe academic freedom and procedural safeguards of theprofessor as teacher, scholar, and citizen? The approach

33

used by the 1940 Staten grit of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure for instructional staff who have notyet achieved tenure gives applicable guidance. "Duringthe probationary period a teacher should have theacademic freedom that all other members of the facultyhate." Like the probationary teacher, the faculty mem-ber who has lost tenure because of age should haveavailable to him appropriate hearing procedures if hecan present a prima facie case of not being reappointedfor reasons violative of his academic freedom. Like theprobationary appointee, this faculty member should re-ceive explicit and timely notice of nonreappointment:not later than December 15 (or at least six months priorto the expiration of the appointment): or, if the facultymember is in his first year of service at an institutionother than the one at which he had tenure, not laterthan March 1 (or at least three months prior to theappointment's expiration). Where there is a strong tra-dition of academic freedom and good practice, theproblem of involuntary retirement of outspoken pro-fames before the maximum retirement age does not exist.

The surest protection against premature retirement asa penalty for expressing critkinn or dissent is activeparticipation by the faculty in the governance of theinstitution. Decisions not to continue the services of aprofessor to the maximum permissible age should bemade only after the appropriate administrative officerhas received the advice of representatives of the facultyand should be subject to appeal to the proper body orcommittee of the faculty. Details of the procedure, to-gether with a statement of the reasons which wouldoccasion a professor's retirement before the stated maxi-mum age, should be dearly promulgated In writing andLoanable to the professor at the time of his appointment.

Faculty participation in decisions to employ professorsbeyond the minimum retirement age occurs at a °maid-treble number of institutions. Among the flexible sys-tems worth noting are those at the University of Cali-fornia at Berkeley. Franklin and Marshall College, BeloitCollege, and the University of Texas. These institutionsreprese two large state-supported institutions and twosmall prze..tely endowed liberal arts colleges.

The Committee on Budget and InterdepartmentalRelations of the University of California at Berkeley 2in addition to its responsibility for making reconunenda-dons to the appropriate administrative official concerningappointment, promotions and awards of tenurerecom-mends the reappointment or nonreappointment of pro-fessors who have reached the minimum retirement age.

The work of this committee and the selection of its mem-ben by a faculty-elected Committee on Committees aredescribed by L. W. Bey, '"The University of California atBerkeley: Faculty Participation in the Government of theUniversity." AAUP lkilktin, Spring, 1116C pp. 5-111.

34

Its recommendation is based on that of the DepartmentChairman, including a statement concerning the clearlyestablished need for the continuance of the professor'sservices, and its own careful and independent evaluationof the desirability of the reappointment of the professor.Since the recommendations of this committee are usuallyfollowed by the administration, retired professors knowthat their reappointment depends primarily upon broadfaculty judgment. As the primary decision for reappoint-ment is made by faculty rather than administrativeofficials, a professor who wishes to criticize administrativepolicy can do so without fear it will be prejudicial to hisreappointment.

The regulations of Franklin and Marshall College statethat "the mandatory retirement age for members of theFaculty is 66," but provision is made for the appoint-ment "of Visiting Professors or Distinguished ProfessorsEmeriti who exceed age 65." The decision to recommendthe appointment of an emeritus professor is made by thedepartment and reviewed by a facultrelected ProfessionalStandards Committee. Selection is based on an establishedneed and on the academic qualifications of the individual.Espousal of minority viewpoints would not be prejudicialto appointment after formal retirement.

At Beloit College, a faculty-nominated and electedcommittee advises with the President and Dean on allpersonnel decisions including retention of faculty, rtamotion, and tenure. The Colleges Policy Manua! alsocalls for consultation with the Chairman of the Depart-ment and Division of which the individual is a member.Although retirement occurs at 65, a faculty member Malybe reemployed on an annual basis, if reemployment ismutually agreeable to the individual and to the college.Such reemployment, which ordinarily does not includeadministrative and committee responsibilities, is con-sidered by the faculty committee and chief administrativeofficers.

A somewhat different approach to the utilization ofretired professors is used at The University of Texas atAustin. Tenured members of the faculty continue fulltime until age 70. At this age they are put on "modifiedservice" which is half-time work for half-time pay; theymay be allowed to teach required courses at the discretionof the teaching staff of the department. The budgetcouncil of each department must approve annually ap-pointees on modified service as being capable of theduties assigned to them by the Chairman of the Depart-ment, and all departmental recommendations for appoint-ment, or continued appointment, are subject to approvalby a faculty advisory committee on extended service.

Whatever circumstances and conditions affecting retire-ment are present in an institution of higher education.professors should be assured that, even if tenure is endedthe principles of academic freedom, as stated in the 1940Statement of Principles, are applicable to them.

American Association of University Professors

American Council on Education

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

Statement on

Government of Colleges and Universities

Editorial Note. The Statement which follows is di-rected to governing board members, administrators,faculty members, students, and other persons in the beliefthat the colleges and universities of the United States havereached a stage calling for appropriately shared respon-sibility and cooperative action among the components ofthe academic institution. The Statement is intended tofoster constructive joint thought and action, both withinthe institutional structure and in protection of its integ-rity against improper intrusions.

It is not intended that the Statement serve as a blue-print for government on a specific campus or as a manualfor the regulation of controversy among the componentsof an academic institution, although it is to be hoped thatthe principles asserted will lead to the correction of exist-ing weaknesses and assist in the est'blishment of soundstructure and procedures. The Statement does not at-tempt to cover relations with those outside agencies whichincreasingly are controlling the resources and influencingthe patterns of education in crtr institutions of higherlearning; e.g., the United States a 'ernment, the statelegislatures, state commissions, interstate associations orcompacts and other interinstitutional arrangements. How-ever it is hoped that the Statement will be helpful to theseagencies in their consideration of educational matters.

Students are referred to in this Statement as an in-stitutional component coordinate in importance withtrustees, administrators, and faculty. There is, however, nomain section on students. The omission has two causes:(1) the changes now occurring in the status of Americanstudents have plainly outdistanced the analysis by theeducational community, and an attempt to define thesituation without thorough study might prove unfair to

student interests, and (2) students do not in fact pres-ently have a significant voice in the government of col-leges and universities; it would be unseemly to obscure,by superficial equality of length of statement, what maybe a serious lag entitled to separate and full confronta-tion. The concern for student status felt by the organiza-tions issuing this Statement is embodied in a note "OnStudent Status" intended to stimulate the _ducationalcommunity to turn its attention to an important need.

This Statement, in preparation since 1964, is jointlyformulated by the American Association of UniversityProfessors, the American Council on Education, and theAssociation of Governing Boards of Universities and Col-leges. On October 12, 1966, the Board of Directors ofthe ACE took action by which the Council "recognizesthe Statement as a significant step forward in the clarifica-tion of the respective roles of governing boards, faculties,and administrations," and "commends it to the institutionswhich are members of the Council." On Octooer 29, 1966,the Council of the AAUP approved the Statement, recom-mended approval by the Fifty-third Annual Meeting inApril, 1967,1 and recognized that "continuing joint effortis desirable, in view of the areas left open in the jointlyformulated Statement, and the dynamic changes occurringin higher education." On November 18, 1966, the Execu-tive Committee of the AG B took action by which tha!organization also "recognizes the Statement as a signifi-cant step forward in the clarification of the respective rolesof governing boards, faculties and administrations," and"commends it to the governing boards which are mem-bers of the Association."

'The Annual Meeting approved the Statement.

35

I. Introduction

This Statement is a call to mutual understandingregarding the government of colleges and universities.Understanding, based on community of ;nterest, and pro-ducing joint effort, is essential for at least three reasons.First, the academic institution, public or private, oftenhas become less autonomous; buildings, research, andstudent tuition are supported by funds over which thecollege or university exercises a diminishing control. Leg-islative and executive governmental authority; at all levels,plays a part in the making of important decisions inacademic policy. If these voices and forces are to besuccessfully heard and integrated, the academic institu-tion must .. in a position to meet them with its owngenerally unified view. Second, regard for the welfare ofthe institution remains important despite the mobility andinterchange of scholars. Third, a college or university inwhich all the components are aware of the interdepen-dence, of the usefulness of communication among them-selves, and of the force of joint action will enjoy increasedcapacity to solve educational problems.

II. The Academic Institution: Joint Effort

A. Preliminary ConsiderationsThe variety and complexity of the tasks performed by

institutions of higher education produce an inescapableinterdependence among governing board, administration,faculty, students, and others. The relationship calls foradequate communication among these components, andfull opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.

Joint effort in an academic institution will take a varietyof forms appropriate to the kinds of situations encoun-tered. In some instances, an initial exploration or recom-mendation will be made by the president with considera-tion by the faculty at a later stage; in other instances, a firstand essentially definitive recommendation will be madeby the faculty, subject to the endorsement of the presidentand the governing board. In still others, a substantive con-tribution can be made when student leaders are responsiblyinvolved in the process. Although the variety of suchapproaches may be wide, at least two general conclusionsregarding joint effort seem clearly warranted: ( I ) importantareas of action involve at one time or another the initiatingcapacity and decision-making participation of all the in-stitutional compo.mfits, and (2) differences in the weight ofeach voice, from one point to the next, should be deter-mined by reference to the responsibility of each componentfor the particular matter at hand, as developed herein-after.

B. Determination of General Educational Policy

The general educational policy, i.e., the objectives of aninstitution and the nature, range, and pace of its efforts,is shaped by the institutional charter or by law, by tradi-tion and historical development, by the present needs ofthe community of the institution, and by the professionalaspirations and standards of those dire ,ly involved in its

36

work. Every board will wish to go beyond its formal trusteeobligation to conserve the accomplishment of the past andto engage seriously with the future; every faculty will seekto conduct an operation worthy of scholarly standards of'earning; every administrative officer will strive to meetis charge and to' attain the goals of the institution. The

interests of all are coordinate and related, and unilateraleffort can lead to confusion or conflict. Essential to a solu-tion is a reasonably explicit statement on general educa-tional policy. Operating responsibility and authority, andprocedures for continuing review, should be clearly de-fined in official regulations.

When an educational goal has been established, it be-comes the responsibility primarily of the faculty to deter-mine appropriate curriculum and procedures of studentinstruction.

Special considerations may require particular accom-modations: (1) a publicly supported institution may beregulated by statutory provisions, and (2) a church-con-trolled institution may be limited by its charter or bylaws.When such external requirements influence course con-tent and manner of instruction or research, they impair theeducational effectiveness of the institution.

Such matters as major changes in the size or composi-tion of the student body and the relative emphasis to begiven to the various elements of the educational and re-search program should involve participation of governingboard, administration, and faculty prior to final decision.

C. Internal Operations of the InstitutionThe framing and execution of long-range plans, one of

the most important aspects of institutional responsibility,should be a central and continuing concern in the aca-demic community.

Effettiye planning demands that the broadest possibleexchange of information and opinion should be the rulefor communication among the components of a college oruniversity. The channels of communication should beestablished and maintained by joint endeavor. Distinctionshould be observed between the institutional system ofcommunication and the system of responsibility for themaking of decisions.

A second area calling for joint effort in internal opera-tions is that of decisions regarding existing or prospectivephysical resources. The board, president, and facultyshould all seek agreement on basic decisions regardingbuildings and other facilities to be used in the educationalwork of the institution.

A third area is budgeting. The allocation of resourcesamong competing demands is central in the formal re-sponsibility of the governing board, in the administrativeauthority of the president, and in the educational func-tion of the faculty. Each component should thereforehave a voice in the determination of short- and long-range priorities, and each should receive appropriateanalyses of past budgetary experience, reports on currentbudgets and expenditures, and short- and long-range bud-getary projections. The function of each component inbudgetary matters should be understood by all; the allo-

cation of authority will determine the flow of informationand the scope of participation in decisions.

Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken whenan institution chooses a new president. The selection of achief administrative officer should follow upon cooperativesearch by the governing board and the faculty, taking intoconsideration the opinions of others who are appropriatelyinterested. The president should be equally qualified toserve both as the executive officer of the governing boardand as the chief academic officer of the institution and thefaculty. His dual role requires that he be able to interpretto board and faculty the educational views and conceptsof institutional government of the other. He should havethe confidence of the board and the faculty.

The selection of academic deans and other chief aca-demic officers should be the responsibility of the presidentwith the advice of and in consultation with the appropriatefaculty.

Determinations of faculty status, normally based onthe recommendations of the faculty groups involved, arediscussed in Part V of this Statement; but it should herebe noted that the building of a strong faculty requirescareful joint effort in such actions as staff selection andpromotion and the granting of tenure. Joint action shouldalso govern dismissals; the applicable principles andprocedures in these matters are well established.*

D. External Relations of the InstitutionAnyonea member of the governing board, the presi-

dent or other member of the administration, a memberof the faculty, or a member of the student body or thealumniaffects the institution when he speaks of it inpublic. An individual who speaks unofficially should soindicate. An official spokesman for the institution, theboard, the administration, the faculty, or the student bodyshould be guided by established policy.

It should be noted that only the board speaks legallyfor the whole institution, although it may delegate re-sponsibility to an agent.

The right of a board member, an administrative officer,a faculty member, or a student to speak on general educa-tional questions or about the administration and operationsof his own institution is a part of his right as a citizen andshould not be abridged by the institution.* There exist, of

:See the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure and the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standardsin Faculty Dismissal Proteedings. 1 hese statements have beenjointly approved or adopted by the Association of AmericanColleges and the Arne' It-an Association of University Profes-sors: the 1940 S. :meet has been endorsed by numerous learnedand scientific societies and educational associations.

*With respect to faculty members, the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure reads. 1 he collegeor university teacher is a citizen, a member of a le.irned profes-sion. and an officer of an educational institution. When he speaksor writes as a citizen, he should be free from institutional censor-ship or discipline, but his special position in the community im-poses special obligations. As a man of learning and an educationalofficer, he should remember that the public may judge his pro-fession and his institution by his utterances. Hence he should atall times be accurate, should exert ise appropriate restraint, shouldshow respect for the opinion of others, and should make everyeffort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokesman."

course, legal bounds relating to defamation of character,and there are questions of propriety.

III. The Academic Institution:The Governing Board

The governing board has a special obligation to assurethat the history of the college or university shall serveas a prelude and inspiration to the future. The board helpsrelate the institution to its chief community: e.g., the com-munity college to serve the educational needs of a definedpopulation area or goup, the church-controlled college tobe cognizant of the announced position of its denomina-tion, and the comprehensive university to discharge themany duties and to accept the appropriate new challengeswhich are its concern at the several levels of higher edu-cation.

The governing board of an institution of higher educa-tion in the United States operates, with few exceptions, asthe final institutional authority. Private institutions are es-tablished by charters; public institutions are established byconstitutional or statutory provisions. In private institu-tions the board is frequently self-perpetuating; in publiccolleges and universities the present membership of aboard may be asked to suggest candidates for appointment.As a whole and individually when the governing boardconfronts the problem of succession, serious attentionshould be given to obtaining properly qualified persons.Where public law calls for election of governing boardmembers, means should be found to insure the nominationof fully suited persons, and the electorate should be in-formed of the relevant criteria for board membership.

Since the membership of the board may embrace bothindividual and collective competence of recognized weight,its advice or help may be sought through establishedchannels by other components of the academic community.The governing board of an institution of higher education,while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conductof administration to the administrative officers, the presi-dent and the deans, and the conduct of teaching andresearch to the faculty. The board slictild undertake ap-propriate self-limitation.

One of the governing board's important tasks is to in-sure the publication of codified statements that define theover-all policies and pi ocedures of the institution underits jurisdiction.

The board plays a central role in relating the likelyneeds of the future to predictable resources; it has theresponsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is re-sponsible for obtaining needed capital and operating funds;and in the broadest sense of the term it should pay atten-tion to personnel policy. In order to fulfill these duties, theboard should be aided by, and may insist upon, the de-velopment of long-range planning by the administrationand faculty.

When ignorance or threatens the institution orany part of it, the governing board must be available forsupport. In grave crises it will be expected to serve as achampion. Although the action to be taken by it willusually be on behalf of the president, the faculty, or the

37

student body, the board should make clear that the pro-tection it offers to an individual or a group is, in fact, afundamental defense of the vested interests of society inthe educational institution.*

IV. The Academic Institution: The President

The president, as the chief executive officer of an in-stitution of higher education, is measured largely by hiscapacity for institutional leadership. He shares responsi-bility for the definition and attainment of goals, for ad-ministrative action, and for operating the communicationssystem which links the components of the academic com-munity. He represents his institution to its many publics.His leadership role is supported by delegated authorityfrom the board and faculty.

As the chief planning officer of an institution, thepresident has a special obligation to innovate and initiate.The degree to which a president can envision new horizonsfor his institution, and can persuade others to see them andto work toward them, will often constitute the chiefmeasure of his administration.

The president must at times, with or without support,infuse new life into a department; relatedly, he may attimes be required, working within the concept of tenure,to solve problems of obsolescence. The president willnecessarily utilize the judgments of the faculty, but in theinterest of academic standards he may also seek outsideevaluations by scholars of acknowledged competence.

It is the duty of the president to see to it that thestandards and procedures in operational use within thecollege or university conform to the policy established bythe governing board and to the standards of sound aca-demic practice. It is also incumbent on the president toinsure that faculty views, including dissenting views, arepresented to the board in those areas and on those issueswhere responsibilities are shared. Similarly the facultyshould be informed of the views of the board and the ad-ministration on like issues.

The president is largely responsible for the maintenanceof existing institutional resources and the creation of newresources; he has ultimate managerial responsibility for alarge area of nonacademic activities, he is responsible forpublic understanding, and by the nature of his office is thechief spokesman of his institution. In these and other areashis work is to plan, to organize, to direct, and to represent.The presidential function should receive the generalsupport of board and faculty.

4The American Association of -University Professors. recog-luting the growth of autonomous state-wide bodies superordinateto existing Boards of Trustees, regards the objectives and prac-tices recommended in the 1966 Statement as constituting equallyappropriate guidelines for such bodies As newer. and more in-fluential components of the academic community, they bear par-ticular responsibility for protecting the autonomy of individualinstitutions under their jurisdiction and foi implementing policiesof shared responsibility as outlined in Section 11 when they dis-place functions of institutional governing hoards. (Adopted bythe AAUP Council in May. 1972.)

38

V. The Academic Institution: The Faculty

The faculty has primary responsibility for such funda-mental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods ofinstruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects ofstudent life which relate to the educational process. Onthese matters the power of review or final decision lodgedin the governing board or delegated by it to the presidentshould be exercised adversely only in exceptional circum-stances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty.It is desirable that the faculty should, following such com-munication, have opportunity for further consideration andfurther transmittal of its views to the president or board.Budgets, manpower limitations, the time element, and thepolicies of other groups, bodies and agencies having juris-diction over the institution may se: limits to realization offaculty advice.

The faculty sets the requirements for the degreesoffered in course, determines when the requirements havebeen met, and authorizes the president and board to grantthe degrees thus achieved.

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a fac-ulty responsibility; this area includes appointments, re-appointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, thegranting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary respon-sibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon thefact that its judgment is central to general educationalpolicy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or ac-tivity have the chief competence for judging the work oftheir colleagues; in such ,:ompetence it is implicit that re-sponsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judg-ments. Likewise there is the more general competence ofexperienced faculty personnel committees having abroader charge. Determinations in these matters shouldfirst be by faculty action through established procedures,reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concur-rence of the board. The governing board and presidentshould, on questions of faculty status, as in other matterswhere the faculty has primary responsibility, concur withthe faculty judgment except in rare instances and forcompelling reasons which should be stated in detail.

The faculty should actively participate in the deter-mination of policies and procedures governing salaryincreases.

The chairman or head of a department, who serves asthe chief representative of his department within an insti-tution, should be selected either by departmental electionor by appointment following consultation with membersof the department and of related departments; appoint-ments should normally be in conformity with departmentmembers' judgment. The chairman or department headshould not have tenure in his office; his tenure as a facultymember is a matter of separate right. He should serve fora stated term but without prejudice to re-election or toreappointment by procedures which involve appropriatefaculty consultation. Board, administration, and facultyshould all bear in mind that the department chairman hasa special obligation to build a department strong in schol-arship and teaching capacity.

Agencies for faculty participation in the government

of the college or university should be established at eachlevel where faculty responsibility is present. An agencyshould exist for the presentation of the views of the wholefaculty. The structure and procedures for faculty partici-pation should be designed, approved, and established byjoint action of the components of the institution. Facultyrepresentatives should be selected by the faculty accordingto procedures determined by the faculty.

The agencies may consist of meetings of all facultymembers of a department, school, college, division, oruniversity system, or may take the form of faculty-electedexecutive committees in departments and schools and afaculty-elected senate or council for larger divisions orthe institution as a whole.

Among the means of communication among the faculty,administration, and governing board now in use are:(1) circulation of memoranda and reports by board com-mittees, the administration, and faculty committees, (2)joint ad hoc committees, (3) standing liaison committees,(4) membership of faculty members on administrativebodies, and (5) membership of faculty members on govern-ing boards. Whatever the channels of communication, theyshould be clearly understood and observed.

On Student Status

When students in American colleges and universitiesdesire to participate responsibly in the government ofthe institution they attend, their wish should be recog-

nized as a claim to opportunity both for educationalexperience and for involvement in the affairs of theircollege or university. Ways should be found to permitsignificant student participation within the limits ofattainable effectiveness. The obstacles to such participa-tion are large and should not be minimized: inexperi-ence, untested capacity, a transitory status which meansthat present action does not carry with it subsequentresponsibility, and the inescapable fact that the othercomponents of the institution are in a position of judg-ment over the students. It is important to recognize thatstudent needs are strongly related to educational experi-ence, both formal and informal. Students expect, and havea right to expect, that the educational process will bestructured, that they will be stimulated by it to becomeindependent adults, and that they will have effectivelytransmitted to them the cultural heritage of the largersociety. If institutional support is to have its fullestpossible meaning it should incorporate the strength, fresh-ness of view, and idealism of the student body.

The respect of students for their college or universitycan be enhanced if they are given at least these oppor-tunities: (1) to be listened to in the classroom without fearof institutional reprisal for the substance of their views,(2) freedom to discuss questions of institutional policy andoperation, (3) the right to academic due process whencharged with serious violations of institutional regulations,and (4) the same right to hear speakers of their own choiceas is enjoyed by other components of the institution.

39

The Role of the Faculty

in Budgetary and Salary Matters

The Statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee T on

College and University Government. It was approved by the Council of the AmericanAssociation of University Professors in May, 1972, and endorsed by the Fifty-eighth

Annual Meeting as Association policy.

1. General Principles

The purpose of this Statement is to define the role of thefaculty in decisions as to the allocation of financial re-sources according to the principle of shared authority asset forth in the 1966 Statement on Government of Col-leges and Universities,1 and to offer some principles andderivative guidelines for faculty participation in this area.On the subject of budgeting in general, it is asserted inthe 1966 Statement on Government:

The allocation of resources among competing demandsis central in the formal responsibility of the governingboard, in the administrative authority of the president, andin the educational function of the faculty. Each componentshould therefore have a voice in the determination of short-and long-range priorities, and each should receive appro-priate analyses of past budgetary experience. reports oncurrent budgets and expenditures, and short- and long-range budgetary projections. The function of each compo-nent in budgetary matters should be understood by all; theallocation of authority will determine the flow of informa-tion and the scope of participation in decisions.

Essentially two requirements are set forth in this pas-sage:*

A. Clearly understood channels of communicationand the accessibility of important information to thosegroups which have a legitimate interest in it.

B. Participation by each group (governing board,president, and faculty) 2 appropriate to the particular ex-pertise of each. Thus the governing board is expected tohusband the endowment and obtain capital and operatingfunds; the president is expected to maintain existing insti-tutional resources and create new ones; the faculty is ex-pected to establish faculty salary policies and, in its

Jointly formulated by the American Council on Education.the Association of Governing Boards of Universities andColleges, and the American Association of University Pro-fessors.

2 The participation of students in budgetary decisions affect-ing student programs and student life is taken for granted inthis document, but no attempt is made to define the nature ofthat participation here.

40

primary responsibility for the educational function of theinstitution, to participate also in broader budgetary mat-ters primarily as these impinge on that function. All threegroups, the Statement on Government makes clear, should

participate in long-range planning.

II. Faculty Participation in Budgeting

The faculty should participate both in the preparationof the total institutional budget, and (within the frame-work of the total budget) in decisions relevant to thefurther apportioning of its specific fiscal divisions (sala-ries, academic programs, tuition, physical plants andgrounds, etc.). The soundness of resulting decisionsshould be enhanced if an elected representative committeeof the faculty participates in deciding on the overallallocation of institutional resources and the proportion to1* devoted directly to the academic program. This com-mittee should be given access to all information that itrequires to perform its task effectively, and it should havethe opportunity to confer periodically with representativesof the administration and governing board. Such an in-stitution-level body, representative of the entire faculty,can play an important part in mediating the financialneeds and the demands of different groups within thefaculty and can be of significant assistance to the adminis-tration in resolving impasses which may arise when a largevariety of demands are made on necessarily limited re-sources. Such a body will also be of critical importancein representing faculty interests and interpreting the needsof the faculty to the governing board and president. Thepresence of faculty members on the governing board

itself may, particularly in smaller institutions, constitutean approach that would serve somewhat the same purpose,but does not obviate the need for an all-faculty bodywhich may wish to formulate its recommendations inde-pendent of other groups. In addition, at public institutionsthere are legitimate ways and means for the faculty to playa role in the submission and support of budgetary requests

to the appropriate agency of government.

Budgetary decisions directly affecting those areas forwhich, according to the Statement on Government, thefaculty has primary responsibilitycurriculum, subjectmatter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status,and those aspects of student life which relate to the edu-cational processshould be made in concert with thefaculty. Certain kinds of expenditures related to the aca-demic program. such as the allocation of funds for a par-ticular aspect of library development, student projectsunder faculty sponsorship, or departmental equipment.will require that the decision-making process be suffi-ciently decentralized to permit autonomy to the variousunits of the faculty (departments. divisions, schools,colleges, special programs) in deciding upon the use oftheir allocations within the broader limits set by thegoverning board, president, and agencies representative ofthe entire faculty. In other areas, such as faculty researchprograms, or the total library and-laboratory budget, rec-ommendations as to the desirable funding levels for theensuing fiscal period and decisions on the allocation ofuniversity funds within the current budget levels shouldbe made by the university-level, all-faculty committee aswell as by the faculty agencies directly concerned.' Thequestion of faculty salaries, as an aspect of faculty status,is treated separately below.

Circumstances of financial exigency obviously posespecial problems. At institutions experiencing majorthreats to their continued financial support, the facultyshould be informed as early and specifically as possible ofsignificant impending financial difficulties. The facultywith substantial representation from its nontenured aswell as its tenured members, since it is the former whoare likely to bear the brunt of any reductionshouldparticipate at the department, college or professionalschool, and institution-wide levels, in key decisions as tothe future of the institution and of specific academicprograms within the institution. The faculty. employingaccepted standards of due process, should assume primaryresponsibility for determining the status of individualfaculty members.4 The question of possible reductions insalaries and fringe benefits is discussed in Section III be-low. The faculty should play a fundamental role in anydecision which would change the basic character andpurpose of the institution, including transformation ofthe institution, affiliation of part of the existing operation

5 For obvious reasons, the focus here is on fundings fromthe resources of the institution, and not from external agenciessuch as private contractors or the federal government. Evenin these cases, however, it may be possible in certain circum-stances for the faculty to play a part in deciding further onthe allocation of a particular grant to various purposes relatedto the project within the institution. There should be carefulfaculty and administrative scrutiny as to the methods by whichthese funds are to be employed under the particular contract.

4 On the question of due process and appropriate terminalsettlements for individual faculty members (on tenure or priorto the expiration of a term appointment) whose positions arebeing abolished, see the 1968 Recommended InstitutionalRegulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Regulation4(c).

with another institution, or merger, with the resultingabandonment or curtailment of duplicate programs.

Before any decisions on curtailment become final, thosewhose work stands to be adversely affected should havefull opportunity to be heard. In the event of a merger,the faculties from the two institutions should participatejointly in negotiations affecting faculty status and theacademic programs at both institutions. To the extent thatmajor budgetary considerations are involved in these de-cisions, the faculty should be given full and timely accessto the financial information necessary to the making ofan informed choice. In making decisions on whetherteaching and research programs are to be curtailed, finan-cial considerations should not be allowed to obscure thefact that instruction and research constitute the essentialreason for the existence of the university. Among thevarious considerations, difficult and often competing, thathave to be taken into account in deciding upon particularreductions, the retention of a viable academic programnecessarily should come first. Particular reductions shouldfollow considered advice from the concerned departments,or other units of academic concentration, on the short-term and long-term viability of reduced programs.

III. Faculty Participation in Decisions Relating toSalary Policies and Proceduems

The Statement on Government asserts that "the facultyshould actively participate in the determination of policiesand procedures governing salary increases." Salaries, ofcourse, are part of the total budgetary picture; and, asindicated above, the faculty should participate in the de-cision as to the proportion of the budget to be devoted tothat purpose. However, there is also the question of therole of the faculty as a body in the determination ofindividual faculty salaries.

A. The Need for Clear and Open Policy. Manyimagined grievances as to salary could be alleviated, andthe development of a system of accountability to reducethe number of real grievances could be facilitated, if boththe criteria for salary raises and the recommendatory pro-cedure itself were ( I ) designed by a representative groupof the faculty in concert with the administration, and(2) open and clearly understood. Such accountability isnot participation per se, but it provides the basis for asituation in which such participation can be more fruitful.

Once the procedures are established, the person orgroup who submits the initial salary recommendation (usu-ally the department chairman, singly or in conjunction withan elected executive committee of the department) shouldbe informed of its status at each further stage of thesalary-determination process. As the 1966 Statementpoints out, the chief competence for the judgment of acolleague rests in the department. school, or program(whichever is the smallest applicable unit of faculty

This section does not take into account those situations inwhich salaries are determined upon according to a step systemand/or a standard salary is negotiated for each rank. Thesalary policy and, in effect, individual salaries are public in-formation under such systems.

41

government within the institution), and in most cases thesalary recommendation presumably derives from thatjudgment. The recommending officer should have theopportunity to defend that recommendation at a laterstage in the event of a serious challenge to it.

B. Levels of Decision-Making. Not all institutionsprovide for an initial salary recommendation by the de-partmental chairman or his equivalent; the Association re-gards it as desirable, for the reasons already mentioned,that the recommendation normally originate at the de-partmental level. Further review is normally conductedby the appropriate administrative officers; they should,when they have occasion to question or inquire furtherregarding the departmental recommendation, solicit in-formed faculty advice by meeting with the departmentalhead or chairman and, if feasible, the elected body ofthe faculty. It is also desirably that a mechanism exist forreview of a salary recommendation, or of a final salarydecision, by a representative elected committee of thefaculty above the departmental level in cases involving acomplaint." Such a committee should have access toinformation on faculty salary levels. Another facultycommittee, likewise at a broader level than that of thedepartment, may be charged with the review of routinerecommendations.

Of the role of the governing board in college and uni-versity government, the Statement on Government says:"The governing board of an institution of higher educa-tion, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the

"See the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Aca-demic Freedom and Tenure, Regulation 15, "Grievance Proce-dures."

42

conduct of administration to the administrative officers,the president and the deans, and the conduct of teachingand research to the faculty. The board should undertakeappropriate self-limitation." The Statement adds that "inthe broadest sense of the term" the board "should payattention to personnel policy." The thrust of these re-marks is that it is inadvisable for a governing board tomake decisions on individual salaries, except those of thechief administrative officers of the institution. Not onlydo such decisions take time which should be devoted tothe board's functions of overview and long-range plan-ning, but such decisions also are in most cases beyondthe competence of the board.

When financial exigency leads to a reduction in theoverall salary budget for teaching and research, thegoverning board, while assuming final responsibility forsetting the limits imposed by the resources available tothe institution, should delegate to the faculty and adminis-tration concurrently any further review of the implicationof the situation for individual salaries, and the facultyshould be given the opportunity to minimize the hardshipto its individual members by careful examination of what-ever alternatives to termination of services are feasible.

C. Fringe Benefits. The faculty should participate inthe selection of fringe benefit programs and in the periodicreview of those programs. It should be recognized that ofthese so-called fringe benefits, at least those included inCommittee Z's definition of total compensation have thesame standing as direct faculty salaries and are separatedfor tax purposes. They should be considered and dealtwith in the same manner as direct payment of facultysalary.

On Institutional ProblemsResulting from Financial Exigency:

Some Operating Guidelines

The guidelines which follow reflect Association policy as set forth in the Rec-ommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, The Roleof the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters, and other policy documents. Theywere formulated by the Association's staff, in consultation with the Joint Committeeon Financial Exigency, Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, andCommittee T on College and University Government. They were first issued in1971, and reissued in slightly revised form in 1972.

1. There should be early, careful, and meaningful facultyinvolvement in decisions relating to the reduction of in-structional and research programs. In making such deci-sions, financial considerations should not be allowed toobscure the fact that instruction and research constitutethe essential reason for the existence of the university.

2. Given a decision to reduce the overall academic pro-gram, it should then become the primary responsibility ofthe faculty to determine where within the program reduc-tions should be made. Before any such determination be-comes final, those whose life's work stands to be adverselyaffected should have the right to be heard.

3. Among the various considerations, difficult and oftencompeting, that have to be taken into account in decidingupon particular reductions, the retention of a viable aca-demic program should necessarily come first. Particularreductions should follow considered advice from the con-cerned departments, or other units of academic concentra-tion, on the short-term and long-term viability of reducedprograms.

4. As particular reductions are considered, rights underacademic tenure should be protected. The service of atenured professor should not be terminated in favor of re-taining someone without tenure who may at a particularmoment seem to be more productive. Tenured facultymembers should be given every opportunity, in accord-ance with Regulation 4(c) of the Association's Recom-mended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom

and Tenure,' to readapt within a department or elsewherewithin the institution; institutional resources should bemade available for assistance in read aptation.

S. In some cases, an arrangement for the early retire-

'Recommended Institutional Regulations 4(c):Where termination of an appointment with continuous tenure,or of a nontenured appointment before the end of the specifiedterm, is based upon bona fide financial exigency or discontinu-ance of a program or department of instruction, Regulation 5[dismissal proceedings] will not apply, but faculty membersshall be able to have the issues reviewed by the faculty, or byan appropriate faculty committee (such as the faculty's griev-ance committee), with ultimate review of all controvertedissues by the governing board. In every case of financialexigency or discontinuance of a program or department of in-struction, the faculty member concerned will be given notice orseverance salary not less than as prescribed in Regulation 8 [atleast a year of notice, for faculty members on continuing ap-pointment]. Before terminating an appointment because of theabandonment of a program or department of instruction, theinstitution will make every effort to place affected faculty mem-bers in other suitable positions. If an appointment is terminatedbefore the end of the period of appointment, because of financialexigency, or because of the discontinuance of a program of in-struction, the released faculty member's place will not be filledby a replacement within a period of two years, unless the re-leased faculty member has been offered reappointment and areasonable time within which to accept or decline it.

See "1972 Recommended Institutional Regulations on AcademicFreedom and Tenure," AAUP Bulletin, Winter, I, '2, pp.428-433.

43

ment of a tenured faculty member, by investing appropriateadditional institutional funds into the individual's retire-ment income (and ordinarily- feasible only when socialsecurity benefits begin), may prove to be desirable if thefaculty member is himself agreeable to it.

6. In those cases where there is no realistic choice otherthan to terminate the services of a tenured faculty member,the granting of at least a year of notice should be affordedhigh financial priority.

7. The granting of adequate notice to nontenured facultyshould also be afforded high financial priority. The non-reappointment of nontenured faculty, when dictated byfinancial exigency, should be a consideration independentof the procedural standard outlined in the RecommendedInstitutional Regulations 4(c), with one exception: whenthe need to make reductions has demonstrably emergedafter the appropriate date by which notice should be given,financial compensation to the degree of lateness of noticeshould be awarded when reappointment is not feasible.

8. A change from full-time to part-time service, ongrounds of financial exigency, may occasionally be a fea-ture of an acceptable settlement, but in and of itself such achange should not be regarded as an alternative to the pro-tections set forth in the Recommended Institutional Regu-lations 4(c) or as a substitute for adequate notice.

9. When one institution merges with another, the negoti-ations leading to merger should include every effort to rec-ognize the tenure of all faculty members involved. When afaculty member who has held tenure can be offered only aterm appointment following a merger, he should have thealternative of resigning and receiving at least a year ofseverance salary.

10. When financial exigency is so dire as to warrantcessation of operation, the institution's highest obligationin settling its affairs should be to assist those engaged in theacademic process so that, with minimal injury, they cancontinue their work elsewhere.

Faculty Participation in the Selectionand Retention of Administrators:

A Report of Committee T

The following report was prepared by the Association's Committee T on Col-lege and University Government. At its meeting in March, 1972, the Committeevoted to publish the report in the Bulletin, with an invitation for comments fromAssociation members, chapters, and conferences, and from other interested persons.

Introduction

The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges andUniversities rests largely upon the conviction that inter-dependence, communication, and joint action among theconstituents of a college or university enhance the insti-tution's ability to solve educational problems. As onefacet of this interdependence, the Statement asserts theexpectation that faculty members will have a significantrole in the selection of academic administrators, includingthe president, academic deans, department heads, andchairmen.' As a corollary, it is equally important thatfaculty members contribute significantly to judgments anddecisions regarding the retention or nonretention of theadministrators whom they have helped select.

' According to the Statement ("Statement on Governmentof Colleges and Universities," AAUP Bulktin, Winter, 1966,pp. 375-9):

"Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken whenan institution chooses a new president. The selection of achief administrative officer should follow upon cooperativesearch by the governing board and the faculty, taking intoconsideration the opinions of others who are appropriatelyinterested. The president should be equally qualified to serveboth as the executive officer of the governing board and asthe chief- academic officer of the institution and the faculty.His, dual role requires that he be able to interpret to boardand faculty the educational views and concepts of institu-tionat government of the other. He should have the confi-dence of the board and the faculty.

"The selection of academic deans and other chief academicofficers should be the responsibility of the president with theadvice of and in consultation with the appropriate faculty."(p. 377)

"The chairman or head of a department, who serves as thechief representative of his department within an institution,should be selected either by departmental election or by ap-

The Selection of Administrators

The Statement emphasizes the primary role of facultyand board in the search for a president. The search maybe initiated either by separate committees of the facultyand board or by a joint committee of the faculty andboard or of faculty, board, students, and others; andseparate committees may subsequently be joined. In ajoint committee, the numbers from each constituencyshould reflect both the primacy of faculty concern andthe range of other groups, including students, that have alegitimate claim to some involvement. Each major groupshould elect its own members to serve on the committee,and the rules governing the search should be arrived atjointly. A joint committee should determine the size ofthe majority which will be controlling in making an ap-pointment. When separate committees are used, theboard, with whom the legal power of appointment rests,should either select a name from among those submittedby the faculty committee or should agree that no personwill be chosen over the objections of the faculty com-mittee.

The Statement on Government indicates that thefaculty role is not as fully coordinate with the selectionof academic deans and other administrative officers as itis with respect to the selection of a president. Some

pointment following consultation with members of the de-partment and of related departments; appointments shouldnormally be in conformity with department members' judg-ment. The chairman or department head should not havetenure in his office; his tenure as a faculty member is a matterof separate right. He should serve for a stated term butwithout prejudice to re-election or to reappointment by pro-cedures which involve appropriate faculty consultation." (p.378).

45

academic administrators whose role is almost entirely thatof advisor to the president are less directly accountable tothe faculty than is the president himself, and they must,therefore, be congenial or at least acceptable to him.Other academic administrators, such as the academicdean, or the dean of a college or other academic sub-division, are by the nature of their duties more directly de-pendent on faculty support. In such instances, a primaryfaculty role in the search is highly desirable, and maybe particularly critical in institutions where the dean playsa directly influential role vis-a-vis the faculty. Even here,however, the president, after fully weighing the views ofthe, faculty, must make the final choice. Nonetheless,sound academic practice dictates that he not choose aperson over the reasoned opposition of the faculty.

The Retention of Administrators

The decision to retain or, more significantly, rot toretain an administrator should be subject to the samedeliberative process and made by the same groups re-sponsible for his selection. Whereas the selection of anadministrator is essentially an exercise in foresight, adecision respecting his retention affords the opportunityfor relevant academic groups to assess, on the basis ofexperience, the confidence in which the administrator isheld.

The faculty role in determining the retention of aca-demic deans and others at this administrative level shouldbe co-extensive with the faculty role in their selection.Just as sound academic practice suggests that the presi-dent not choose an administrator seriously objectionable

46

to the faculty, sound practice also dictates that he neitherretain the administrator found wanting by faculty stand-ards, nor that he arbitrarily dismiss an administrator whomeets the accountability standards of the academic com-munity. In either case his final judgment should bemade subject to consultation with the administrator'srelevant constituency and preferably by an institutional-ized and jointly determined procedure.

With respect to the chief administrative officer, the1966 Statement specifies that the "leadership role" of thepresident "is supported by delegated authority from theboard and faculty." His retention of authority, therefore,like his acquisition of it, should be subject to the con-fidence in which he is held by faculty and board. Ratherthan assuming that he has acquired de facto tenure inhis position as president, some system should be soughtwhich would reflect from time to time the level of con-fidence he enjoys.

Such a system miliht take the form of a term appoint-ment, near the end of which the president's term couldbe reviewed by formal or informal agreement, and hecould be reappointed for another term or not be reap-pointed. Alternatively, at the request of either the boardor the faculty, a joint review of his status might be made.

In any event, principal administrative officers shouldnot be dismissed for any reason without significant in-volvement of the faculty of an institution. They shouldbe protected from arbitrary removal by evolving proce-dures through joint effort, by which both their rights andthe interests of various constituencies are adequately safe-guarded.

Joint Statement on Faculty Statusof College and University Librarians

The following statement has been drafted by the Joint Committee on College LibraryProblems, a national committee representing the Association of College and RecearchLibraries, the Association of American Colleges, and the American Association of Uni-versity Professors. The statement has been officially endorsed by the Board and AnnualMeeting of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Publication of the state-ment was authorized by AAUP's Council at its meeting in October, 1972.

As the primary means through which students and facultygain access to the storehouse of organized knowledge, thecollege and university library performs a unique and in-dispensable function in the educational process. Thisfunction will grow in importance as students assumegreater responsibility for their own intellectual and socialdevelopment. Indeed, all members of the academic com-munity are likely to become increasingly dependent onskilled professional guidance in the acquisition and useof library resources as the forms and numbers of theseresources multiply, scholarly materials appear in morelanguages, bibliographical systems become more compli-cated, and library technology grows increasingly sophis-ticated. The librarian who provides such guidance playsa major role in the learning process.

The character and quality of an institution of higherlearning are shaped in large measure by the nature of itslibrary holdings and the ease and imagination with whichthose resources are made accessible to members of theacademic community. Consequently, all members of thefaculty should take an active interest in the operation anddevelopment of the library. Because the scope and char-acter of library resources should be taken into account insuch important academic decisions as curricular planningand faculty appointments, librarians should have a voicein the development of the institution's educational policy.

Librarians perform a teaching and research role inas-much as they instruct students formally and informallyand advise and assist faculty in their scholarly pursuits.Librarians are also themselves involved in the researchfunction; many conduct research in their own professionalinterests and in the discharge of their duties.

Where the role of college and university librarians, asdescribed in the preceding paragraphs, requires them tofunction essentially as part of the faculty, this functionalidentity should be recognized by granting of faculty status.Neither administrative responsibilities nor professional

degrees, titles, or skills, per se, qualify members of theacademic community for faculty status. The function ofthe librarian as participant in the processes of teachingand research is the essential criterion of faculty status.

College and university librarians share the professionalconcerns of faculty members. Academic freedom, forexample, is indispensable to librarians, because they aretrustees of knowledge with the responsibility of insuringthe availability of information and ideas, no matter howcontroversial, so that teachers may freely teach and stu-dents may freely learn. Moreover, as members of theacademic community, librarians should have latitude inthe exercise of their professional judgment within thelibrary, a share in shaping policy within the institution,and adequate opportunities for professional developmentand appropriate reward.

Faculty status entails for librarians the same rights andresponsibilities as for other members of the faculty. Theyshould have corresponding entitlement to rank, promo-tion, tenure, compensation, leaves, and research funds,and the protection of academic due process. They mustgo through the same process of evaluation and meet thesame standards as other faculty members.'

On some campuses, adequate procedures for extendingfaculty status to librarians have already been worked out.These procedures vary from campus to campus becausee institutional differences. In the development of suchprocedures, it is essential that the general faculty or itsdelegated agent determine the specific steps by which anyprofessional position is to be accorded faculty rank andstatus. In any case, academic positions which are to beaccorded faculty rank and status should be approved by

1 Cf. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure; 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards InFaculty Dismissal Proceedings; 1972 Statement on Leaves ofAbsence.

47

the senate or the faculty-at-large before submission to thepresident and to the governing board for approval.

With respect to library governance, it is to be presumedthat the governing board, the administrative officers, thelibrary faculty, and representatives of the general facultywill share in the determination of library policies thataffect the general interests of the institution and its edu-cational program. In matters of internal governance, the

48

library will operate like other academic units with respectto decisions relating to appointments, promotions, tenure,and conditions of service?

2 Cf. 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Uni-versities, formulated by the American Council on Education,American Association of University Professors, and Asso-ciation of Governing Boards of Universities and Collegas.

Student Participationin College and University Government:

A Report of Committee T

The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities' refers tostudents as "an institutional componen coordinate in importance with trustees,administrators, and faculty," notes that "students do not in fact presently have asignificant voice in the government of colleges and universities," and expresses thehope that the educational community will "turn its attention to an important need."

The repos t which appears below was prepared by Committee Ton College andUniversity Government. The Committee and the Association's Council in 1970approved the :urrent text for publication as a tentative approach to an area whichrequires further study and consultation.

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to define the principlesand identify several appropriate areas of student partici-pation in the government of colleges and universities.The report itself is based on the premise that studentsas members of the academic community, in addition totheir rigl 's as set forth in the Joint Statement on Rightsand Freedoms of Students, have a distinctive ole which,in respects stated below, qualifies them to share in theexercise of responsible authority on campus; the exerciseof that authority is part of their education. Furthermore,there"is a greater likelihood of responsible student involve-ment when students participate in institutional decisions

'Jointly formulated by the American Association of Univer-sity Professors, the American Council on Education, and theAssociation of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.The AAUP Council adopted the Statement in 1966; and theFifty-third Annual Meeting in April. 1967; the ACE and AGBhave commended it to their member ,nstAtions and boards.

Other statements deal with tl,e protections due the indi-vidual student or faculty member: the 1940 Statement-of Principleson Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Pro-cedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings (the basicpolicy statements, formulated and adopted by the AmericanAssociation of University Professors and the Association of Amer-ican Colleges, relating to academic freedom, tenure, and academicdue process); the 1967 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedomsof Students, approved by the American Association of UniversityProfessors; U.S. National Student Association, Association ofAmerican Colleges. National Association of Student PersonnelAdministrators, and National Association of Women Deans andCounselors; and the 1971 Procedural Standards in the Renewal orNonrenewal of Faculty Appointments.

through orderly processes and to tie degree appropriatein particular circumstances.

Most importantly, joint effort among all groups in theinstitutionstudents, faculty, administration, and gov-erning boardis a prerequisite of sound academic gov-ernment. A further prerequisite is that all must seethemselves as custodians of academic freedom. Like anyother group . Iden. should have a voice, sometimes thepredominan' rice, in decisions which affect them, andtheir opinions should be regularly solicited even in thoseareas in which they hold a secondary interest. Butacademic government depends on more than the accom-"sdation of diverse interests. Joint effort, to be effec-, A must be rooted in the concept of shared authority."; he exercise of shared authority ir, college and universitygovernment, like the protection of academic f.eedom,requires tolerance, respect, and a sense of communitywhich arises from participation in a common enterprise.The exact mode and extent of student participationdepend on conditions which A,ary from one institutionto another; but whatever the area of participation or theform it assumes, the need for cooperation among all groupsis inescapable.

Student Participation in Academic Affairs_

The rights of students to free inquir' and expression inthe classroom and in conference is asserted in the JointStatement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. Studentsalso have a stake in the quality of their formal education,which must take into account their needs and desires. The

49

categories which follow are those in which student involvement is commonly found; they are not intended to exclude

other areas of involvement, which might be developed

where there is sufficient student interest. It is for theparticular institution to determine the mode and extentof student involvement and the criteria of eligibility for

that involvement.

A. Admissions

Students have a stake in the size, composition, 'andquality of the student body, and should have their views

on admissions heard along with those of faculty and ad-ministration. Similarly, graduate students should be able

to participate constructively in decisions regarding theadmissions policy of their respective departments.

B. Academic ProgramsStudents should be consulted in decisions regarding the

development of already - existing programs and the estab-

lishment of new programs. As members of the academic

community they should have the opportunity for similarinvolvement with respect to course load and degree 'e-quirements. For example, they may submit reports to theadministration or the appropriate faculty or departmentalcommittees through their own curriculum committees, or

through membership in joint curriculum committees.

When provision is made for an experimental student-operated curriculum, students should have primary re-sponsibility for decision-making.2 When provision is madefor student participation in curricular decisions, criteria

for eligibility should be des:aed jointly by faculty and

students.

C. Academic Courses and Staff

Students should have the opportunity, through estab-lished institutional mechanisms, to assess the value of acourse to them, and to make suggestions as to its direction.Students should also be able to express their views on the

form and conduct of a class which they have taken, for

example through an evaluative questionnaire prepared by

joint faculty-student effort, and their opinions should beweighed in faculty decisions affecting faculty status. Thefaculty member, of course, should be duly protected from

capricious and uninformed judgment by students, just ashe should be from such judgment by anyone else.

D. Academic Evaluation

The method by which students are evaluated is properly

of concern to them. Accordingly, students should be heard

with respect to the grading system at an institution. Theyshould also have clearly established means of recourseagainst prejudiced or capricious grading.

E. Academic Environment

'The scheduling of courses, class size, distribution of night

and day classes, calendar arrangements, library policy and

a By "primary responsibility" is meant the ability to takeaction which has the force of legislation and can be Gvcr-ruled only in rare instances and for compelling reasons statedin Wail.

50

development, and similar academic arrangements and

senices affect the ability of students to do academic work.

They should share in the formation of policies on these

matters.

Student Participation in Other Institutional Affairs

A. Extracurricular Activities

Students should have primary responsibility for ac-

tivities sponsored by the student body. Other appropriate

persons and groups should be able to discuss such activities

and be consulted with respect to them. Among these

activities are cultural programs sponsored by the student

body, student political affairs, and student publications;

me intellectual vitality and academic freedom of the stu-

dent body will be insured in such activities by adequate'-epresentation of student taste and opinion.

B. Student Regulations

Studen,s should have primary responsibility for theformulation of clear and readily available regulationspertaining to their personal lives, subject only to such

restrictions as may be imposed by law.

C. Student DisciplineStudents should have the opportunity to participate in

establishing standards and procedures which govern stu-dent discipline, and take part also in the actual disci-

plinary process. Disciplinary proceedings should be inaccordance with the provisions of the Joint Statement onRights and Freedoms of Students.

D. Other Institutional Concerns

Students have a right to be heard, through formal means,on questions involving an institution's budget, its physicalresources, and its relationship with groups or agencies

external to the campus. Provisions should exist for thetransmission of student views on such matters to the

faculty, president, and governing board.

Implementation

The implementation of the above principles is properly

subject to innumerable local variations. On studentsthemselves falls the difficult task of assuring that thediversity of student interests and opinions is adequatelyrepresented. All individuals and groups at an institution

should support the development of appropriate forms of

student participation by assuring that organizations pur-porting to represent student interests possess a mandate

from a clearly defined electorate, are accountable to thatelectorate, and function through orderly procedures agreed

upon through joint action by students and the othermembers of the academic community. Student representa-tives, iike other representatives in any area of university

government, should be free to vote according to their bestjudgment. At all times, students should enjoy protectionfrom the exercise of tyranny by a majority or a minority,

the right to petition for and be wanted an open hearing

on a question of student rights or student participation,and the right of accessboth to information on institu-tional government and to grievance procedures for com-plaints relating to their life in and out of the classroom.

Limits on participation by students may be dictated insome instances, such as those in which a violation of lawor of confidentiality might result. Where any limitationexists, the student should have the right to challenge it ina manner consistent with legality and the principles ofacademic freedom. All forms of participation in the gov-ernment of the institution should be so devised as topreserve the academic freedom to which all groups areequally entitled.

Student involvement in institutional government mayinclude membershipvoting and nonvotingon depart-mental committees, on college or division councils andcommittees, or on the university senate or any otherprincipal legislative body and its committees. Where theydo not hold membership on these bodies, students shouldbe able to place matters for action on their agendas andto receive a prompt report on the disposition of thosematters. Student opinion should also be consulted, wherefeasible, in the selection of presidents, chief academic andnonacademic administrative officers including the dean of

students, and faculty. Sometimes separate and parallelstudent structures are desired in place of or in addition tomixed bodies. Where this is the case, care should be takento guarantee that the student bodies not function merelyas subordinate entities subject to arbitrary veto by facultyor administrative groups, and that all groups enjoy mean-ingful channels of appeal. The procedure for election orappointment of students to duly constituted instrumentsof student participation should be developed in consultation with all directly concerned persons and groups. Itshould be made available as information to the entirecampus community, and be reviewed periodically.

Meaningful participation in college and universitygovernment is not guaranteed merely by the presence ofstudents on committees; in some cases, indeed, this mayinhibit free student expression. Such expression may wellplay an important role in institutional affairs through thecampus newspaper, published evaluations of courses, ordiscussion programs on the state of the institution whichbring different constituencies together. In any case, theinformal exchange of opinion, like the formal participa-tion in the processes of institutional government, shouldinvolve students, faculty, administration, and governingboard in a continuing joint effort.

Statement on Collective Bargaining

The statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee N andapproved for publication by the Council in October, 1972. It supersedes the Statement

of Policy on Representation of Economic and Professional Interests, approved by the

Council in 1968 and amended in 1969.

Collective bargaining, in offering a rational and equitablemeans of distributing resources and of providing recoursefor an aggrieved individual, can buttress and complementthe sound principles and practices of higher educationwhich the American Association of University Professorshas long supported. Where appropriate, therefore, theAssociation will pursue collective bargaining as a majoradditional way of realizing its goals in higher education,and it will provide assistance on a selective basis to inter-ested local chapters.'

As large segments of the American faculty communitymanifest an interest in collective bargaining, there is apresFing need to develop a specialized model of collectivebargaining in keeping with the standards of higher edu-cation. From its vantage point as the paramount nationalorganization in formulating and implementing the prin-ciples that govern relationships of academic life, the Asso-ciation has the unique potential, indeed the responsibility,to achieve through its chapters a mode of collective bar-gaining consistent with the best features of higher edu-cation. To leave the shaping of collective bargaining toorganizations lacking the established dedication to prin-ciples developed by the Association and widely acceptedby the academic community endangers those principles.To the extent that the Association is influential in theshaping of collective bargaining, tt e principles of academicfreedom and tenure and the primary responsibility of afaculty for determining academic policy will be secured.

The longstanding programs of the Association aremeans to achieve a number of basic ends at colleges anduniversities: the enhancement of academic freedom andtenure; of due process; of sound academic government.Collective bargaining, properly used, is essentially anothermeans to achieve these ends, and at the same time-tostrengthen the influence of the faculty in the distributionof an institution's economic resources. The implementa-tion of Association-supported principles, reliant upon pro-

I Operating procedures for assisting chapters interested incollective bargaining are available from the Association'sWashington Office.

52

fessional tradidons and upon moral suasion, can be effec-tively supplemented by a collective bargaining agreementand given the force of law.

Policy for a Chapter WhichAchieves Representative Status

A. When a chapter of the Association attains the statusof representative of the faculty, it will seek to:

1. Protect and promote the economic and professionalinterests of the faculty as a whole in accordancewith the established principles of the Association.

2. Establish within the institution democratic struc-tures which provide full participation by all facultymembers in accordance with the Statement onGovernment of Colleges and Universities.

3. Obtain explicit guarantees of academic freedom andtenure in accordance with the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings, the 1971 Statement on Pro-cedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal ofFaculty Appointment:, and other policy statementsof the Association.

4. Create an orderly and clearly defined procedurewithin the ft,culty governmental structure forprompt consideration of problems and grievancesof faculty members, to which procedure anyaffected individual or group shall have full access.

B. In any agency shop or compulsOry dues check-offarrangement, a chapter or other Association agencyshould incorporate provisions designed to accommodateaffirmatively asserted conscientious objection to such anarrangement with any representative.

C. It is the policy of the Association (with whichchapters should comply whether or not they are acting ina representative capacity) to call or support a facultystrike or other work stoppage only in extraordinary situ-ations which so flagrantly violate academic freedom or theprinciples of academic government, or which are so re-sistant to rational methods of discussion, persuasion, and

conciliation, that faculty members ray feel impelled toexpress their condemnation by withholding their services,either individually or in concert with others. It should beassumed that faculty members will exercise their right tostrike only if they believe that another component of du.

institution (or a controlling agency of government, suchas a legislature or governor) is inflexibly bent on a coursewhich undermines an essential element of the educationalprocess. (See the Association's provisional Statement onFaculty Participation in Strikes.)

53

Faculty Participation in Strikes

The following report of the Special Joint Committee on Representation,Bargaining, and Aan(lions, including the pm/nosed Alatement nn tioultvpatron in Strikes, was approved for publication by the Couivil of the AmericanAmor:atom of l'inversitv Professors in April,I968.

On December 15, 1965, the administration of St. John'sUniversity (New York) summarily suspended from teach-ing 22 members of the faculty and notified them and 11others that they would be dismissed at the end of theirthen current contracts. This unprecedented event, pre-ceded by a period of worsening relations between theadministration and parts of the faculty, was followed, onJanuary 3, 1966, by what was probably the first majorfaculty strike against a university administration in theUnited States. The strike did not succeed, in that theuniversity continued to operate, and the dismissed teacherswere not reinstated.1

Less than a year and a half later, the announcementat Catholic University (Washington, D. that a facultymember would not be retained (after he had been recom-mended for promotion) led to a total and almost spon-taneous refusal by students to attend classes and by thefaculty to meet their classes. After four days, the bishopswho composed the governing board of Catholic Univer-sity rescinded the dismissal. Not long after, an actingkector was appointed, who is reported to have said that,had he been a member of the faculty at the time, hewould have joined in the strike (if what happened couldproperly be called a strike)?

In the same two years; 1966-67, there were, in a number

I AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1968, pp. 12-19; and Summer, 1966,p. 124.

2 New York Times, April 21, 1987; and October 10, 1987.

54

of institutions, student-led demonstrations which includedmass absences from classes. Some faculty members co-operated in some of these demonstrations by refusing tomeet their classes. There was a strike in a large urbaninstitution, the Chicago City College, in which the grounds,unlike those in the St. John's and Catholic Universityepisodes, were primarily economic. The faculty thoughtthat they were underpaid and overworked; in addition,the Cook County College Teachers Union was seekingrecognition as the faculty's bargaining agent. It achievedrecognition, some gain in faculty salaries, and a reductionin faculty workload.

Along with these dramatic and unsettling events, thelast five years have witnessed a rise of interest in collec-tive representation and bargaining in public institutionsof higher education, stimulated by the passage of legis-lation in major states designated to legitimate collectivebargaining by public employees.3 Where the AmericanFederation of Teachers has been active in organizing fac-ulties, it has had no hesitation in avowing its willingnessto resort to a union's ultimate weapon in economic bar-gaining, the strike?

The response of one governing board, the Regents ofthe University of California, to a brief strike at Berkeley,chiefly of teaching assistants, was to threaten the possibility

'New York, Michigan, Rhode island.4 Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, April 23, 1966; New York Times,

August 25, 1988.

of dismissal of any university personnel who participatein any strike or otherwise fail to meet their assigned dutiesin an effort to disrupt the University administration,teaching, or research. . . ." 5

In view of these events and movements, it has becomeimportant if not imperative for the American Associationof University Professors to review its own position inrespect to the professional propriety of a concerted with-holding of faculty services. In blunter parlance, what isthe Association's position on faculty strikes?

The issues were first adumbrated at an Association con-ference on representation of economic interests convenedin December, 1964.6 They might have been left to leisurelydebate hac, it not been for the shocking dismissals at St.John's, and the subsequent strike call by the AmericanFederation of Teachers when efforts at mediation (includ-ing those of our Association) had failed.

The Association's leadership was then obliged to reactto the fact, not simply the theory, of a faculty strike.

The Executive Committee, on January 6, 1966, author-ized the General Secretary to release a statement whichmade the following points of general application (theyhave been numbered by this committee for conveniencein reference).

[Li The American Association of University Professors hasnever looked upon the strike as an appropriate mechanismfor resolving academic controversies or violations of aca-demic principles and standards. Regardless of an immediatesituation it is in the best long-run interests of the institu-tion and the academic community to use approaches andprocedures developed by that community to meet its ownobjectives and needs. Accordingly, the Association does notendorse a strike against an academic institution.

After promising a "thorough investigation" of the sum-:mary dismissals at St. John's, and support to faculty mem-bers improperly dismissed, the statement went on to say:

(2.) In their role as teachers, faculty members have aprimary responsibility to their students. Accordingly, if astrike is called, the individual faculty member must care-fully weigh this responsibility to his students in reachinghis decision whether or not to respect a picket line set upby his colleagues. In a continuing and flagrant situation, arefusal- by-individual faculty members to cross picket linesmaintained by their colleagues, when their refusal is basedupon personal dictates of conscience and their intimatefamiliarity with the facts, should not be considered a viola-tion of professional ethics.

[3.1 Faculty members must, of course, also honor the posi-tion of those of their colleagues who, on the basis of generalprofessional considerations and their obligations to theirstudents, continue to meet their classes.

[4.J In the same context the Association believes furtherthat it is not a violation of professional responsibility fora faculty member to refuse to teach the classes of a col-league who has been dismissed in violation of acceptedprinciples of academic freedom or tenure.

We call particular attention to the propositions wehave numbered 3 and 4, because we think there can be

5 University of California, university Bulletin, May I, 1967.pp. 157.8.

g AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1985, pp. 374.7.

no question of their correctness. We also believe thatproposition number 2 is a correct statement of the con-flict of loyalties that an individual faculty member mayencounter, if a strike is called. It points the way to anethical resolution, motivated by an informed conscience.

As for the first proposition, its origin in the history of the.Association is clear enough but has never been formalized.But it doubtless represented dominant sentiment at thetime. It was soon reiterated, although in a different contextand perhaps for different reasons, when the Council, onMay I, 1966, adopted an interim policy on "the role ofAssociation chapters as exclusive bargaining representa-tives." lf, within the circumscribed conditions there setforth, a chapter should become an exclusive representativeof its faculty, the statement declared that "no strike orwork stoppage will be called or supported by the chapteror its officers." 7

Both statements, those of January 6 and May 1, werethe product of some urgency and of limited considera-tion. Many members of the Council were not sure thatthey represented the best that could be said on a trouble-some and potentially divisive topic. The Council ac-cordingly adopted a resolution proposed on behalf ofCommittee A, on April 30, 1967, calling on the Presidentto appoint a committee to "report to the Council on thesubject of the implications of the use by professors ofconcerted refusal to perform services as a sanction forobtaining various objectives, and to report on the appro-priateness of various kinds of administration responses tothe use of this sanction by professors." 8

The committee formed pursuant to this resolution 9had little experience with faculty strikes to draw upon,even taking into account the episodes mentioned at thebeginning of this report. The history and law of strikesin commerce and industry we think have limited applica-tion in view of the premises we hold about the specialstatus of our profession.

We have attempted to arrive at a principled position,which would also be a prudent one. We have come tobelieve that we should not adhere to the implication ofthe January 6, 1966, statement that a strike is never "anappropriate mechanism for resolving academic contro-versies or violations of academic principles and standards."But we are acutely aware that there are a variety ofunpredictable elements that would enter into, and ofinvolved consequences that would flow from, a decisionto support a faculty strike. We consequently put forwardin generalized and severely limited terms the su estionthat sometimes a faculty strike may be appropriate.almost because it becomes unavoidable.

The statement of policy that we propose to the Asso-ciation has at least the merit of brevity. We thereforeintroduce it at this point, with a modest commentaryfollowing.

7 AAUP Bulletin, Summer, 1966, p. 230.8 AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1967, p. 335.8 The Committee consisted of the President, the General

Secretary, and the Chairmen of Committees A, B, REI [nowNJ, T, and Z.

55

Statement on Faculty Participation in Strikes

The American Association of University Professors isdeeply committed to the proposition that faculty membersin higher education are officers of their colleges and uni-versities. They are not merely employees. They havedirect professional obligations to their students, theircolleagues, and their disciplines. Because of their profes-sional competence, they have primary responsibility forcentral educational decisions; they share in the selectionof presidents and deans; and their judgment should comefirst in the determination of membership in the faculty.Where these principles (which are more fully stated inthe 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Uni-versities) are not accepted in their entirety, the Asso-ciation will continue to press for their realization. Webelieve that these principles of shared authority andresponsibility render the strike inappropriate as a mecha-nism for the resolution of most conflicts within highereducation.

But it does not follow from these considerations ofself-restraint that professors should be under any legaldisability to withhold their services, except when such re-strictions are imposed equally on other citizens. Further-more, situations may arise affecting a college or universitywhich so flagrantly violate academic freedom- (of students

as well as of faculty) or the principles of academic gov-ernment, or which are so resistant to rational methodsof discussion, persuasion, and conciliation, that facultymembers may feel impelled to express their condemna-tion by withholding their services, either individually orin concert with others. It should be assumed that facultymembers will exercise their right to strike only if theybelieve that another component of the institution (or acontrolling agency of government, such as a legislature orgovernor) is inflexibly bent on a course which underminesan essential element of the educational process.

Participation in a strike does not by itself constitutegrounds for dismissal or for other sanctions against facultymembers. Moreover, if dismissal of a faculty member isproposed on this, as on any other ground encompassed bythe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure, the proceedings must satisfy the requirements ofthe 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings. The Association will continue toprotect the interests of members of the profession whoare singled out for punishment on grounds which areinadequate or unacceptable, or who are not offered allthe protection demanded by the requisites of due process.

The proposed statement rests on two attributes offaculty membership in higher education that have beenthoroughly expounded,n and that we consider axiomatic.One is that professors "share in the government of theirinstitutions." The other is that they have "direct pro-fessional obligations to their students, their colleagues,and their disciplines." From these "principles of sharedauthority_and responsibility," how do we derive the con-clusion that "the strike [is] inappropriate as a mechanismfor the resolution of most conflicts within higher edu-cation"?

First, a strike usually (but not always) is called againstan employer, in the hope of exerting pressure on him toprevent unwanted events, or to bring about desired ones.The opponent in a faculty strike will usually be theadministration or the governing board or both. Resort tothe strike as a regular mechanism for the resolution ofconflicts with administrations or governing boards imperilsthe faculty's just claim to partnership in the governmentof the institution, by implying acceptance of the status ofmere employees. Of course, for some purposes, faculty

10 AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1966, pp. 2904; and Winter,1966, pp. 375-9.

56

members are employees; they are paid salaries; they haveaccess to a variety of public benefits that favor employees..But the employee status should not be needlessly extended.Employees strike against employers; co-ordinate and inter-dependent members of a community do not usually strikeagainst each other.

Second, a strike is a witness of failure. Its occurrencemeans threlationship that should be one of mutualtrust lraiWiSme an adversary one. A strike, to be sure,will usually be the outcome rather than the cause of abreakdown of communications and confidence. But itcarries the risk of further hardening of-opposed-positions,and of creating deeper rifts. A third and related consid-eration disfavoring the Adke is that it constitutes a re-liance on concerted power by those who are preeminentlycharged with advancement and instruction in the uses ofreason. Finally, to the extent that a strike is perceived tobe in the personal interests of the faculty, it contradictsthe dedication of the faculty to the educational interestsof the students.

When this, and more, can be said in opposition tofaculty strikes, what supports our conclusion that in somecircumstances such an act may be justified? The answerdepends largely upon the circumstances, and therefore

cannot be fully developed in advance of sufficiently pro-vocative events.

The second paragraph of the proposed statement em-phasizes flagrant violations of academic freedom, or ofgood academic government, or of the integrity of someother essential element of higher education. It calls forthe pursuit to exhaustion of "rational methods of discus-sion, persuasion, and conciliation." But in the end, onemust contemplate situations where self-respect demandsan end to temporizing. No more than anyone else canprofessors be expected to go about their daily duties in anatmosphere poisoned by injustice and destructiveness.

It may be saidand this course was commended forthose who took it in the St. John's casethat the properresponse to an intolerable environment is to resign, effecetive at the end of the academic term or year. This hasthe marked advantage of not leaving one's studentsstranded. It is a courageous act which forcefully notifiesthe administration, and others, that the faculty memberfinds the situation so bad that he wishes to sever allconnections with the institution. But such a delayedresponse may permit an intolerable situation to becomeinsuperable. A strike is supposed to have a shock effect,and some shocks are salutary. Either cumulative griev-ances, or a precipitate act of tyranny, may be reversibleonly by a demonstration that galvanizes all componentsof the internal and external community. The faculty mayfind that it has valuable allies if with deliberate spontaneity it takes a bold stand.

The proposed statement, in a parenthesis that is farfrom incidental, also points out that the source of outragemay be a "controlling agency" outside a particular cam-pus. In a time when the autonomy of local faculty andadministration may be impaired by the creation of state-wide boards, and by the endemi_ intervention of gov-ernOrs and legislators, any one of these, if heedless ofacademic freedom or of spheres of professional compe-tence, may become the common enemy. The more remotesuch an external force is, the more insensitive it may beto the legitimate claims of a faculty. Thus a legislature.accustomed to direct political confrontations, may some-times be moved only if the faculty confronts it with adramatic defiance.

None of fhese observations offers specific guidance foraction or inaction. Our experience with actual cases isso slight that we feel unable to respond with any con-fidence to hypothetical ones. We should perhaps comment

.--Qn 2 fewrecurring situations. What about economicissues, when the faculty is thwarted in demands for morepay and less work? Do such rebuffs create an appropriateoccasion for strikes? We suggest not, when it is a matterof a little more or a little less. Circumstances can beimagined, of gross disparities, of a severe cut in salaryappropriations, of scandalous teaching loads, that mightprojwly be characterized as undermining the educationalprocess. But we emphatically reject the industrial patternwhich holds the strike in routine reserve for use whenevereconomic negotiations reach an impasse.

We are of the opinion that a strike is clearly inappro-priate when it does not have positite educational objec-

tives. For example, if a faculty t"filiated with a tradeunion struck in support of claims against the institutionof another trade unionfor example of service employeeswe should consider this inappropriate. Similarly, a striketo dramatize some national or international politicalposition could not be countenanced by a professionalorganization like this Association.

We hate been speaking so far of the propriety of strikes,not of their legality. Faculty members in public institu-tions, in most of the states, share in the legal constraintsthat rest generally on public employees.11 The notionthat public servants have no "right to strike" is a persistentonekept alive by the same Congress and legislatures thatguarantee this "right" to those in private employment.Even though many recent episodes, including teachers'strikes, demonstrate that these punitive restrictions areoften ineffective, we do not suggest that faculty membersin higher education should violate the law.

But we do, in the first sentence of the second para-graph of the proposed statement, place the Associationin opposition to such laws. Public servants directly con-cerned with public health and safetythe classic examplesare police and firemenmay hate to endure restraints ontheir freedom to refuse their services.' While we place alofty value on higher education, we do not believe thatits interruption by a strike affects the public health andsafety. If declarations of national emergency or otheroverriding public policies generally limited freedom towithhold services, we should not ask tor nor expect dis-crimination in favor of teachers. But, along with themany other public functionaries who;e continuous serv-ices are not vital to the community, teachers in publicinstitutions of higher education should not have theirliberties automatically restricted simply because (to theextent that they are employees) a governmental agencyis their employer.

The third paragraph of the proposed statement dealsbriefly (and, we concede, incompletely) with institutionalsanctions against participation in a faculty strike. Thereminder that due process in all its fullness must beobserved, especially when dismissal for cause of a facultymember is proposed, is unqualified and needs no ampli-fication. But the declaration that participation in a strikeis not "by itself" grounds for administrative penalties orpunishments is indeterminate. It does not say that faculty

11 A helpful memorandum to the General Secretary by Pro-fessor Robert A. Gorman (Law, University of Pennsylvania),"Statutory Responses to Collective Bargaining in Institutionsof Higher Learning" (January, 1968) , observes: "The mostsignificant deviation [for public employment] from the private-employment model is the wide-spread statutory proscriptionupon the right of public employees to engage in a strike orother form of work stoppage. Beyond the mere proscription,and the statement of penalties for its violation, it is not un-common for a statute to provide that no employee organiza-tion may serve as a representative in collective bargainingunless it affirmatively renounces the right to strike and declaresthat it will not assist or participate in any such strike. Theoutlawing of the strike is undet4tood to apply to any concerted withholding of services by present employees (probablyincluding the solicitation of mass lesignations). ." (p. 9)

57

lumbers are free to absent themselves from their dutieswithout any fear of painful consequences. Withholdingof services during term time is prima facie a breach ofcontract. It may not be so it the other party to the con-tract has by his own acts disabled himself from enforcingit. These observations, we recognize, are barely an intro-duction to complicated issues that must be the subjectfor further exploration.

We note with gratification that the seeming threat ofthe University of California Regents' resolution, men-tioned earlier in this report, was moderated when theRegents, speaking through Acting President Wellman,made it clear that the resolution was intended to "identifya particular cause which might make University personnelsubject to dismissal or other disciplinary action." [Em-phasis supplied.] The Wellman memorandum also statesthat hearings would be provided in accordance with tenureregulations, and that "all relevant circumstances of indi-vidual cases will be considered." 12 We can only agreeheartily that "all relevant circumstances" should be con-sidered. Once again, we would remind- the academiccommunity that a strike is not a carefree holiday; it is a

12 University of California, University Bulletin, September25, 1967, p. 48.

58

hostile act leading to possible reprisals. As in war, evenvictory may be attended by casualties.

Indeed, we might have hesitated to move as far as wehave in the proposed statement in the face of a con-trary tradition within our own Association, and in viewof all the risks and uncertainties that we have tried tosuggest, if we had not found support in an inquiry almostparallel to ours. An able task force (composed entirely ofprofessors) of the American Association for Higher Edu-cation, recently spoke as follows:

We conclude that there are no decisive reasoner-why thefaculty should be denied the opportunity to strike, in termsof either society's essential needs or the long-run interestsof the institution. Most faculty members will resist thetendency to strike because use of this weapon seems incon-sistent with their view of themselves as members of aprofession committed to reason. We share this hesitancyto endorse strikes, but we do not automatically reproacha faculty which feels compelled to take this step as a lastresort when other methods have been exhausted. If theadministration has denied the faculty the right to partici-pate effectively in campus decision-making, then it mustaccept a major share of the responsibility when a strikeensues.18

13 Faculty Participation in University Governance, AAHE,1967, p. 52. See p. v for the membership of the Task Force.

,1,.....-----= -_...

Statement on 'Professional EthicsThe Statement on Professional Ethics was approved by the Council of the Amer-

ican Association of University Professors in April, 1966, and endorsed by the Fifty-second Annual Meeting as Association policy.

Introduction

From its inception, the American Association of Uni-versity Professors has recognized that membership in theacadenic profession carries with it special responsibili-ties. The Association has consistently affirmed these re-sponsibilities in major policy statements, providing guid-ance to the professor in his utterances as a citizen, inthe exercise of his responsibilities to students, and inhis conduct when resigning from his institution or whenundertaking government-sponsored research.' The Statement on Professional Ethics that follows, necessarily pre-sented in terms of the ideal, sets forth those generalstandards that serve as a reminder of the variety ofobligations assumed by all members of the profession.For the purpose of more detailed guidance, the Asso-dation, through its Committee B on Professional Ethics,intends to issue from time to time supplemental state-ments on specific problems.

In the enforcement of ethical standards, the academicprofession differs from those of law and medicine, whoseassociations act to assure the integrity of members en-gaged in private practice. In he academic professionthe individual institution of higher learning providesthis assurance and so should normally handle questionsconcerning propriety of conduct within its own frame-work by reference to a faculty group. The Associationsupports such local action and stands ready, through theGeneral Secretary and Committee B. to counsel withany faculty member or administrator concerning ques-

1964 Committee A Statement on ExtraMural Utterances(Clarification of sec. le of the 1940 Statement of Principies on Academic Freedom and Tents:

19011 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students1961 Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Facuhy

Members1964 On Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Government-

Sponsored Research1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

tions of professional ethic and to inquire into com-plaints when local consideration is impossible or in-appropriate. If the alleged offense is deemed sufficientlyserious to raise the possibility of dismissal, the proceduresshould be in accordance with the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1958Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty DismissalProceedings.

The Statement

I. The professor, guided by a deep conviction of theworth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge,recognizes the special responsibilities placed upon him.His primary responsibility to his subject is to seek and tostate the truth as he sees it. To this end he devotes hisenergies to developing and improving his scholarly com-petence. He accepts the obligation to exercise criticalself-discipline and judgment in using, extending; andtransmitting knowledge. He practices intellectual honesty.Although he may follow subsidiary interests, these interestsmust never seriously hamper or compromise his freedomof inquiry.

II. As a teacher, the professor encourages the freepursuit of learning in his students. He holds before themthe best scholarly standards of his discipline. He demon-strates respect for the student u an individual, andadheres to his proper role as intellectual guide andcounselor. He makes every reasonable effort to fosterhonest academic conduct and to assure that his evaluationof students reflects their true merit. He respects the con-fidential nature of the relationship between professor andstudent. He avoids any exploitation of students for hisprivate advantage and acknowledges significant assistancefrom them. He protects their academic freedom.

III. M a colleague, the professor has obligations thatderive from common membership in the community ofscholars. He respects and defends the free inquiry of hisassociate. In the exchange of criticism and ideas he shows

54

due respect for the opinions of others. He acknowledgeshis academic debts and strives to be objective in his pro-fessional judgment of colleagues. He accepts his share offaculty responsibilities for the governance of his institu-tion.

IV. As a member of his institution, the professor seeksabove all to be an effective teacher and scholar. Althoughhe observes the stated regulations of the institution,provided they do not contravene academic freedom, hemaintains his right to criticize and seek revision. He deter-mines the amount and character of the work he doesoutside his institution with due regard to his paramountresponsibilities within it. When considering the interrup-tion or termination of his service, he recognizes the effect

of his decision upon the program of the institution andgives due notice of his is. entions.

V. As a member of his community, the professor hasthe rights and obligations of any citizen. He measuresthe urgency of these obligations in the light of his re-sponsibilities to his subject, to his students, to his pro-fession, and to his institution. When he speaks or actsas a private person he avoids creating the impressionthat he speaks or acts for his college or university. Asa citizen engaged in a profession that depends upon free-dom for its health and integrity, the professor has aparticular obligation to promote conditions of free in-quiry and to further public understanding of academicfreedom.

60

A Statement of the Association's Council:Freedom and Responsibility

The following Statement was adopted by the Council of the American Associa-tion of University Professors at its meeting of October 30-31, 1970.

For more than half a century the American Associationof University Professors has acted upon two princi-ples: that colleges and universities serve the commongood through learning, teaching, research, and scholar-ship; and that the fulfillment of this function necessarilyrests upon the preservation of the intellectual freedomsof teaching, expression, research, and debate. All com-ponents of the academic community have a responsibilityto exemplify and support these freedoms in the interestsof reasoned inquiry.

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Free-dom and Tenure asserts the primacy of this responsibility.The 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics underscoresits pertinency to the individual faculty member and callsattention to his responsibility, by his own actions, touphold his colleagues' and his students' freedom of in-quiry and to promote public understanding of academicfreedom. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedomsof Students emphasizes the shared responsibility of allmembers of the academic community for the preservationof these freedoms.

Continuing attacks on the integrity of our universitiesand on the concept of academic freedom itself come frommany quarters. These attacks, marked by tactics of in-timidation and harassment and by political interferencewith the autonomy of colleges and universities, provokeharsh responses and counterresponses. Especially in arepressive atmosphere, the faculty's responsibility todefend its freedoms cannot be separated from its responsi-bility to uphold those freedoms by its own actions.

1

Membership in the academic community imposes onstudents, faculty members, administrators, and trustees anobligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledgetheir right to express differing opinions, and to foster and

defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and in-struction, and free expression on and off the campus. Theexpression of dissent and the attempt to produce change,

not be carried out in ways which injureindivid or damage institutional facilities or disrupt theclasses of one's teachers or colleagues. Speakers oncampus must not only be protected from violence, butgiven an opportunity to be beard. Those who seek to callattention to grievances must not do so in ways thatsignificantly impede the functions of the institution.

Students are entitled to an atmosphere conducive tolearning and to even-handed treatment in all aspects ofthe teacher-student relationship. Faculty members maynot refuse to enroll or teach students on the grounds oftheir beliefs or the possible uses to which they may putthe knowledge to be gained in a course. The studentshould not be forced by the authority inherent in theinstructional role to make particular personal choices asto political action or his own part-in society. Evaluationof students and the award e.t credit must be based onacademic performance professionally judged and not onmatters irrelevant to that ptriormance, whether person-ality, race, religion, degree of political activism, orpersonal beliefs.

It is a teacher's mastery of his subject and his ownscholarship which entitle him to his classroom and tofreedom in the presentation of his subject. Thus, it isimproper for an instructor persistently to intrude materialwhich has no relation to his subject, or to fail to presentthe subject matter of his course as announced to his stu-dents and as approved by the faculty in their collectiveresponsibility for the curriculum.

Because academic freedom has traditionally includedthe instructor's full freedom as a citizen, most facultymembers face no insoluble conflicts between the claimsof politics, social action, and conscience, on the one hand,

b1

and the claims and expectations of their students, col-leagues, and institutions, on the other. If such conflictsbecome acute, and the instructor's attention to his obliga-tions as a citizen and moral agent precludes the fulfillmentof substantial academic obligations, he cannot escape theresponsibility of that choice, but should either request aleave of absence or resign his academic position.

11

The Association's concern for sound principles andprocedures in the imposition of discipline is reflected inthe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standardsin Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, the 1968 Recom-

mended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedomand Tenure, and the many investigations conducted bythe Association into disciplinary actions by colleges anduniversities.

The question arises whether these customary proce-dures are sufficient in the current context. We believe thatby and large they serve their purposes well but thatconsideration should be given to supplementing them inseveral respects:

First, plans for insuring compliance with academicnorms should be enlarged to emphasize preventive as wellas disciplinary action. Toward this end the faculty shouldtake the initiative, working with the administration andother components of the institution, to develop and main -!*in an atmosphere of freedom, commitment to academicinquiry, and respect for the academic rights of others.The faculty should also join with other members of theacademic community in the development of proceduresto be used in the event of serious disruption, or the threat

62

of disruption, and should insure its consultation in majordecisions, particularly those related to the calling of ex-ternal security forces to the campus.

Second, systematic attention should be given to ques-tions related to sanctions other than dismissal, such aswarnings and reprimands, in order to provide a moreversatile body of academic sanctions.

Third, there is need for the faculty to assume a morepositive role as guardian of academic values against un-justified assaults from its own members. The traditionalfaculty function in disciplinary proceedings has been toassure academic due process and meaningful faculty par-ticipation in the imposition of discipline by the administra-tion. While this function should be maintained, facultie-should recognize their stake in promoting adherence tonorms essential to the academic enterprise.

,..ules designed to meet these needs for faculty self-regidation and flexibility of sanctions should be adoptedon each campus in response to local circumstances andto continued experimentation. In all sanctioning efforts,however, it is vital that proceedings be conducted withfairness to the individual, that faculty judgments play acrucial role, and that adverse judgments be founded ondemonstrated violations of appropriate norms. The Mao-ciation will encourage and assist local faculty groupsseeking to articulate the sughantise principles here out-lined or to make improvements in their disciplinarymachinery to meet the needs here described. The Asso-ciation will also consult and work with any responsiblegroup, within or outside the academic community, thatseeks to promote understanding of and adherence to basicnorms of professional responsibility so long as suchefforts are consistent with principles of academic freedom.

Statement on Recruitment andResignation of Faculty Members

The Statement on Recruitment and Resigr.ation of Faculty Members, reprintedbelow, was adopted by the Association of American Colleges in January, 1961, withthe following reservations as set forth in a preamble prepared by that Association'sCommission on Academic Freedom and Tenure:

1. No set of principles adopted by the Association can do more than suggest andrecommend a cos. se of action. Consequently, the present statement in no way interfereswith institutional sc-tereignty.

2. The Commission realizes that the diversity of practice and control that existsamong institutions of higher learning precludes any set of standards from beinguniversally applicable to every situation.

3. The statement is concerned only wit:A minimum standards and in no way seeksto create a norm for institutions at which "better" practices already are in force.

4. The Commission recognizes the fact that "emergency" situations will arse andwill have to be dealt with. However, it urges both a!" titration and faculty to doso in ways that will not go counter to the spirit of cooperation, good faith, and e-sponsibility that the statement is seeking to promote.

5. The Commissioa believes that the spirit embodied in the proposed statement is itslost important aspect.

In view of these reservations, the Council of the American Association of Univer-sity Professors, in April, 1961, voted approval of the Statement without adoptingit as a binding obligation. Endorsement of the Statement in this form was voted bythe Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting.

Mobility of faculty members among colleges and univer-sities is rightly recognized as desirable in American highereducation. Yet the departure of a faculty member alwaysrequires changes within his institution, and may entailmajor adjustments on the part of his colleagues, theadministration, and students in his field. Ordinarily atemporary or permanent successor must be found andappointed to either his position or the position of a col-league who is promoted to replace him.

In a period of expansion of higher education, such asthat already existing and promising to be even more in-tensified as a pattern for the coming years, adjustments arelequirecl more frequently as the number of positions andof transfers among institutions increases. These becomemole difficult than at other times, especially in the higheracademic ranks. Clear standards of practice in the recruit-ment and in the resignations of members of existingfatuities should contribute to an orderly interchange ofpersonnel that will be in the interest of all.

The standards set forth below are recommended toadministrations and faculties, in the belief that they are

sound and should be generally followed. They are predi-cated on the assumption that proper provision has beenmade by employing institutions for timely notice to pro-bationary faculty members and those on term appoint-ments, with respect to their subsequent status. In additionto observing applicable requirements for notice of termina-tion to probationary faculty members, institutions shouldmake provision for notice to all faculty members, not laterthan March 15 of each year, of their status the followingfall, including rank and (unless unavoidable budget pro-cedures beyond the institution forbid) prospective salary.

1. Negotiations looking to the possible appointment forthe following fall of persons who are already facultymembers of other institutions, in active service or onleave-of-absence and not on terminal appointment, shouldbe begun and completed as early as possible in the aca-demic year. It is desirable that, when feasible, the facultymember who has been approached with regard to anotherposition inform the appropriate officers of his institutionwhen such negotiations are in progress. The conclusion of

63

a binding agreement for the faculty member to accept anappointment elsewhere should always be followed by

prompt notice to his institution.2. A faculty member should not resign in order to

accept other employment as of the end of the academicyear, later than May 15 or 30 days after receiving notifica-

tion of the terms of his continued employment the follow-

ing year, whichever date occurs later. It is recognized,however, that this obligation will be in effect only if

institutions generally observe the time factor set forth

in the following paragraph for new offers. It is also rec-ognized that emergencies will occur. In such an emer-gency the faculty member may ask the appropriate officials

of his institution to waive this requirement; but he should

conform to their decision.3. To permit a faculty member to give due considera

don and timely notice to his institution in the circum-

4.1

64

stances defined in paragraph 1 of these standards, an offerof appointment for the following fall at another institu-

tion should not be made after May 1. The offer should bea "firm" one, not subject to contingencies.

4. Institutions deprived of the services of faculty mem-bers too late in the academic year to permit their replacement by securing the members of other faculties inconformity to these standards, and institutions otherwiseprevented from taking timely action to recruit from otherfaculties. should accept the necessit.- of making temporaryarrangements or obtaining personnel from other sources.including new entrants to the academic profession andfaculty personnel who have retired.

5. Except by agreement with his institution, a faculty

member should not leave or be solicited to leave hisposition during an academic year for which he holds anappoiptment.

A Report from Committee B:Late Resignation and Professional Ethics

When Committee B on Professional Ethics presented the Statement on Profes-sional Ethics to the Association's membership for adoption in 1966, it indicatedintention of issuing occasional reports on specific problems. In accordance withthat plan, the Committee has authorizod the publication of this report on its_current policies and procedures, particularly as they relate to.the issue of lateresignations.

Of the many problems with respect to professionalethics which have been called to the attention of the Asso-ciation's Washington Office, the most consistent one hasbeen that of late resignations and a failure on a facultymember's part to give due notice of resignation as definedin the Statement on Recruitment and Resignation ofFaculty Members, endorsed as Association policy in 1961at the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting. Over the past fiveyears, an average of about seven situations per year involv- --ing questions of late resignation have beer! reported to theAssociation. There has been a significant increase, sincethe adoption of the Statement on Profeuional Ethics, incommunications from faculty members seeking adviceprior to making decisions on whether to resign at a latedate. There has also been an increasing number of in-stances in which persons raising questions in the area oflate resignations have offered the Association specific evi-dence relating to their positions and have sought specificAssociation action.

The Statement on Professional Ethics provides that"when considering the interruption or termination of hisservice, he [the teacher] recognizes the effect of his deci-sion upon the program of the institution and gises duenotice of his intentions." The Statement on Recruitmentand Resignation of Faculty Members defines due notice as"no later than May 15 or 30 days after receiyitsnt oti-fication of the terms of his continued employment thefollowing year. whichever date occurs later." It recognizesthat emergencies may occur, in which case "the facultymember may ask the appropriate officials of his institu-tion to waive this requirement; but he mould conform totheir decision [emphasis added]."

Committee B considers the reasonableness of promptnotice of resignation self-evident and widely recognized inthe profession. It takes the need for appropriate noticemost seriously. An Association which urges that facultymembers be given ample notice by a university adminis-tration when their services are terminated must also make

every appropriate effort to persuade faculty members togive due notice when they initiate a termination.

A faculty member who has committed his services toone academic institution and then accepts a position atanother is often responding to a late offer of appointmentby the other institution. The situation may be analogousto one involving a bribe; it is unethical to accept it, butequally so to offer it. The Statement on Recruitment and

--Resignation of Faculty Members. authored jointly by theAmerican Association of Unisersity Professors and theAssociation of American Colleges. indicates that facultymembers can be considered obligated to gise due notice

:only if institutions generally observe the time factor .. .

For new offers" defined-as follows: To permit a facultymember to give due consideration and timely notice tohis institution in the circumstances defined in . . . thesestandards, an offer of appointment for the following failat another institution should not be made after May I."Committee B regards the honoring of faculty commit-ments as being in frequent cases a joint responsibility offaculty members and appointing institutions. It intends toinclude consideration of the party of parties making lateoffers in its inquiries into instances of late lagnation(s,:e Statement 5 under "Policies and Proi i :lures" below).

Committee B views the making of charges against namedpersons in letters directed to the Association as a seriousmatter. It expects, therefore, that any party making suchcharges will prove willing to support them by supplyingevidence as requested by Committee B. so that responsibleinquiries can be made.

Policies and Procedures of Committee B withRespect to the Association's Statement on

Professional Ethics

I. Committee B reaffirms its position stated in the In-troduction to the Statement on Professional Ethics, thatquestions insolving propriety of conduct should normally

65

be handled within tiie framework of individual institu-tions by reference to a faculty group. The primary func-tion of such faculty activity should be educative, to informfaculty, students, and administrators about principles ofprofessional ethics and to encourage their observance. TheAssociation, through the General Secretary and CommitteeB, stands ready to counsel in matters relating to suchfaculty function or to particular questions of professionalethics. In a breach of professional ethics deemed seriousenough for the possibility of din issal to be contemplated,the procedures followed by the institution should be inaccord with the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure and the 1958 Statement on Proce-dural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.

2. The Committee does not recommend or envisagepublic Association censure of an individual member ofthe academic community because of a breach of ethics. Inthe area of professional ethics, where censure would nor-mally be against an individual, it is difficult to conceive ofprocedures for the adequate redress of wrong and assur-ance of effective removal of such censure.

VA

66

3. Committee B is continuing its interest in specificcases of professional ethics which do not lend themselvesto resolution within the confines of the college or uni-versity where they occur.

4. In inquiring into complaints involving cases of latenotice of resignation, the Committee attempts to securefull information from the parties primarily concerned, in-cluding persons making offers leading to late resignations.To the extent appropriate, the Committee communicatesits views to the principal parties directly involved.

5. The Committee continues to see its own primaryfunction as educative. It is manifestly the Committee ofthe Association which speaks to the individual responsibil-ity of the members of the profession. An "Association ofover 90,000 members devoted to high standards of pro-fessional excellence need show no uneasiness over such acommittee's role or voice, nor need administrations orgoverning boards find in its presence any reason to abro-gate proper standards and principles of academic freedomand tenure, procedural due process, or a faculty's role ininstitutional government.

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedomsof Students

In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from the AmericanAssociation of University Professors, U. S. National Student Association, Associationof American Colleges, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,and National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, met in Washington,.D.C., and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students publishedbelow.

Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each of its fivenational sponsors, as well as by a number of ether professional bodies. The Asso-ciation's Council approved the Statement in October, 1967, and the Fifty-fourthAnnual Meeting endcrcd it as Association policy.

PreambleAcademic institutions exist for the transmission of

knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of stu-dents, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiryand free expression are; indispensable to the attainmentof these goals. As members of the academic community,students should be encouraged to develop the capacity forcritical judgment and -to _engage- in a sustained and in-dependent search for truth. Institutional procedures forachieving these purposes may vary from campus to cam

but the minimal standards of academic freedom ofstudents outlined below are essential to any communityof scholars.

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparablefacets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn dependsupon appropriate opportunities and conditions in theclassroom, on the campus, and in the larger community.Students should exercise their freedom with responsibility.

The responsibility to secure and to respect general con-ditions conducive to the freedom to learn is shared by allmembers of the academic community. Each college anduniversity has a duty to develop policies and procedureswhich provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policiesand procedures should be developed at each institutionwithin the framework of general standards and with thebroadest possible participation of the members of the

academic community. The purpose of this statement is toenumerate the essential provisions for student freedom tolearn.

1. Freedom of Access to Higher Education

The admissions policies of each college and universityare a matter of institutional choice provided that eachcollege and university makes clear the characteristics andexpectations of students which it considers relevant tosuccess in the institution's program. While church-relatedinstitutions may give admission preference to students oftheir own persuasion, such a preference should be clearlyand publicly stated. Under no circumstances should astudent be barred from admission to a particular institu-tion on the basis of race. Thus, within the limits of itsfacilities, each college and university should be open toall students who are qualified according to its admissionstandards.' The facilities and'services of a college shouldbe open to all of its enrolled students, and institutionsshould use their influence to secure equal access for allstudents to public facilities in the local community.

II. In the ClauroomThe professor in the classroom and in conference

should encourage free discussion inquiry, and expression.

67

Student performance should be evaluated solely on anacademic basis, not on opinions or conduct in mattersunrelated to academic standards.

A. Protection of Freedom of Expie.ision

Students should be free to take reasoned exception tothe data or views offered in any course of study and toreserve judgment about matters of opinion. but they areresponsible for learning the content of any course of studyfor which they are enrolled.

B. Protection against Improper Academic Evaluation

Students should have protection through orderlyprocedures against prejudiced or capricious academicevaluation. At the same time. they are responsible formaintaining standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled.

C. Protection against Improper Disclosure

Information about student views, beliefs, and politicalassociations which professors acquire in the course of theirssork as instructors, advisers, and counselors should beconsidered confidential. Protection against improper dis-closure is a serious professional obligation. Judgments ofability and character may be provided under appropriatecircumstances, normally with the knowledge or consent ofthe student.

III. Student Records

Institutions should have a carefully considered policyas to the information which should be part of a student'spermanent educational record and as to the conditions ofits disclosure. To minimize the risk of improper disclo-sure, academic and disciplinary records should be sepa-tate, and the conditions of access to each should be setforth in an explicit policy statement. Transcripts of aca-demic records should contain only information about aca-demic status. Information from disciplinary or counselingfiles should not be available to unauthorized persons oncampus, or to any person off campus without the expressconsent of the student involved except under legal com-pulsion or in cases where the safety of persons or prop-erty is involved. No records should be kept which reflectthe political activities or beliefs of students. Provisionsshould also be made for periodic routine destruction ofnoncurrent disciplinary records. Administrative staff andfaculty members should respect confidential informationabout students which they acquire in the course of theirwork.

IV. Student Affairs

In student affairs, certain standards must be maintainedif the freedom of students is.to be preserved.

A. Freedom of Association

Students bring to the campus a variety of interests pre-viously acquired and develop many new interests as

members of the academic community. They should be

68

free to organize and join associations to promote theircommon interests.

I. The membership, policies. and actions of a studentorganization usually will be determined by vote of onlythose persons who hold bona fide membership in the col-lege or university community.

2. %ffiliation with an extramural organization shouldnot of itself disqualify a student organization from insti-tutional recognition.

3. If campus advisers are required. each organizationshould, be free to choose its own adviser, and institutionalrecognition should not be withheld or withdrawn solelybecause of the inability of a student organization to securean adviser. Campus advisers may advise organizations inthe exercise of responsibility, but they should not have theauthority to control the policy of such organizations.

4. Student organizations may be required to submit astatement of purpose, c cria for membership, rules ofprocedures, and tt CUITeli' ist of officers. They should notbe required to submit a membership list as a condition ofinstitutional recognition.

5. Campus organizations, including those affiliated withan extramural organization, should be open to all studentswithout respect to race, creed, or national origin, exceptfor religious qualifications which may be required byorganizations whose aims are primarily sectarian.

B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression

1. Students and student organizations should be free toexamine and discuss all questions of interest to them, andto express opinions publicly and privately. They shouldalways be free to support causes by orderly means whichdo not disrupt the regular and essential operation of theinstitution. At the same time, it should be made clear tothe academic and the larger community that in their pub-lic expressions or demonstrations students or studentorganizations speak only for themselves.

2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hearany person of their own choosing. Those routine proce-dures required by an institution before a guest speaker isinvited to appear on campus should be designed only toinsure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities andadequate preparation for the event, and that the occasionis conducted in a manner appropriate to an academiccommunity. The institutional control of campus facilitiesshould not be used as a device of censorship. It should bemade clear to the academic and larger community thatsponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily implyapproval or endorsement of the views expressed, either bythe sponsoring group or the institution.

C. Student Participation in Institutional Government

As constituents of the academic community. studentsshould be free, individually and collectively, to expresstheir views on issues of institutional policy and on mat-ters of general interest to the student body. Mt' studentbcly should have clearly defined means to participate inthe formulation and application of institutional policyafii.cting academic and student affairs. The role of thestudent government and both its general specific re-

sponsibilities should be made explicit, and the actions ofthe student government within the areas of its jurisdictionshould be reviewed only through orderly and prescribedprocedures.

D. Student Publications

Student publications and the student press are a valua-ble aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere offree and responsible discussion and of intellectual ex-ploration on the campus. They are a means of bringingstudent concerns to the attention of the faculty and theinstitutional authorities and of formulating student opin-ion on various issues on the campus and in the world atlarge.

Whenever possible the student newspaper should be anindependent corporation financially and legally separatefrom the university. Where financial and legal autonomyis not possible, the institution, as the publisher of studentpublications, may have to bear the legal responsibility forthe contents of the publications. In the delegation of edi-torial responsibility to students, the institution must pro-vide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomyfor the student publications to maintain their integrity ofpurpose as vehicles for free inquiry and expressionin an academic community.

Institutional authorities, in consultation with studentsand faculty, have a responsibility to provide writtenclarification of the role of the student publications, thestandards to be used in their evaluation, and the limita-tions on external control of their operation. At the sametime, the editorial freedom of student editors and man-arr. s entails corollary responsibilities to be governed bythe canons of responsible journalism, such as the avoidanceof libel, indecency, undocumented allegations, attacks onpersonal integrity, and the techniques of harassment andinnuendo. As safeguards for the editorial freedom of stu-dent publications the following provisions are necessary.

I. The student press should be free of censorship andadvance approval of copy, and its editors and managersshould be free to develop their own editorial policies andnews coverage.

2. Editors and managers of student publications zhouldbe protected from arbitrary suspension and removal be-cause of student, faculty, administrative, or public disap-proval of editorial policy or content. Only for proper andstated causes should editors and managers be subject toremoval and then by orderly and prescribed procedures.The agency responsible for the appointment of editorsand managers should be the agency responsible for theirremoval.

3. All university published and financed student publi-cations should explicitly state on the editorial page thatthe opinions there expressed are not necessarily those ofthe college, university, or student body.

V. Off-Campus Freedom of Students

A. Exercise of Rights of Citizenship

College and university students are both citizens andmembers of the academic community. As citizens, students

should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assem-bly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, asmembers of the academic community, they are subject tothe obligations which accrue to them by virtue of thismembership. Faculty members and administrative officialsshould insure that institutional poWers are not employedto inhibit such intellectual and personal development ofstudents as is often promoted by their exercise of therights of citizenship both on and off campus.

B. Institutional Authority and Civil Penalties

Activities of students may upon occasion result in viola-tion of law. In such cases, institutional officials should beprepared to apprise students of sources of legal counseland may offer other assistance. Students who violate thelaw may incur penalties;-prescribed by civil authorities.but institutional authority should never be used merelyto duplicate the function of general laws. Only where theinstitution's interests as an academic community are dis-tinct and clearly involved should the special authority ofthe institution be asserted. The student who incidentallyviolates institutional regulations in the course of his offcampus activity, such as dupe relating dass attendance,should be subject to no greater penalty than would nor-mally be imposed. Institutional action should be inde-pendent of community pressure.

VI. Procedural Standards in DisciplinaryProceedings

In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinaryproceei.'ngs play a role substantially secondary to ex-ample, counseling, guidance, and admonition. _At the sametime, educational institutions have a duty and the corol-lary disciplinary powers to protect their educational pur-pose through the Kiting of standards of scholarship andconduct for the students who attend them and throughthe regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In theexceptional circumstances when the preferred means failto resolve problems of student conduct, proper proceduralsafeguards should be observed to protect the student fromthe unfair imposition of serious penalties.

The administration of discipline should guaranteeprocedural fairness to an accused student. Practices indisciplinary cases may vary in formality with the gravityof the offense and the sanctions which may be applied.They should also take into account the presence or ab-sence of an honor code, and the degree to which theinstitutional officials have direct acquaintance with stu-dent life in general and with the involved student andthe circumstances of the case in particular. The jurisdic-tions of faculty or student judicial bodies, the disciplinaryresponsibilities of institutional officials and the regulardisciplinary procedures, including the student's right toappeal a decision, should be dearly formulated and com-municated in advance. Minor penalties may be assessedinformally under prescribed procedures.

In all situations, procedural fair play requires that thestudent be informed of the nature of the charges againsthim, that he be given a fair opportunity to refute them,

69

that the institution not be a,bitrary in its actions, andchat there be provision for appeal of a decision. Thefollowing are recommended as proper safeguards in suchproceedings when there are no honor codes offering corn-parable guarantees.

A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Students

The institution has an obligation to clarify those stand-ards of behavior whic:i it considers essential to its educa-tional mission and its community life. These generalbehavioral expectations and the resultant specific regu-lations should represent a reasonable regulation of studentconduct, but the student should be as free as possible fromimposed limitations that have no direct relevance to hiseducation. Offenses should be as dearly defined as possibleand interpreted in a manner consistent with the afore-mentioned principles of relevancy and reasonableness.Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only forviolations of standards of conduct formulated with signifi-cant student participation and published in advancethrough such means as a student handbook or a generallyavailable body of institutional regulations.

B. Investigation of Student Conduct

1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances,premises occupied by students and the personal posses-sions of students should not be searched unless appropri-ate authorization has been obtained. For premises such asresidence halls controlled by the institution, an appro-priate and responsible authority should be designated towhom application should be made before a search is con-ducted. The application should specify the reasons forthe search and. objects or information sought. Thestudent should be present, if possible, during the search.For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordi-nary requirements for lawful search should be followed.

2. Students detected or arrested in the course of seriousviolations of institutional regulations, or infractions ofordinary law, should be informed of their rights. No formof harassment should be used by institutional representa-tives to coerce admissions of guilt or information aboutconduct of other suspected persons.

C. Status of Student Pending Final Action

Pending action on the charges, the status of a studentshould not be altered, or his right to be present on thecampus and to attend daises suspended, except for rea-

70

sons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well-being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-beingof students, faculty, or university property.

D. Hearing Committee Procedures

When the misconduct may result in serious penaltiesand if the student questions the fairness of disciplinaryaction taken against him, he should be granted, on re-quest, the privilege of a hearing before a regularly consti-tuted hearing committee. The following suggested 'fear-ing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of pro-cedural due process in situations requiring a high degreeof formality.

1. The hearing committee should indude faculty mem-bers or students, or, if regularly included or requestedby the accused, both faculty and student members. Nomember of the hearing committee who is otherwise inter-ested in the particular case should sit in judgment duringthe proceeding.

2. The student should be informed, in writing, of thereasons for the proposed disciplinary action with sufficientparticularity, and in sufficient time, to insure opportunityto prepare for the hearing.

3. The student appearing before the hearing commit-tee should have the right to be assisted in his defense byan adviser of his choice.

4. The burden of proof should rest upon the officialsbringing the charge.

5. The student should be given an opportunity to testifyand to present evidence and witnesses. He should have anopportunity to hear and question adverse witnesses. Inno case should the committee consider statements againsthim unless he has been advised of their content and ofthe names of those who made them, and unless he has beengiven an opportunity to '-rebut unfavorable inferenceswhich might otherwise be drawn.

6. All matters upon which the decision may be basedmust be introduced into evidence at the proceeding beforethe hearing committee. The decision should be basedsolely upon such matters. Improperly acquired evidenceshould not be admitted.

7. In the absence of a transcript, there should be botha digest and a verbatim record, such as a tape recording,of the hearing.

8. The decision of the hearing committee should befinal, subject only to the student's right of appeal to thepresident or ultimately to the governing board of theinstitution.

The Role of the Faculty in the Accreditingof Colleges and Universities

The Statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee Don Accrediting of Colleges and Universities. It was approved by the Council ofthe American Association of University Professors in April, 1968, and endorsedby the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

Institutional evaluation is a joint enterprise between in-stitutions of higher education and the accrediting commis-sions of regional associations. For their most effective workthe accrediting commissions require the cooperative effortof qualified faculty members and administrators, whoshould be encouraged by their colleges and universitiesto participate in the work of the commissions. Within acollege or university, the nature of the accrediting processrequires common enterprise among the faculty, theadministration, and to some extent the governing board.The appraisal of the academic program should belargely the responsibility of faculty members. They shouldplay a major role in the evaluation of the curriculum, thelibrary, teaching loads and conditions, research, profes-sional activities, laboratories and other acatleinic facilities,and faculty welfare and compensation, all in relation tothe institution's objectives and in the light of its financialresources. To higher education generally, faculty membersma) exercise a special responsibility as the segment of theeducational community which is in the best position torecognize and appraise circumstances affecting academicfreedom. faculty tenure, faculty role in institutionalgovernment, and faculty status and morale. This statementpresents standards for the expression of faculty interestand responsibility in the accreditation process.

Recommended Standards for Institutionsof Higher Education

1. Primary responsibility for tle preparation of the aca-demic aspects of the self-evaltution should rest with acommittee composed largely of faculty members and re-sponsible to the faculty as a whole. Additions or deletionsshould be made only after consultation with the authorsof the sections of the report which are affected.

2. The self - evaluation should include a description of:a. Conditions of academic freedom and tenure (in-

duding provisions for due process);b. Conditions of faculty participation in institu-

tional government (including provisions for theorderly handling of grievances and disputes);

c. Faculty status and morale (including workingconditions and total compensation).

Significant diff.rznces of opinion in these and otherareas should be reflected in the self-evaluation.

3. The completed self-evaluation should be made zvail-able to the entire faculty prior to its submission to theaccrediting commission and should be subject to amend-ment in the light of faculty suggestions.

4. Representative faculty, including members of appro-priate faculty committees, should be available to meet withthe visiting committee to discus:. questions of faculty con-cern.

5. The re;,ort of the visiting committee should bemade available to the entire faculty.

5. The faculty should be fully informed of the ac-crediting commission's action after an evaluation andshould be kept abreast of all significant developments andissues arising between the accrediting commission and theinstitution. It should participate, as in the self-evaluation,in any subsequent activities regarding the institution'saccreditation.

Recommended Standards for theRegional Accrediting Commissions

1. Regular visiting committees should indude full-timeteaching or research faculty members.

2. A formally adopted institutional policy on academicfreedom and tenure, consistent with the major provisions

71

of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure, should be a condition for accreditation.

3. Reports by regular visiting committees should takeexplicit account of:

a. Conditions of academic freedom and tenure (in-cluding provisions for due process);

b. Conditions of faculty participation in institu-tional government (induding provisions for theorderly handling of grievances and disputes);

c. Faculty status and morale (including workingconditions and total compensation).

72

The reports should describe any significant shortcomingsin these areas.

4. When significant shortcomings in the areas listedabove have been found, the commissions should deal withthese as with similar shortcomings in other areas, endeav-oring to secure improvement and applying appropriatesanctions in the absence of improvement within a reason-able time.

5. A gross violation of academic freedom, tenure, or dueprocess should, unless promptly corrected, lead to actionlooking towards withdrawal of accreditation.

-'

Statement on Faculty Workload

The Statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee C onTeaching, Research, and Publication. It was approved by the Council of theAmerican Association of University Professors in October, 1969, and endorsed by theFifty-sixth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

Introduction

No single formula for an equitable faculty workload canbe devised for all of American higher education. What isfair and works well in the community college may beinappropriate for the university, and the arrangementthought necessary in the technical institute may be irrele-vant in the liberal arts college.

This is not to say, however, that excessive or inequitablydistributed workloads cannot be recognized as such. Inresponse to the many appeals receives( in recent years,therefore, this Association wishes to set forth such guide-lines as can be applied generally, regardless of the specialcircumstances of the institution concerned:

A definition of maximum teaching loads for effectiveinstruction at the undergraduate and gradmae levels.

(2) A description of the procedures that should be fol-lowed in establishing, administering, and revisingworkload policies.An identification of the most common sources ofinequity in the distribution of workloads.

(3)

Maximum Teaching Loads

In the American system of higher education, faculty"workloads" are usually described in hours per week offormal class meetings. As a measurement, this'leaves muchto be desired. It fails to consider other time-consuminginstitutional duties of the faculty member, and, even interms of his teaching, it misrepresents the true situation.The teacher normally spends far less time in the classroomthan in preparation, conferences, grading of papers andexaminations, and supervision of remedial or advancedstudent work. Preparation, in particular, is of criticalimportance, and is probably the most unremitting of thesedemands: not only preparation for specific classes or con-ferences, but that more general preparation in the disci-

pline, by keeping up with recent developments andstrengthening his grasp on older materials, without whichthe faculty member will soon dwindle into ineffectivenessas scholar and teacher. Moreover, traditional workloadformulations are at odds with significant current develop-ments in education emphasizing independent study, theuse of new materials and media, extracurricular and off -campus educational experiences, and interdisciplinaryapproaches to problems in contemporary society. Policieson workload at institutions practicing such approachessuggest the need for a more sophisticated discriminationand weighting of educational activities.

This Association has been in a position over the yearsto observe workload policies and faculty performance ina great variety of American colleges and universities, andin its considered judgment the following maximum work-load limits are necessary for any institution of highereducation seriously intending to achieve and sustain anadequately high level of faculty effectiveness in teachingand scholarship:

For undergraduate instruction, a teaching load of twelvehours per week, with no more than six separate course-preparations during the academic year.

For instruction partly or entirely at the graduate level,a teaching load of nine hours per week.

This statement of maximum workload presumes a tra-ditional academic year of not more than thirty-two weeksof classes. Moreover, it presumes no unusual additionalexpectations in terms of research, administration, coun-seling, or other institutional responsibilities. Finally, itpresumes also that means can be devised within cadinstitution for determining fair equiv,:lents in workloadfor those faculty members whose activities do not fit theconventional classroom lecture or discussion pattern: forexample, those who supervise laboratories or studios, offertutorials, or assist beginning teachers.

73

Preferred Teaching Loads

Even with the reservations just made, however, it wouldbe misleading to offer this statement of maximum loads

without providing some guidelines for a preferable pattern.This Association has observed in recent years a steady

reduction of teaching loads in Xmerican colleges and uni-versities noted for the effectiveness of their faculties inteaching and scholarship to norms that can be stated asfollows:

For undergraduate instruction, a teL,hing load of ninehours per week.

For instruction partly or entirely at the graduate level,a teaching load of six hours per weex.

The Association has observed also that in the majorityof these institutions further reductions have become quiteusual for individuals assuming heavier than normal dutiesin counseling, program development, administration, re-search, and many other activities. In a smaller number,moreover, even lower teaching loads have been establishedgenerally, for all faculty members.

It must be recognized that achievement of nine- or six-hour teaching loads may not be possible at present formany institutions. The Association believes, nevertheless,that the nine- or six-hour loads achieved by or leadingcolleges and universities, in some instances many years ago,provide as reliable a guide as may be found for teachingloads in any institution intending to achieve and maintainexcellence in faculty performance.

Procedures

The fktild participate fully in the determina-tion nf-workkiad policy, both initially and in all subse-quent reappraisals. Reappraisal at regular intervals isessential, in order that older patterns of faculty responsi-bility may be adjusted to changes in the institution's size,structure, academic programs, and facilities. Current policyand practices should be made, known clearly to HI facultymembers, including those new to the institution each year.

The individual may have several quite different duties,some of which may be highly speciPlind, and the weightof these duties may vary strikingly at different times dur-ing the year. It is important, therefore, that individualworkloads be determined by, or in consultation with, thedepartment or other academic unit most familiar with thedemands involved. Those responsible should be alloweda measure of latitude in making individual assignments,and care should be taken that all of the individual's serv-ices to the institution are considered.

Common Sources of Inequity in theDistribution of Workloads

(1) Difficulty of Courses. No two courses are exactlyalike, and some differences between individual loads aretherefore to be expected within a common twelve-hour,nine-hour, or six-hour policy. Serious inequity shouldbe avoided, however, and the most frequent sources ofdifficulty are easily identified:

74

a. The number of different course-preparations shouldbe considered, not only the total class hours per week.

b. Special adjustments may be appropriate for the fac-ulty member introducing a new course or substantiallyrevising an older course. This is a matter of institutionalself-interest as well as of equity; if the new course has beenapproved as likely to strengthen the institution's program,all appropriate measures should I-- Lken to insure itssuccess.

c. Extreme differences in scope and diffi:ulty betweencourses should not be overlooked merely tecause con-tention might be provoked on other less obvious Imbal-ances. The difference in difficulty between soffit coursesis so pronounced that no faculty member concerned woulddeny the existence of the discrepancy. Such imbah.ncesmay occur not only between courses in different disciplinesbut within the same discipline. In some subjects the ad-vanced course is the more demanding; in others, the in-troductory course. One course may entail constant studentconsultation; another may entail a heavy burden ofpaperwork. At least the more obvious discrepancies shouldbe corrected.

d. The size of the classes taught should also be considered. The larger class is not always more demandingthan the smaller class; but it does not follow that thequestion of class size can safely be ignored. In a giveninstitution there will be many generally comparablecourses, and for these the difficulty will probably be di-rectly proportionate to the number of students involved.In some institutions aware of this problem, faculty work-load is now measured in terms of student-instruction load,or "contact hours," as well as in the conventional class-

room or credit hours.Regardless of the institution's particular circumstances,

it should be possible by formal or informal means to avoidserious inequities on these four major points.

(2) Research. Increasingly each year, undergraduateas well as graduate institutions specify "research" as amajor responsibility of the faculty. Lack of clarity orcandor about what constitutes such "research" can leadto excessive demands on the faculty generally or on partof the faculty.

If the expectation is only of that "general preparation"already described, no additional reduction in faculty work-load is indicated. Usually, however, something beyond thatgeneral preparation is meant: original, exploratory workin some special field of interest within the discipline. Itshould be recognized that if this is the expectation suchresearch, whether or not it leads to publication, will re-quire additional time. It is very doubtful that a continu-ing effort in original inquiry can be maintained by afaculty carrying a teaching load of more than nine hours;and it is worth noting that a number of leading universi-ties desiring to emphasize research have already moved orare now moving to a six-hour poll :y

If it is original work which is expected, but the insti-tution fails to state candidly whether in practice scholarlypublication will be regarded as the only valid evidence ofsuch study, the effect may well be to press one part of the

faculty into "publishing research" at the expense of a"teaching research" remainder. Neither faculty group willteach as well as before.

In short, if research is to be considered a general facultyresponsibility, the only equitable way to achieve it wouldseem to be a general reduction in faculty workload. If theexpectation is that some but not all of the faculty will bepublishing scholars, then that policy should be candidlystated and faculty workloads adjusted equitably in accord-ance with that expectation.

(3) Responsibilities Other Than Teaching and Re-search. Although faculty members expect as a matter ofcourse to serve in student counseling, on committees, withprofessional societies, and in certain administrative capaci-

4,,f.

ties, a heavy commitment in any of these areas, or servicein too many of these areas at once, will of course impairthe effectiveness of the faculty member as teacher andscholar. A reduction in workload is manifestly in orderwhen an institution wishes to draw heavily on the servicesof an individual in this way, or when with its approval heis engaged in community or government service. No uni-versally applicable rule can be advanced here, but, assuggested earlier, the faculty unit responsible for indi-vidual assignments should take all such additional servicesinto full consideration. Often, the determination of anappropriate reduction in workload depends on nothingmore complex than an estimate of the hours that theseadditional duties will require.

75

On Preventing Conflicts of Interest inGovernment-Sponsored Research at Universitie

The many complex problems that have developed in connection with the extensivesponsored research programs of the federal government have been of concern to thegovernment, the academic community, and private industry. The Association,through its Council, and the American Council on Education, working in coopera-tion with the President's Science Advisor and the Federal Council of Science andTechnology, in 1965 developed a statement of principles formulating basic standardsand guidelines in this problem area.

An underlying premise of the statement is that responsibility for determiningstandards affecting the academic community rests with that community, and thatconflict of interest problems are best handled by administration and faculty in co-operative effort. In addition to providing guidelines, the statement seeks to identifyand alert administration and faculty to the types of situations that have provedtroublesome. Throughout, it seeks to protect the integrity of the objectives andneeds of the cooperating institutions and their faculties, as well as of sponsoringagencies.

The increasingly necessary and complex relationshipsamong unit.. Government. and industry call formore intensive attention to standards of procedure andconduct in Government-sponsored research. The clarifies-don and application of such standards must be designedto fern the purposes and needs of the projects and thepublic interest= involved in them and to protect the in-tegrity of the cooperating institutions as agencies ofhigher education.

The Government and institutions of higher education.as the contracting parties, have strobligation to see thatadequate standards and psocedures are developed andapplied: to inform one another of their respective re-quirementst and to assure that all tndividuak maid-patios in their respective behaLs are informed of andapply the standards and procedures that me so developed.

Consulting relatioinhipa between universky sal mem-bers and industry serve the interests of research and edu-cation in the university. Likewise, the transfer of teas'.ad knowledge and *ill from the university so Industrycontribto .3 to technological advance. Such relationshipsare desirable, but certain posential hazards should berecopiaed.

A. Conlin Situations1. Favoring of outside interests. When a university sat

member (administrator. beaky member, prolestional

76

stall member, or employee) undertaking or engaging inGovertunentaponsored work has a significant financialinterest in. or a consulting arangement with. a privatebusiness concern. it is important to avoid actual atparent conflicts of interest between refs

sponsored university research obligation and hisside interests and other obligations. Situations in orfrom which conflicts of interest may arise are the:

a. Undertakine or orientation of the stall member'suniversity research ,o serve the research or other needsof the private firm without disclosure of such undertakingor orientation to the university and to the sponsoringMeng':

b. Purchase of major equipment, instruent*. natends. ce other items for university ressardLizose_theprivate firm in which the stall member has the Interestwithout disclosure of such interest;

c. Trauma-signs to the private km or other use forpersonal pin of Government-sponsored work products.

amserials, retards, or information that are notmade postrallr available. (This would not neceomrflypreclude appropriate Iknming anaapmens for inven-tions. or consulting on the basis of Govanment-sponsoredroma made where there is siptificant additional workby the 'sta. member independent of his Goverannkm-sponsored rootindt) ;

d. Use for personal gain or other unauthorized use ofprivileged information acquired in connection with thestaff member's Government-sponsored activities. (Theterm "privileged information" includes, but is not limitedto, medical, personnel, or security records of individuals;anticipated material requirements or price actions; pos-sible new sites for Government operations; and knowl-edge of forthcoming programs or of selection of con-tractors or subcontractors In advance of offidal announce.menu)

e. Negotiation or influence upon the negotiation ofcontracts relating to the staff member's Government-sponsored research between the university and private or-ganizations with which he has consulting or other sig-nificant relationships;

J. Acceptance of gratuities or special favors from pri-vate organizations with which the university does or mayconduct business in connection with a Government-spon-sored research project, or extension of gratuities or spe-cial favors to employees of the sponsoring Governmentagency, under circumstances which might reasonably beinterpreted as an attempt to influence the recipients inthe conduct of the duties.

2. Distribution of effort. There are competing demandson the energies of a faculty memlx. (for example, re-search, teachilg, committee work, outside consulting),The way in which he divides his effort among these vari-ous functions does not raise ethical question: unless theGovernment agency supporting his..research k misled inits understanding of the amount of intellectual effort heis actually devoting to the research in question. A systemof precise time accounting is incompatible with the in-herent character of the work of a faculty member, sincethe various-functions he performs are closely interrelated.nd do not conform to any meaningful division of acindard work week. On the other hand, If the researchagreement contemplates that a staff member will devotea certain fraction of his effort to the Government-spon-sored research, or he agrees to assume responsibility inrelation to such research, a demonstrable relationshipbetween the indicated effort or responsibility and the ac-tual extent of his Involvement is to be expected. Eachuniversity, therefore, shouldthrough :lint consultationof administration and facultydevelop rvocedures to as-sure that proposals are responsibly m . and compliedwith.

3. Consulting for Government agencies -or their con-tractors. When the staff member engaged in uovernment-sponsored research also serves as a consultant to a Fed-eral agency, his conduct is subject to the provisions of theConflict of Interest Statutes (IS U.S.C. 202.109 as amend-ed) and the Prmldent's memorandum of Hay 1, 19113,Avventing Conflicts of Merest on the PM of SpecialGovernment Employees. When he consults for one ormore Government contractors, or prospective contractors,in the same technical field as his research project, caremust be taken to avoid giving advice oe ofquestionable objectivity because of its possible 'Jeeringon his other interests. In undertaking and performingconsulting services, he should make full disdosutA of

such-interesu to the university and to the contractor in-sofar as they may appear to relate to the work at theunivenhi or for the 'contractor. Conflict of interest prob-lems could arise, for example, in the participation ofa staff member of the university in an evaluation forthe Government agency or hs contractor of some technicalaspect of the work of another organization with whichhe has a consulting or employment relationship or a sitnificaniTrtandal interest, or in an evaluation of a com-petitor to such other organization.

B. University Responsibility

Each university participating in Government-spon-sored research should make known to the sponsoringGovernment agendes:

I. Thiiiips it is taking to assure an understanding onthe part of the university administration and staff mem-bers of the possible conflicts of interest or other prob-lems that may develop in the foregoing types of situa-tions. and

2. The organizational and administrative actions ithas taken or is taking to avoid such problems, including:

a. Accounting procedures to be used to assure thatGovernment funds are expended for the purposes forwhich they have been provided, and that all serviceswhich are required in return for these funds are supplied;

b. Procedures that enable it to be aware of the out-side professional work of staff members participating inGovernmentsponsored research, if such outside work re-lates In any way to the Government-sponsored research;

c. The formulation of standards to guide the indi-vidual university staff members in governing their con-duct In relation to outside interest that might raisequestions of conflicts of interest; and

d. The provision within the university of an informedsource of advice and guidance to its staff members for ad-vance consultation on questions they wish so raise con-cerning the problems that may or do develop as a resultof their outside financial or consulting interests, as theyrelate to their participation in Governmenteponsored un-iversity research. The university may wish to discuss suchproblems with the contracting officer or other appropri-ate Government official in those cases that appear toraise questions regarding confikis of interest.

The above process of disclosure and consultation is theobligation assumed by the university when it acceptsGovernment funds for research. The process must, ofcourse, be carried out in a manner that does not infringeon the legitimate freedoms ant" flexibility of action ofthe university and its staff members Oat have traditioial-ly characterised a university. It is desirable chit standardsand procedures of the kind discussed be formulated andadministered by ,ambers of the university communitythemselves, *sough their joint Initiative and respuod-Ility, for it is they who are the best judges of the con-

ditions which can most effectively stimulate the searchfor knowledge at preserve the requirements of academ-ic freedom. Experience indicates that such standards andprocedures should be developed and specified by jointadmiristradve-faculty action.

Statement on Instructional-Television

The following Statement on Instructional Television was prepared by CommitteeC on Teaching, Research, and Publication. It was approved by the Council of theAmerican Association of University Professors in May, 1969, and endorsed by theFiftylifth Annual Meeting of the Association.

Preamble

Televised instruction may be by recording, live per-formance, or a mixture of the two, and may be broadcastor presented on a closed circuit. In closed-circuit transmis-sion, the instructional program is usually received ontelevision monitors in viewing rooms within the institu-tion. Broadcasting is often designed ft t_th_egeneral publicor off-campus students as well alittidettes located on cam-pus, and may include programs o -tu ttr7iiia enrichment("educational television') as well as programs offered forcourse credit or in other wityLdiresdy supporting the edu-cational objectives of the institution ("instructionaltelevision").

Both recorded and live performances, whether broadcastor presented on dosed wash, may involve special legal oradministrative problems. Recording, for example, is often_technically and administratively simpler than actual per-formance, but may require the consideration of additionalquestions of copyright, not only for materials previouslyprotected but also for materials created expressly for thenew program. Closed-circuit television is more suit "lethan general broadcasting for use as a supplement it reg-ular course instruction; its use, however, reses questionsof the appropriate distribution of authority and responsi-bility between the administration and the separatedepartments or programs within a given institution.Broadcasting is technically more complex, more expensive,and directed to a wider audience, and.it is under the reg-ulation of the Federal Communications Commission; forall these reasons, it as likely to entail a more elaborate or-ganizational pattern than that required for dosed-circuitinstruction, with a greater measure of autonomy for thetechnical and producing staff and a larger expenditure oftime and resources on extra-institutional goals,

More important, the development of instructional tele-vision has brought into being conditions never envisagedin the earlier academic tradition, raising many basic ques-tions about standards for teaching and scholarship. Six of

78

these altered conditions deserve special mention here. Oneis that the teacher typically does not have the usual face-to-face relationships with the student in or outside theclassroom. Another is that special means must be devisedfor assigning, guiding, and evaluating the work of stu-dents. A third is that the teacher is using a means ofcommunication dependent upon an extremely complexand expensive apparatus which is not under his exclusivecontrol and which requires for Its operation special tech-nical knowledge. A fourth is that the teacher's lecturesand demons.rations can be recorded and reused withoutthe teacher's being present. A fifth is that the teacher'srights, whether academic or legal, are imperfectly under-stood. And a sixth is that little careful attention has beengiven to the question of the faculty's authority in deter-mining policies and procedures for the use of television inthe institutional program.

It is imperative, therefore, that institutions now usingor planning to use television as an incidental or integralpart of their programs should give full consideration tothe educational functions which the new medium is in-tended to perform and to the specific problems which anygiven application will raise. Traditional principles ofsound academic procedure will often apply -to the newmedium, either directly or by extension, but they will notalways cover the new problems. When they fail to do SO,new principles must be developed by means of which thenew medium may be made to serve most effectively thebasic, continuing educational objectives of our collegesand universities. It is the purpose of this Statement to of-fer some appropriate guidelines to this end.

Principles

General

The use of television in teaching should be for the pur-pose of advancing the basic functions of colleges anduniversities to preserve, augment, criticize, and transmit

knowledge and to foster the student's ability to learn. Thedevelopment of institutional policies concerning instruc-tional television as an instrument of teaching and re-search is therefore the responsibility of the academic com-munity.

Usually no restriction should be placed by the institu-tion on a faculty member's occasional activities in com-mercial television. Such activities should be sufficientlylimited so that they do of interfere with his obligationsas a faculty member to his institution. In the event thatthere are sufficient reasons for his greater involvement incommercial television, he should make appropriate ar-rangements, such as for reduced teaching load and com-pensation or a leave of absence, in accordance withgoverning academic principles.

Areas of Responsibility

The governing board, administration, faculty, and stu-dents all have a continuing concern in determining thedesirability and feasibility of television as an educationalinstrument. Institutional policies on instructional televi-sion should define the respective areas of responsibility foreach group in terms of the particular competence for thefunctions which that group undertakes. In developingthese policies, all four groups should bear in mind thattelevision is one educational means among many, and not

for carrying out the basic functions of aCollege or university.

Faculty Responsibility

The faculty should have primary responsibility for de-termining the instructional television policies of theinstitution. The responsibility should be conferred anddefined by regulations promulgated by the governingbody. The rules governing instructional television shouldbe approved by vote of the faculty concerned or by a rep-resentative faculty body, officially adopted by the appro-priate authority, and published.

The departmental faculty should determine the extentt"i which closed-circuit television should be used, and themanner of its use, in resident instruction. Such depart-mental practices should conform to institutional policies.

Courses to be given for credit by television broadcast,whether :cr resident or extension credit, should be consid-ered and approved by the faculties of the department, di-vision, school, college, or university or by such representa-tives of these bodies as pass upon curricular mattersgenerally. These provistuns should apply to courseswhether given by actual (live) performance or by record-ings.

The faculty should determine the amount of creditwhich may be earned by a student toward a degree incourses given by television broadcast.

The faculty of the college or university should establishgeneral rules and procedures for the granting of teachingload credit in the preparation and the offering of coursesby television broadcast and for the allocation of support-ing resources. Within the general provisions of these gov-erning regulations, specific arrangements for coursesoffered by its members should be made within the depart-ment.

Adequate preparation for a television course, whetherby live broadcast or recording, requires considerable timeand effort for the writing and revision of scripts, planningof course assignments and tests. participation in rehears-als, and the distribution of informational materials to stu-dents. The teacher may, therefore, need to devote fulltime for the period of a term or more to these activities.While the course is being given, the demands on the--teacher include not only appearances before the camerabut also communications and conferences with students,evaluation of their work, keeping of course records, andalso supervision of academic and clerical assistants. Insome circumstances, accordingly, a one-semester coursemay constitute a full year's load for the teacher.

Adequate support in the form of academic and clericalassistance, facilities for communicating and conferringwith students, library resources, and an operating budgetshould be_provided the teacher so that he may adequatelycarry out his instructional responsibilities. Since instruc-tion by television does not allow for an exchange of reac-

, 'ions between students and teacher in the normalclassroom setting, adequate provisions should be made forthe students to confer with the teacher, or his academicassistant, by correspondence or personal conference.

The faculty should make certain that live or recordedprograms which are prepared by the institution for othercolleges and universities, whether for course credit or not,meet the same standards of appropriateness and excel-lence as those prepared for use in its own institution.

Courses prepared by the institution for elementary andsecondary schools should meet the academic standards setby the faculties of the disciplines concerned.

Whenever possible, the faculty should give encourage-ment to television programs of cultural enrichment ad-dressed to -the general public as well as to its ownstudents.

Teaching Appointments

The precise terms and conditions of every appointmentshould be stated in writing and be in the possession ofthe faculty member and the institution before the ap-pointment to participate in instruction by television isconsummated.

No member of the faculty should be required to partici-pate in instructional television as teacher, writer, consult-ant, or in any other capacity, unless he consents inadvance to such participation. A newly appointed memberof the faculty should not be required to participate in in-structional television unless he has agreed to do so as acondition of his appointment.

Academic Freedom

A faculty member engaged in instructional television isentitled to academic freedom as a teacher, researcher, andcitizen in accordance with the provisions of the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Ten-ure, ;--.ntly developed by the Association of AmericanColleges and the American Association of University Pro-fessors and endorsed by many educational and profes-sional organizations.

Because television production is a form of publication,

79

a faculty member has the same freedom to enter into anagreement with an educational or commercial agency toproduce, or otherwise participate in, a television programas he has in arranging for the publication of his own writings with a commercial, university, or other nonprofitpress or with a schohrly or professional journal.

Selection of MaterialsThe teacher should have the same full responsibility for

the selection and presentation of materials and of pointsof view in courses offered by television as he has in thosegiven by traditional means. For departmental and interde-partmental projects the faculty concerned should sharethis responsibility.

Technical ConsiderationsA facuhy_member who undertakes to teach by television--

should acquaint himself with the rudiments of the techni-cal procedures in recording and live performance as theyrelate to his own professional activity so that his subjectmatter may be most effectively presented, and he shouldcooperate with the producer and other members of theproduction staff in every reasonable way. The teacher,nevertheless, has the final responsibility for the contentand objectives of the program.

80

Proprietary Rights end Educationist PoliciesTo protect the interests of the individual creators and

the educational objectives of the institution, the facultyshould establish and publish appropriate guiding policiesand procedures. Explanationi should be provided for fac-ulty members unfamiliar with copyright law.

These policies should indude provisions for appropriateLompensation to the creator for his original productionand for its reuse when recorded.

Provision should also be made so that the originalteacher-creator, or an appropriate faculty body, can exer-cise control of the future use and distribution of a re-corded television course and can initiate periodic reviewsto determine whether the course should be revised orwithdrawn from instructional use because of obsolescence.

No recording of a teacher's presentation in thetraditional classroom setting, whether for reuse on instruc-tional television or for any other purpose, should be madewithout his prior knowledge and consent.

A recorded program of instruction is an academic docu-ment. Hence, like any other scholarly work, it should bearthe name of its author, his institutional affiliation, thedate whet it was recorded, and appropriate acknowledg-ments.

Statement of Principles onAcademic Retirement and Insurance Plans

The Statement which follows was prepared by a joint committee of the AmericanAssociation of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges.It was adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Professors in May, 1969, and endorsed by the Fifty-Nth Annual Meeting as AssociaLion policy.

The purpose of an institution's retirement policy forfaculty members and administrators and its program fortheir insurance benefits and retirement annuities shouldbe to help educators and their families withstand the fi-nancial impacts of illness, old age, and death and to in.crease the educational effectiveness of the college anduniversity. This policy and program should be designed toattract individuals of the highest abilities to educationalwork, to sustain the morale of the faculty, to permit fac-ulty members to devote their energies with singleness ofpurpose to the concerns of the institution and the profession, and to provide for the orderly retirement of facultymembers and administrators.

The following practices are recommended:

1. The retirement policy and annuity plan of an insti-tution, as well as its insurance plans, should:

a. Be clearly defined and easily understandable by boththe faculty and the administration of the institution.When the age of retirement. is fixed, the facultymember or administrator should be reminded of his-approaching retirement at least one year prior to thedate on which it is to become effective. When the retirement age is flexible, he should be informed of hisimpending retirement at least six months prior tothe date on which it is to occur, except that if he isto be retired as early as age 65, this period shouldM at least one year.

b. Take into account the old age, survivor, disability,and medical benefits of federal Social Security andother applicable public programs.

c. Permit mobility (4 faculty members and adminis-trators among institutions without loss of accruedretirement benefits and with little or no gap in annuity and insurance plan participation.

d. Be reviewed periodically by faculty and atIministration of the institution, with appropriate recommen-

dations to the institution's governing board, to assurethat the plans continue to meet the needs, resources,and objectives of the institution and the faculty.

2. Retirement should normally occur at the end of theacademic year in which the faculty member or administra-tor reaches the age specified for retirement by his institu-tion's plan. Each institution should make dear whether.for these purposes, the summer period attaches to the pceding or the forthcoming academic year. Retirementprovisions currently in effect at different institutions varyin the age specified for retirement and in the degree of

flexibility relating to extensions of active service. Cogentarguments can be advanced in support of a number ofthese arrangements. Since conditions vary greatly amonginstitutions, however, no universally applicable formulacan be prescribed. Plans in which the retirement age fallswithin the range of 65 to 70 appear to be in conformitywith reasonable practice.

Where the institution has a flexible plan that providesfor extension of service beyond its base retirement age, ex-tensions should be by annual approintment and ordinarilyshould not postpone retirement beyond the end of the ac-ademic year in which age 70 is attained. Such extensionsshould be made upon recommendation of representativesof the faculty and administration through al.;sropriatecommittee procedures that assure full protection o f aca-demic freedom. Representatives of the faculty should bechosen in accordance with procedures adopted by the fac-ulty for committee appcintment. (This also applies to theresponsibilities noted in Id, 3, and 4.)

3. Circumstances that may seem to justify a :acuitymember's retirement before the base retirement age in aflexible plan or the stated age in a fixed plan, or his disas-sociation from the institution for reasons of disability.should in all cases be considered by representatives of thefaculty gd administration through appropriate committeeprocedures. Where issues of tenure are involved in a case

81

of retirement before the base retirement age in a flexibleplan or the stated age in a fixed plan, standard proce-dures of due process should be available.

4. The retirement age for faculty may differ from theage for retirement from administrative duties. Cessation ofadministrative duties, however, with assignment of teach-ing responsibilities only, is not interpreted as a retirement.

5. The recall of faculty members from retired status tofull or part-time activity should be by annual appoint.ment upon recommendation of representatives of the fac-ulty and administration through appropriate committeeprocedures. Such recall should be rare; expected dutiesshould be clearly defined; and full-time service should bearranged only in unusual circumstances.

6. Between the ages of 60 and retirement, faculty mem-bers should be permitted to arrange, on their own initia-tive, reductions in salary and services acceptable both tothem and to their institutions. Such reductions in salaryand services should occur without loss of tenure, rank, oreligibility for benefit-plan participation.

7. The institution should provide for a plan of retire-ment annuities. Such a plan should:

a. Require participation after not more than one yearof service by all full-time faculty members and ad-ministrators who have attained a specified age, notlater than 30.

b. Be financed by contributions made during each yearof service, including leaves of absence with pay, withthe institution conributing as much as or more thaneach participant. Moreover, an institution's retire-ment plan should be so organized as to permit volun-tary annuity contributions from employees on leavesof absence without pay. In order that participants ina contributory plan may have-the tax treatment of anoncontributory plan available to them, the individ-ual should have the option to make his required con-tributions by salary reduction in accordance with rele-vant tax laws.

c. Maintain contributions at a level considered suffi-cient to giie the long-term partidF.ant a retirementincome that is aperopriately related to his level ofincome prior to rarer...Tit, with provision for con-tinuing more than half of such retirement incometo a surviving spouse. The recommended objectivefor a person who participates in the-plan-ler-66 ormore years is an after-tax retirement income includ-ing federal Social Security benefits equivalent in pur-chasing power to approximately two thirds of theyearly disposable income realized from his salary af-ter taxes and other mandatory deductions during hislast few years of full-time employment.

d Ensure that the full accumulations from the individ-ual's and the institution's contributions are fully andimmediately vested in the individual, available as abenefit in case of death before annuity paymentscommence, and with no forfeiture in case of with-drawal or dismissal from the institution.

82

e. Be such that the individual may withdraw the ac-cumulated funds only in the form of an annuity.To avoid administrative expense, exception might bemade for very small accumulations in an inactive ac-count.

8. The institution should help retired faculty membersand adminiftrators remain a part of the institution, pro-viding, where possible, such facilities as: a mail address,library privileges, office facilities, faculty dub membership,the institution's publications, secretarial help, administra-tion of grants, labcratory rights, faculty dining privileges,and participation in convocations and academic proces-sions. Institutions that confer the emeritus status shoulddo so in accordance with standards determined by the fac-ulty and administration.

9. When a new retirement policy or annuity plan isinitiated or an old one changed, reasonaole transitionprovisions, either by special financial arrangements or bythe gradual inauguration of the new plan, should bemade for those who would otherwise be adversely affected.

10. The institution should maintain a program ofgroup insurance financed in whole or in part by the insti-tution and available to faculty members and administra-tors as soon as practicable after employment. The pro-

r-gnen-alastrld continue all coverages during leave of ab-sence with pay, and during leave without pay unlessequally adequat. protection is otherwise provided for theindividual. The tit-0gram should indude:

a. Life incur. -e providing a benefit considered suffi-cient to s.. airs the standard of living of the staffmember's family for at least one year following hisdeath. Where additional protection is contemplated,the special financial needs of [wallies of younger fac-ulty members should receive particular consideratkm.

b. Insurance for medical expenses, with emphasis uponprotection against the major expenses of illness or in-jury in preference to minor expenses that cause noserious drain on a family's budget. Such insuranceshould continue to be available through the institu-tion (1) for the retired staff member and spouse,and (2) for the surviving spouse who does not re-marry and dependent children of an active or retiredstaff member who dies while insured.

c. Insurance providing a monthly in..ome for staff mem-bers who remain totally disabled beyond the periodnormally covered by salary continuation or sick pay.For a person who has been disabled six months ormore, the plan should provide an after-tax incomeincluding federal Social Security benefits equivalentin purchasing power to approximately two thirds ofthe income he realized after taxes and mandatorydeductions prior to his disability. Such incomeshould continue during total disability for the nor-mal period of employment at the institution, withadequate provision for a continuing income through-out the retirement years.

Statement of Principleson Leaves of Absence

The following Statement, proposed by a special committee of the AmericanAssociation of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges,was first published in the Winter, 1971, Bulletin, with an invitation for commentsfrom members and chapters. The Statement was adopted by the Association ofAmerican Colleges at its Annual Meeting in January, 1972. In May, 1972, it wasapproved by the Council and endorsed by the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting as thepolicy of the-American Association of University Professors.

Purposes

Leaves-of absence are among the most important meansby which a faculty member's teaching effectiveness maybe enhanced, his scholarly usefulness enlarged, and aninstitution's academic program strengthened and devel-oped. A sound program of leaves is therefore of vitalimportance to a college or university, and it is the obliga-tion of every faculty member to make use of availablemeans, including leaves, to promote his professional com-petence. The major purpose is to provide opportunity forcontinued professional growth and new, or renewed, in-tellectual achievement through study, research, writing,and travel Leaves may also be provided in appropriatecircumstances for projects of direct benefit to the institu-tion and for public or private service outside the institu-tion.' Leaves should also be gained for illness, recoveryof health, and maternity.

Development of Leave Po Neles

Leave policies and procedures should be developedwith full faculty participation. Faculty members, actingthrough appropriate representatives, should also have akey role in the selection of the recipients of individualle,ves. The institution and the individual !.culty mem'erhave a common responsibility for endeavoring to achieve

l Leave for the purpose of engaging in political activity isdiscussed in the "Statement on Professors and PoliticalActivity,"AA UP Bulletin. Autumn, 1969, pp. 388-3119.

the objective of the -leave programthe institution lr;estaEishing an effective program, the faculty member bymaking appropriate use of it. Leave policies should beflexible enough to meet the needs of both the individualand the institution.

Eligloility and Procedures

The pirpose of a leave program is to promote theprofessional development of all faculty membersthosewho are 1:kely to stay at the institution for a long periodbut also, although not necessarily to the same degree,those for whom Clere is no such assuraneez---

Previous service and leaves at other institutions shouldbe taken into consideration in determining eligibility forleave. Persons nearing retirement should be eligible forleave with pay if it is clear that the leave will achieve itspurposes both for the individual and the institution.

For a nontenured faculty member on scholarly leave forone year or less, the period of leave should count as partof the probationary period as if it were prior service atanother institution? Exceptions to this policy should bemutually agreed to in writing prior to the leave.

A faculty member should apply for leave at a reason-able time in advance and through established procedures,

2 Credit/or prior service toward fulfillment of the probe-tionaryperiod is discussed in the '1940 Statement of PrLicipleson Acidotic Freedom and Tenure," AAUP Bulletin, Autumn,1970. op. 323-326. Cf. the section on Academic Tenure, Ari-stech 2.2.

--83

so that the institution can more readily care for his workin his absence and so that he can plan to make the bestuse of his opportunity. All evidence that the leave willincrease individual effectiveness or produce academicallyor socially useful results should be considered in evalu-ating applications. A leave may either involve specializedscholarly activity or be designed to provide broad culturalexperience and enlarged perspective. Administrators andfaculty agencies concerned with implementation of leavepolicies may reasonably require the individual to submitsuch advance plans as are likely to assure productiveresults.

Individual and Institutional Obligations

A faculty member has an obligation to return forfurther service following leave of absence wbea, the cir-cumstances of granting the leave indicate that this is theequitable action, as is often the case when leave with payis granted. He should of course -honor an agreement toreturn to the institution, unless other arrangements aremutually agreed upon. The precise terms of the leave ofabsence should be in writing and should be given to thefaculty member prior to the commencement of the leave.

Even when there is no obligation to return, the facultymember who resigns while on leave should give noticeaccording to accepted standards. Moreover, a college oruniversity should not knowingly invite a person to join itsstal at a time when the individual cannot properly acceptthe invitation. In most instances, an institution whichinvites a faculty member to accept a new appointmentwhile on leave should feet obliged to pay at least a portionof the cost of the leave.

Frequency and Duration of Waves

Leaves should not be considered as deferred compensa-tion to which a faculty member is entitled no matter whatother opportunities he may have had for professionaldevelopment. They should, however, be provided with

reasonable frequency and preferably be available at regu-lar intervals because they are important to the continuinggrowth of the faculty member and the effectiveness ofthe institution.

Ordinarily, leaves of absence, whatever the source offunding, should not be more than one year in length, butexceptions to this rule should be possible in cases in-

__ volvinglicalth, public service, overseas appointments, orother special circumstances.

Financial Arrangements

Leaves of one semester at full salary or an academicyear at half salary are commonly provided. The institu-tion is not obliged to assume the financial burden of alltypes ef leaves. It does have the obligation, however, touse its own leave funds in such a manner as to balance

the opportunity for professional development among andwithin academic fields.

Whatever the source of funding, the amount paid to theperson on leave should not depend on the cost of caringfor his work in his absence, nor should a leave of absenceof a year or less interfere with the opportunity for pro-motion or increase in salary.

Continuous coverage under sarious types of insuranceprograms should be provided while a faculty member ison leave. When the faculty member is on leave with pay,both the institution and the individual should continuecontributions toward his retirement annuity.

If a faculty member, on leave without pay, takes atemporary but full-time appointment at another institutionor organization, it is reasonable to expect the appointinginstitution or organization to assume the cost of institu-tional contributions to the individual's retirement annuityand group insurance programs.

Foundations, government agencies, and other organizetions supporting leaves for scholarly purposes shouldinclude in their grants an amount sufficient to maintainins'itutional annuity and group insurance contributionsas v ell as salaries.

Constitution of the Association'

Artide IPurpeee

The name of this Association shall be the AmericanAssociation of University Professors. Its purpose shall beto facilitate a more effective cooperation among teachersand research scholars in universities and colleges, and inprofessional schools of similar grade,, for the promotionof the interests of higher education and research, andin general to increase the usefulness and advance thestandards, ideals, and welfare of the profession.

Article IIMembership

I. There shall be four classes of members:a. Active Members. Any jx.reon who holds a posi-

tion of teaching or research in a university or college inthe United States or Canada, or in the discretion of theCouncil in an American-controlled institution situatedabroad, or in a professional school of similar grade maybe admitted to Active memliership in the Association. Anyprofessional appointee included in a collective representa-tion unit with the faculty of an approval institution mayalso be admitted to Active membership in the Association.

b. Graduate Student Members. Any person who is,or within the past five years has been, a graduate studentmay be admitted to Graduate Student membership.Graduate Student members shall be transferred to Activemembership as soon as they become eligible.

c. Associate Members. Any member who ceases tobe eligible for Active or Graduate Student membershipbecause his work has become primarily administrativeshall be transferred to Associate membership.

d. Emeritus Members. Any Active or Associatemember retiring for age may be transferred at his requestto Emeritus membership.

2. The admission of members shall require two steps:a. Application. Application for Active and Gradu-

ate Student membership shall be made to the GeneralSecretary of the Association.

b. Acceptance and Nodfication. When an applicant'seligibility has been determined, it shall be the duty of

Last amended at the Fifty-eishth Anima Meeting of theAssociation, in New Orleans, Louisiana, May 5-6, 1972.

the General Secretary to inform him promptly that hehas been accepted to membership, and to include hisname in the list of new members sent to chapter officers.

person's membership may be protested, on grounds ofeligibility, by an Active member of the Association. Ifa majority of the members of the Committee on Member-ship and Dues votes to sustain the protest, the person inquestion will be informed that his membership has ceasedto be effective.

.3. A member may resign by notifying the GeneralSecretary, and may be expelled for cause by a two-thirdsvote of the Council after opportunity for a hearing.Membership shall be forfeited by nonpayment of duesunder conditions to be established by the Council.

ktkle 111-0Ificers

I. The officers of the Association shall be a President,a First Vice-President, a Second Vice-Pre: ident, who areelected by the Active members of the Association, anda General Secretary, a Treasurer, and a General Counsel,who are appointed by the Council of the Association.

2. The telft-iif office of the President and the Vice-Presidents shall be two years, and shall expire at the closeof the last session of the, Annual Meeting following theelection of their successors, or, if a meeting of the Councilis held after and in connection with the Annual Meeting,at the close of the last se lion of the Council.

3. The President and the Vice-residents shall have theduties usually associated with these offices. The President

b shall preside at meetings of the Association and the Coun-cil. He shall appoint all committees of the Associationand shall be ex officio a member of all except the Nomi-nating Committee. He shall also be a nonvoting ex officiomember of the governing bodies of all conferences.

4. The General Secretary shall carry on the work ofthe Association under the general direction of the Presi-dent, preparing the business for meetings yid keepingthe records thereof. He shall conduct -coerespondencewith all constituents of the Association. He shall collectthe membership dues and any other sums due the Asso-ciation and transfer them to the Treasurer. He shall havecharge of the off re of the Association and be responsible

85

for its efficient and economical management. He shall bea nonvoting ex officio member of the governing bodies ofall conferences. He may with the approval of the Presi-dent delegate any of these duties to other memt'ers ofa professional staff appointed by the Council.

5. The Treasurer shall receive all moneys and depositthem in the name of the Association. With the authoriza-tion of the Council, he shall invest any funds not neededfor current disbursements. He shall pay all bills approvedby the General Secretary. He shall make a report to theAssociation at the Annual Meeting and such other reportsas the Council may direct. He may with the areprov.d ofthe Council authorize an Assistant Treasurer to Et forhim. The financial records of the Association sh441 beaudited annually by an external agency, and the reportof the audit shall be publisf :d.

Article 1VThe Council

1. The President, the Vice-Presidents, the GeneralSecretary, the Treasurer, the General Counsel, and theChairman of the Assembly of State and Regional Con-ferences, together with the three latest living, ex-

Presidents, shall, with thirty elective members, constitutethe Council of the Association. Ten members of theCouncil shall be elected each year in the manner providedin this Constitution, to serve for three-year terms, accord-ing to the provision governing the terms of the officers.

2. The Council shall carry out the purposes of theAssociation and, subject to the authority of a meeting asdefined in this Constitution, act for the Association. TheCouncil shall (a) determine, for each class of members,the annual dues and regulations governing their payment;(h) manage the property and financi J affairs of theAssociation, with power to accept gifts to the Association;(c) construe the provisions of this Constitution; (d) pro-vide for the publications ofiW-Association; (e) appointand determine the salaries of the Genera' secretary,members of a professional staff, Generale 'tinsel, andTreasurer; (f) determine the time, place, ano program ofthe Annual Meeting and conVene special meetings of theAssociation at its discretion; (g) puolish a record of itsmeetings to the membership; (h) authorize the establish-ment of committees of the Association; (i) authorize theestablishment of regiogal offices of the Association; and

authorize reapportionment and redistricting of themembership not less than once each decade.

3. As a representative of both the Association and hisdistrict, each member of the Council shall promote theexchange of ideas between the Council and the member-ship. He may receive and transmit to the Council thep is of members, chapters, and state and regionalconferences within his district. He shall be a nonvotingex officio member of the governing committees of thoseconferences.

4. Meetings of the Council shall be held in connectionwith the Annual Meeting of the Association and at leastat One other time each year, upon not less than twoweeks' notice to the Council. Ten members elected fromdistricts shall constitute a quorum. The Council may also

86

transact business by letter ballot. A special meeting ofthe Council shall be called by the President on the writtenrequest of at least eight members of the Council.

5. The President may, with the advice and consentof the Council, appoint an Executive Committee of notfewer than six Council members, including the Presidentand First Vice-President ex officio. Between meetings ofthe Cohncil, the Executive Committee may exercise suchpowers as the Council has delegated to it and, underunforeseen exigencies, exercise other powers subject tothe subsequent approval of the Council. Meetings of theCommittee may be called by the Presider*

Article VElection of Officers and Council

1. Only Active members are eligible for election asofficers or members of the Council. Nominations for theelective offices to be filled and for membership on theCouncil shall be made by a Nominating Committee offive or more members, not officers or other members ofthe Council, appointed by the President with the adviceand consent of the Council. Before submitting to theCouncil for approval his appointments to the NominatingConimittee, the President shall invite suggestions in

writing from the members of the Council as to the mem-bership of the Committee. The Committee shall bechosen each year in titne to seek z td receive suggestionsfrom the members, chapters, and conferences of theAssociation with regard to persons to be nominated, andto meet and submit its report to the General Secretary,for publication to the members not later than October 1.

2. One member of the Council shall be elected eachyear from each of ten geographical districts formed withregard to the distribution of the Association's membershipand to geographical contiguity. In preparation for anelection, the Nominating Committee shall nominate twoActive members of the -Association from each district forthe position on the Council to be filled from the district.

3. Nominations for members of the Council may alsobe made by petitions signed by at least fifty Active mem-bers of the Association resident within the district fromwhich the Council member is to be chosen, provided thatin determining the required number of signatures notmore than ten shall be members at a single institution.Nominations for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidenciesmay also be made by petition signed by at least 150 Activemembers of the Association, provided that in determiningthe required number of signatures not more than fifteenof those signing a petition shall be members at a singleinstitution and not more than ninety shall be members ina single district. No member shall sign more than onepetition for the same office. Petitions presenting nomina-tions shall be filed in the office of the General Secretarynot later than November 15.

4. The General Secretary shall prepare ballots con-taining the names of all nominees to office and to Councilmembership, with relevant biographical data and a state-ment of the method of nomination. Ballots shall bemailed to all Active members of the Association in Janu-ary and the polls shall be closed two months after the

mailing. The nominee receiving a plurality of votes shallbe declared olected. The President, the Vice-Presidents,and the retincg elective members of the Council whohave served full terms shall not be eligible for immediatereelection to their respective offices.

5. A vacancy occurring on the Council or in theSecond Vice-Presidency shall be filled by a majority voteof the Council for the unexpired term.

Article VIMeetings of the Association

1. The Association -shatl-tritet -annually except whenprevented by war or other national emergency. TheGeneral Secretary shall give notice to the membership ofa meeting at least 30 days in advance. A quorum shall bea majority of the delegates registered for a meeting. Ameeting of the Association shall have authority (a) toamend the Constitution in the manner herein provided;(b) to express its views on professional matters; (c) toact on recommendations presented to it by the Council;(d) to require the Council to report to the ensuing meet-ing on subjects within the province of the Association;(e) to propose action which, upon concurrence by theCouncil, shall become the action of the Association; and(f) in the event of disagreement between the Council anda meeting of the Association, to take final action asprovided in the following section.

2. If the Council declines to concur in a proposal ofa meeting of the Association, it shall report its reasons tothe ensuing meeting. If that meeting concurs in the actionof the previous meeting, the action shall become that ofthe Association. An action of the Association reached(a) by concurrence of the Council in an action of ameeting of the Association or (b) in two successivemeetings shall not be charged except by the joint actionof the Council and a meeting of the Association or bytwo successive meetings'of the Association.

3 The Active members of the Association in eachchap :sr may elect not more than one delegate from thatchap. ir for each twenty-five Active members or fraction

thereof at the institution, to each meeting of the Associ-ation. All members of the Association shall be entitled tothe privileges of the floor, but only Active members mayvote. On request of one fifth of the delegates present, aproportional vote shall be taken. In a proportional vote,the accredited delegates from each chapter shall be en-tided to a number of votes equal to the number of Activemembers at the institution, but any other Active membernot at an institution thus represented shall be entitled toan individual vote. In case a chapter has More than onedelegate, each delegate may cast an squid portion of thevotes to which the chapter is entitled.

4. Except as provided in this Constitution or in rulesadopted pursuant to it, the meetings of the Associationshall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order.

. Article VIChapters

1. Whenever the Active metrbers in a given institutionnumber seven or more, they may constitute a chapter of

the Association. More than one chapter may be estab-lished in an institution when its parts are geographicallyseparate. Each chapter shall elect, from its Active mem-bers, at least biennially, a President, a Secretary, and aTreasurer (or Secretary-Treasurer), ani such otherofficers as the chapter may determine. It shall be the dutyof the Secretary of the chapter to report to the GeneralSecretary of the Association the names of the officers ofthe chapter and to conduct the correspondence of thechapter with the General Secretary.

2. All Active, Graduate Student, and Emeritus mem-bers in the institution, but not other members of thefaculty, shall be eligible for membership in the chapter.Graduate Student and Emeritus members may vote inchapter meetings at the discretion of the chapter.Associate members may attend meetings by invitation ofthe chapter.

3. A chapter may establish local membership dues.It may meet with other chapters and with other localorganizations. Its actions shall be in harmony with theprinciples and procedures of the Association.

- Article VIIIState and Regional Conferences

Upon approval by the Council, several chapters mayorganize a conference of the American Association ofUniversity Professors which shall be open to all chaptersand! tafffiiated members within the area or group. Aconference may consider and act upon professional mat-ters which are of concern to the member chapters, but itsaction shall not bind the member chapters without theirauthorization and shall be in harmok .vith the principles-and procedures of the As ociatim. All ..:onferences areentitled to participate in the w.livities of the Assemblyof State and Regional Conferences. Formal recom-mendations on the purposes, structure, and work of theAssociation from conferences and the Assembly of Stateand Regional Conferences shall go to the Council forconsideration and possible transmission to meetings ofthe Association.

Article IXAmendments

Th 3 -onstitution may be amended by a two-thirds voteof a n.eeting of the Association. An amendment may beinitiated by the Council or proposed to it by not fewerthe. ten Active members. At its next meeting, the Coun-cil shall approve, amend, or disapprove a proposal sub-mitted to it, and report its conclusions to the proponents.It shall report through the General Secretary to themembership, at least one month before a meeting of theAssociation, a proposal which it initiates or approves.Upon failure of agreement between the Council and theproponents of ao amendment, the proponent may, withthe concurrence of at least five chapters, secure sub-mission of their proposal- to the next meeting of theAssociation by communicating it to the General Secretaryat least three months in advance. The General Secretaryshall transmit all amendments thus proposed to eachmember at least one month before the meeting.

87

ED 080 102 American Association of Univ.- Professors ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 080 102 BE 004 640...

Documents

Transcript of ED 080 102 American Association of Univ.- Professors ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 080 102 BE 004 640...