Joint Ventures
Since 1974 the AAUP has permitted some of its chapters to enter into collective bargaining contracts in partnership with other faculty organizations. For over a decade the Association kept altering its policies regarding these joint ventures. Originally the General Secretary was empowered to approve such affiliations; later the authority to grant approval was shifted to the Council.
In 1987 Committee N issued a "Policy on Joint Affiliations." Still awaiting Council action as of June 1988, it distinguishes among two separate classes of joint affiliations. Joint Ventures of local chapters in partnership with other national organizations, when approved by the General Secretary and ratified by the Council, must be in written accord with AAUP policies and include agreement "to promote the principles, standards, and policies of the Association." Prior to granting approval of a joint venture, the General Secretary must be "satisfied that the chapter has no reasonable expectation of winning independently in a representation election," and must both consult the Chairs of the ASC and the CBC and "attempt to determine the sentiment of the membership of the petitioning chapter." Organizational Affiliates, involving non-AAUP membership entities composed primarily of professional employees normally eligible for AAUP membership who desire to enter into CB partnership with the Association, must win the approval of the General Secretary and the Council and adhere to the same AAUP standards as the JVs.
The AAUP, by written agreement, will rebate up to sixty percent of the full active member dues paid by members of joint venture CB organizations, who will have voting rights in the Association of the total obligation; beyond this point full voting privileges accrue. Members of organizational affiliates must remit AAUP dues equal to twenty per cent of the amount paid by active members of the Association, but no proportional voting rights are here extended; full voting rights will, of course, result from the payment of full active member dues. Members of both the JVs and the APs will receive all regular AAUP publications and other benefits as specified in the applicable agreement.
Committee O on Organization
The Constitution of the Association requires that "reappointment and redistricting of the membership" take place "not less than once each decade." Committee O surveys the membership, recommends district boundaries and membership composition to the Council, which in turn proposes the boundaries of the new districts to the Annual Meeting. Committee O also handles all other proposals which purport to affect the structure of the Association.
Committee R on Government Relations
For many years the AAUP has been the "voice of the profession" to key officials in the legislative and executive branches of government in America, at all levels. The Association's Director of Government Relations, Dr. Alfred D. Sumberg, and his Assistant Director, while working in Washington with Members of Congress, Senators and representatives of the executive branch to advance the goals and principles of the AAUP, also maintain a network of consultants and supporters among Association members nationwide. These professors not only reflect campus sentiment and gather information about national, state, and local political issues, but also stand ready to add their individual voices to discussions of important political issues involving higher education.
The basic policy of the Association "on Professors and Political Activity" appears on pages 33-34 of the Redbook. After citing examples of restrictions on political participation by professors at a diversity of higher education institutions, and following a brief recapitulation of the relevant features of the federal Hatch Act, the Redbook policy statement recommends that campus authorities publish regulations governing the political activity of faculty members which are consistent with basic AAUP principle regarding the rights and responsibilities of citizens, effective service as professors, leaves of absence, and reductions of workloads.
Committee R, formed by the Council in 1958, meets twice a year, in November and February. Currently it comprises eight members (including the President of the AAUP), two consultants, and the chairs of the ASC and CBC as invited participants. At its two formal gatherings, Committee R formulates a government relations agenda for the Association, plans and critiques work by its staff to carry out its programs, and discusses strategy and tactics. During the year it furnishes authoritative speakers to testify before congressional committees and to present the AAUP's positions before other policy making groups. Through its staff it periodically circulates issues of AAUP Legislative News and sends out frequent "Legislative Alerts" to members of the Association's Congressional Network. It provides daily updates of national legislative activity on a toll-free AAUP telephone "hotline."
As the chair of Committee R stated in his annual report for 1987 "Two factors influence the development of the AAUP's annual government relations agenda. One is an historical commitment to equal educational opportunity; therefore we support those federal programs that promote opportunities for students. The second is a commitment to assist faculty in their roles as teachers, researchers, and citizens; therefore we support those federal programs that encourage faculty to carry out their professional responsibilities and recognize their rights as members of the academic and general communities."
In recent years AAUP members have participated in efforts to prevent or alleviate cuts in federal spending for such programs as guaranteed student loans, national direct student loans, Pell grants, and student work-study payments, as well as such agencies as the Library of Congress, the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, and the National Institutes of Health. In coalitions with other interested parties, the AAUP has won notable success not only in fighting efforts to gut the programs and agencies mentioned but also in the struggles to eliminate from the McCarren-Walter Act of 1958 provisions used to justify withholding visas from foreign visitors to the United States because of disagreement with their published ideas or their political associations, and to pass the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act, which overturned that portion of the Supreme Court's Grove City decision that limited the coverage of federal civil rights, rehabilitation, and age discrimination laws to specific institutional programs or departments, rather than apply them to an entire institution. Still underway are efforts to pass legislation to rectify the damage of the 1980 Supreme Court Yeshiva decision. Association representatives also continue to participate in discussions with others who also wish to improve the retirement provisions of the Age Discrimination Employment Act, to update the federal minimum wage law, and to minimize federal restrictions on faculty research. On occasion the AAUP has sponsored "faculty--administrator--legislator seminars," at which representatives of these three groups are brought together in a "retreat" setting to exchange views and perceptions about higher education in relation to government.
A regular format has developed for Annual Meetings held in Washington, D. C. that includes and "AAUP Government Relations Day." Following an orientation for Government Relations Day participants on Tuesday evening, AAUP members gather early Wednesday in the Rayburn House Office Building for a breakfast at which the Henry T. Yost Congressional Recognition Award is presented to a member of the House of Representatives who has compiled a distinguished record in support of higher education. Then, Association members visit representatives and senators throughout the day for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual interest. During the afternoon time is allocated for a reception at which a second Yost award is presented to a deserving U.S. senator.
When the Annual Meeting is held outside the nation's capital, as at Los Angeles in 1987, the format is likely to include workshops and panels oriented to state issues and lobbying mechanics, in addition to discussions of national higher education policies and developments. for professors who wish to be effective in government relations at the state level, the Association furnishes an "AAUP Guide to Action: A Handbook on Lobbying at the State Capitol," now available in a revised edition. Moreover, the Director of Government Relations in the Washington office regularly attends meeting of such organizations as the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislators to maintain contacts at the state level and to monitor developments.
Committee T on College and University Government
In General
Professors may adhere closely as individuals to high professional standards of conduct, and may even exhibit concern for the conditions and objectives of learning on their campuses, but this alone is insufficient. In order to fulfill their obligations to exercise academic responsibility commensurate with their claims to academic freedom and rights to aspire to a privileged tenured status they must make vigorous and conscientious use of opportunities to participate in institutional governance. Committee T was established at the third Annual Meeting of the Association to consider and report on "the place and functions of faculties in university government and administration," and it has endured ever since as one of the most active and important units in the AAUP.
Committee T (1) gathers information about the extent and methods of faculty participation in campus governance, and (2) formulates statements of principle applicable to such activity. It also (3) initiated investigations and mediations in instances where proper faculty-administration relationships were alleged not to exist. (AAUP Bulletin, May 1965, pp. 170-172.)
Studies based on questionnaires submitted periodically to chapters, and in-house rating scales devised to characterize the status of governance on particular campuses, have in the past enabled Committee T representatives to speak with authority on faculty participation in institutional decision-making. AAUP members and other interested parties should consult the Redbook," for guidance in governance matters.
The basic statement on "Government of Colleges and Universities," formulated jointly by the AAUP, the American council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, reflects over two decades of "mutual understanding" regarding this subject by faculty, administrative, and board leaders throughout America. This statement is so important that excerpts from it follow:
When an educational goal has been established, it becomes the responsibility primarily of the faculty to determine appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction....
When ... external requirements [such as legislative acts or church decrees] influence course content and [the] manner of instruction or research, they impair the educational effectiveness of the institution....
[Faculty should] have a voice in the determination of [budget] ... priorities....
The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty.... He should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.
The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the responsibility of the president with the advice of and in consultation with the appropriate faculty.
Determinations of faculty status [should be] normally based on the recommendations of the faculty groups involved....[This includes] selection and promotion and the granting of tenure. Joint action should also govern dismissals.
The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process....
The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees ... [and] determines when the requirements have been met....
The chairman or head of a department ... should be selected either by departmental election or by appointment following consultation with members of the department and of related departments; appointments should normally be in conformity with department members' judgment....
Agencies for faculty participation in the government of the college or university should be established at each level where faculty responsibility is present. An agency should exist for the presentation of the views of the whole faculty.... (Redbook, pp. 119-124. At the 1988 Council meeting the chairman of the Committee T announced that a mechanism for effecting "governance audits" on campuses was being developed by the body.)
Committee T has authored several AAUP policy pronouncements which clarify and expand the precepts found in the above joint statement. In 1972 the 58th Annual Meeting sanctioned a statement on "The Role of the Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters;" in 1981 the 67th Annual Meeting endorsed a declaration of principles regarding "Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators;" and in 1983 Committee T itself approved for publication a position paper on "Governance Standards in Institutional Mergers and Acquisitions." (Redbook, pp. 130-133, 125-127, and 115-120.)
The Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators
AAUP policy stipulated that in the search for a president, the faculty and governing board should both play a "primary role." If both bodies participate jointly on the search committee, "the number from each constituency should reflect both the primacy of faculty concerns and the range of other groups, including students, that have a legitimate claim to some involvement." No candidate for institutional president should "be chosen over the objections of the faculty" representatives in the search process.
The composition of a search committee to select an administrator below the presidential level "should reflect the extent of legitimate faculty interest in the position." The faculty component of the committee "should be chosen by the faculty of the unit or by a representative body of the faculty." The president should "not choose a person over the reasoned opposition of the faculty."
Academic administrators, including presidents, should have their performances evaluated periodically, "with faculty of the unit accorded the primary voice." The reviewing authority should publish a summary of the results of the evaluation, "including a statement of actions taken as a result of the review." Decisions about the retention or non-retention of administrators should be arrived at stated intervals and "should be based on institutionalized ... procedures which include significant faculty involvement," and in the case of presidents should include "an assessment of the level of confidence in which he or she is held by the faculty." Academic administrators should "be protected from arbitrary removal by procedures through which their rights and the interests of various constituencies are adequately safeguarded." (Redbook, pp. 125-127.)
Institutional Budgeting
The 1966 statement on institutional governance (Redbook, pp. 119-124) declares that professors should have access to budgetary information and that faculty members should participate in the budgeting process to the extent of establishing faculty salary policies and in dealing with those areas of institutional life for which they have primary responsibility. According to the authors of College and University Budgeting: An Introduction for Faculty and Academic Administrators (published at Washington, D.C. by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1984), budgets serve (1) to set priorities regarding institutional activities; (2) "as a control mechanism regulating the flow of resources to the activities in accordance with institutional objectives;" (3) as a contractual "summary of commitments made by the funding agency and the recipient of those funds;" (4) as a means by which budgetary units communicate their objectives and compete for funds with other such units; and (5) as a reflection of "the results of negotiations over what activities should be funded and at what levels."
Factors limiting faculty involvement in the budget process include the overlapping of budget cycles, number of layers of review in the budget process, economic and political climate at moments of decision, and degree of turnover of faculty representatives on budget committees. But in times of fiscal crisis particularly, and in dealing with the chronic (and sometimes justifiable) administrative quest for flexibility, faculty representation in the budget process is essential for good institutional governance. (Academe, March-April 1984, pp. 25-32.)
Mergers, Absorptions, and Financial Exigency
The basic AAUP position on institutional problems resulting from financial exigency calls for "early, careful, and meaningful faculty involvement in decisions relating to the reduction of instructional and research programs." Professors should have "the primary responsibility" of determining where reductions should take place, and those whose work promises "to be adversely affected should have a right to be heard." Tenure rights should be protected, although an early retirement program advantageous to senior faculty members may be utilized if the latter are agreeable to it. When the dismissal of professors is unavoidable "because of a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency" and when "all feasible alternatives to termination of appointments should have been pursued," the faculty or "an appropriate faculty body" should have the primary responsibility for "determining where within the overall academic terminations of appointment may occur," and for "determining the individuals whose appointments are to be terminated." (For detailed guidance about how this process should work, see the Redbook, pp. 23-24, 128-129, 131.) "At institutions experiencing major threats to their continued financial support, the faculty should be informed as early and as specifically as possible of significant impending financial difficulties." Before a condition of financial exigency is declared, "the burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and the extent of the condition." Those likely to suffer thereby should receive due process, as described in AAUP guidelines. (For the utilization of AAUP guidelines regarding financial exigency by federal judges and authors of law journal articles, see Redbook, pp. 192-193, and Academe, May-June 1984, p. 22 and especially Sept.-Oct. 1986, p. 4.)
The 1970's guidelines proved inadequate for the case of the George Peabody College for Teachers, which suffered an absorption into Vanderbilt University, with entire departments and programs abolished and over twenty tenured professors dismissed. The Peabody experience forced reconsideration of the AAUP's policy on financial exigency in cases of mergers or absorptions. At the Association's sixty-fifth Annual Meeting held in June 1979, the AAUP chapter of Peabody College submitted a proposal that would have required the organization to endorse the principle that the tenure rights of faculty members were not abrogated when programs or departments were transferred from one institution to another or terminated "in anticipation of a transfer of these responsibilities," and the further principle that when such transfers created "redundancies,... the losses should bear equally on all units of institutions involved." The Annual Meeting voted to commit the proposal to Committee A for study and directed that committee to report back to the Council in November; meanwhile it both reaffirmed the AAUP's policy "of full faculty involvement in decisions that may lead to the reduction or termination of academic programs" and asked Committee T to prepare "model 1979, pp. 400-401.)
The promised Committee A study was not ready in November. A majority of the Council voted to approve and the Annual Meeting endorsed the following policy, still in effect:
"1. The transferral of instructional and/or programmatic responsibility from one academic unit of one institution to one or more units of another does not abrogate the tenure rights of any of the faculty members involved.
"2. The termination of instructional or programmatic responsibility of one academic unit in anticipation of a transfer of these responsibilities to units of another institution does not abrogate the tenure rights of any of the faculty members involved.
"3. When redundancies occur as a result of the transfer or consolidation of programmatic and/or instructional responsibilities, there shall be full faculty participation, in accordance with AAUP regulations, to determine whether tenured faculty are to be terminated, whether such terminations are necessary, and how to allocate any losses fairly and equitably among all units of the institutions involved." (Academe, March 1980, p. 89, and Nov. 1980, pp. 383-84, and Dec. 1980, p. 419.)
The chairman of Committee T announced that his group was prepared to join with Committee A in formulating and issuing a "statement on faculty rights and prerogatives in merger situations." With this stimulus, a draft statement was produced by Committees A and T for publication in Academe in April 1981: "(1) the faculty of each institution participate in decisions affecting academic programs and faculty status, and (2) the principles of academic freedom and tenure be safeguarded and the terms of faculty appointment be honored as fully as possible in any new institutional arrangement," the statement offered a lengthy discussion of the faculty role and of various situations. "The essential point," the statement declared, was before decisions or commitments to affiliate have been made, or before any decisions on curtailment of programs ... become final." (Academe, April 1981, pp. 83-85.)
A merger of two relatively healthy institutions, neither of which were in a condition of financial exigency, seemed, therefore, to be adequately covered by existing AAUP policy. But "a different challenge to faculty rights" occurred when an economically strong institution absorbed one which appeared to be in financial distress. Here an "unfortunate consequence" was likely to be "fewer total positions," with the bulk of the discontinued positions coming from the faculty of the weaker institution or program. "Even so, the faculty members who would otherwise be displaced-- and particularly those who had attained tenure within the institution or program which is being absorbed." Each terminated professor ought to have "a hearing before a faculty body, assistance in relocation, retraining, and adequate notice or severance salary." (Academe, April 1981, pp. 84-85.)
A year later Committee A approved a more elaborate statement "On Institutional Mergers and Acquisitions" for publication in Academe. Despite it insistence on full faculty involvement "in negotiations affecting faculty status and the academic programs at both institutions," this document drew strong criticism for its recommendation that if an acquiring institution did not find it "feasible" to absorb the tenured faculty of the acquired institution, it should give "preferential consideration" to those professors in hiring new faculty in the future, even if "circumstances" prevented "less than full recognition of tenure," in which case a probationary position might be offered. Professors tenured at the acquired school who believe that the obligations of "preferential consideration," "suitable position," or "adequate severance salary" had not been met were "entitled to review," but the burden of proof would be on them. (Academe, March-April 1982, 1a-3a.)
To its critics, the draft policy seemed vague and unenforceable. Moreover, one commentator argued eloquently, if adopted by the Association it would open a wide loophole in that organization's traditional tenure policy, which was its "stock-in-trade." Another critic termed the proposed policy change "a clear invitation to an acquiring institution to dismiss any professor, tenured or otherwise, coming to it from a weaker institution which it has absorbed, despite the existence of a prior contractual obligation, and despite the lack of proof that the absorbing institution cannot afford, without entering itself into a state of financial exigency, to honor that tenure contract." (Ibid., p. 4a-7a; N. Ferris to W. Metzger, July 4, 1982.)
The struggle over the wording of a policy that would adequately address the problem of mergers or absorptions in cases of alleged financial exigency found its way into The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 2, 1982). But, despite continuing concern "that the Association lacks a formally adopted policy in this area," Committees A and T have chosen to stick with whatever applications of existing policies might be made to the peculiarities of merger or absorption situations, rather than to struggle further in the direction of a more elaborate statement on that subject.
Ralph Brown of the Yale University Law School, a long time member of Committee A and a former president of the Association, wrote that financial exigency "describes crisis circumstances when it becomes permissible to break contracts." The survival of an institution "as a whole" must therefore be in danger "before terminations can be effected." (Ralph S. Brown, Jr., "Financial Exigency," AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1976, pp. 5-16.) "Unfortunately," one administrator has argued, "the diversity of institutions of higher education probably precludes a widely accepted universal definition of financial exigency. For example, a definition based on imminent bankruptcy, though probably suitable for a private college, would not be appropriate for a public institution.... It is most likely, therefore, that each institution of learning must formulate its own definition of financial strategy," in the course of which "professors and administrators alike would be well advised to adhere to the basic ideas implicit in the AAUP guidelines." (James C. Garland, "What Financial Exigency Means, " Academe, Jan.-Feb. 1983, pp. 24-26. See also pp. 7 and 10-24 of this issue devoted to "Hard Times: An AAUP Task Force Responds to Economic Realities in Higher Education," and Academe, March-April 1983, pp. 7a-8a and May-June 1984, p. 22 and Sept.-Oct. 1986, p. 4.)
In a series of Committee A investigations of cases in which the issue was raised by higher education administrators as a justification for terminating the employment of tenured professors, the ad hoc investigating committees determined that there was in fact no "demonstrable bona fide exigency." Preferring to employ a common sense evaluation of readily observable facts to judge, every one of the ad hoc investigating committees applied the burden of proof test to administrative assertions, and each instance found that the existence of financial exigency had not been demonstrated. Institutional resources were more than adequate to support the retention of tenured faculty members. "Faculty consultation at various stages of the process was either inadequate or nonexistent" Procedural flaws typified almost all of these cases. Thus the historical record seems to confirm that "the test of existence of financial exigency," as a former Association which, unlike states of mind, can be evaluated with considerable confidence. (David Fellman, "The Association's Evolving Policy on Financial Exigency," Academe, May-June 1984, pp. 14-22)
Faculty Representation on Governing Boards
The AAUP has as yet taken no position regarding direct faculty representation on governing boards. a joint subcommittee of Committees R and T has published a draft policy that recommends "the participation of the faculty through a systemwide faculty senate or its equivalent in consolidating governing board states or a general faculty advisory committee in coordinating board states. The members of the faculty advisory body should be selected by the faculty according to procedures determined by the faculty." In addition, "the presence of faculty members on ad hoc and standing committees of the statewide boards may also serve the purpose of representing faculty interests and interpreting the needs of faculty to the statewide boards." (Academe, May-June 1984, p. 16a. See also Robert Berdahl and Samuel K. Gove, "Governing Higher Education: Faculty Roles on State Boards," May-June, pp. 21-24.)
Higher Education Reform
In recent years, traditional faculty governance prerogatives have been challenged by a myriad of assaults from advocates of greater "efficiency," added "accountability," better "assessment," and management "by objectives" in academia. Some of these studies were (1) "Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education," published by the National Institute of Education (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 24, 1984, p. 35 et seq.); (2) "Integrity in the College Curriculum," a report by the Association of American Colleges (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 13, 1985, p. 12 et seg.); (3) "A call for Change in Teacher Education," a report by the National Commission for Excellence in Education (The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 6, 1985, p. 13 et seg.); (4) "Access to Quality Undergraduate Education," a report by the SREB's Commission for Educational Quality (The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 3, 1985); (5) "Higher Education and the American Resurgence," sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (excerpted in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 18, 1985, p.17 et seq.); "Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report if the Holmes Group," (The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 9, 1986, p.27 et seq.); (7) "Transforming the State Role in Undergraduate Education: Time for a Different View," a report by the Education Commission of the States (The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, 1986, p. 13 et seq.); (8) "College: The Undergraduate Experience in America," a report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (summarized in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 5, 1986, p. 16 et seq.) and (9) "To Secure the Blessings of Liberty: A Report of the National Commission on the Role and Future of State Colleges and Universities" (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 12, 1986, p. 29 et seq.). Numerous magazine and newspaper articles, as well as best seller books like Allen Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), added to the widely held impression that American higher education was in a state of crisis and that professors collectively bore a large share of the responsibility.
From the "better schools" proposals by then Governor Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who publicly attacked faculty tenure, to a statement entitled "Governance of State Colleges and Universities: Achieving Institutional Mission," issued in November 1984 by the National Association of State Colleges and Universities, self-appointed educational "reformers" sought, in the words of the chairman from Committee T, "a considerable extension of governance by administrative directive and a significant reduction in the faculty role." Alleging a "changing social, economic, and political context" in U.S. higher education, the AASCU statement advocated administrative usurpation of longstanding professorial responsibility for "faculty status and related matters," and even in regard to the curriculum, where faculty status was still conceded, the AASCU position no longer stipulated that the faculty's judgment should be accepted by the governing board and the president "except in rare instances and for compelling reasons." Rather faculty should be guided in such matters "by the directives of the board of trustees and the president." (Academe, May-June 1985, p. 60.)
This was only one of a series of indictments of what William Bennett, soon to become the U.S. Commissioner of Higher Education, called "a failure of nerve and faith" on the part of professors and administrators, which had resulted in such people having "no clear sense of their educational mission and no conception of what a graduate of their institutions ought to know or be." It was time, it seemed, for higher education policy to be removed from the grasp of its votaries. Reform would have to come from elected officials, business and community leaders, and parents. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 28, 1984, p. 16 et seq., and Feb. 20, 1985, p. 24.)
State legislators expressed a view that education was "too important to be left solely to the educators." Some governors agreed: under the chairmanship of Tennessee's Alexander, the National Governor's Association launched an "Action Plan for Attaining Educational Excellence" to introduce "a market orientation to the educational enterprise." Announcements of the project were replete with references to "producers and consumers" of the educational "product" and sound "management practices." Those seeking better "assessment approaches and techniques ... to assure accountability" and "a cost-effective delivery system" ought, it was said, to examine "the military's nationwide experience" in such matters. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 3, 1986, p. 79 et seq. and 1985 press release announcing the "Action Plan.")
Some members of governing boards evidenced similar dispositions "to assume more direct responsibility for academic decision making." At the 1985 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Colleges, speakers repeatedly declared "that unless faculty members began to make substantial progress soon on curricular reform, the role of trustees may well go beyond asking questions." A perception that professors were "unwilling" to reform was largely responsible for activism not only among trustees but also among politicians and large segments of the general public. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 20, 1985, p. 1. and 18-19.)
Calling various published studies "a most serious indictment of higher education and of the entire academic profession," the President of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities used the AAUP's own bi-monthly journal to point out that every issue being discussed by the critics of the deficiencies of the nation's campuses was "primarily within the domain of college faculties." It was professors "who should be leading the parade in determining academic policies.... It is leadership in an era of reform we are talking about, and it is the faculty's responsibility to assert it. Otherwise the political community will have the parade all to itself. And our faculties will be assigned specific positions in the parade and instructed how to march!" (Academe, Sept-Oct., 1986, p. 41. See also Hugh Hawkins, "Curricular Reform in Historical Perspective." AHA Perspectives, Jan. 1986, pp. 21-22.)
Return to:
Index to Ferris, "The AAUP Tradition"
Tennessee Conference Home Page