AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
Press Release from UT Knoxville Chapter
The UT-Knoxville Chapter of the American Association of University Professors has accepted and approved a report of its Committee on Faculty Participation in University Governance. The report recounts in detail this committee's activities related to the selection of the UT President, and interprets the selection process.
The AAUP Committee, along with other agencies representative of faculty, students, and administrators, worked for a presidential selection procedure that would involve duly constituted representatives of these groups. Agreement of the Screening Committee of the Board of Trustees to usable--though not entirely satisfactory--procedures was gained during the course of the selection process; but these procedures were essentially disregarded in the end by the Board Screening Committee. Thus the Trustees substantiated the convictions of those who believed that the long, elaborate, and costly presidential selection process was a charade.
In its specialized focus upon procedural matters the AAUP Committee contrasted with the Knoxville Campus Special Committee, whose responsibilities also extended to reflecting faculty and student opinion of particular candidates. Like the Special Committee, however, and like the University Senate, which approved by a vote of 37 to 12 the Special Committee's report on January 9, 1970, the AAUP Committee on Faculty Participation in University Governance and the AAUP Chapter believe the Board of Trustees "acted irresponsibly in its failure to accord faculty and students the same consideration given to faculty and students at other universities." They also agree with the Special Committee and the University Senate that "such treatment of faculty and student participation is an invitation to the politics of confrontation rather than cooperation."
Report of the Committee on Faculty Participation in University Governance to the University of Tennessee Chanter of the American Association of University Professors
January 1970
The recommendations included in the first report of the AAUP Committee on Faculty Participation in University Governance had been endorsed by AAUP and forwarded to the University Senate in May, 1969, but the Senate had not yet met, when President Holt resigned in June, 1969, his resignation to become effective on September 1, 1970. Since its recommendation that the Senate "establish a standing committee or committees to assist and advise the Administration in the selection of persons to fill administrative positions ... from department heads on up to the System's President" had not been implemented, the AAUP Committee felt obliged to do what it could to help establish a selection procedure satisfactory to the faculty. The attached materials document many of the actions of the Committee during the following months prior to the selection of the new President on December 19, 1969.
This report provides a running account of our activities, with brief analyses of pertinent issues, followed by an interpretation of the selection process of which they were a part.
I. Account of AAUP Committee's Actions
The first letter (Document 1) was sent to each member of the Board of Trustees on June 26, urging "the Board to draw into its deliberations recommendations of the faculty and of the administration, from all the campuses of UT across the state."
On July 2, the Committee visited Senator Walters at his office in Morristown, and, at his suggestion, recommended procedures for selecting the next President--procedures which would involve the faculty, at each of three stages of the selection process, (a) clarifying the qualifications to be sought, (b) searching for candidates, (c) screening of candidates. We acknowledged clearly that the final choice was wholly the responsibility of the Board. (Document 2). These recommendations Were sent to each member of the Executive Committee of the Board. We kept Vice-Chancellor Silverman advised of our activities in this regard and he in turn worked with the Advisory Council to the Senate Chairman in early August to define more completely than we had done a suggested set of procedures for the eight-man Board Screening Committee elected by the trustees and composed entirely of trustees, chaired by Senator Walters.
On August 16, the Board Screening Committee announced, according to Press reports in both Knoxville papers, a schedule of hearings on selection of a new president to take place on the various campuses around the state, according to the following schedule: Knoxville, September 25-26; Martin, October 2; Memphis, October 3; Chattanooga, October 17; Nashville, October 24. According to both articles the Screening Committee would receive "suggestions and advice" from the following groups: Dr. Holt's staff, the staffs of the various chancellors, representatives of the Student Government Association and other interested student organizations, representatives of the faculties on the several campuses, representatives of the UT Alumni Association, the UT Development Council, Chambers of Commerce and other interested groups.
Reading these reports, we, like many other faculty members, were concerned that faculty participation in the selection process would be held to a minimum. by the Board Screening Committee. We wrote again to Senator Walters, on August 19, sending copies of our letter to other members of the Screening Committee, to President Holt, to the Chairman of the University Senate, to the President of the Student Government Association, and to the President of the Alumni Association. (Document 3). In this letter we stated two principal points:
1. that "all of the important university groups have duly constituted and elected organizations through which their voices may be heard," and
2. that "it is of the greatest importance that the thinking of the representative university groups be involved in the procedures at all stages of the selection process."
It was in the context of these and the similar suggestions by the Advisory Council to the Senate Chairman that the Board Screening Committee expressed its approval of a special committee for UT-Knoxville, to consist of the Advisory Council plus two students designated by the President of SGA and one alumnus designated by the President of the Alumni Association. Information that such approval had been given was contained in Chancellor Weaver's memorandum of September 4, (Document 4) which charged "this committee with receiving from campus groups all communications concerning the selection of a President, summarizing the contents of these communications, and transmitting such a summary to the Screening Committee of the Board by October 13, 1969." In addition, this committee was charged with Presenting to the Board Screening Committee, after careful study of such communications, a list of not less than five nor more than ten nominees, making "comments as appropriate concerning each nominee listed." Chancellor Weaver, in his memorandum, also stated that "all department heads and administrators of equivalent rank are to hold at least one called department meeting before September 20, for the specific purpose of having open discussions concerning the feelings of members of the department about this matter."
Departmental meetings of course were held, and communications were sent to the Knoxville Special Committee. This Special Committee consisted, in fact, of the Advisory Council plus President Baxter of the SGA and two students appointed by him (with Baxter not voting); the Alumni Association did not send a representative. Further, the deadline of October 13 for the report of the Special Committee was extended somewhat. While the deliberations of the Knoxville Special Committee were confidential, we participated in enough department meetings ourselves to know that many departmental communications reflected continued serious dissatisfaction with these procedures, except as a first step toward candid interchange of views between the Board Screening Committee and the Knoxville Special Committee.
Thus, the AAUP Committee, though pleased with Chancellor Weaver's action as a first step, was still uncomfortable with the procedures, and was very active during the early part of September and October in a variety of private consultations, which we shall outline here. The nature of these consultations and the positions we took during the course of them disclose clearly the issues implicit in the task of presidential selection as these issues were developing. Thus this account of our activities is useful not only as a tale of the events of which they were a part, but also as a running analysis of the many issues. Implicit issues become explicit, and our activities acquire greater meaning.
1. On September 10, two members of the AAUP Committee, Verplanck and Simpson, met for lunch with Jimmy Baxter, Mark Grisar and Paul Haley, of the SGA, to let them know what we were doing and why. One of the most important items discussed was the widespread campus feeling, which the students tended to share, that the whole selection process was a charade--that the trustees had already made up their minds and were simply trying to placate the faculty and the students by giving them a sense of participation. Alternative versions of the decisions believed already firmly made by the trustees were offered: According to one version, they had already selected Dr. Boling. According to another, they had decided to pick a Tennessean.
The second alternative opened considerable scope for faculty and student action, since it seemed to contradict the trustees' profession that they were looking for "the best man" for the job. The choice between Boling, Humphries, Pendergrass, Dykes, or possibly Williams, (to list the most frequently mentioned "candidates" already on or near the scene)--although not offering as broad a choice as both faculty and student groups desired--still provided a significant choice. If the trustees' minds were truly open, as they claimed, it was worth working to influence their choice. This point we urged very vigorously upon the students.
We argued, further, that even if the whole selection procedure was a fraud, the only way to determine whether or not this was so was to follow to their limits the procedures so far established and to try to liberalize them along the way. Not to proceed in this manner, we said, would be equivalent to stating that we had no confidence in the Board's Screening Committee or in the Board, an action which the trustees might take as justification for maintaining the narrow limits of faculty and student participation they had already acknowledged as legitimate.
2. At about the same time we approached one of the members of the Board Screening Committee--one we believed more sensitive to faculty viewpoints than most of his colleagues--with the following argument:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to my recent letter. The letter I sent had of course been drafted before I knew the steps taken by Chancellor Weaver in accord with your committee's request. The Particular form of involvement he has arranged for the members of the Knoxville campus community is, I think, an excellent one, and it alleviates sore of my committee's concerns. On the other hand, this procedure, when coupled with the terns of reference provided by the Screening Committee, as I understand them, may have aggravated another problem, as I shall try to explain.
This problem depends upon whether or not the Screening Committee plans to come back to faculty and other campus representatives for reactions to names and persons when the screening has been completed. if the faculty ware sure that this would be done, its emphasis could now be placed on nomination of candidates, recognizing that other groups right favor different individuals. But with the faculty unsure that this will be done, its hand is called--so to speak--early in the game, with respect not only to those it wishes to favor by nomination but with respect also to those it is wary about. It might happen that the faculty, on the basis of vague fears alive on the campus, would express itself as very strongly opposed to one particular candidate who for various good reasons ought to be included in the final list, even if he is still not a faculty favorite. Obviously it would be very hazardous to faculty morale for the Board of Trustees to then select this individual as President, which it right wish to do.
If the faculty's hand were not called, in September, it might be possible to prove by early December that such a candidate would be acceptable to the faculty--perhaps under certain conditions publicly stated by him--if he were named the President. The value, then, of involving selected faculty representatives in review of candidates after screening is several fold: (1) it would leave the Board less subject to the risks of unhealthy faculty sentiments, (2) it would enable us all to make of the selection process a general process of faculty education in university government; (3) it might avoid hurt feelings on the part of a valuable man high in our present administration, enabling us to keep him where he is even if he shouldn't be made President; and (4) it would greatly encourage the faculty that the Board of Trustees trusts it.
I speak of the selection process as though it were a card game, and f the faculty's "hand," as though the faculty had a clearly determined and single opinion with respect to different candidates. These assumptions, though helpful in initiating discussion, are not very accurate, as I feel sure you are aware. Many of my colleagues entertain similar assumptions, however, that the Board of Trustees has a "hand" which it is playing, and are convinced that it has some very high cards. One of the largest problems the University of Tennessee has at the moment is to convince some faculty members that the deck is not stacked against them in important issues. The game of education, insofar as it is like a game, is not improved if many of the players are constantly threatening to throw in the deck.
If there is any more chastening experience than trying to help a large institution move forward through a time of accumulated mistrust and a considerable amount of inevitable misinformation or ignorance, I don't know what it is. But this is the situation we are in. Please don't misunderstand me. The situation has much more hope in it than despair. We have made great progress during the past year in a number of directions, such as improved faculty-administration relations on the Knoxville campus, such as restructuring and strengthening of the Board of Trustees, and developing the potential for corresponding improvements in the University Senate. The point is that we can continue to rove forward vigorously if we can manage to make the right steps, or we can slip backward if we fail to make them.
For the sake of a sound selection procedure, we were trying to keep trustees' options open. The reasonable price of genuine faculty and student participation, we believed, was a commitment to accede to the final choice, even if it was somewhat unpopular. At the same time, of course, we believed that genuine faculty participation, like the search for "the best man," implied a corresponding commitment on the part of the trustees to come to grips with faculty opinion and, if necessary, to try to win it over through discussions with representative faculty members on the Knoxville Special Committee.
3. On September 15 the AAUP Committee (with President-elect Ron Petersen also present) met at length with Vice-President Boling in order to get to know him in person rather than solely at second hand. We found him a forthright and reasonable man, articulate in his expression of his own conceptions and willing to listen to us. We found that many of the characterizations we had heard of Dr. Boling were overdrawn, and did not reflect the man.
Another reason for talking with him was that such a meeting might have some educational value for him. if he were selected, we reasoned, whether in a charade or through a sound procedure, the opportunity of talking at length with faculty members concerned especially with problems of governance could potentially be of benefit to the University.
4. On the basis of the foregoing activities, the AAUP Committee tried to keep in touch with the general membership. President-elect Petersen's letter in response to our suggestion of the need for faculty participation, and specifically of the need to support the faculty representatives on the Knoxville Special Committee, was--we thought--an excellent one. (Document 5).
By the time the Board Screening Committee came to Knoxville for hearings, on
September 25, the issues were fairly clear:
(a) Whether or not the faculty and the students, through duly constituted representatives, would be genuinely involved in the selection procedure;
(b) How these representatives would be involved;
(c) Whether or not a far-reaching search, extending outside of Tennessee, would be made. Such a search seemed to imply a longer period of time than the trustees' hoped-for deadline of late December.
The danger was also clearly present that the Board Screening Committee, by continuously failing to involve faculty or student representatives in close deliberations (without expressly rejecting their desire to be involved), would in effect redefine these issues into the single issue:
(d) Whether or not Dr. Boling (or any other person without faculty and student support) would be imposed on the faculty and students.
We had expressed to Chancellor Weaver our willingness to meet with the Board Screening Committee "solely to express to it our concern with the need for continuing [faculty] participation." (Document 6). On September 25 we did meet for 30 minutes with the Screening Committee, and believed that we had made our points effectively and that they had been well received. Representatives of the SGA and the Knoxville Special. Committee had less favorable reactions, however, and it soon became apparent that the Screening Committee did not intend to make any further commitments with respect to the selection procedure before it had completed its tour of all the campuses of the University System on October 24.
In face of this apparent intention, and living in a campus climate of increasing tension, we made further attempts to clarify for the Screening Committee the dangers of the developing situation, particularly with respect to faculty morale. We did this by informal conversations with Mr. John Baugh, Secretary of the Board and of the Board Screening Committee, and with the member of the Screening Committee to whom we had formerly talked. Our chairman also sent a message to Governor Ellington, Chairman of the Board, relying upon the hope that he retained some confidence in the AAUP Committee from a visit we had had with him in the Spring, before President Holt had resigned.
Beyond that we kept in touch as best we could with the Knoxville Special Committee, largely through its chairman, Lawrence Silverman, and developed our contacts with faculty members of the similar committees on the Martin and Chattanooga campuses of UT. And we waited again, expecting some clear action from the Screening Committee on Friday, October 24, or on October 25.
This was also the weekend of the Crossville Retreat--meeting of student leaders, administrators, and faculty members. When the Board Screening Committee issued a vague and ambiguous statement at the completion of its hearings, a student or students talked with Senator WaIters by phone, asking, for clarification. Still unsatisfied, the students scrapped the planned agenda and turned to a discussion of what action to take in response. Out of this meeting came the motion advocating use of "non-violent force" in case the trustees should select a person opposed by students.
Faculty members back in Knoxville read the accounts of events in Nashville and Crossville, and also reacted. Members of the AAUP Committee were especially disturbed by Senator Walters' references to the possibility of a final decision by early December, when the Screening Committee had not yet made close contact, as far as we could tell, with any candidates from out of state, or with any of the Special Committees of the various campuses. After consultation on Sunday evening with another member of the AAUP Committee, its chairman called unannounced on Senator Walters in his Morristown office at 9:00 A.M., Monday, October 27. Senator Walters courteously agreed to see him, and they had a very candid discussion.
Later that day a press release was issued, which contained two points covered in that conversation. (Document 7). First, it referred to "the further involvement of faculty and students in the screening process," and, second, it said that "the Committee will give all the time necessary to complete hearings on Presidential prospects who have been suggested for consideration," presumably including candidates from out of state. On the following day, the AAUP Committee sent a letter to Senator Walters, copies of which went to all members of the Board of Trustees and to the Daily Beacon and Knoxville News-Sentinel, congratulating the Screening Committee on its press statement, and stating the AAUP Committee's understanding of what the Screening Committee's statement meant. (Document 8). Senator Walters replied cordially to this letter. Other initiatives were simultaneously being taken by members of the Knoxville Special Committee. Thus before the week was out Senator Walters and Judge Taylor had met with Professors Greene and Bennett, Vice-Chancellor Silverman, and SGA President Baxter (all of the Knoxville Special Committee) and had agreed to meet again shortly.
The Board Screening Committee publicly announced this arrangement, and also stated that similar two-man trustee subcommittees would meet with the other campus Special Committees. Thus began a period in which the four representatives of the Knoxville Special Committee were able to talk frankly, and at some length, with two trustees, without being hemmed in by the time limitations of the earlier formal "hearings," on the one hand, or by the need they had felt to improve the selection procedures, on the other. In other words, the selection procedure established by these activities--though not entirely satisfactory--was a procedure that faculty and student representatives could follow usefully.
Efforts to gain such a procedure were costly to the faculty in several respects, however. They took time and energy, tiring participants and sympathetic observers. More important, faculty and student representatives worked so hard to gain a satisfactory procedure that they had insufficient time to keep other faculty and students properly informed of what they were doing. Another reason for the limited communication with their constituents was, of course, the strictures of confidentiality stressed by the Board Screening Committee. In any case, a curious bit of working at cross purposes developed. Some faculty members, unable to see that usable, though imperfect, procedures had finally been won, continued to work for better procedures, instead of funneling their detailed views about particular candidates into the heart of the process.
In our judgment, the Knoxville Special Committee effectively represented the faculty during this period, assisting the trustees on the Board Screening Committee in inviting a number of candidates from outside the state to Knoxville, where they were interviewed by representatives of the Martin, Chattanooga, and Knoxville Special Committees, as well as by the two members of the Knoxville subcommittee of the Board Screening Committee. As these interviews were arranged for in the context of close discussions between faculty, students, and trustees, a genuine search for "the best man" and a search fully involving faculty and student representatives at last seemed possible of accomplishment, despite the doubts of numerous skeptics.
As it turned out, the interviews with out-of-state candidates in early December simply presaged the rapid conclusion of the selection process. These candidates evidently were not treated with the serious consideration necessary by members of the Board Screening Committee, only two of whom were present at any interviews, despite the extraordinarily favorable judgment at least one of these candidates received from faculty and student representatives. Names of many of these candidates leaked to the press from unknown sources, providing further embarrassment to them and to the University which ostensibly wished to consider them for its highest office. Reports appeared that a final decision was to be expected as soon as students had dispersed for the holidays--reports which proved to be true.
During the last hectic days the AAUP Committee appeared before the Knoxville Special Committee to suggest a poll of the faculty as to the desirability, acceptability, or undesirability of each of the most prominently mentioned "local" candidates, an action which had the blessing of the AAUP Executive Committee. The purpose of doing so was chiefly to provide exemplary evidence to the Knoxville Special Committee of the intensity of faculty feeling with respect to some candidates and to the casual manner of the Board Screening Committee's proceedings in dealing with out-of-state candidates. To separate entirely the issue of any one man's qualifications for the post from the issue of genuine faculty participation in the selection process was, in such circumstances, probably impossible. It is now clear, from its report to the Senate on January 9, 1970, that the Knoxville Special Committee vigorously represented the faculty to the Board Screening Committee. (Document 9).
In summary, the AAUP Committee, along with other agencies representative of faculty, students, and administrators, worked for a presidential selection procedure that would involve duly constituted representatives of these groups. Agreement of the Screening Committee of the Board of Trustees to usable--though not entirely satisfactory--procedures was gained during the course of the selection process; but these procedures were essentially disregarded in the end by the Board Screening Committee. Thus the Trustees substantiated the convictions of those who believed that the long, elaborate, and costly presidential selection process was a charade.
II. Interpretation of the Selection Process
Having participated in some of these events, and having observed and studied them, we have reached the following conclusions:
1. The government of the University of Tennessee is firmly in the bands of the Board of Trustees. When crucial issues were at stake the Board disregarded faculty, student, and possibly administrative advice in what seems to us an irresponsible manner. Since the Chairman of the Board is the Governor and since nearly all of the trustees have been appointed either by the Governor or his predecessor the great influence of the present Governor in the government of the University of Tennessee must be evident.
2. This influence is not entirely to be deplored by the faculty of UT-Knoxville, because Governor Ellington's educational policy places heavy emphasis on conducting graduate education in Tennessee primarily at UT-Knoxville and at Memphis State University--as evidenced by his stand on the recent report of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
3. It is very unfortunate, however, in that it tends to politicize academic policies. This tendency shows up, for example, in UT's long-standing practice of retaining excessive authority at the top--in the System, on the individual Campus, in some Colleges, and in many Departments. It shows up also when administrative personnel seem to be selected on arbitrary bases, such as personal relationships, rather than democratically-oriented and fully consultative institutional procedures. It shows up, too, in unclear, equivocal, or ambiguous statements, sometimes made when chancellors, vice-chancellors, deans, and department heads face the difficult task of weighing the political repercussions of more straightforward comment.
4. There is a way to respond to some of UT's current weakness in governance. This response consists in the development of agencies of faculty leadership, particularly the University Senate, the AAUP, and their committees, and in the exercise by individual faculty members of their right to speak. If faculty members will calmly and unceasingly work toward developing such leadership of their own, they may reasonably expect more nearly satisfactory university leadership from their President and other administrative officers than if they sit in the gallery and grumble.
Respectfully yours,
R. B. Davis
A. J. Sharp
G. A. Spiva
W. K. Stair
W. S. Verplanck
T. McN. Simpson, Chairman
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
June 26, 1969
Senator Herbert S. Walters
Post Office Box 1479
Morristown, Tennessee 37814
Dear Senator Walters:
Andrew Holt's love for UT and his achievements in her behalf are well known and appreciated. His resignation presents to the Board of Trustees a very large task, indeed.
We wish to express to each member of the Board, rather informally, our deep concern that the University of Tennessee find an equally outstanding successor. UT has, during President Holt's tenure, reached new stature as well as size among American universities, as you know. These attainments have brought great problems of educational leadership (some of them new problems), requiring for UT's next President a man of many qualities.
We of the faculty are consequently thinking about the manner in which our new President is to be selected, and would urge the Board to draw into its deliberations recommendations of the faculty and of the administration, from all the campuses of UT across the state. The participation of such representative members of the UT community would help to assure, we believe, a full survey of the qualifications needed for this demanding role, and would help immeasurably in uniting faculty and administration behind the new President once he is selected. Such unity is extremely important in the immediate future., for the tasks he will be facing truly are tremendous.
We write to you on behalf of the UT-Knoxville Chapter of the AAUP, after four months of wide-ranging, candid, and friendly conversations with trustees, administrative officials, faculty members, and students--exploring the faculty's proper role in university governance. Our talks with Mr. Lockett, Dr. Folger, and Governor Ellington, of the Board of Trustees, have convinced us that the Board shares our concern about this general question; hence the frank and confident spirit in which we write.
Sincerely yours,
AAUP Committee on Faculty Participation
in University Governance:
R.B. Davis
A.J. Sharp
G.A. Spiva
W.K. Stair
W.S. Verplanck
T.McN. Simpson, Chairman
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
July 2, 1969
Senator Herbert S. Walters
P.O. Box 1479
Morristown, Tennessee 37814
Dear Senator Walters:
At your suggestions we are sending some recommendations about procedures the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees might wish to use in selecting the next President of the University of Tennessee, with a copy going also to each member of the Executive Committee.
1. The Executive Committee might wish to appoint from the Board a special selection committee, to clarify the qualifications for the post, to search for candidates, and to screen these candidates so that the entire Board can make its choice in a thoughtful and manageable way.
2. Any selection committee of the Board, whether the Executive Committee wishes to appoint a special selection committee, or wishes to serve this function itself, should seek advice from representatives of the faculty and of the administration, from each of the campuses of UT, at each of the first three stages of the selection process:
(a) clarifying qualifications,
(b) searching for candidates,
(c) screening of candidates;
(d) the final choice is wholly the responsibility of the Board.
3, We suggest that a committee, such as the Advisory Council of the Senate Chairman or a committee appointed by that Council (representative of the University Senate), be asked to formally consult with the selection committee of the Board in clarifying qualifications, in searching for candidates, and in screening these candidates for final selection by the Board.
4. Finally, we recommend that the Board consider the views and interests of the student bodies as well as those of faculties, administrations,, alumni, and the general public.
This procedure would make possible the selection of a President who would have the united support of all parts of the university community. Furthermore, such a procedure is consistent with procedures generally followed at major American universities.
In closing, we want to express our thanks for taking time out of a busy schedule to talk with us. We shall be happy to discuss with you and other members of the Executive Committee any questions you may have concerning these recommendations.
Sincerely yours,
AAUP Committee on Faculty Participation
in University Governance:
R. B. Davis
A. J. Sharp
G. A. Spiva
W. K. Stair
W. S. Verplanck
T. McN. Simpson, Chairman
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
August 19, 1969
Senator Herbert S. Walters
Post Office Box 1479
Morristown, Tennessee 37814
Dear Senator Walters:
The press reports of the Board of Trustees' selection procedures arouse in us some anxiety that points we earlier made were not made clearly. We trust that the press has misconstrued your plans, but we would like to restate the following points for your urgent consideration.
First, all of the important university groups have duly constituted and elected organizations through which their voices may be heard. On the Knoxville campus these are:
(1) the University Senate (faculty and administrators),
(2) the Student Government Association, and for the University as a whole,
(3) the Board of Governors of the UT Alumni Association.
These are the organizations whose representatives must be most carefully listened to. We certainly have no objection to hearings at which other organizations or individuals might appear; but even our own group, the UT Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, does not stand on a par with these duly constituted groups.
Second, we think it is of the greatest importance that the thinking of the representative university groups be involved in the procedures at all stages of the selection process. The faculty would feel a procedure allowing it only to submit a few names for the Board's consideration utterly inadequate, if it did not also allow duly constituted representatives of the faculty to react later to other names which might have been submitted by other groups or the Board itself.
A man accepting the post of President of any prominent American university under a procedure which neglected these two points would begin his office under a very severe handicap.
As always, we shall be happy to discuss with you any questions which may arise in this common concern.
Sincerely yours,
AAUP Committee on Faculty
Participation in University Governance
R. B. Davis
A. J. Sharp*
G. A. Spiva*
W. K. Stair
W. S. Verplanck
T. McN. Simpson, Chairman
*Did not participate because out of city
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE 37916
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
September 4, 1969
MEMORANDUM
| TO: |
|
FACULTY, STUDENTS, AND STAFF
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE |
| FROM: |
|
C. H. WEAVER, CHANCELLOR |
| SUBJECT: |
|
SELECTION OF A NEW PRESIDENT FOR
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE |
I have received from Senator Herbert S. Walters a letter stating that the Screening committee of the Board of Trustees will meet on the Knoxville Campus on September 25 and 26. The Committee is meeting to "bear suggestions and recommendations regarding the selection of President Holt's successor and to receive nominations for the position of President of the University of Tennessee."
The Screening committee of the Board of Trustees intends to invite the following individuals and groups to appear at these meetings:
1. President A. D. Holt and his Systems staff, including Vice President Boling, Vice President Johnson, Vice President Read, Vice President Williams, and General Counsel and Secretary John C. Baugh.
2. Chancellor Weaver, the Knoxville Vice chancellors and Deans.
3. The president and two other student representatives selected by the president of each of the following:
Student Government Association
Associated Women Students
Panhellenic Council
Interfraternity Council
Association of Christian Athletes
4. The U.T. Senate Committee
5. The President of the Alumni Association and two or three other alumni selected by him.
6. President of the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce.
7. President of the U.T. Development Council.
8. Representatives of chambers of commerce, business organizations, and civic clubs that might desire to be heard shall be afforded bearings if convenient arrangements can be made.
Both Dr. Silverman and I shall be working with the Screening Committee to help in the scheduling of the various invited groups. Any difficulty concerning such scheduling should be brought to our attention immediately.
The Screening Committee has expressed approval of the suggestions made by the University Senate concerning a special committee for the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. in accord with that approval, I hereby appoint the committee for the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, recommended by the University Senate. That committee consists of the following persons:
| Dean Fred N. Peebles |
|
Dean O. Glen Hall |
| Dr. Jerome Eastham |
|
Dr. Lee Greene |
| Dr. LeRoy Graf |
|
Professor Buford Smith |
| Dr. Roger Frey |
|
Dr. James Bennett |
| Dr. George Spiva |
|
Dr. Charles Cleland |
| Professor George Wagoner, Secretary of the Senate |
together with two students designated by the President of the Student Government Association and one alumnus designated by the President of the Alumni Association. With this letter I ask President Baxter of the Student Government Association to appoint two students, and President Williams of the Alumni Association to appoint one alumnus. I ask Dr. Silverman to be chairman of the committee, without voting privileges.
I charge this committee with receiving from campus groups all communications concerning the selection of a President, summarizing the contents of these communications, and transmitting such a summary to the Screening Committee of the Board by October 13, 1969. In addition, I charge this committee with presenting to the Screening Committee of the Board a list of not less than five and not more than ten names of nominees for the position of President. Of course, these names will have been selected after careful study of communications received from all interested campus groups. The committee should make comments as appropriate concerning each nominee listed.
In order to expedite matters, all department heads and administrators, of equivalent rank are to hold at least one called departmental meeting before September 20, for the specific purpose of having open discussions concerning the feelings of members of the department about this matter. Several meetings may be necessary, but one meeting is to be held. The results of this meeting should be summarized in a brief memorandum. This memorandum should include the names and associated brief statements of record and availability of any candidate suggested in the meeting. Candidates should not have been contacted officially and complete records are not necessary. However, there should be enough information available to show that the candidate is a thoughtful choice. This material should be transmitted to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Committee as soon as possible.
It should be understood that while I have said certain administrative units are to carry out this procedure, communications from all other campus groups are welcomed. In case such other groups do wish to participate, the procedures outlined above should be followed. In particular, all concerned student groups are urged to participate.
I am pleased that the Board of Trustees has given the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, this opportunity to participate actively in the selection of a new President for the University.
Dear fellow AAUP member:
In the absence of President Richard Marius, I welcome you back to the campus, with my hopes that your summer has been both profitable and pleasurable. It seems premature to me, with my presidency still a year off, to initiate the year's activities for AAUP, but necessity demands communication just now.
As you know, Chancellor Weaver has called all departments into meetings to freely discuss the selection of the next President of UT. First, I want you to know that the AAUP Committee on Faculty Role in University Governance is operating, has interviewed not only various members of the Board of Trustees, but some of the candidates most prominently mentioned, and has recommended to the Board certain procedures which would guarantee the faculty a voice in the up-coming selection proceeding.
Second, because this committee is seriously pursuing its charge, and because to a man it is convinced that Board members are not only sincere in their desires to establish and maintain a democratic selection process, but open-minded in their thoughts concerning the number and names of individual candidates, I would urge that faculty members take their role and voice in this procedure very seriously. Moreover, with fantastic rumors now making the rounds, I would hope that individuals would not fall prey to frustration, emotionalism or bitterness on this basis. The AAUP committee is (and will continue to be) persistent in its liaison with the Board, and much of the best information on campus can be gained from its ranks.
Third, ridicule is surely no better than frustration. To scoff at the procedure is to abdicate one's possible role in it. When you are called upon to communicate your ideas to responsible people, do so. Without a large groundswell of faculty backing, the Senate Advisory Committee will have little authority, but with it, the interest of the faculty will be felt.
Finally, in addition to your departmental role, as a member of AAUP you are being represented again by your committee and officers. Because of this added voice (and it is significant), your role is even more important. These events also present a golden opportunity to enlist new members to make our influence stronger in the days to come.
Sincerely,
Ronald H. Petersen
President-elect
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
September 11, 1969
Chancellor Charles H. Weaver
218 Administration Building
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Dear Chancellor Weaver:
We are very pleased with the arrangements you have made for participation by faculty representatives and others preparatory and related to the Screening Committee's session.
We want the members of the Screening Committee to understand how very pleased we are with these steps, and especially with their recognition of the Advisory Council to the Senate Chairman as the appropriate faculty representatives from the Knoxville campus. At the same time we are concerned that the Committee has not yet given assurance that It will provide faculty representatives with continuing opportunities to react to names and persons, as the Screening Committee progressively narrows its list of candidates.
Unless you feel that it would be inadvisable, we would be willing to meet with the Committee, solely to express to it our concern with the need for continuing participation. If we do so, it should preferably be early in the hearings.
Sincerely yours,
AAUP committee on Faculty Participation
in University Governance
R. B. Davis*
A. J. Sharp*
G. A. Spiva*
W. K. Stair
W. S. Verplanck
T. McN. Simpson, Chairman
*Did not participate because out of city
Oct. 27, 1969
Press Statement by Mr. John Baugh, Secretary of the
Board's Presidential Screening Committee:
It is apparent from the statements in the press that there is a misunderstanding of what the Board's Screening Committee decided to do at its meeting last week in Nashville with regard to the future work of the Committee, especially in relation to the further involvement of faculty and students in the screening process.
At the meeting in Nashville on October 24, the Board's Screening Committee decided that it will return to Knoxville on November 14 to meet with the Knoxville Campus Special Committee on the Presidential Search for the purpose of discussing the possible Presidential candidates included in a confidential list being prepared by the Board's Screening Committee, At the meeting on November 14, the Screening Committee also will discuss the procedure to be followed in further involving the faculty and students of all University campuses.
The Screening Committee wishes to express sincere appreciation to the Knoxville campus committee for the tremendous amount of work it has done. The Screening Committee feels, that the data, files, names and suggestions concerning procedure, submitted by the Knoxville committee, will be most helpful to the Screening Committee in its work. It is apparent from the data, submitted by more than 200 different campus groups, that a great deal of effort was made by the faculty, staff and students on the Knoxville campus.
The Committee has already had two days of hearings on the Knoxville campus. We regret that press reports on the Committee's recent Nashville meeting did riot carry the details on plans for further hearings at Knoxville. The Committee will give all the time necessary to complete hearings on Presidential prospects who have been suggested for consideration.
###
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE
POLITICAL SCIENCE
October 28, 1969
Senator Herbert S. Walters
Post Office Box 1479
Morristown, Tennessee
Dear Senator Walters:
The AAUP Committee on Faculty Participation In University Governance wishes to congratulate the Screening Committee on its Press Statement of 27 October 1969. It assures the further involvement of students and faculties of all campuses In the search for a new President., and restates that the Committee will give all the time necessary to complete hearings on Presidential prospects. It hence removes part of the basis for that lack at confidence among faculty and students following the misleading news stories published last weekend that led to such things as the premature action of the Interfraternity Council.
This is an age of communication, and one of distrust and suspicion when communication is incomplete, or seemingly conflicting. In the absence of an unambiguous and clearly spelled- out statement lack of confidence asserts itself In forbidding forms, We need hardly emphasize that it will be most helpful when the Screening Committee has described clearly and publicly, an November 14, the procedures it will follow in associating faculty and student representatives in its search.
It is our conviction that any President of the University who is selected without form I and favorable review of his credentials, values, and interests by the designated representatives of faculty and students will not receive the support necessary to fulfill his duties.
The incoming President needs not only the full support of the Board of Trustees, but also that of faculty, students, and administration.
We would, in fact, solemnly advise any individual who my be under consideration by the Screening Committee to exact the most scrupulous consultation with both faculty. and student representatives and, If need be, to initiate such review and interview himself.
We recognize that it will take time to carry out the search, and hence we welcome especially the assurance that the search need not he terminated In December.
The Board, the faculties, and the students have one basic and common interest: the welfare and development of The University of Tennessee. We must and shall continue to strive for a unified decision, and the Committee's statement of 27 October will surely work to this end.
Sincerely,
R. B. Davis
A. J. Sharp
G. A. Spiva*
W. K. Stair*
W. S. Verplanck
T. McN. Simpson, Ch.
AAUP committee on Faculty Participation
in University Governance
*did not participate because out of city
To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.
