Volume 1 Number 2 Fall 1990
PRESIDENT'S NOTES:

By Tal Henson

The academic year 1990-1991 promises to be an interesting one for the Auburn AAUP chapter in light of the controversy over the Eminent Scholar in Religion position. The issue has raised serious concern over matters of academic freedom and external interference in the tenure process. Traditional faculty roles in these vital areas of academic procedure appear to have been ignored by the president in making his decision.

In 1966, the AAUP, in conjunction with the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, adopted a Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. This statement affirms that "Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility," and states that the "president should . . . concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail." President Martin's failure to discuss his rationale in rejecting a faculty recommendation clearly violates these principles.

Faculty role in university governance was a central theme at the national AAUP meeting which was held in Washington last June. I attended the meeting and heard representatives from a variety of colleges and universities express concern over the growing rate in which academic decisions are being made by administrators. They were just as dismayed as I that the university as business enterprise seems to be an accelerating trend. (See Larry Gerber's discussion of university governance and the budget process in this issue.)

Four institutions were placed on censure at the annual meeting, including Catholic University in consequence of actions taken against Father Charles Curran. The delegates also adopted a Statement on Plagiarism (I have copies for anyone interested). Other issues brought up at the meeting included a proposed statement on the faculty's role in the governance of college athletics, racism on campus, and sexual harassment. The various national committees are working on a broad range on questions, and I am sure the next annual meeting will be most productive.
FALL MEETING:

All members of the faculty are invited to attend the fall meeting of the Auburn chapter of the AAUP. It will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 1990, at 4:00 P.M. in Haley 2116.

The speaker at the fall meeting will be Professor Charles E. Curran, AU's Visiting Goodwin-Philpott Eminent Scholar in Religion. Professor Curran will summarize his difficulties with Catholic University and how they have led to censureship of that institution by the AAUP. He will also discuss how his case affects the problems he has encountered at Auburn and what they mean to the question of academic freedom. We hope the entire faculty, regardless of whether they belong to AAUP, attend the meeting, because the questions centering on the Curran case directly affect everyone at this university.

After Professor Curran's presentation, AAUP members should remain for a brief business meeting.
VIEWPOINTS:

By Bill Trimble

We are only a few weeks into the fall quarter and already a lot of ink has been spilled over Professor Charles E. Curran. Professor Curran has been described as "controversial" and a "maverick." National magazines have covered his removal from the Catholic University of America in the context of the role of the Church in higher education, and newspapers ranging from major metropolitan dailies to the Auburn Plainsman have published articles and editorials. The AU University Senate passed a resolution on October 9 calling for an investigation of President James E. Martin's decision to deny Professor Curran tenure.

Thus far, however, none of the coverage has examined the affair from the viewpoint of the AAUP, or focused as clearly as it might on the deeper questions raised by the Curran issue in relation to academic freedom. To start with, AU remains on the AAUP's list of censured institutions because of unsettled questions regarding the de facto tenure of Lida Mayfield. The central administration, although now recognizing de facto tenure, considers the case closed and refuses to discuss possible ways of resolving the question that would secure removal from the censure list. Such intractability by the administration in the Mayfield controversy makes it less surprising that it would not be amenable to granting tenure to a controversial professor with a high national profile.

Adding to the controversy is that while Professor Curran was at Catholic University, he was declared ineligible to teach Catholic theology in 1987. He did not have his tenure removed, however, and went on a leave of absence to teach at other universities. This action on the part of the administration at Catholic University led to censureship by the AAUP, which determined that the university's administration had violated Professor Curran's academic freedom by not permitting him to teach anywhere in the university [Academe (Sept.-Oct. 1990)].

The crux of the matter goes beyond what either a secular university such as Auburn or a religious institution such as Catholic University does in specific instances to warrant censure by the AAUP. It also goes beyond Curran's stands on such questions as birth control, abortion, and homosexuality and whether or not they are shared by the majority of the Catholic faithful. Rather the issue is a fundamental one of academic freedom. Should any professor, especially one whose academic credentials are as impeccable as Curran's, be denied tenure solely on the basis that his research, writing, and public statements are controversial? What is the purpose of tenure if it is not to ensure freedom of expression among scholars, even if their points of view are at variance with that of the community as a whole? The wrong is doubly grievous when, as in Curran's case, tenure is denied in the defiance of the recommendations of a distinguished search committee and strong support for tenure from colleagues and the university promotion and tenure committee. Is it the proper role of a university president to overturn a decision in favor of tenure that had been reached through such long-established and acceptable procedures? The answer to all of these questions, in the opinion of the AAUP, is no.

The central administration has stated that no visiting professors, no matter how eminent, have received tenure at AU and that no one coming to Auburn under the circumstances of Professor Curran has received instant tenure. President Martin and others are reported to have said that Professor Curran knew what he was getting into when he agreed to come to AU as a visiting scholar and that neither he nor the faculty should be surprised that he did not receive tenure. There have also been assertions that because Professor Curran did not have tenure at a university before coming to AU, there was no basis for giving him tenure here.

These statements are all open to debate, and some of them may actually be true, but they only pertain to the question in the narrowest, most parochial way. At the heart of the issue is the role of the faculty in this and other universities in questions pertaining to their colleagues. Auburn and other institutions of higher learning constitute the academy, where ideas, controversial or not, must be allowed to flow freely. Neither AU's administration nor any other university's can or should block, hinder, or otherwise disrupt a process that is so central to higher learning. When that happens, as in the case of Professor Curran, not just the faculty are the losers, but the entire university.

There is also a widespread perception at AU that the faculty are employees and that the administration has an authority equivalent to that of an employer. That is not how a university is or should be governed. Faculty members must be solely responsible for decisions regarding appointments, reappointments, promotions, granting of tenure, and dismissal. The administration and board of trustees can only intervene when there are compelling reasons to do so, and they must explain why they are doing so. Neither President Martin nor any other representative of the central administration has thus far given any sound reasons for denying Professor Curran either a long-term appointment or tenure. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the AAUP to take a strong position as the voice of the AU faculty in defense of our role in the decision-making process at the university and in opposition to the central administration's action on the Curran issue.
UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND

By Larry Gerber

During the last year there has been considerable discussion on this campus of faculty salaries and budget priorities. The Auburn AAUP chapter supported Vice-President Ron Henry's appointment this past year of an Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Salaries and believes that the committee provided a useful vehicle for an expression of faculty concerns about AU's salary structure. We also welcome the announcement made by Dr. Gary Mullen, Chair of the General Faculty, at the October University Senate meeting that the Senate leadership would appoint a similar ad hoc committee this year. We remain concerned, however, about the lack of any permanent mechanism for faculty input into the budget process at Auburn.

Faculty concerns appropriately extend beyond the question of salaries, because the allocation of resources and the establishment of priorities throughout the budget have a profound effect both on the funds available for salaries and on the university's ability to carry out its academic mission. In 1966, the national AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges issued a Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities that included the following declaration:

A second area calling for joint effort in internal operation is that of decisions regarding existing or prospective physical resources. The board, president, and faculty should all seek agreement on basic decisions regarding buildings and other facilities to be used in the educational work of the institution.

A third area is budgeting. The allocation of resources among competing demands is central in the formal responsibility of the governing board, in the administrative authority of the president, and in the educational function of the faculty. Each component should therefore have a voice in the determination of short- and long-range budgetary projections. The function of each component in budgetary matters should be understood by all; the allocation of authority will determine the flow of information and the scope of participation in decisions.

We believe it is time for the AU faculty to take steps to establish a permanent mechanism guaranteeing the faculty a role in the budget-making process. It is imperative that such a mechanism (perhaps a standing budget committee of the Senate) be devised in such a way that faculty input into the budget process occur before and not after the budget is finalized and sent to the Board of Trustees by the President.