Volume 5 Number 3 Fall 1994
FALL 1994 AAUP MEETING

November 10, 1994, 4 pm

Room 112 Life Sciences Bldg.

"Scholarly Publications: Quality v. Quantity"

A panel discussion with Prof. Miller Solomon, Librarian Boyd Childress, and new Vice-President for Research, Michael Moriarty

PRESIDENT'S NOTES By Joe Renden

An introduction may be appropriate. I have been at Auburn for almost 13 years in the Department of Poultry Science as an avian physiologist. As in many organizations a small amount of interest will get one in an official position. After serving on the executive committee for several years and as president-elect, I assumed the presidency of the local chapter of AAUP last summer. Like many other faculty, I became active in AAUP during the crisis over Charles Curran; it was difficult for me to believe the Martin administration's conviction in the Curran case that in an academic environment controversy had to be avoided at all costs. The need for academic freedom guaranteed by tenure becomes very evident when emotion or self-interest overrule reason.

The principles of the AAUP form the basis for most academic standards and are viewed as the authoritative voice of the academic profession. I enjoy my association with AAUP because it has allowed me to interact with colleagues across disciplines who share similar concerns and interests in the academic profession.

The executive committee of the local chapter met in July and set an agenda for the academic year. We plan to be involved in programs for discussion of publication issues (quantity vs. quality) and tenure and promotion criteria. Both programs have the support of the vice-president for research and the provost. The chapter also hopes to update its constitution.

There are some issues about AAUP that I would like to address. Many individuals who do not know AAUP immediately associate us with unions. AAUP is not a union. However, it does act as a contract negotiator at institutions where the faculty has unionized. Generally unions form when employees no longer believe they have an effective voice in deciding their terms and conditions of employment, faculty senates fail to influence administrative decisions, and shared governance does not exist. Unionization results from a failure of administration. Auburn University does not have these problems.

Members of AAUP do not fit any particular stereotype. Our members are diverse like any other group and come from all colleges and departments across campus. We do share a commitment to the principles of AAUP that are universally accepted by most universities, including Auburn. Individuals who become members of AAUP have a sincere concern for academic freedom, professional ethics, shared governance, the rights of women and minorities, unbiased academic environments, and the future of the professorate. We express these beliefs when the basic principles of AAUP are violated.

Many assume that members of AAUP routinely provide legal counsel to the faculty. Although some of our members do have law degrees, members of our Committee A (Academic Freedom and Tenure) care not qualified and do not provide this service. Members of Committee A will assist individuals who believe that their rights have been violated and serve as observers to facilitate solutions. We encourage faculty to try to settle differences with administrators or other faculty informally before considering formal grievance procedures. But we firmly believe the academic environment must assure faculty rights; otherwise, there will be lack of commitment, fear, and turnover of personnel.

AAUP seems to be the first resource faculty turn to before initiating grievance procedures, and individuals are routinely referred to us for advice. The local chapter in some cases has been able to help settle differences between individuals without a formal grievance. Without an official campus ombudsman or professional negotiator, AAUP seems to fulfill this need by default. Michigan State University and the University of Iowa have designated ombudsman, and this could be a desirable option at Auburn.

I would like to address an issue that may be a major source of our problems. It is the issue of intellectual integrity. Since the Kentucky football game Thursday, September 29, there have been complaints over the value or priority of academics vs. football. The real issue was the rights of faculty, staff, and students vs. ticket holders for parking and the opportunity to make money from televising the game. Academic decision making should not be constrained by profit-maximizing if educational progress is the goal of the institution. We are continually told that the missions of the university are research, instruction, and extension, but these missions are not as highly rewarded as administrative service. The students are told that the primary purpose of the university is their education.

Why, then, do we have several research institutes on campus and not one for teaching improvement? Instructors are evaluated by students, but there is no mechanism or campus resource for continual improvement of our teaching skills. The faculty is told that teaching and research are equally important, but reality does not seem to support this. How many faculty serve on editorial boards and are told that this is extremely important to our disciplines? Somehow this does not translate during determination of our salary improvements. To provide lip service to excellence and fail to reward for efforts is unethical. Administrators need to be honest in their assessment of faculty; failure to do so is dishonest and unethical. Assessment procedures provide a basis for judging the effectiveness of the organization, and individual appraisal must be connected to total institutional goals.

The university is supposed to be a haven for the search for truth and knowledge and the open discussion of ideas. How often do we fail to express what we believe to be true for fear of rocking the boat or not being considered a "team player"? Honesty is a prerequisite for being a scholar, and the lack of honesty in dealing with others is unethical. Ethical standards are maintained by being logically consistent. Somehow we believe we can deceive others by confusing issues with verbiage, but we all recognize the lack of consistency. Many problems could be avoided by simply being honest. The AAUP and its members stand for honesty and integrity in academe; it is an organization I know I can count on.

Please join us for our fall meeting. It will be held in the new Life Sciences building, room 112, at 4:00 P.M., November 10. The program will be a panel discussion exploring the issue of quantity versus quality in academic publications, a question that all of us have to deal with when we have to make decisions on promotion and tenure. One of the panelists will be AU's new vice-president for research, Michael Moriarity. Plan to attend.
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: One of the major concerns of the AAUP is professional ethics. The following statement is from the AAUP's Policy Documents and Reports (the "Red Book"):

"Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in pursuing, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

"As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student's true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.

"As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.

"As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.

"As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom."
FACULTY GOVERNANCE

In its report submitted in November 1992, the University Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Governance recommended that faculty members be given seats on Auburn's Board of Trustees, where they would serve as nonvoting members. The Committee believed that this was an excellent way to broaden the perspective of the board while enhancing the faculty's role in university governance. Since the submission of the committee's report and its acceptance by the University Senate two years ago, there still is no faculty representation on AU's Board of Trustees.

In 1991-1992, the University of Arizona carried out a survey in which questionnaires were sent to 484 universities around the country asking about faculty membership on governing boards. They received 283 responses, of which 110 indicated that they had faculty representation on boards. Of those 110, 29 indicated that they had faculty sitting as voting members of whole boards, 20 had voting faculty on board committees, 50 had faculty sitting as speaking but nonvoting members on boards or board committees, and 12 had faculty members as advisory representatives on boards. The Arizona study indicates that 40 percent of public institutions surveyed have faculty unions and did not have board representation because they participate in regular negotiations with the board on various issues.

Due in large part to the survey, the University ofArizona system now has one elected faculty member sitting as a nonvoting member of the board, along with the head of the faculty senate serving a single year as a voting member of the board.

AAUP is committed to a strong faculty role in a shared governance system. The time may now have come for faculty representation on AU's Board.