Fall 1995

Volume 6 Number 3 Fall 1995

RECEPTION!!! October 18, 1995, 4 pm. Pebble Hill

PRESIDENT'S NOTES: By Curt Peterson

As I begin my tenure as president of the local chapter of the AAUP, I am pleased to note that the faculty at Auburn has enjoyed strong leadership throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. With strong elected faculty leadership in the Senate and elsewhere, it might be easy for the general faculty to rationalize that a campus chapter of AAUP has little relevance. Such conjecture might explain why the membership of the Auburn Chapter of AAUP remains low relative to the total number of faculty members at Auburn. Another reason for the small number of National AAUP members on campus might be related to the dues schedule. Although the Auburn Chapter has routinely allowed faculty members to pay the very modest dues to the Auburn Chapter without requiring membership in the national association, the National office frowns on this practice. The differential in cost between local dues and national dues is substantial.

Given the strong elected faculty leadership that exists at Auburn and the cost of membership in the national association, what is the role for the Auburn Chapter of AAUP on this campus, and why should faculty support AAUP by joining at the national, state and chapter level?

AAUP always has focused on the welfare of the faculty through its publications and actions. The basis for tenure policy at Auburn and other universities is founded on the principles put forth by AAUP in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and restated in many other published statements since then. Most of the content of Chapter 3 of the recently completed revision of the Auburn University Faculty Handbook is based on AAUP principles and recommendations, and provided a major impetus for this university being removed from AAUP censure. The officers of the Auburn Chapter of AAUP with the support of the Chapter Executive Committee worked tirelessly with Dr. Muse once he assumed office to have the censure removed. While it might have been possible for the elected faculty leadership to work directly with President Muse to achieve the lifting of censure, the presence of active leadership within the Auburn Chapter contributed significantly to providing the proper atmosphere and actions on the part of the University for the removal of censure.

Tenure remains the foundation for a continued commitment to academic freedom without fear of loss of financial security if or when individual faculty members choose to speak out or pursue activities to which they are entitled. The Auburn Chapter attempts to work closely with the faculty leadership and the University administration to insure that the general faculty, particularly untenured individuals, are fully informed about the expectations and procedures for attaining tenure. The Chapter is planning to contribute materials to and participate in the annual workshop on tenure and promotion held during the 1996 Winter Quarter in order to articulate and clarify University policies on tenure and promotion. The Chapter, through Committee A, also attempts to resolve disputes or grievances of faculty members who appeal to AAUP for assistance. While many individuals perceive that these (cont. on p. 2) matters are primarily handled at the national level, in most cases problems are resolved locally.

It is not unexpected that the faculty at a university like Auburn generally remains apathetic during the better times characterized by an increasing or at least stable budget. Suffice it to say that we are entering a period of potential financial uncertainty, the likes of which the faculty have not seen at Auburn for as long as I have been here. While attempts at strategic planning and prioritizing were initiated by the central administration during the early '80s, the task and the outcome were so unpleasant that the process gradually and literally ground to a halt. In recent months the University has progressed well beyond the stage of planning and prioritizing that we witnessed the previous time, although it is unclear how much further the administration will go. What role can AAUP play in this process?

The AAUP State Conference, headed by Larry Gerber, former chair of the University Senate, met on campus, April 29, 1995, to discuss possible responses to the fiscal crisis facing higher education in Alabama. Fortunately, AAUP at the national level has been sponsoring workshops for AAUP members from chapters around the country on how to analyze a university's budget. Such a financial analysis workshop was co-sponsored by the AAUP State Conference and the ACCUFP (Presidents and/or Chairs of University Senates or Councils within Alabama) on Saturday, 30 September 1995, on the AU campus. Presently, we are uncertain as to the outcome of budgetary constraints that have resulted in the loss of unfilled or vacant faculty positions, incentive retirement positions, and other possible changes in university structure that could affect the faculty. However, the leadership of the Auburn Chapter of AAUP and other chapters in the state are preparing to become more knowledgeable about the budgeting process within the university in order to defend the welfare of the faculty and the integrity of the university during this period of financial uncertainty.

If you have been a "fence sitter" and undecided about joining AAUP or in supporting faculty governance, I encourage you to support the Auburn Chapter. You can begin by attending our chapter meeting and reception on October 18, 1995. I look forward to seeing you there and working with AAUP members during these potentially difficult times for the University.

LOCAL MEMBERSHIP DUES: By Sonny Dawsey

The Membership Committee of the local chapter of the AAUP was asked to consider the ambiguity inherent in the current practice of collecting dues for local chapter membership while soliciting the higher dues for membership in the national organization. The money collected locally has been used to support operations of the Auburn Chapter including the publication of this newsletter. Three related issues were discussed:

1. The national organization has expressed some concern over the practice.
2. Some members may assume that local membership means the same as membership in the National AAUP.
3. Contributions to the National AAUP may be reduced because faculty prefer to pay the lower local fee to the higher national charge.

The Membership Committee concluded that the major problems can be traced to ambiguity caused by the use of the term dues for two separate collections. Contributing to this has been the absence of an explanation of what the funds are used for. Also unclear is the contractual meaning of dues. The term implies entitlement to certain services and privileges. These are defined for the national organization, but what the members of the local chapter receive in return for their payment is not.

Recommendations:

Elimination of the collection of local dues would leave the chapter with few operating resources. The committee, therefore, recommended ways to eliminate some of the confusion regarding the collection of funds:

1. Drop the use of the term dues in reference to the local chapter. We will continue to collect funds, but they will be called Local Chapter Affiliation Fees. Dues will refer to money for the National AAUP.
2. Clearly communicate the difference between the two collections, and identify exactly what the money is used for (this article is such an attempt). We should not imply that an affiliation with the local chapter means the same thing as membership in the National AAUP.
3. Separate the collection process. For example, you will likely receive two separate solicitations; the first for a local chapter affiliation fee with an explanation that the money will be used to support local operations and to publish the Newsletter. The second will be information about the National AAUP and the State Conference. The two fees are necessarily tied together in the payroll deduction plan, so we should make it plain to everyone that subscription to the plan will cover both charges.
4. Change references to the local dues in the Constitution and By-Laws of the local chapter. These changes will be proposed at a future meeting.

We hope the above recommendations will reduce some of the misunderstanding regarding membership and the collection of fees. Participation in the local chapter and the National AAUP are both highly recommended, but the two organizations are distinct entities.

COMMITTEE A NEWS:

Our members may not know it, but the local chapter has an active Committee A (on academic freedom and tenure) that has been involved in a number of issues of interest to our membership and the university community as a whole. The committee has a rotating membership, including over the last two years Dennis Evans, Joe Renden, Bill Trimble, Curt Peterson, and Sonny Dawsey. In some instances, the committee has simply monitored situations. But in others, there has been more active involvement. For example, Committee A members have brought parties together and helped arbitrate compromises before major problems arose, provided advice to faculty who felt their academic freedom had been violated, worked as liaison between faculty members and the National office, and provided recommendations in grievance cases. Committee members do not have any legal training and do not offer legal services, but sometimes do suggest that aggrieved parties seek legal advice. Nor does Committee A directly involve itself in salary or job description issues. Finally, the committee strives to maintain strict confidentiality in all of the issues with which it is involved.

Consider just a few of the cases Committee A has followed since 1993 and the results:

Mishandling by a department head of a professor's tenure and promotion files; subsequent harassment of the professor by the department head. Committee A monitored the case. The professor received tenure and promotion.
A negative annual evaluation of a tenured professor by a department head, who charged that the professor had been "uncooperative." A dean had supported the department head's evaluation of the professor. The professor believed the negative evaluation was due to the professor's work on a university-level quality committee. A member of committee A attended a meeting between the professor and department head at which the department head said he would reconsider the negative evaluation and would recommend the professor for a merit pay raise.
A grievance case involving a professor who charged that an administrator had not accurately represented the professor's job description nor rewarded that professor with a salary commensurate with the professor's responsibilities. The University Grievance Committee found the administrator responsible for serious lapses and recommended revision of the professor's job title, salary enhancement, and other corrective actions. Committee A monitored the case and requested information from the National office. The job title was clarified, but the professor had to reapply for the position.
A senior tenured professor contemplating initiating a grievance against a department head and dean for violation of academic freedom. The professor had written a critical column in a professional magazine. Following a complaint from outside the university, the department head and dean appropriated the professor's column to print a rebuttal and retraction. Committee A examined the case, finding that it was a blatant instance of external coercion that violated the professor's academic freedom. Committee A intervened on the professor's behalf with the department head and dean, who published an apology in a subsequent issue of the magazine. The professor did not file a grievance.
The nonreappointment of an untenured assistant professor. The professor filed a grievance, arguing that noncontinuation was based solely on an anonymous letter of complaint from a student about one course and that the termination had been administratively mishandled. One of the members of Committee A sat in on the grievance committee hearing. The grievance committee found that there was no violation of the professor's academic freedom, but that there was administrative mishandling of the professor's tenure and promotion package. The hearing committee's recommendation that the professor's appointment be continued was, however, rejected by the university president.
The noncontinuation of an untenured associate professor. The professor filed a grievance against the department head and program leader charging discrimination and violation of academic freedom during the promotion and tenure process. CommitteeA monitored the case and a member of the committee attended the grievance committee hearing. The grievance committee found no evidence of discrimination but did rule that the professor's academic freedom had been violated. Committee A recommended that the professor be continued while the tenure and promotion process was renewed. The president of the university renewed the professor's appointment for two more years.