Volume 6 Number 1 Winter 1995

PROMOTION AND TENURE WORKSHOP Feb. 7, 1995 3 pm. Broun Hall

PRESIDENT'S NOTES: By Joe Renden

We are into a new year and quarter. The time off for the holidays seems to have receded into the distant past. Whatever relief vacation is supposed to provide us seems to dissipate too quickly. There never is enough time to accomplish everything, and I guess this is a combination of age and our environment.

Our fall quarter chapter meeting was successful and well attended. Excellent presentations were given by Mike Moriarty, Miller Solomon, and Boyd Childress on scholarly publications. The talks were taped and should be available from Lindy Biggs, History, our chapter Secretary-Treasurer. At the fall meeting, the Special Admissions Policy adopted by the Board on November 4 was addressed.

The primary concern of the chapter regarding the policy was the process followed by the administration. The Auburn University Faculty Handbook defines the University Senate as advisory to the President on matters such as admission standards. The Committee on Academic Standards specifically is responsible for consideration of admission standards and is advisory to the University Senate. During review of the Special Admissions policy, the Committee on Academic Standards was consulted, but the policy was never allowed to go to the full Senate for its review. Officers of the chapter met with the President and Provost and expressed our concerns for the appearance of disregard for the principle of shared governance.

I believe our efforts were constructive and the administration has shown a willingness to work with the Senate to consider suggestions for improvement of the policy. It is the intent of the chapter to mediate in a positive and constructive manner when principles of AAUP seem challenged. A resolution was provided to the University Senate (January 10) by Gary Swanson, Physics. Gary is a former chair of the Committee on Academic Standards, and the resolution expresses disappointment in the administration. It also requests that a special task force be appointed by the Senate to study and recommend needed changes.

Problems of governance in the university generally involve improper process. This can lead to suspicion and possible distrust with concomitant focus on process to the exclusion of positive changes in the future. It is important for the administration to recognize faculty expectations for established procedure.

The chapter held a reception for the membership at Pebble Hill Thursday, January 12. We had a good turnout and we missed those who were unable to attend. Our chapter membership is growing, and we have 13 additional individuals paying national dues. The chapter has initiated payroll deduction for our chapter and national dues, which should ease some of the pains of membership. I have been impressed with the turnaround from the national office on our queries to them concerning academic issues. Like any other professional organization we belong to, there is a requirement of money for operation. The decision to belong to a group like AAUP requires contributing to what one believes in.

The chapter is co-sponsoring a Promotion and Tenure workshop with the Offices of the Provost and Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity. This is scheduled for Tuesday, February 7 from 3:00 to 5:00 PM in rooms 238 and 239 Broun Hall. Probationary and tenured faculty are invited. Bill Trimble, History, will be presenting historical background on tenure and academic freedom, with an emphasis on the role of the AAUP.

The national office of AAUP has expressed concern regarding changes in Congress after last November's election. Funding of higher education may be reduced due to pledges to cut federal spending. These cuts may include student aid funding, endowments for the humanities and arts, and indirect costs for research. Funding at the state level is also in question. The national office is establishing a government relations network to provide assistance with insuring support for educational funding. David Martin, Political Science, has agreed to serve as our contact person at Auburn. He is well qualified for this role, especially at the state level. Accountability of faculty will become more important as budgets become tighter. The AU administration is anticipating and positioning itself in expectation of budget shortfalls through the Task Force on Establishing University Priorities. This is appropriate action by the President, who is responsible for the future direction and success of the institution. The administration should be commended for taking a proactive position. It is assumed that all academic and administrative programs will be fairly and thoroughly examined. I question, however, the ranking of programs with our attempts to implement Quality Management at Auburn.

Looking ahead to spring, the chapter is making plans to bring in a representative from the national office to speak on university governance. Preliminary arrangements have been made and we are now exploring sources of funding to help defray expenses. The national office has committed to half of the cost of our program.

The next year will be interesting with the change in the Governor's office. Auburn University is an asset to the state and can provide leadership for developing strategies to improve the quality of life for Alabama residents. The faculty has expertise that can be used to solve many major problems that the state currently faces. We need to come out of our narrow areas of specialization and provide help in establishing dynamic public policy. The university is a peculiar institution whose strength is provided by the faculty's ability to be objective and independent of selfish interests. We need to exercise these strengths for the improvement of Alabama.

THE UNIVERSITY: TWO CONTRASTING PRINCIPLES By Rich Penaskovic

"We all live under the same sky, but we do not all share the same horizon." K. Adenauer

In this essay I want to reflect on two things: 1. the mission of a university; and 2. how business principles impinge on that mission. I will report on a book written by Thorstein Veblen in 1918 called Higher Learning in America. Veblen suggests that the university is a seminary of learning; that is, it prepares students for a life of learning and scholarship. The university is the only accepted institution on which the quest of knowledge unquestionably devolves. Veblen remarks that this quest of "idle" learning has sought shelter in the university as the only establishment in which it could find a home.

The university is, then, a corporate body of scholars each of whom is devoted to a particular field of learning. The pursuit of learning is not a race, an argument, or a symposium, but a conversation. As such, it has no predetermined course, nor does it have a chair. Each discipline is a recognized branch of scholarship. Taken together, the disciplines represent the conversation carried on in the university.

A university is, however, not only a home of learning but also a business concern. Veblen grants that business methods certainly have their place in the fiscal affairs of the university. But serious issues of academic policy often reduce themselves to a struggle between the claims of knowledge and scholarship on the one hand, and those of business principles and pecuniary gain on the other.

An example may clarify the issue. In the business world employees must be absolutely loyal and obedient to the boss. We also find in the business world top-down management or a hierarchical gradation. There is a chain of command in terms of the power structure. In academe, on the other hand, we find the principle of collegiality. The better administrators are adept at consensus building rather than operating as benign dictators. Little of bureaucratic subordination and less of hierarchical gradation is needed or is serviceable in a university, says Veblen.

Another important factor enters into the equation, and that is the governing boards or trustees of a university. Veblen sees the governing board as a carryover from the days of clerical rule when they enforced conformity to orthodox opinions and observances among academic staff. At that time they raised funds to meet the current expenses of the university. Today the complexion of the governing boards has changed with the substitution of business people for ecclesiastics.

The trustees now control the budget of the university, and are supposed to serve as links between the outside world and the university. They have a double function: to justify the university to the larger society and to convey the needs of that society to the institutions they serve. Veblen argues that because of a businesslike bias boards incline to apportion funds assigned for current expenses so as to favor those practical lines of instruction that heighten the business acumen of the students or yield immediate returns in the way of a creditable publicity.

The contrast between the university as a home of learning and as a business enterprise is also seen when examining the office of the president. Veblen argues that the president holds office by choice of the governing board. Hence the board will create a president in its own image. That is, the board selects a president mainly on grounds of his/her business qualifications. Yet the president works in a field of activity, the pursuit of knowledge, that has nothing in common with that business traffic in which the boards' views of efficiency have been formed, says Veblen. And, as a matter of fact, when scholars become presidents, they are usually lost to the republic of learning.

What are the implications of Veblen's work as Auburn University commences a sweeping strategic planning process and review of academic programs?

1. The business world speaks of stating goals and measuring outcomes in behavioral terms. Is such language appropriate when applied to academe? For example, how does one trace the effect of Auburn University in developing lifelong, self-directed learners? It is also difficult to measure many educational goals such as tolerance for others, self-awareness, the ability to work well with others and moral/ethical development.

2. There are several management concepts borrowed from the business world, such as a hierarchical notion of authority or top- down management and accountability that dominate higher education. These ideas are so pervasive that they are hardly ever questioned. In the business world authority is seen to flow from top to bottom, much like the military's chain of command. Such a notion of authority, however, runs into problems, because in academe we find a strong emphasis on collegiality. Tenure and Promotion decisions, for example, are made primarily by one's peers.

3. It is my understanding that the Provost's office recently cut its work force. I wonder about such a move. Is it not possible that the Provost may be so overloaded with administrative details that he will not have the time to pay attention to the larger, educational issues facing Auburn University? I look around and see Provosts at other universities working twelve- and fifteen-hour days. Do we really want our top administrators becoming victims of burnout and stress? Is it not penny-wise and pound-foolish to operate with a very lean staff?

4. In our day college presidents seem to be interchangeable with other CEOs. One hears the comment that good administration applies equally to business, government, the military, and academe. Is that really the case? Many faculty maintain that we need presidents who educational leaders. Otherwise, an institution may pay its bills on time but go nowhere because it lacks direction and purpose. Should not a president do what no one else can, and that is nurture learning, inspire, call forth greatness and give a model for learning in community?

5. Should Auburn not reject the ideals of corporate planning and replace them with educational ideals? As Leon Botstein, the president of Bard College, once said, what matters at a university is never fiscal nor bureaucratic but what students learn, create, and discover. Should not Auburn invest its capital in learning and teaching rather than retreat into fiscal conservatism?

I do not have all the answers. I propose these questions in a very tentative way. These are the questions I ask myself ruminating over them the way a dog gnaws a bone. And may we not very well wind up pushing each other aside for room to gnaw on the bone?