Where were the leaders of higher education in Alabama during public debate over the proposed educational lottery? Most ducked for cover in fear that Governor Siegelman would make good his threats to punish those who dared oppose him on the lottery issue. As a result, higher education failed to provide the public with any informed discussion regarding the likely effects of the lottery on enrollment, admissions policies, or the abilities of state colleges and universities to meet increased demand for post-secondary education.
The people best able to provide facts and figures on these topics, senior administrators at Alabama's colleges and universities, actively avoided even the slightest suggestion of taking sides during an increasingly heated debate. Adopting the attitude "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," the common administrative response was to hold their tongues and leave their concerns unspoken. The lottery posed potentially serious problems for Auburn University. There was no guarantee the legislature would have appropriated additional funds had the lottery passed. If in-state enrollments increased, would we have to cut back on the number of out-of-state students admitted? What effect would this have on the quality and diversity of our student body? What would be the financial impact of fewer out-of-state students, who pay the full cost of their educations in higher tuition payments? Would we raise academic standards in the face of increased demand, or would we dilute the quality of the education we provide?
The public learned nothing of such matters. The people in the best position to provide informed commentary were quiet. They had good reason: they feared that the Governor would cut appropriations to any university whose leaders were to express concerns about the lottery. Two senior administrators at Auburn remarked that they felt personally vulnerable since they lack the protection of tenure.
That last observation was in fact the inspiration for this column. Critics of tenure as an institution note that we live in a free and democratic society and ask "Why should academicians be accorded a special set of rights?" Our recent experience with a Governor in single-minded pursuit of a political goal illustrates the heart of the matter: the tendency of power to stifle debate. Our colleagues in administration were reminded how limited was their ability to voice their concerns.
Tenure represents both individual privilege and professional responsibility. To the individual, tenure provides academic freedom based on security. Professionally, tenure is about the protection of intellectual freedom in academia. As a matter of professional responsibility, it is the task of tenured faculty to help create a climate which encourages academic freedom for all, whether our halls are clad in ivy or kudzu. Academic freedom is a priceless heritage, absolutely essential to the functioning of higher education. The institution of tenure and the central role of tenured faculty in university governance are fundamental principles of the AAUP, a critically important bastion in defense of academic freedom.
We must acknowledge that others besides administrators on our campuses may have limits imposed on their abilities to voice concerns and opinions. Newly hired tenure-track faculty lack the formal protection of tenure, and may be reluctant to speak their minds until after this hurdle is passed. Faculty outside the tenure system, including Research and Clinical faculty, also lack the protection which tenure provides. Our students, graduate and undergraduate alike, benefit from the freedom of enquiry found at a university. Should our colleagues and students have more limited rights to free speech than faculty with tenure? What loss to intellectual discourse might such limits impose?
When it comes to matters of academic freedom, we should resist the temptation to consider tenure track and non-tenure track faculty as fundamentally separate categories. We need to emphasize the spirit of free discourse which unites the university community as a whole. Efforts to divide the faculty into separate categories represents a threat to faculty unity. The AAUP on this campus and elsewhere has resisted the trend towards replacing tenure track faculty positions with positions that lack the protections of tenure. This organizational response should not, however, be taken to mean that the AAUP represents only faculty within the tenure system. Fundamentally, the AAUP supports academic freedom and sees the protection of the tenure system as essential to achieving that goal.
The recent experience of power politics stifling freedom of expression on Alabama's campuses should alert us all that the threat to academic freedom or even freedom of speech is real, here, and now. Where was the AAUP on this issue? We held a well-attended public Forum the week before the election. Panelists representing differing perspectives made brief presentations and then fielded questions from the audience. The local chapter also provided advice to a faculty member under pressure by administrators to not express in public professional concerns regarding the lottery for fear it would adversely affect the University. Over the years, much of the work of chapter officers has been to provide counsel and support to individual faculty. The AAUP, both at the local and national levels, represents a well organized presence and articulate voice in defense of academic freedom and the principle of faculty governance.
By Marty Olliff
Over the past few years, the Auburn Board of Trustees has played an increasingly active role in managing University affairs. Board activism is a national trend, and stems from the Boards' desire to perform their constitutional mandates to manage the "financial and other interests of the institute." One consequence of Board activism is that it turns the spotlight of public attention on the Board itself. Activist trustees who make controversial decisions become the subject of intense public scrutiny and sometimes criticism.
Such is the case at Auburn. Board activism in the recent past struck a nerve with many Alabamians, including alumni. Debate over Board micro-management of university affairs, including the athletic program, soon turned to debate over trusteeship itself. Auburn First, a group of alumni from the Birmingham area, sponsored legislation to amend how Board members are appointed. The idea was to democratize the process and open the field to alumni who had left the state to make their fortunes. Opposition within the state legislature, notably from trustees Barron and Venable, led to the bill's failure. Nevertheless, the effort put forward by Auburn First increased public awareness concerning the crucial role of the Board in running the everyday affairs of Auburn University.
Increased public scrutiny led to public awareness that the Board sometimes appears to be divided into blocks, and that the existence of financial ties between certain Board members might explain behavior of these members. The result was suspicion that financial interests of individual trustees played a greater role in Board decisions than did the University's interests.
Board members with intertwined financial interests do not necessarily or always act in lock-step, but such interests cannot help but raise public concerns that they will influence decisions. As holders of the public trust, Board members must not only be above reproach, they must be seen to be above reproach.
Alabama's State Ethics Act provides one means for assuring citizens that public interests are being protected. The 1995 revisions of this Act gave the Ethics Commission the right to subpoena witnesses and to investigate anonymous complaints. It also expanded the classifications of occupations required to file financial disclosures, and lowered the filing threshold to $50,000 of combined household income. The Alabama ethics law is widely touted as the most stringent in the nation.
At this time, however, it is unclear whether the Act covers university trustees. If it does, financial disclosure offers trustees the chance to reassure the public that they do not make self-interested policies. Case law has not yet established the status of unpaid Board members, and a court challenge to their non-filing might make things clear. An opinion of the Attorney General would do the same, but legislation is the surest way of effecting responsibility for financial disclosure. I am unaware of any Board member who has filed a financial disclosure form with the Ethics Commission. I believe that members of all boards of all public universities should be required to do so as this would increase public confidence in their stewardship.
Why should unpaid Board members, who give their time to perform a public service, be forced to disclose the sources of their incomes? Arguments for and against disclosure would fill volumes, but we can boil it down pretty simply. Board members are responsible to the citizens of the state, and the university community, to act independently of any influences to promote the best interests of the institution. This is particularly true of the Board's fiduciary responsibility. Hidden financial ties that result from non-disclosure are like secret meetings--they make a mockery of the Board's responsibility and obstruct the community's ability to monitor its representatives.
Without oversight, even the best-intentioned Board of Trustees tends to raise its internal politics to the level of policy. It is past time, therefore, that the citizens of Alabama establish their oversight of Auburn's Board.
