AAUP Academic Freedom Blog

Committee A Report to the 2019 Annual Meeting


The following is the report of the AAUP’s Committee on Educational Freedom and Tenure, introduced to the AAUP annual meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on June 15 and to be revealed in the annual AAUP Bulletin problem of Academe later this summer time.


In the previous yr Committee A reviewed necessary instances and case studies of investigations, monitored developments at censured institutions, and formulated suggestions on censure and censure removing. As well as, the committee engaged in fruitful dialogue of a number of pressing issues on campuses nationwide that influence educational freedom and commenced implementing an formidable program aimed toward producing new and relevant policy paperwork and stories that we hope will serve the wants of chapters, conferences, and school members in all places.

Judicial Business

Impositions of Censure

At its spring meeting Committee A thought-about two instances that had been topics of ad hoc investigating committee reviews revealed since the 2018 annual meeting. The committee adopted the following statements regarding these instances, the Council concurred in them, and the 2019 annual meeting voted to impose censure

Nunez Group School (Louisiana)

The report of the investigating committee considerations the administration’s motion to terminate the providers of an affiliate professor of English following his twenty-second yr on the school. The investigating committee concluded that the motion was taken in violation of the school member’s educational freedom to converse on institutional matters without worry of reprisal. The investigating committee additional concluded that the administration had not afforded him the dismissal listening to to which he was entitled as the result of having obtained de facto tenure at the institution via size of service. Nunez Group School doesn’t have a proper tenure system.

The decision to terminate the professor’s providers adopted his disagreement with the administration over the veracity of data to be offered to the Southern Affiliation of Schools and Faculties Commission on Schools (SACS), the school’s regional accreditor. An accreditation visit in 2017 had cited the establishment for failing to doc “student success.” Shortly after the arrival of a new chancellor in 2018, the administration found itself underneath strain to complete monitoring reviews for submission to the accreditor.

As basic studies program supervisor, the professor was chargeable for the completion of stories on the program. When he expressed concern that studies he had produced were not being included in the material to be submitted to SACS, the administration relieved him of his position. When he discovered that the administration was submitting reviews not ready by him to SACS beneath his identify, he requested that his identify be removed. The administration denied his request.

The chancellor subsequently knowledgeable the school member that his providers can be terminated, first in a telephone call, by which the chancellor said that he was “not a good fit” at the establishment, and subsequently in a letter, during which she declined to provide causes for the determination, pointing as an alternative to the school member’s standing as an “at-will employee.” In response to the professor’s written attraction, the chancellor wrote, “[The decision] is not a reflection of your work record or behavior. Nor does it diminish the past contributions you have made to the college. Your time and service to the college is appreciated.”

The report states, “In the absence of any stated cause for the administration’s actions and on the basis of the available information, the investigating committee is left to conclude that the termination of [the faculty member’s] services was a retaliatory measure taken in violation of his academic freedom.”

Committee A on Educational Freedom and Tenure recommends to the 105th annual meeting that Nunez Group School be added to the Affiliation’s listing of censured administrations.

St. Edward’s College (Texas)

The investigating committee’s report considerations the dismissals of two tenured school members and the nonrenewal of a tenure-track school member. The tenured school members have been of their twelfth yr of service in the school’s communication department. The tenure-track school member was in her fifth yr of service in the instructor schooling department.

The 2 tenured professors, husband and spouse, acquired virtually equivalent letters notifying them of their dismissal for trigger. The said grounds have been “continued disrespect and disregard for the mission and goals of the university,” costs they sharply contested. Despite the urging of the AAUP’s employees, the university’s president declined to afford them a dismissal process that comported with AAUP-supported standards—an adjudicative hearing before an elected school physique during which the burden of demonstrating sufficient cause for dismissal rests with the administration. As an alternative, they have been required to persuade an nameless three-member school attraction body, one member of which was selected by the president, that the motion taken towards them was the result of “unlawful bias, arbitrary or capricious decision making, or a violation of procedures in the Faculty Manual.” Their attraction was unsuccessful, as was an identical attraction to the governing board.

The tenure-track school member was afforded less than six months’ notice (beneath AAUP-recommended standards, she was entitled to a yr of notice) and not allowed to attraction the nonrenewal to an elected school committee. She thus was denied the alternative to ask a duly constituted school physique to assessment her allegation that the actual purpose for the nonreappointment was her dean’s perception of her as a troublemaker. Three years previously she had filed a grievance of sexual harassment towards an associate dean in the Faculty of Schooling, which didn’t, in accordance to her account, end in a cessation of the objectionable conduct. Consequently, she filed further complaints. The varsity’s dean, she charged, appeared irritated by the complaints, spoke of them disparagingly, failed to help her tenure software, and, after the affiliate dean retired, rehired him in one other capacity.

The investigating committee found that, in dismissing the two tenured professors without affording them educational due course of, the St. Edward’s administration had violated the 1940 Assertion of Rules on Educational Freedom and Tenure and the AAUP-supported dismissal standards set forth in Laws 5 and 6 of the AAUP’s Advisable Institutional Laws on Educational Freedom and Tenure. The committee also found that the administration might have acted towards the two professors due to their “persistent outspokenness about administrative decisions and actions.” In consequence, in the absence of a school dismissal listening to, their plausible declare that they have been dismissed for causes that violated their educational freedom remained unrebutted.

With regard to the tenure-track school member, the committee found that the administration, by failing to afford her an attraction course of and a yr of discover, had violated Regulation 2 of the Advisable Institutional Laws. The committee additionally found credible her allegation that the nonrenewal was a consequence of her having lodged complaints of sexual harassment towards an administrator, noting that the allegation remained unrefuted absent an applicable school assessment process. The committee additional concluded that basic circumstances for tutorial freedom and governance at St. Edward’s University have been “abysmal,” with “fear and demoralization” widespread among the school.

Committee A on Educational Freedom and Tenure recommends to the AAUP’s 105th annual assembly that St. Edward’s College be added to the record of censured administrations.

Different Committee Exercise

At its fall and spring conferences Committee A discussed a variety of points that have emerged round the nation with probably vital influence on the climate for tutorial freedom.

Nondisclosure agreements have turn out to be disturbingly widespread in issues of college employment. As noted in the following report of the Committee on School and College Governance, at Vermont Regulation Faculty such agreements have been employed to strip school members of tenure. At Purdue College the establishment’s newly acquired online arm, Purdue International (formerly Kaplan College), required all school members to sign sweeping agreements as a condition of employment. Nevertheless, after the Purdue University AAUP chapter, supported by our nationwide employees, pushed again, Purdue International was compelled to rescind this requirement. Still, use of such agreements is a phenomenon that the committee and its employees will continue to watch intently.

Final yr a professor at the University of Michigan, for political causes, rescinded a suggestion to write a letter of advice for a scholar wishing to research in Israel. The motion prompted appreciable debate on the Academe Blog and elsewhere, and the administration sanctioned the professor with out an applicable school listening to, as stipulated in the AAUP’s Advisable Institutional Laws on Educational Freedom and Tenure. In response, the employees wrote the administration to urge provision of such a hearing. At its fall assembly Committee A engaged in a lengthy discussion of the points posed by this case. While the committee finally decided that it was untimely to prepare a common assertion on such letters, there was consensus that whereas writing letters of advice for college kids is an obligation incurred by most educating school, no school member may be required to write any specific letter or to present a scholar with a selected rationale for declining to write. At the similar time, members of the committee agreed that some rationales violate skilled ethics.

In 2016 a joint subcommittee of Committee A and the Committee on Ladies in the Educational Career produced a report, The Historical past, Makes use of, and Abuses of Title IX. In the wake of proposed modifications to Title IX enforcement by Secretary DeVos’s Division of Schooling, that subcommittee submitted formal comments to the department. The subcommittee additionally issued the assertion The Assault on Gender and Gender Research.

Issues of campus free speech, as distinct from educational freedom per se, continue to roil the nationwide conversation. This spring President Trump issued his infamous government order ostensibly in defense of free speech on campus. In response to his March 2 initial proposal for such an order, the AAUP, in session with Committee A, prepared a press release that was ultimately cosigned by ten different nationwide organizations. Following official promulgation of the order, Government Director Schmid launched a press release calling it “a solution in search of a problem” however nonetheless “troubling in that it serves a broader goal of attempting to discredit higher education.” Committee A and its employees will continue to monitor Trump administration policies which will influence educational freedom.

Another problem that has attracted the committee’s attention is the growing displacement of college disciplinary processes, committees, and hearings with bureaucratic interventions by human assets departments. This phenomenon is particularly widespread in instances involving alleged sexual harassment, however might be spreading to other areas as properly, as exemplified by a case at George Mason College reviewed this spring by the committee. The committee additionally mentioned the menace posed to Stanford University Press by the Stanford administration’s reluctance to proceed a longstanding subsidy, a state of affairs that highlights the increasingly precarious state of educational publishing. Committee A will proceed to hold monitor of those types of developments.

At its spring assembly the committee engaged in a productive dialog about potential studies and statements, which resulted in a dedication to prepare two documents for consideration at our fall meeting. The primary, using the working title of “In Defense of Knowledge,” is envisioned as a sweeping and hopefully rousing statement in defense of upper schooling, experience, and information in the face of the types of widespread attacks on greater studying that we now have seen in recent times. The second shall be a report documenting how collective bargaining agreements in greater schooling—and never solely AAUP agreements—seek to defend educational freedom, highlighting greatest practices and hopefully offering a useful gizmo for our collective bargaining chapters and school unions extra usually to strengthen protections. I’m hopeful that these stories shall be written and authorised earlier than the finish of this yr. At its fall meeting the committee may even proceed its dialogue of potential statements and studies.

Lastly, I should notice that Committee A, like the Association as an entire, has sought to respond to the problem posed for our Affiliation and its funds by the Janus determination. Dealing with the risk that we’d not find a way to afford two annual in-person meetings, as has been the follow for decades, members of the committee took   the initiative to secure external funding. Consequently, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has given the AAUP Foundation’s Educational Freedom Fund a $150,000 grant to cover all prices related to one meeting of Committee A annually for 3 years as well as any costs associated with producing studies or statements permitted at these conferences. We owe a debt of gratitude to Committee A members Joan Scott and, especially, Robert Submit, whose efforts have been important to obtaining this help.


I would like to thank the members of Committee A for his or her tireless work on behalf of the rules of educational freedom, our career, and the AAUP. I might also like to thank the members of the Department of Educational Freedom, Tenure, and Governance as well as other members of our devoted and hard-working national employees for their help of the committee and their tireless efforts on behalf of educational freedom, shared governance, and the widespread good throughout greater schooling.