Report of Committee A 2003-04

Academe, Sep/Oct 2004 by Scott, Joan Wallach

There is a familiar rhythm to the work of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure as we consider cases and policy matters, write statements, and make proposals to the AAUP's Council and annual meeting. In the course of this work, we are aware of certain persisting dangers to academic freedom as well as of new threats to freedoms we never get to take for granted. This year, the committee was particularly struck by developments in two areas, one having to do with an intensified threat to academic freedom, the other with the institution of tenure.

The new threat to academic freedom is both a product of the September 11, 2001, attacks and of efforts by various groups on the right (many of them off campus) to impose controls on teachers and campus activities in the name of diversity, individual rights, and student rights. Fortunately, both the Colorado and the California state legislatures, where bills to enact an Academic Bill of Rights were pending, have tabled these bills at the urging of university presidents, faculty leaders, and the AAUP. But the advocates of these bills have not given up and are organizing student groups on campuses (often under the aegis of Young Republicans clubs) to report on teachers whose views are purportedly biased against conservative values and ideas. Committee A was especially troubled to learn that supporters of the Academic Bill of Rights have invoked AAUP principles to advance their cause. The committee issued a sharp rebuke (it is posted on the AAUP's Web site), pointing out that the Academic Bill of Rights is antithetical to academic freedom.

We have also been concerned about the impact of pro-Israel lobbyists on pending federal legislation and on foundations. Conflating criticism of current Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, these groups have tried (sometimes in the name of diversity and balance) to prevent speakers critical of Israel (among them left-wing Israelis) from coming to campuses. They have also had a hand in the introduction into the pending reauthorization of Title VI of the Higher Education Act of a politically appointed oversight committee for foreign studies programs. Their pressure and a more general concern about inadvertent funding of terrorists has led the Ford and Rockefeller foundations to issue letters to their grantees stating that grant recipients may not (in the words of the new Ford Foundation policy) "promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state." A group of university provosts, objecting to the vague requirements in the new policies, has written to the foundations to ask that they be revised. The foundations have indicated a willingness to discuss that possibility. The AAUP wrote its own letters to the two foundations protesting a provision of the new grant policy that holds universities responsible for monitoring the words and actions of their faculty and students.

What is worrisome about all of this activity, as well as of renewed attempts by the Bush administration to generate support for an extension of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, is its inevitably chilling effect on classroom and campus expression.

The second area of concern has to do with tenure and with a new way of undermining it: the creation of the categoiy of "professor of practice." The picture for tenure nationwide is not good: the numbers of part-time faculty and full-time non-tenure-track faculty continue to increase, while the numbers of tenured and tenure-track faculty decline (see the March-April 2004 issue of Academe). But "professors of practice" are a new twist on this theme. One university president describes them as "chosen through a rigorous academic review process" and as "premier participants] in the edvication of students," but as not eligible for tenure. Committee A was particularly disturbed by the idea that tenure (and the academic freedom it confers) was considered necessary only for publishing scholars and not for teachers. In fact, as the attempts to enforce the Academic Bill of Rights suggest, it is precisely the teaching function of faculty members that most often requires the protection of academic freedom. Committee A has authorized a subcommittee to prepare a report on this matter.

Judicial Business

IMPOSITION OP CENSURE

Committee A at its June meeting considered two cases that had been the subject of reports published in Academe since the 2003 annual meeting. The committee adopted the statements printed below concerning these cases. In the Philander Smith College case, censure was recommended, the Council concurred, and the annual meeting voted to impose censure. In the Medaille College case, the committee recommended to the annual meeting that it defer action, saying that it will report back to the 2005 annual meeting about developments in the case. The Council concurred with the committee's statement. The annual meeting also concurred, but, in addition, adopted a motion condemning the college's administration and board of trustees for the actions against the two subject professors