ED 034 486

yke,..11-191.t1

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 001 225

TTmLF Policy Documents and Reports of the AmericanAssociation of University Professors.

TNSmITUTTON American Association of University Professors,Washington, D.C.

PU9 DATE Sep 69NOTE 70p.

FDRS PRTCPDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$3.60*Academic Freedom, Accreditation (Institutions),Civil Rights, Ethical Values, *Faculty, Governance,*Higher Education, Instructional Television, Leaveof Absence, *Policy, *Professors, Recruitment,Research, Retirement, Strikes, Teaching, Tenure

This document, containing 22 statements and reports,Presents the policies of the American Association of UniversityProfessors (AAUP) in 7 major areas. In (I) "Academic Freedom, Tenure,and Due Process," there is a statement of principles and statementsand reports on dismissal proceedings, nonreappointment notices,extramural utterances, institutional regulations, politicalactivities, national security, tenure, and retirement. In (II)"College and University Government," there is a general policystatement and statements on institutional investigations, economicinterests, and strike participation. In (III) "Professional Ethics,"there is a general policy statement and statements on recruitment,resignation, and late resignation. In (IV) "Student Rights andFreedoms," the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students"is included. In (V) "College and University Accreditation," there isa statement entitled "The Pole of the Faculty in Accrediting ofColleges and Universities." In (VT) "Research and Teaching," thereare statements on instructional television and government-sponsoredresearch. In (VIT) "Collateral Benefits," there are statements onretirement, insurance plans, and leaves of absence'. All of thestatements and reports were published in the AAUP Bulletin between1965 and 1969 and specific citations are made. The AAUP Constitutionis included. The publication is available from AAUP, One DupontCircle, Washington, D.C. 20036 ($2.00). (DS)

1'

POLICY DOCUMENTS AND REPORTSOf

Ni5.(2..ICP\N OS-S.6c( A-NON ()NI u cry PRO FEsf..) 0

gap ee ry:i 6e r /qs?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEPERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY

REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATIONPOSITION OR POLICY.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

One Dupont CircleWashington, D.C. 20036

Western Regional OfficeSuite 1406-582 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94104

Northeastern Regional OfficeSuite 1178-11 West 42nd StreetNew York, New York 10036

.:"

Introduction

Nowhere is the leadership of the American Association of University Professors

better exemplified than in the steady acceptance by the academic community of

the Association's standards for responsible practice. This volume presents in con-

venient format the wide range of policies as they have been determined by the

Association's national Council and by the Annual Meeting of the membership,

working with the assistance of standing and special committees and at times in

cooperation with other organizations.An especially significant document for persons interested in Association pro-

cedures on matters of academic freedom and tenure is the Handbook, Academic

Freedom and Tenure, edited by Louis Joughin, a senior member of the Wash-

ington Office staff. It was first published by the University of Wisconsin Press in

1967. The revised edition appeared in 1969. Of special importance in that vol-

ume is the description of model case procedure available in the event that a mem-

ber of the profession brings to the attention of the Association's General Secretary

a complaint alleging violation of academic freedom or tenure.The names of the Association's officers, Council, and staff are printed each

quarter on the reverse of the title page of the AAUP Bulletin. Association com-

mittees and their membership are listed in each winter issue of the Bulletin.-An

examination of the AAUP Constitution (reprinted in this volume), together with

the Council, staff, and commitee rosters noted above, offers a convenient outline

of the Association's structure.Active membership in the AAUP is open to teachers and research scholars

holding faculty status in accredited institutions, or in institutions which are can-

didates for accreditation, if their appointments are for at least one year and their

work consists of at least one-half time teaching in courses accepted for an academic

degree, or of half-time research. Libraria ns and department chairmen with faculty

status are eligible even though they do not teach; counselors and staff members of

university presses are eligible if they hold faculty status bestowed by faculty action.

Other classes of membership are: Junior, for persons presently or within the past

five years enrolled in graduate studies in an approved institution and not other-

wise eligible for Active membership; Associate, reserved for Active or juniormembers who become administrative officers with less than half-time teaching orresearch; and finally Emeritus, reserved for members retired for age from teach-ing or research positions.

Inquiries from persons interested in membership or in the policies supported by

AAUP for the community of higher education should be addressed to the Wash-

ington or Regional Offices of the Association. Members and nonmembers alikeare also refertzd to local chapter and regional conference leaders for advice andcounsel on matters of concern.

CONTENTS *

ACADEMIC FREEDOM, TENURE, AND DUE PROCESS

Academic Freedom and Tenure, 1940 Statement of Principles 1

(Vol. 54, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, pp. 384-385.)

Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings 3(Vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 439-441.)

Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment 6(Vol. 53, No. 4, Winter, 1967, page 407.)

Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances 7(Vol. 51, No. 1, Spring, 1965, page 29.)

1968 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure 8(Vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 448-452.)

Statement on Professors and Political Activity 13(Vol. 55, No. 1, Autumn, 1969, pp. 388-389.)

Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security 15(Vol. 42, No. 1, Spring, 1956, pp. 54-61.)

Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure 21(Vol. 52, No. 3, Autumn, 1966, pp. 280-282.)

Report on Retirement and Academic Freedom 24(vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 425-426.)

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities 26(vol. 52, No. 4, Winter, 1966, pp. 375-379.)

1968 Standards for Committee T Investigations in the Area of College and University Government 31(Vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, page 472.)

Policy on Representation of Economic Interests 32(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, pp. 152-154.)

Faculty Participation in Strikes 35(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, pp. 155-159.)

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Statement on Professional Ethics 40(Vol. 55, No. 1, Spring, 1969, pp. 86-87.)

Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members 41(Vol. 54, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, pp. 363-364.)

A Report from Committee B, Late Resignation and Professional Ethics 43(Vol. 54, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, pp. 362-363.)

STUDENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students 45(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1965, pp. 258-261.)

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ACCREDITATION

The Role of the Faculty in Accrediting of Colleges and Universities 49(Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer, 1968, pp. 264-265.)

* Volume citations refer to most recent publication in the AAUP Bulletin.

I

RESEARCH AND TEACHING

On Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Government-Sponsored Research at Universities 51

(Vol. 51, No. 1, Spring, 1965, pp. 42.43.)

Statement on Instructional Television 53

(Vol. 55, No. 2, Summer, 1969, pp. 270-272.)

COLLATERAL BENEFITS

Statement of Principles on Academic Retirement and Insurance Plans 56

(Vol. 55, No. 3, Autumn, 1969, pp. 386-387.)

Statement on Leaves of Absence 59

(Vol. 53, No. 3, Autumn, 1967, pp. 270-274.)

The Constitution of the Association 64

(Vol. 54, No. 4, Winter, 1968, pp. 442-444.)

.t o

Academic Freedom and Tenure1940 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 19M, representatives of the American Associa-tion of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges agreed upon a restatement ofprinciples set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This restate-ment, known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,was officially endorsed by the following organizations in the years indicated:

Association of American Colleges 1941 Academy of Management 1965American Association of University Professors 1941 American Catholic Historical Association 1966American Library Association (adapted for librarians) 1946 American Catholic Philosophical Association 1966Association of American Law Schools 1946 Association of State Colleges and Universities 1966American Political Science Association 1947 Association for Education in Journalism 1966American Association of Colleges for Teacher Western History Association 1966

Education 1 1950 Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference 1966

American Association for Higher Education-Eastern Psychological Association

19501950

Society of American ArchivistsSoutheastern Psychological AssociationSouthern Speech Association

196619661966

American Philosophical Association: American Association for the Advancement ofWestern Division 1952 Slavic Studies 1967Eastern Division 1953 American Mathematical Society 1967

Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology 1953 College Theology Society 1967American Psychological Association 1961 Council on Social Work Education 1967American Historical Association 1961 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy 1967Modern Language Association of America 1961 American Academy of Religion 1967American Economic Association 1962 American Catholic Sociological Society 1967American Farm Economic Association 1962 American Society of Journalism SchoolAmerican Philosophical Association, Pacific Division 1962 Administrators 1967Midwest Sociological Society 1963 The John Dewey Society for the Study ofOrganization of American Historians 3 1963 Education and Culture 1967American Philological Association 1963 South Atlantic Modern Language Association 1967American Council of Learned Societies 1963 American Finance Association 1967Speech Association of America 1963 Catholic Economic Association 1967American Sociological Association 1963 United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa 1968Southern Historical Association 1963 American Society of Christian Ethics 1968American Studies Association 1963 American Association of Teachers of French 1968Association of American Geographers 1963 Appalachian Finance Association 1968Southern Economic Association 1963 Association of Teachers of Chinese LanguageClassical Association of the Middle West and South 1964 and Culture 1968Southwestern Social Science Association 1964 American Society of Plant -Physiologists 1968Archaeological Institute of America 1964 University Film Association 1968Southern Management Association 1964 American Dialect Society 1968American Educational Theatre Association 1964 American Speech and Hearing Association 1968South Central Modern Language Association 1964 Association of Social and Behavioral Scientists 1968Southwestern Philosophical Society 1964 National College Physical Education AssociationCouncil for the Advancement of Small Colleges 1965 for Men 1969Mathematical Association of America 1965 American Real Estate and Urban EconomicsArizona Academy of Science 1965 Association 1969American Risk and Insurance Association 1965 History of Education Society 1969

The purpose of this statement is to promote publicunderstanding and support of academic freedom andtenure and agreement upon procedures to assure themin colleges and universities. Institutions of higher educa-tion are conducted for the common good and not to

1 Endorsed by predecessor, American Association of Teach-ers Colleges, in 1941.

2 Formerly the Association for Higher Education, NationalEducation Association.

3 Formerly the Mississippi Valley Historical Association.4 The word "teacher" as used in this document is under-

stood to include the investigator who is attached to an aca-demic institution without teaching duties.

further the interest of either the individual teacher4 orthe institution as a whole. The common good dependsupon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes andapplies to both teaching and research. Freedom in re-search is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Aca-demic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental forthe protection of the rights of the teacher in teachingand of the student to freedom in learning. It carries withit duties correlative with rights.

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically:(1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extra-mural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic

security to make the profession attractive to men andwomen of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence,tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institutionin fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom(a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research

and in the publication of the results, subject to the ade-quate performance of his other academic duties; butresearch for pecuniary return should be based upon anunderstanding with the authorities of the institution.

(170) The teacher is entitled to freedom in the class-room in discussing his subject, but he should be carefulnot to introduce into his teaching controversial matterwhich has no relation to his subject. Limitations of aca-demic freedom because of religious or other aims of theinstitution should be clearly stated in writing at thetime of the appointment.

(c) The college or university teacher is a citizen, amember of a learned profession, and an officer of aneducational institution. When he speaks or writes as acitizen, he should be free from institutional censorshipor discipline, but his special position in the communityimposes special obligations, As a man of learning andan educational officer, he should remember that thepublic may judge his profession and his institution byhis utterances. Hence he should at all times be accurate,should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respectfor the opinions of others, and should make every effortto indicate that he is not an institutional spokesman.

Academic Tenure(a) After the expiration of a probationary period,

teachers or investigators should have permanent or con-tinuous tenure, and their service should be terminatedonly for adequate cause, except in the case of retirementfor age, or under extraordinary circumstances because offinancial exigencies.

In the interpretation of this principle it is understoodthat the following represents acceptable academic prac-tice:

(1) The precise terms and conditions of every appoint-ment should be stated in writing and be in the possessionof both institution and teacher before the appointmentis consummated.

(2) Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary periodshould not exceed seven years, including within thisperiod full-time service in all institutions of higher edu-cation; but subject to the proviso that when, after aterm of probationary service of more than three yearsin one or more institutions, a teacher is called to anotherinstitution it may be agreed in writing that his newappointment is for a probationary period of not morethan four years, even though thereby the person's totalprobationary period in the academic profession is ex-`tended beyond the normal maximum of seven years.

Notice should be given at least one year prior to theexpiration of the probationary period if the teacher isnot to be continued in service after the expiration ofthat period.

(3) During the probationary period a teacher shouldhave the academic freedom that all other members ofthe faculty have.

(4) Termination for cause of a continuous appoint-ment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous tothe expiration of a term appointment, should, if pos-sible, be considered by both a faculty committee and thegoverning board of the institution. In all cases wherethe facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should beinformed before the hearing in writing of the chargesagainst him and should have the opportunity to be heardin his own defense by all bodies that pass judgment uponhis case. He should be permitted to have with him anadviser of his own choosing who may act as counsel.There should be a full stenographic record of the hear-ing available to the parties concerned. In the hearingof charges of incompetence the testimony should includethat of teachers and other scholars, either from his ownor from other institutions. Teachers on continuous ap-pointment who are dismissed for reasons not involvingmoral turpitude should receive their salaries for at leasta year from the date of notification of dismissal whetheror not they are continued in their duties at the institution.

(5) Termination of a continuous appointment becauseof financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

InterpretationsAt the conference of representatives of the American

Association of University Professors and of the Associa-tion of American Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, thefollowing interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Prin-ciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure were agreedupon:1. That its operation should not be retroactive.2. That all tenure claims of teachers appointed' prior

to the endorsement should be determined in accord-ance with the principles set forth in the 1925 Con-ference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

3. If the administration of a college or university feelsthat a teacher has not observed the admonitions ofParagraph (c) of the section on Academic Freedomand believes that the extramural utterances of thereacher have been such as to raise grave doubts con-cerning his fitness for his position, it may proceed tofile charges under Paragraph (a) (4) of the section onAcademic Tenure. In pressing such charges the ad-ministration should remember that teachers arecitizens and should be accorded the freedom ofcitizens. In such bases the administration must assumefull responsibility and the American Association ofUniversity Professors and the Association of AmericanColleges are free to make an investigation.

Statement on Procedural Standardsin Faculty Dismissal Proceedings

The following Statement on Procedural Standards inFaculty Dismissal Proceedings was prepared by a jointcommittee representing the Association of American Col-leges and the American Association of University Pro-fessors and was approved by these two associations attheir annual meetings in 1958. It supplements the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenureby providing a formulation of the "academic due process"that should be observed in dismissal proceedings. Theexact procedural standards here set forth, however, "arenot intended to establish a norm in the same manneras the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure, but are presented rather as a guide. . . ."

Introductory Comments

Any approach toward settling the difficulties whichhave beset dismissal proceedings on many Americancampuses must look beyond procedure into setting andcause. A dismissal proceeding is a symptom of failure;no amount of use of removal process will help strengthenhigher education as much as will the cultivation of condi-tions in which dismissals rarely if ever need occur.

Just as the board of control or other governing bodyis the legal and fiscal corporation of the college, thefaculty are the academic entity. Historically, the academiccorporation is the older. Faculties were formed in theMiddle Ages, with managerial affairs either self-arrangedor handled in course by the parent church. Moderncollege faculties, on the other hand, are part of a complexand extensive structure requiring legal incorporation, withstewards and managers specifically appointed to dischargecertain functions.

Nonetheless, the faculty of a modern college constitutean entity as real as that of the faculties of medievaltimes, in terms of collective purpose and function. Anecessary pre-condition of a strong faculty is that it havefirst-hand concern with its own membership. This isproperly reflected both in appointments to and inseparations from the faculty body.

A well-organized institution will reflect sympathetic

understanding by trustees and teachers alike of theirrespective and complementary roles. These should bespelled out carefully in writing and made available toall. Trustees and faculty should understand and agree ontheir several functions in determining who shall join andwho shall remain on the faculty. One of the primeduties of the administrator is to help preserve under-standing of those functions. It seems clear on the Ameri-can college scene that a close positive relationship exists

between the excellence of colleges, the strength of theirfaculties, and the extent of faculty responsibility indetermining faculty membership. Such a condition is inno wise inconsistent with full faculty awareness of institu-tional factors with which governing boards must beprimarily concerned.

In the effective college, a dismissal proceeding involvinga faculty member on tenure, or one occurring during theterm of an appointment, will be a rare exception, causedby individual human weakness and not by an unhealthfulsetting. When it does come, however, the college shouldbe prepared for it, so that both institutional integrityand individual human rights may be preserved duringthe process of resolving the trouble. The faculty must bewilling to recommend the dismissal of a colleague whennecessary. By the same token, presidents and governingboards must be willing to give full weight to a facultyjudgment favorable to a colleague.

One persistent source of difficulty is the definition ofadequate cause for the dismissal of a faculty member.Despite the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure and subsequent attempts to buildupon it, considerable ambiguity and misunderstandingpersist throughout higher education, especially in therespective conceptions of governing boards, administrativeofficers, and faculties concerning this matter. The presentstatement assumes that individual institutions will haveformulated their own definitions of adequate cause fordismissal, bearing in mind the 1940 Statement andstandards which have developed in the experience ofacademic institutions.

This statement deals with procedural standards. Thoserecommended are not intended to establish a norm in thesame manner as the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, but are presented ratheras a guide to be used according to the nature and tradi-tions of particular institutions in giving effect to bothfaculty tenure rights and the obligations of faculty mem-bers in the academic community.

Procedural Recommendations

1. Preliminary Proceedings Concerning the Fitness of aFaculty Member

When reason arises to question the fitness of a collegeor university faculty member who has tenure or whoseterm appointment has not expired, the appropriate ad-ministrative officers should ordinarily discuss the matterwith him in personal conference. The matter may beterminated by mutual consent at this point; but if anadjustment does not result, a standing or ad hoc com-mittee elected by the faculty and charged with thefunction of rendering confidential advice in such situa-tions should informally inquire into the situation, toeffect an adjustment if possible and, if none is effected,to determine whether in its view formal proceedings toconsider his dismissal should be instituted. If the com-mittee recommends that such proceedings should bebegun, or if the president of the institution, even afterconsidering a recommendation of the committee favorableto the faculty member, expresses his conviction that aproceeding should be undertaken, action should be com-menced under the procedures which follow. Except wherethere is disagreement, a statement with reasonable particu-larity of the grounds proposed for the dismissal shouldthen be jointly formulated by the president and thefaculty committee; if there is disagreement, the presidentor his representative should formulate the statement.

2. Commencement of Formal Proceedings

The formal proceedings should be commenced by acommunication addressed to the faculty member by thepresident of the institution, informing the faculty memberof the statement formulated, and informing him that, ifhe so requests, a hearing to determine whether he shouldbe removed from his faculty position on the groundsstated will be conducted by a faculty committee at aspecified time and place. In setting the date of thehearing, sufficient time should be allowed the facultymember to prepare his defense. The faculty membershould be informed, in detail or by reference to publishedregulations, of the procedural rights that will be ac-corded to him. The faculty member should state in replywhether he wishes a hearing and, if so, should answer inwriting, not less than one week before the date set forthe hearing, the statements in the president's letter.

4

,.

3. Suspension of the Faculty Member

Suspension of the faculty member during the proceed-ings involving him is justified only if immediate harmto himself or others is threatened by his continuance.Unless legal considerations forbid, any such suspensionshould be with pay.

4. Hearing Committee

The committee of faculty members to conduct thehearing and reach a decision should either be an electedstanding committee not previously concerned with thecase or a committee established as soon as possible afterthe president's letter to the faculty member has been sent.The choice of members of the hearing committee shouldbe on the basis of their objectivity and competence andof the regard in which they are held in the academiccommunity. The committee should elect its own chair-man.5. Committee Proceeding

The committee should proceed by considering the state-ment of grounds for dismissal already formulated, andthe faculty member's response written before the timeof the hearing. If the faculty member has not requesteda hearing, the committee should consider the case onthe basis of the obtainable information and decidewhether he should be removed; otherwise the hearingshould go forward. The committee, in consultation withthe president and the faculty member, should exerciseits judgment as to whether the hearing should be publicor private. If any facts are in dispute, the testimonyof witnesses and other evidence concerning the matter setforth in the president's letter to the faculty member shouldbe received.

The president should have the option of attendanceduring the hearing. He may designate an appropriaterepresentative to assist in developing the case; but thecommittee should determine the order of proof, shouldnormally conduct the questioning of witnesses, and, ifnecessary, should secure the presentation of evidence im-portant to the case.

The faculty member should have the option of assist-ance by counsel, whose functions should be similar tothose of the representative chosen by the president. Thefaculty member should have the additional proceduralrights set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, and should have theaid of the committee, when needed, in securing theattendance of witnesses, The faculty member or hiscounsel and the representative designated by the presidentshould have the right, within reasonable limits, to questionall witnesses who testify orally. The faculty membershould have the opportunity to be confronted by allwitnesses adverse to him. Where unusual and urgentreasons move the hearing committee to withhold this

Y.

right, or where the witness cannot appear, the identityof the witness, as well as his statements, should neverthe-less be disclosed to the faculty member. Subject to thesesafeguards, statements may when necessary be taken out-side the hearing and reported to it. All of the evidenceshould be duly recorded. Unless special circumstanceswarrant, it should not be necessary to follow formal rulesof court procedure.

6. Consideration by Hearing Committee

The committee should reach its decision in conference,on the basis of the hearing. Before doing so, it shouldgive opportunity to the faculty member or his counseland the representative designated by the president toargue orally before it. If written briefs would be helpful,the committee may request them. The committee mayproceed to decision promptly, without having the recordof the hearing transcribed, where it feels that a justdecision can be reached by this means; or it may awaitthe availability of a transcript of the hearing if its decisionwould be aided thereby. It should make explicit findingswith respect to each of the grounds of removal presented,and a reasoned opinion may be desirable. Publicity con-cerning the committee's decision may properly be with-held until consideration has been given to the case bythe governing body of the institution. The president andthe faculty member should be notified of the decision inwriting and should be given a copy of the record of thehearing. Any release to the public should be madethrough the president's office.

7. Consideration by Governing Body

The president should transmit to the governing bodythe full report of the hearing committee, stating itsaction. On the assumption that the governing board hasaccepted the principle of the faculty hearing committee,acceptance of the committee's decision would normally beexpected. If the gover.ning body chooses to review thecase, its review should be based on the record of theprevious hearing, accompanied by opportunity for argu-ment, oral or written or both, by the principals at thehearing or their representatives. The decision of thehearing committee should either be sustained or the pro-ceeding be returned to the committee with objectionsspecified. In such a case the committee should reconsider,taking account of the stated objections and receiving newevidence if necessary. It should frame its decision andcommunicate it in the same manner as before. Only afterstudy of the committee's reconsideration should the gov-erning body make a final decision overruling the com-mittee.

8. Publicity

Except for such simple announcements as may be re-quired, covering the time of the hearing and similarmatters, public statements about the case by either thefaculty member or administrative officers should beavoided so far as possible until the proceedings havebeen completed. Announcement of the final decisionshould include a statement of the hearing committee'soriginal action, if this has not previously been madeknown.

5

The Standards for Noticeof Nonreappointment

(Endorsed by The Fiftieth Annual Meeting)

Because a probationary appointment, even though for a fixed or statedterm, carries an expectation of renewal, the faculty member should beexplicitly informed of a decision not to renew his appointment, in orderthat he may seek a position at another college or university. Such noticeshould be given at an early date, since a failure to secure another posi-tion for the ensuing academic year will deny the faculty member the oppor-tunity to practice his profession. The purpose of this Statement is to setforth in detail, for the use of the academic profession, those standards fornotice of nonreappointment which the Association over a period of yearshas actively supported and which are expressed as a general principle inthe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

The Standards for NoticeNotice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend reap-

pointment to the governing board, should be given in writing in accordancewith the following standards:

(1) Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if theappointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year ap-pointment terminates during an academic year, at least three monthsin advance of its termination.

(2) Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service,if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initialtwo-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at leastsix months in advance of its termination.

(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointmentafter two or more years in the institution.

Committee A Statementon Extramural Utterances

The Statement which follows was approved by the Association's Committee Aon Academic Freedom and Tenure in October, 1961. Its purpose is to clarifythose sections of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure relating to the faculty member's exercise of his freedom of speech as acitizen. The Statement emphasizes the essential considerations and procedureswhen a faculty member's utterances raise grave doubts concerning his fitness forhis position.

The 1940 Statement of Principles asserts the facultymember's right to speak or write, as citizen, free frominstitutional censorship or discipline. At the same time itcalls attention to the faculty member's special obligationsarising from his position in the community: to beaccurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show re-spect for the opinions of others, and to make everyeffort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokes-man. An interpretation of the 1940 Statement, agreed toat a conference of the AAC and the AAUP held onNovember 8, 1940, states that an administration mayfile charges in accordance with procedures outlinedin the Statement if it feels that a faculty member hasfailed to observe the above admonitions and believesthat his extramural utterances raise grave doubts con-cerning his fitness for his position.

In cases involving such charges, it is essential that thehearing should be conducted by an appropriateprefer-ably electedfaculty committee, as provided in Section 4of the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings.' The controlling principle is that afaculty member's expression of opinion as a citizen can-not constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearlydemonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his po-sition. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the facultymember's. fitness for his position. Moreover, a final de-

cision should take into account the faculty member'sMire record as a teacher and scholar. In the absenceof weighty evidence of unfitness, the administrationshould not prefer charges; and if it is not clearly provedin the hearing that the faculty member is unfit for hisposition, the faculty committee should make a finding infavor of the faculty member concerned.

Committee A asserts that it will view with particulargravity an administrative or board reversal of a favorablefaculty committee hearing judgment in a case involvingextramural utterances. In the words of the 1940 State-ment of Principles, "the administration should remem-ber that teachers are citizens and should be accordedthe freedom of citizens." In a democratic society free-dom of speech is an indispensable right of the citizen.Committee A will vigorously uphold that right.

Section 4 provides:The committee of faculty members to conduct the hear-ing and reach a decision should either be an electedstanding committee not previously concerned with thecase or a committee established as soon as possible afterthe president's letter to the faculty member has beensent. The choice of members of the hearing committeeshould be on the basis of their objectivity and com-petence and of the regard in which they are held inthe academic community. The committee should electits own chairman.

7

s.

1968 Recommended InstitutionalRegulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenureset forth, in language suitable for use by an institution of higher education, ruleswhich derive from the chief provisions and interpretations of the 1940 Statementof Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and of the 1958 Statement onProcedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings. The Recommended Institu-tional Regulations were first formulated by Committee A on Academic Freedomand Tenure in 1957.

In 1968, after eleven years of further experience in evaluating regulationsactually in force at particular institutions, Committee A offers a revised andexpanded text. The revision is also based upon further definition of the standardsand procedures of the Association as set forth in the 1961 Statement on Recruit-ment and Resignation of Faculty Members, the 1964 Statement on the Standardsfor Notice of Nonreappointment, and the 1966 Statement on Government ofColleges and Universities. The Association will be glad to assist in interpretationof the regulations or to consult about their incorporation in, or adaptation to,the rules of a particular college or university.

Committee A will welcome comment on the 1968 Recommended InstitutionalRegulations from Association members, chapters, conferences and other interestedpersons and organizations.

FOREWORD

These regulations are designed to enable the [namedinstitution] to protect academic freedom and tenure andthe requirements of academic due process. The principlesimplicit in these regulations are for the benefit of allwho f. .e involved with or are affected by the policiesand programs of the institution. A college or universityis a marketplace of ideas, and it cannot fulfill its pur-poses of transmitting, evaluating, and extending knowl-edge if it requires conformity with any orthodoxy ofcontent and method. In the words of the United StatesSupreme Court, "Teachers and students must always re-main free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gainnew maturity and understanding; otherwise our civiliza-tion will stagnate and die."

1. Statement of Terms of Appointment(a) The terms and conditions of every appointment

to the faculty will be stated or confirmed in

writing, and a copy of the appointment docu-ment will be supplied to the faculty member.Any subsequent extensions or modifications ofan appointment, and any special understandings,or any notices incumbent upon either party toprovide, will be stated or confirmed in writingand a copy will be given to the faculty member.

(b) With the exception of special appointmentsclearly limited to a brief association with theinstitution, and reappointments of retired fac-ulty members on special conditions, all full-timeappointments to the rank of instructor or higherare of two kinds: (1) probationary appointments;(2) appointments with continuous tenure.

(c) Except for faculty members who have tenurestatus, every person with a teaching or researchappointment of any kind will be informed eachyear in writing of his appointment and of all

matters relative to his eligibility for the acquisi-tion of tenure.

2. Probationary AppointmentsProbationary appointments may be for one year,or for other stated periods, subject to renewal.The total period of full-time service prior to theacquisition of continuous tenure will not exceed--- years,l including all previous full-time serv-ice with the rank of instructor or higher inother institutions of higher learning, [except thatthe probationary period may extend to as muchas four years, even if the total full-time servicein the profession thereby exceeds seven years;the terms of such extension will be stated inwriting at the time of initial appointment.] 2Except as provided in Regulation 12, time spenton leave of absence will count as probationaryperiod service, unless the individual and insti-tution agree to the contrary at the time leave isgranted.

(b) Regardless of the stated term or other provisionsof any appointments, written notice that a pro-bationary appointment is not to be renewedwill be given to the faculty member in advanceof the expiration of his appointment, as follows:(1) Not later than March 1 of the first academicyear of service, if the appointment expires at theend of that year; or, if a one-year appointmentterminates during an academic year, at leastthree months in advance of its termination; (2)not later than December 15 of the second aca-demic year of service, if the appointment expiresat the end of that year; or, if an initial two-yearappointment terminates during an academic year,at least six months in advance of its termination;(3) at least twelve months before the expirationof an appointment after two or more years ofservice at the institution. The institution willnormally notify faculty members of the termsand conditions of their renewals by March 15,but in no case will such information be givenlater than-----..3

(a)

3. Termination of Appointment by the FacultyMember

A faculty member may terminate his appoint-ment effective at the end of an academic year,provided that he gives notice in writing at theearliest possible opportunity, but not later thanMay 15, or 30 days after receiving notificationof the terms of his appointment for the comingyear, whichever date occurs later. The facultymember may properly request a waiver of thisrequirement of notice in case of hardship or in

1 [Under the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure, this period may not exceed seven years.]

[The exception here noted applies only to an institutionwhose maximum probationary period exceeds four years.]

5 [April 15 is the recommended date.]

a situation where he would otherwise be deniedsubstantial professional advancement or otheropportunity.

4. Termination of Appointments by the Institution(a) Termination of an appointment with continue

ous tenure, or of a special or probationary ap-pointment before the end of the specified term,may be effected by the institution only foradequate cause.

(b) If termination takes the form of a dismissal, itwill be pursuant to the procedure specified inRegulation 5.

(c) Where termination of appointment is basedupon financial exigency, or bona fide discon-tinuance of a program or department of in-struction, Regulation 5 will not apply, butfaculty members shall be able to have the issuesreviewed by the faculty, or by the faculty'sgrievance committee, with ultimate review of allcontroverted issues by the governing board. Inevery case of financial exigency or discontinuanceof a program or department of instruction, thefaculty member concerned will be given noticeas soon as possible, and never less than 12months' notice, or in lieu thereof he will begiven severance salary for 12 months. Beforeterminating an appointment because of theabandonment of a program or department ofinstruction, the institution will make every effortto place affected faculty members in other suita-ble positions. If an appointment is terminatedbefore the end of the period of appointment,because of financial exigency, or because of thediscontinuance of a program of instruction, thereleased faculty member's place will not be filledby a replacement within a period of two years,unless the released faculty member has beenoffered reappointment and a reasonable timewithin which to accept or decline it.

(d) Termination of a tenured appointment, or of anontenured or special appointment before theend of the period of appointment, for medicalreasons, will be based upon clear and convincingmedical evidence which shall, if the faculty mem-ber so requests, be reviewed by the FacultyCommittee on Academic Freedom and Tenure[or whatever title it may have] before a finaldecision is made by the governing board onthe recommendation of the President of theinstitution.

5. Dismissal Procedures(a) Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related,

directly and substantially, to the fitness of thefaculty member in his professional capacity asa teacher or researcher. Dismissal will not beused to restrain faculty members in their exerciseof academic freedom or other rights of Americancitizens.

9

(b) Dismissal of a faculty member with continuoustenure, or with a special or probationary ap-pointment before the end of the specified term,will be preceded by: (1) discussions between thefaculty member and appropriate administrativeofficers looking toward a mutual settlement; (2)informal inquiry by the duly elected facultycommittee [insert name of committee] whichmay, failing to effect an adjustment, determinewhether in its opinion dismissal proceedingsshould be undertaken, without its opinion be-ing binding upon the President; (3) a statementof charges, framed with reasonable particularityby the President or his delegate.

(c) A dismissal, as defined in Regulation 5 (a), willbe preceded by a statement of reasons, and theindividual concerned will have the right to beheard initially by the elected faculty hearingcommittee [insert name of committee] .* A mem-ber will remove himself from the case, either atthe request of a party or on his own initiative,if he deems himself disqualified for bias orinterest. Each party will have a maximum of twochallenges without stated cause.5

(1) Service of notice of hearing with specificcharges in writing will be made at least 20 daysprior to the hearing. The faculty member maywaive a hearing or may respond to the chargesin writing at any time before the hearing. If thefaculty member -waives a hearing, but denies thecharges against him or asserts that the chargesdo not support a finding of adequate cause,the hearing tribunal will evaluate all availableevidence and rest its recommendation upon theevidence in the record.

(2) The committee, in consultation with thePresident and the faculty member, will exerciseits judgment as to whether the hearing shouldbe public or private.

(3) During the proceedings the faculty mem-ber will be permitted to have an academic ad-visor and counsel of his own choice.

(4) At the request of either party or thehearing committee, a representative of a respon-sible educational association shall be permittedto attend the proceedings as an observer.

(5) A verbatim record of the hearing or hear-ings will be taken and a typewritten copy willbe made available to the faculty member withoutcost to him, at his request.

(6) The burden of proof that adequate causeexists rests with the institution, and shall be

4 [This committee should no: be the same as the committeereferred to in Regulation (fib) (2).1

5 [Regulations of the institution should provide for alter-nates, or for some other method of filling vacancies on thehearing committee resulting from disqualification, challengewithout stated cause, illness, resignation, or any other reason.]

10

satisfied only by clear and convincing evidencein the record considered as a whole.

(7) The hearing tribunal will grant adjourn-ments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise ismade.

(8) The faculty member will be afforded anopportunity to obtain necessary witnesses anddocumentary or other evidence, and the ad-ministration of the institution will, insofar as itis possible for it to do so, secure the cooperationof such witnesses and make available necessarydocuments all d other evidence within its control.

(9) The faculty member and the administra-tion will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where the witness cannotor will not appear, but the committee determinesthat the interests of justice require admissionof his statement, the committee will identify thewitness, disclose his statement and if possibleprovide for interrogatories.

(10) In the hearing of charges of incompetence,the testimony shall include that of qualifiedfaculty members from this or other institutionsof higher education.

(11) The hearing committee will not be boundby strict rules of legal evidence, and may admitany evidence which is of probative value in de-termining the issues involved. Every possibleeffort will be made to obtain the most reliableevidence available.

(12) The findings of fact and the decision willbe based solely on the hearing record.

(13) Except for such simple announcementsas may be required, covering the time of thehearing and similar matters, public statementsand publicity about the case by either the fac-ulty member or administrative officers will beavoided so far as possible until the proceedingshave been completed, including consideration bythe governing board of the institution. ThePresident and the faculty member will be notifiedof the decision in writing and will be given acopy of the record of the hearing.

(14) If the hearing committee condudes thatadequate cause for dismissal has not been estab-lished by the evidence in the record, it will soreport to the President. If the President rejectsthe report, he will state his reasons for doing so,in writing, to the hearing committee and to thefaculty member, and provide an opportunity forresponse before transmitting the case to the gov-erning board. If the hearing committee condudesthat adequate cause for a dismissal has beenestablished, but that an academic penalty lessthan dismissal would be more appropriate, itwill so recommend, with supporting reasons.

6. Action by the Governing BoardIf dismissal or other penalty is recommended, the

President will, on request of the faculty member,transmit to the governing board the record ofthe case. The governing board's review will bebased on the record of the committee hearing,and it will provide opportunity for argument,oral or written or both, by the principals at thehearing or by their representatives. The decisionof the hearing committee will either be sustained,or the proceeding returned to the committeewith specific objections. The committee will thenreconsider, taking into account the stated objec-tions and receiving new evidence if necessary.The governing board will make a final decisiononly after study of the committee's recon-sideration.

7. SuspensionsUntil the final decision upon termination of anappointment has been reached, the faculty mem-ber will be suspended, or assigned to other dutiesin lieu of suspenion, only if immediate harm tohimself or others is threatened by his continu-ance. Before suspending a faculty member, pend-ing an ultimate determination of his statusthrough the institution's hearing machinery, theadministration will consult with the FacultyCommittee on Academic Freedom and Tenure[or whatever other title it may have]. Suspensionis appropriate only pending a hearing; a suspen-sion which is intended to be final is a dismissal,and will be dealt with as such. Salary will con-tinue during the period of suspension.

8. Terminal Salary or NoticeIf the appointment is terminated, the facultymember will receive his salary or notice in ac-cordance with the schedule of notice to whichhe is entitled under Regulation 2 (b), or, if hehas tenure, for at least one year. This provisionfor terminal notice or salary need not apply inthe event that there has been a finding that theconduct which justified dismissal involved moralturpitude. On the recommendation of the facultyhearing committee or the President, the govern-ing board. in determining what, if any, paymentswill be made beyond the effective date of dis-missal, may take into account the length andquality of service of the faculty member.

9. Academic FreedomAll members of the faculty, whether tenured ornot, are entitled to academic freedom as setforth in the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, formulated bythe Association of American Colleges and theAmerican Association of University Professors.

10. Academic Freedom of Nontenured FacultyIf a faculty member on probationary or othernontenured appointment alleges that considera-tions violative of academic freedom significantlycontributed to a decision not to reappoint him,

g.V,VIRT

his allegation will be given preliminary consid-eration by the [insert name of committee], whichwill seek to settle the matter by informal meth-ods. His allegation shall be accompanied by astatement that he agrees to the presentation, forthe consideration of the faculty committees, ofsuch reasons and evidence as the institution mayallege in support of its decision. If the difficultyis unresolved at this stage, and if the committeeso recommends, the matter will be heard in themanner set forth in Regulation 5 and 6, exceptthat the faculty member making the complaintis responsible for stating the grounds upon whichhe bases his allegations, and the burden of proofshall rest upon him. If he succeeds in establish-ing a prima facie case, it is incumbent uponthose who made the decision not to reappointhim to come forward with evidence in supportof their decision.

11. Administrative PersonnelThe foregoing regulations apply to administra-tive personnel who hold academic rank, but onlyin their capacity as faculty members. Where anadministrator alleges that a consideration vio-lative of academic freedom significantly con-tributed to a decision to terminate his appoint-ment to his administrative post, or not toreappoint him, he is entitled to the proceduresset forth in Regulation 10.

12. Political Activities of Faculty MembersFaculty members, as citizens, are free to engagein political activities. Where necessary, leaves ofabsence may be given for the duration of anelection campaign or a term of office, on timelyapplication, and for a reasonable period of time.The terms of such leave of absence shall beset forth in writing, and the leave will notaffect unfavorably the tenure status of a facultymember, except that time spent on such leavewill not count as probationary service unlessotherwise agreed to!

[NOTE. Regulations 13, 14, and 15 are suggested intentative form, and will require adaptation to the specificstructure and operations of the institution; the pro-visions as recommended here are intended only toindicate the nature of the provisions to be included,and not to offer specific detail.]

13. Graduate Student Academic Staff(a) In no case will a graduate or teaching assistant

be dismissed without having been provided witha statement of reasons and an opportunity to beSeard before a duly constituted committee. (Adismissal is a termination before the end of theperiod of appointment.)

(b) With respect to the nonreappointment of a

I; (Sec the Association's Statement on Professors and PoliticalActivity.]

graduate or teaching assistant who establishes aprima facie case to the satisfaction of a dulyconstituted committee that a consideration vio-lative of academic freedom significantly con-tributed to the nonreappointment, he will begiven a statement of reasons by those responsiblefor the nonreappointment and an opportunityto be heard by the committee.

14. Other Academic Stag(a) In no case will a member of the academic staff 7

who is not otherwise protected by the precedingregulations which relate to dimissal proceedingsbe dismissed without having been provided witha statement of reasons and an opportunity tobe heard before a duly constituted committee.(A dismissal is a termination before the end ofthe period of appointment.)

(b) With respect to the nonreappointment of amember of such academic staff who establishes aprima facie case to the satisfaction of a dulyconstituted committee that a consideration viola-tive of academic freedom significantly con-tributed to the nonreappointment, he will begiven a statement of reasons by those responsiblefor the nonreappointment and an opportunityto be heard by the committee.

15. Grievance ProcedureIf any faculty member feels that he has causefor grievance in any matter other than dismissalproceedingssuch matters as salaries, assignmentof teaching duties, assignment of space or otherfacilities, and propriety of conducthe maypetition the elected faculty grievance committee[here name the committee] for redress. The peti-tion shall set forth in detail the nature of thegrievance and shall state against whom thegrievance is directed. It shall contain any factualor other data which the petitioner deems per-tinent to his case. The committee will havethe right to decide whether or not the factsmerit a detailed investigation. Submission of apetition will not automatically entail investiga-

7 [Each institution should define with particularity who aremembers of the academic staff.]

12

tion or detailed consideration thereof. The com-mittee ma'. seek to bring about a settlement ofthe issue satisfactory to the parties. If in theopinion of the committee such a settlement isnot possible or is not appropriate, the committeewill report its findings and recommendations tothe petitioner and to the appropriate adminis-trative officer and faculty body [here identify],and the petitioner will, at his request, be pro-vided an opportunity to present his case to them.

The grievance committee will consist of three[or some other number] members of the facultywho have tenure and who are elected at large.No department chairman or administrative of-ficer shall serve on the committee.

Note on Implementation

The Recommended Institutional Regulationshere presented will require for their imple-mentation a number of structural arrangementsand agencies. For example, the Regulations willneed support by:

(a) channels of communication between allthe involved components of the institution, andbetween them and a concerned faculty member,

(b) definitions of corporate and individualfaculty status within the college or universitygovernment, and of the role of the faculty indecisions relating to academic freedom andtenure,

(c) appropriate procedures for the creationand operation of faculty committees, with par-ticular regard to the principles of facultyauthority and responsibility.

The forms which these supporting elementsassume will of course vary from one institutionto another. Consequently, no detailed descrip-tion of the elements is attempted in these Recom-mended Institutional Regulations. With respectto the principles involved, guidance will befound in the 1966 Statement on Government ofColleges and Universities, jointly formulated bythe American Council on Education, the Asso-ciation of Governing Boards of Universities and.Colleges, and the American Association ofUniversity Professors.

Statement on Professors andPolitical Activity

The Statement which follows was prepared by a subcommittee of CommitteeA on Academic Freedom and Tenure and approved by Committee A. It wasapproved by the Council of the American Association of University Professorsin May, 1969, and endorsed by the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

I. IntroductionThe institutional regulations of many colleges and

universities govern the participation of professors inpolitical activity and public office holding. These regula-tions vary from absolute prohibitions against holdingpublic office, campaigning for public office, or participatingin the management of political campaigns, to requirementsthat professors engaging in such political activities merelyinform administrative authorities in the college or univer-sity of their activities.

Some idea of the variety of regulations is suggestedby the following examples. A large private institution inthe Southwest states that when a member of the facultyaccepts "appointment to or becomes a candidate for anypublic office whatever" his connection with the universityis "automatically severed." A state university in the Southdeclares that when any staff member "becomes a candidatefor public office or takes an active part in the support ofany political party or a candidate for office, he therebyautomatically severs his connection with the university."A state college in the Northwest prohibits its faculty andother employees from holding "any political party office"or participating in the "management of a partisan politicalcampaign." A less common regulation is found at a Mid-western state university which requires nontenured facultymembers to resign before seeking full-time public officebut allows a faculty member on tenure to request a leaveof absence. This same university allows political activity

only in parties that are qualified to place candidates onthe ballot in that state. Given the widespread tendencyof states to make it difficult for "third parties" to get on theballot, such a regulation could prove to be very restrictive:

Some institutions allow participation only in local polit-ical activities. For example, one Southern state universityrequires a professor to resign before participating in apolitical campaign, as a candidate or manager, for stateor federal office, but permits political activity at the locallevel. Other institutions prohibit professors from seekingor holding salaried public office but, by implication atleast, permit them to hold nonpaying positions. OneSouthern state has such a regulation for all its publicinstitutions of higher education. One university in thatsystem, however, also prohibits holding appointive orelective public office without pay. One private universityin the far West allows faculty members to hold remunera-tive part-time public offices while their university salariesare continued, but requires that they turn over to theuniversity all compensation received for serving in thepublic office.

A number of colleges and universities require that pro-fessors obtain permission from administrative officersbefore engaging in political activity. Very few of thosewith such requirements specify the terms under whichsuch permission will be granted or withheld, thus allow-ing for arbitrary decisions. Other institutions simplyrequire that administrative officers be informed of the

13

intent to seek or accept appointment to public office.A number of colleges and universities, public and private,have regulations which conform to the principles statedbelow.

Some institutional regulations make reference to fed-eral law governing political activities of federal em-ployees, since faculty members frequently receive federalfunds. There seems to be some misunderstanding of therelevance of this law. The federal Hatch Act prohibitsfederal employees and employees of state and localagencies paid wholly or in part from federal funds,among other things, to "take any active part in politicalmanagement or political campaigns." It was amendedin 1942 to exempt explicitly from this quoted provisionand certain others not involving oppressive or corruptconduct "any officer or employee of any educationalor research institution, establishment, agency, or systemwhich is supported in whole or in part by any stateor political subdivision thereof, or by the District ofColumbia or by any Territory or Territorial possessionof the United States; or by any recognized religious,philanthropic, or cultural organization," even thoughpayment of salaries comes from federal funds. Thisamendment, which was stated to embody the originalunderstanding and intent of Congress, was supportedby expressions of confidence in the teaching professionand of the value attached to political activity by itsmembers, subject to proper state, local, and institutionallimitations.

Some states, in laws designed to restrict the politicalactivities of state employees, have not been as clearas the federal Hatch Act in excluding from the termsof such laws the employees of educational institutions.Thus, some of these laws are ambiguous regarding thefreedom of professors in public institutions to engagein political activity. For example, the statutes of onestate say that "Contributions to aid the election of anyother person to public office shall not be made oraccepted by holders of nonelective public positions."Another state prohibits a holder of a public office notfilled by election from contributing to the election ofany person to public office or party position.

In view of the range and variety of institutionaland legislative restrictions on political activities of pro-fessors, there is a need for a definition of rights and obliga-tions in this area. The following statement is offeredas a guide to practice. It is hoped that colleges and

14

universities will formulate and publish regulations con-sistent with these principles, through the appropriateagencies of the faculty, administration, and governingboard.

Statement

1. The college or university faculty member is a citizenand, like other citizens, should be free to engage inpolitical activities so far as he is able to do so con-sistently with his obligations as a teacher and scholar.

2. Many kinds of political activity (e.g., holding part-time office in a political party, seeking election to anyoffice under circumstances that do not require extensivecampaigning, or serving by appointment or election in apart-time political office) are consistent with effectiveservice as a member of a faculty. Other kinds of politicalactivity (e.g., intensive campaigning for elective office,serving in a state legislature, or serving a limited termin a full-time position) may require that the professor seeka leave of absence from his college or university.

3. In recognition of the legitimacy and social im-portance of political activity by faculty members, univer-sities and colleges should provide institutional arrange-ments to permit it, similar to those applicable to otherpublic or private extramural service. Such arrangementsmay include the reduction of the faculty member's work-load or a leave of absence for the duration of an electioncampaign or a term of office, accompanied by equitableadjustment of compensation when necessary.

4. A faculty member seeking leave should recognizethat he has a primary obligation to his institution andto his growth as an educator and scholar; he shouldbe mindful of the problem which a leave of absencecan create for his administration, his colleagues, and hisstudents; and he should not abuse the privilege by toofrequent or too late application or too extended aleave. If adjustments in his favor are made, such as areduction of workload, he should expect them to belimited to a reasonable period.

5. A leave of absence incident to political activityshould come under the institution's normal rules andregulations for leaves of absence. Such a leave should notaffect unfavorably the tenure status of a faculty mem-ber, except that time spent on such leave from academicduties need not count as probationary service. The termsof a leave and its effect on the professor's status shouldbe set forth in writing.

Academic Freedom and Tenure inthe Quest for National Security

A special committee, appointed by authority of the Council in 1955, presentedthe following report to the Council in 1956. The second section of the report,"Relevant General Principles," was adopted by the Council as its own statement,and these principles were then adopted by the 1956 Annual Meeting. A precedingsection was introductory in nature and a following section presented a record ofparticular events and a group of specific recommendations.

Subsequent to the 1956 adoption of the "Relevant General Principles" of thereport of the special committee, Committee A spent much time in an effort toclarify the position to be defended when a faculty member refuses to make dis-closures to his own institution. The result, printed in the Spring, 1958, issue ofthe AAUP Bulletin, was "A Statement of the Committee on Academic Freedomand Tenure, Supplementary to the 1956 Report, 'Academic Freedom and Tenurein the Quest for National Security' "; this statement is printed here immediatelyfollowing the 1956 "Relevant General Principles."

RELEVANT GENERAL PRINCIPLES

I. The justification of academic freedom

The maintenance of freedom of speech, publication,religion, and assembly (each of which is a componentof intellectual freedom) is the breath of life of a demo-cratic society. The need is greatest in fields of higherlearning, where the use of reason and the cultivationof the highest forms of human expression are the basicmethods. To an increasing extent, society has come torely upon colleges and universities as a principal meansof acquiring new knowledge and new techniques, ofconveying the fruits of past and present learning to thecommunity, and of transmitting these results to genera-tions to come. Without freedom to explore, to criticizeexisting institutions, to exchange ideas, and to advocatesolutions to human problems, faculty members and stu-dents cannot perform their work, cannot maintain theirself-respect. Society suffers correspondingly. The libertythat is needed requires a freedom of thought and expres-sion within colleges and universities, a freedom to carrythe results of honest inquiry to the outside, and a free-dom to influence human affairs in the same manner asother informed and unprejudiced persons do. Nor is thevalue of freedom lessened because error at times arisesfrom its exercise. Learning, intellectual development, andsocial and scientific progress take place on a trial-and-error basis, and even the unsound cause or hypothesismay call forth the truth that displaces it. The error ofone scholar has, indeed, stimulated others to discover thecorrecting truth.

The demand we of the academic world make for aca-demic freedom is not made primarily for our own bene-fit. We enjoy the exercise of freedom; but the purposesof liberty lie, in a democracy, in the common welfare.It has recently been said, "With regard to some occupa-tions, it is eminently in the interest of society that themen concerned speak their minds without fear of retri-bution. . . . The occupational work of the vast majorityof people is largely independent of their thought andspeech. The professor's work consists of his thought andspeech. If he loses his position for what he writes orsays, he will, as a rule, have to leave his profession,and may no longer be able effectively to question andchallenge accepted doctrines or effectively to defend chal-lenged doctrines. And if some professors lose their posi-tions for what they write or say, the effect on manyother professors will be such that their usefulness totheir students and to society will be gravely reduced." 1

We ask, then, for the maintenance of academic free-dom and of the civil liberties of scholars, not as a specialright, but as a means whereby we may make our ap-pointed contribution to the life of the commonwealthand share equitably, but not more than equitably, in theAmerican heritage. Society has the power to destroy orimpair this freedom; but it cannot do so and retain thevalues of self-criticism and originality fostered by highereducation. Again, in the words of the Princeton Univer-sity Chapter:

r Fritz Machlup, "On Some Misconceptions ConcerningAcademic Freedom," BUlletin, Winter, 1955.

15

The spirit of free inquiry is not a privilege claimed fora single profession, but the touchstone of our characteras a people, the proved source of our national strength.Its defilement in any area of our society is a threat tothe entire body politic. . . .

As teachers, loyal to the country and to the ideal offree inquiry which has sustained our nation's material,humanitarian, and spiritual progress, we cannot fail tocondemn any inimical force whether proceeding from anavowed enemy or from a misguided friend within. In doingso we take our guidance from our conscience, from oursense of justice, and from the convictions of one of ourFounding Fathers, who declared: "The opinions of menare not the object of civil government, nor under itsjurisdiction" and "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrudehis powers into the field of opinion and to restrain theprofession or propagation of principles on supposition oftheir ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy." This belief waspurchased through centuries of struggle extending far backinto history beyond the discovery of the New World, butwhen enacted into law in the infancy of our nation wasgreeted in the Old World as "an example of legislativewisdom and liberality never before known." It would beone of the supreme ironies of history and one of thegreatest tragedies if the confidence we exhibited in theweakness of youth should be destroyed through fear in thestrength of our maturity.

2. The claims of military securityWe accept unhesitatingly the application to colleges

and universities of needed safeguards against the misuseof specially classified information important for militarysecurity, to the extent to which these are applied else-where. We insist, however, that these safeguards shouldextend only to persons who have access to such informa-tion; in no degree do they justify the proscription ofindividuals because of their beliefs or associations, un-less these persons were knowingly participants in crim-inal acts or conspiracies, either in the past or at present.Inquiry into beliefs and associations should be restrictedto those that are relevant to the discovery of such actualor threatened offenses.

3. Vigilance against subversion of the educationalprocess

The academic community has a duty to defend societyand itself from subversion of the educational processby dishonest tactics, including political conspiracies todeceive students and lead them unwittingly into accept-ance of dogmas or false causes. Any member of theacademic profession who has given reasonable evidencethat he uses such tactics should be proceeded againstforthwith, and should be expelled from his position ifhis guilt is established by rational procedure. Instancesof the use of such tactics in the past by secret Communistgroups in a few institutions seem to have occurred, andvigilance against the danger of their occurrence in thefuture is clearly required.

4. Disclaimer oaths and general investigations ofcollege and university teachers

Nothing in the record of college and university teachersas a group justifies the imputation to them of a tendencytoward disloyalty to the government or toward subversiveintent with respect to the nation's institutions. In thisregard they are not different from all other people. We

16

deplore the entire recent tendency to look upon personsor groups suspiciously and to subject their charactersand attitudes to special tests as a condition of employ-ing them in responsible positions. This country's great-ness is founded upon a belief in the individual's impor-tance and upon a trust in his ability and worthiness toserve his fellow-men in accordance with his capacity.Only by gross misconduct, proved by means of due proc-ess, should the right to this trust be lost, and then onlyto the extent necessary to defend the common interest.The confidence reposed in the individual and in hisintegrity, and the independence of decision and actiongranted him, have been vindicated throughout our his-tory by the loyalty of our citizens, and by their willing-ness to make sacrifices in times of crisis. With infrequentexceptions, even those who have pursued false causesand have seemed at times to threaten the nation's funda-mental principles have done so, as history generally rec-ognizes, out of concern for the general welfare as theysaw it.

For all these reasons, and because of the unhappy dis-ruption of normal acadeilgic work which extreme actionsin the name of security entail, as well as because of theirevident fruitlessness, we oppose the imposition of dis-claimer oaths, whereby individuals are compelled to swearor affirm that they do not advocate or have not advocated,or that they are not or have not been members of anyorganizations which advocate, overthrow of the govern-ment. For similar reasons, we oppose investigations ofindividuals against whom there is no reasonable suspicionof illegal or unprofessional conduct or of an intent toengage in such conduct. On the same grounds we opposelegislation which imposes upon supervisory officials theduty to certify that members of their staffs are free ofsubversive taint. We particularly object to these measureswhen they are directed against members of the academicprofession as a special class apart from the populationas a whole. Not only is the stigma of such a discrimina-tion unjustified, but the application of these discrimina-tory measures denies the particular need for freedomfrom pressures and restrictions, which is a productiverequirement of the academic profession and, for similarreasons, of lawmakers, judges, clergymen, journalists, andthe members of certain other professions. We urge theacademic profession not to be lulled, by the hope ofpossible nonenforcement or by a merely routine appli-cation of these measures, into an acquiescence in theirmaintenance as "paper" requirements. They should notbe tolerated even as relics from which life might appearto have departed; for they would not only be an evilheritage unworthy of our traditions and our goals; theirrevivification would always be an ugly possibility. Theyshould be steadfastly opposed until they are eliminated.At the same time, we cannot condemn educational in-stitutions or teachers for yielding to the constraint oflaws embodying such requirements, even though we re-gard the laws containing them as pernicious.

5. Grounds of adverse actionAction against a faculty member cannot rightly be

taken on grounds that limit his freedom as an individual,as a member of the academic community, or as a teacherand scholar. This principle was defined in the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Ten-ure, adopted by the Association of American Collegesand the American Association of University Professorsand approved since by other organizations. Implicit inthat Statement is the proposition (rendered explicit inlater reports of committees of the American Associationof University Professors and resolutions of its AnnualMeetings) that a faculty member's professional fitnessto continue in his position, considered in the light ofother relevant factors, is the question to be determinedwhen his status as a teacher is challenged. No rule de-- manding removal for a specific reason not clearly deter-minative of professional fitness can validly be imple-mented by an institution, unless the rule is imposedby law or made necessary by the institution's particularreligious coloration. Any rule which bases dismissal uponthe mere fact of exercise of constitutional rights violatesthe principles of both academic freedom and academictenure. By eliminating a decision by a faculty member'speers, it may also deny due process. This principlegoverns the question of dismissal for avowed past orpresent membership in the Communist Party taken byitself. Removal can be justified only on the ground,established by evidence, of unfitness to teach because ofincompetence, lack of scholarly objectivity or integrity,serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige,gross personal misconduct, or conscious participation inconspiracy against the government. The same principleapplies, a fortiori, to alleged involvement in Communist-inspired activities or views, and to refusal to take atrustee-imposed disclaimer oath.

6. Refusal to testify as ground for removalIt follows that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment

by a faculty member under official investigation cannotbe in itself a sufficient ground for removing him. TheAmendment's protection is a constitutional privilege.The exercise of one's constitutional privilege againstself-incrimination does not necessarily or commonlyjustify an inference of criminal guilt; and even if it wereto be ruled otherwise, it would not follow that the lossof an academic position should automatically result froma legal offense, whether proved in court or establishedby inference, without consideration of the relation of theoffense to professional fitness. Invocation of the FifthAmendment is to be weighed with an individual's otheractions in passing a judgment on him. The same may besaid with regard to refusals to testify on other grounds,such as the assertion of a right of silence thought to beconferred by the free-speech provision of the First Amend-ment, or because of a claim of lack of authority in theinvestigating body, an unwillingness to inform uponother persons, or a reluctance to cooperate in an investi-gation deemed oppressive or dangerous to the publicinterest.

7. Grounds for preliminary inquiry by an employinginstitution

The administrations of colleges and universities should,

-1,t4 .ern eenAorot,C

of course, take note of indications of the possible unfit-ness of faculty members. If a faculty member invokesthe Fifth Amendment when questioned about Commu-nism, or if there are other indications of past or presentCommunist associations or activities, his institution can-not ignore the possible significance for itself of thesematters. There is then a possibility of his involvementin activities subversive of education itself, or otherwiseindicative, to an important degree, of his unfitness toteach. As in other instances of possible unfitness, pre-liminary inquiry into this possibility is warranted andcan become a duty. The aid of other faculty membersmay be sought in such an inquiry; but the inquiry shouldbe confidential in so far as possible, and should not besubstituted for the hearing to which the faculty memberhas a right if formal charges are brought against him.lf, after consideration of a faculty member's wholecareer, as well as the circumstances surrounding his in-vocation of the Fifth Amendment, probable cause tobelieve that he may be unfit is not disclosed, the mattershould end at this stage; but if pobable cause for beliefin his unfitness is shown, charges leading to a formalhearing should be brought.

8. Procedural due process in tenure casesThe principles of procedural due process contained in

the 1940 Statement of Principles are as applicable to in-stances in which a faculty member's tenure is challengedby his institution or its officials on grounds related toloyalty, national security, or alleged connections withCommunism, as they are to instances of challenge onother grounds. Whenever charges are made against afaculty member with a view to his removal, he has aright to a fair hearing, to a judgment by his academicpeers before adverse action is taken, and to a decisionbased on the evidence. The principal elements of dueprocess in such proceedings are set forth in the 1940Statement of Principles, while other procedures, theneed for which appears in some of the situations thiscommittee has reviewed, are still to be specified.

There should/ be adequate faculty participation in anysuch proceedings, although no particular form of facultyparticipation or means to assure it is stipulated in theprinciples as now stated. It is an important safeguardthat whatever procedure is used should be one that thefaculty of the institution has itself endorsed prior to theoccurrence of the case. It is desirable to have proceduralmatters vested in a standing committee chosen in ad-vance to deal with matters of academic freedom andtenure; ad hoc committees may be subject to manipula-tion or to the suspicion of it. Faculty members shouldbe willing to accept the difficult responsibility of servingon such committees and, when cases are presented,should accept the painful need to reach decisions. Onoccasion, problems have arisen because faculty commit-tees have defaulted in their responsibility to render un-equivocal advice to administrative officers and trustees.

Public hearings before committees with power to rec-ommend or decide are not regarded as desirable. Theaccused faculty member should be permitted, however,to have persons of his choice present along with counsel;

",

17

and observers from legitimately interested outside groups,such as the American Association of University Professors,should also be permitted to attend. in accordance withestablished principles of justice, the burden of proofshould rest upon the administrative officer bringing thecharge, told should not be placed on the faculty mem-ber, whether he is being heard for invoking the FifthAmendment m for other reasons, Because such hearingsarc not legal trials but are processes of a more informalsort. and the purpose is to establish clearly the fitness orunfitness of a particular person to teach, the introductionof new issues during the course of the hearings is notinconsistent with due process. provided sufficient op-

portunity to meet these issues is afforded. The decisionshould be based solely on evidence disclosed at the

hearing.

9. The faculty member's obligation of disclosure

The fact that a faculty member has refused to dis-close information to his own institution is relevant tothe question of fitness to teach, but not decisive. If therefusal appears to be based upon evasiveness and a desireto withhold evidence of illegal conduct, which would Ws-qualify him as a member of the faculty, the refusal wouldbe a weighty adverse factor. On the other hand, a re-fusal to answer questions which arises from a sincerebelief that a teacher is entitled to withhold even from

his own institution his political and social views shouldbe accorded respect and should be weighed with otherfactors in the determination of his fitness to teach.

Nevertheless, members of the teaching profession shouldrecognize that sincerity cannot be judged objectively andthat a college or university is entitled to know the factswith which it must deal, This is especially true when afaculty member's activities, whether or not they arcblameworthy, have resulted in publicity hurtful to hisinstitution. Accordingly, in any proper inquiry by hisinstitution, it. is the duty of a faculty member to dis-close facts concerning himself that arc of legitimate con-cern to the institution, namely, those that relate to hisfitness as a teacher, as enumerated above in the sections,Grounds of Adverse Action, and Grounds for PreliminaryInquiry by an Employing Institution. This obligation

diminishes if the institution has announced a rigid policyof dismissal in such a way as to prejudge the case,

IV'e are aware that statements made by a faculty mem.ber to his institution are not legally privileged and thathis interrogators may be compelled in a later official pro-ceeding to testify that he made them If such statementstend to incriminate him, he may in effect lose the pro.tot tion of the Fifth Amendment. But we believe thatthe institution's right to know facts relevant to fitnessto teach should prevail over this consideration.

10. Suspension.

Suspension of a faculty member during the time ofinquiry and decision by the institution is justified onlyin certain instances in which the reasons for proceedingrender it highly probable not only that he is unfit tocontinue as a faculty, member but that his unfitness is ofa kind almost certain to prejudice his teaching or re-search. Even in such instances, the suspension shouldbe with full salary. By his own desire the faculty mem-ber may, of course, be temporarily relieved of his dutiesin order to prepare his defense.

Faculty members not on tenureAcademic freedom should be accorded not only to

faculty members with tenure but also, during the termsof their appointments, to others with probationary ortemporary status who are engaged in teaching or research.Moreover, neither reappointment nor promotion to ten-ue status should be denied, nor any other adverse actiontaken, for reasons that violate academic freedom. Dis-missal or other adverse action prior to the expiration ofa term appointment requires the same procedures asdoes the dismissal of a faculty member with tenure;but no opportunity for a hearing is normally requiredin connection with failure to reappoint. If, however,there arc reasonable grounds to believe that a nontenurestaff member was denied reappointment for reasons thatviolate academic freedom, there should be a hearing be-fore a faculty committee. In such a hearing the burdenof proof is on the persons who assert that there wereimproper reasons for the failure to reappoint. If aprima fade case of violation of academic freedom ismade, the administration of the institution is then re-quired to come forward with evidence in rebuttal.

A Statement of the Committee on AcademicFreedom and Tenure

Supplementary to the 1955 Report, "Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security"

Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court,recognizing the validity of legally based assertions ofthe right to remain silent under a variety of circum-stances, or declaring the invalidity of official action ad-

verse to an individual because of his refusal to yield in-formation about his possible Communist connections,

18

go far to justify the position taken by the Association'sSpecial Committee on these matters in its report, "Aca-demic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for NationalSecurity," which was published in the Spring, 1956, issueof the AAUP Bulletin and was approved by the Asso-ciation's Council and Forty-second Annual Meeting. Some

of these involve situations closely analogous to academicdismissal proceedings, 1

Several of the reports of investigating committees (notpublished here] deal with cases in which dismissed facultymembers followed their refusals to answer questions be.fore Congressional committees with refusals to makedisclosures to representatives of their own institutions,when their previous conduct gave rise to questions,`These cases may be visualized as falling into a spectrumextending from a complete refusal to discuss questionsdealing with political or social views or associations, tothe most complete willingness to answer all such ques*tions even in a formal, open hearing. At one end ofthe spectrum, that of complete refusal to answer cities.tion3 of this type on the claim of principle, is foundthe case of Professor Stanley Moore at Reed College,To this may be added the case of Professor Horace B,Davis at the University of Kansas City, already pub.lished in the "1/1 UP Bulletin (April, 1957, Supplement)but not yet acted upon by the Association. Fartherdown the spectrum is the stand of Professor L, R,LaVallee at Dickinson College, who seems to have an-swered questions relating to previous political associa-tions in certain private conferences but bluntly refusedto answer similar questions in his hearing. Two casesfall near the middle of the spectrum. One is the caseof Dr. H. Chandler Davis at the University of Michigan,who answered some questions relating to his integrity,but declined to answer questions directed toward hispolitical views. The other is that of Associate ProfessorEdwin Berry Burgum, at New York University, who inhis hearing denied any corrupting influence of hisalleged Communist connections, any advocacy of violentoverthrow of the government, or any dictation of hisviews by an outside source; but who nevertheless refusedto answer certain other questions regarding his politicalviews and activities, and in particular concerning hispossible engagement in recruiting students into theCommunist Party. Farther toward the end marked bycompliance with questioning is the special case of Pro-fessor Alex B. Novikoff, at the University of Vermont.Professor Novikoff answered frankly all questions re-lating to the period dating from his appointment to theUniversity, but he refused to discuss questions directedat certain associations alleged to have existed in earlieryears. Yet ultimately he offered to answer even thesequestions if his testimony could be made off the recordin private instead of public hearing, an offer which theboard of hearing did not see fit to accept. Finally, atthe extreme of the spectrum, is the case of AssociateProfessor Mark. Nickerson, at the University of Michigan.Professor Nickerson undertook to answer all questionsdirected to him.

It may be further noted that in the case of Mr.Andries Deinum, at the University of Southern California,no opportunity at all was given him to answer ques-tions or charges or to have a hearing. In the early caseof Associate Professor Lyman Bradley, at New YorkUniversity, there was, on the other hand, a hearing oncharges, but refusal to answer, or lack of candor towardcollege authorities, did not become an issue. These cases

I See, in particular, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education,350 U.S. 551 (1956) ; iVatkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178(1957) ; Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234(1957) ; Kohigsherg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252

(1957).

may be regarded as extending the two ends of the spec.trum into the invisible.

Each case mentioned here expresses the judgmentof its authors upon the situation presented, when judgedin the light of Association principles still undergoingrefinement and application. Committee A has beencharged with the function of elaborating those principleson the basis of further thought and of the experiencereflected in these reports. It is first desirable to restatepertinent passages from the 1956 Report of the SpecialCommittee, as follows:

The administrations of colleges and universities should,of course, take note of Indications of the possible unfitnessof faculty members. If a faculty member invokes the FifthAmendment when questioned about Communism, or ifthere are other Indications of past or present Communistassociations or activities, his institution cannot ignore thepossible significance for itself of these matters, There isthen a possibility of his involvement in activities sub.versive of education. Itself, or otherwise indicative, to animportant degree, of his unfitness to teach. As in otherinstances of possible unfitness, preliminary inquiry intothis possibility is warranted and can become a duty. Theaid of other faculty members may be sought In such aninquiry; but the inquiry should be confidential in so far aspossible, and should not be substituted for the hearingto which the faculty member has a right if formal chargesare brought against him, If, after consideration of a facultymember's whole career, as well as the circumstances sur-rounding his invocation of the Fifth Amendment, probable cause to believe that he may be unfit is not dis-closed, the matter should end at this stage; but if prob-able cause for belief in his unfitness is shown, chargesleading to a formal hearing should be brought.. . . [Tjhe invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a facultymember under official investigation cannot be in itself asufficient ground for removing him. The Amendment'sprotection is a constitutional privilege. The exercise ofone's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination doesnot necessarily or commonly justify an inference of crim-inal guilt; and even if it were to be ruled otherwise, itwould not follow that the loss of an academic positionshould automatically result from a legal offense, whetherproved in court or established by inference, without con-sideration of the relation of the offense to professionalfitness. Invocation of the Fifth Amendment is to be weighedwith an individual's other actions in passing a judgmenton him. The same may be said with regard to refusals totestify on other grounds, such as the assertion of a rightof silence thought to be conferred by the free-speech pro-vision of the First Amendment, or because of a claim oflack of authority in the investigating body, an unwilling-ness to inform upon other persons, or a reluctance to co-operate in an investigation deemed oppressive or dangerousto the public interest.

The fact that a faculty member has refused to discloseinformation to his own institution is relevant to the ques-tion of fitness to teach, but not decisive. If the refusal ap-pears to be based upon evasiveness and a desire to with-hold evidence of illegal conduct which would disqualifyhim as a member of the faculty, the refusal would be aweighty adverse factor. On the other hand, a refusal toanswer questions which arise from a sincere belief thata teacher is entitled to withhold even from his own in-stitution his political and social views should be accordedrespect and should be weighed with other factors in thedetermination of his fitness to teach. Nevertheleu, mem-bers of the teaching profession should recognize thatsincerity cannot be judged objectively and that a collegeor university is entitled to know the facts with which itmust deal. This is especially true when a faculty member'sactivities, whether or not they are blameworthy, have

19

resulted in publicity hurtful to his institution. According.ly, in any proper inquiry by his institution, it is the dutyof a faculty member to disclose facts concerning himselfthat arc of legitimate concern to the institution.... Thisobligation diminishes if the institution has announced arigid policy of dismissal in such a way as to prejudgethe case.

We are aware that statements made by a faculty memberto his institution arc not legally privileged and that hisinterrogators may be compelled in a later official pro.ceeding to testify that he made them, If such statementstend to incriminate him, he may in effect lose the pro.tection of the Fifth Amendment. lint we believe that theinstitution's right to know facts relevant to fitness to teachshould prevail over this consideration.... Removal can be b.:stilied only on the ground, estab

lisped by evidence, of unfitness to teach because of in.competeme lack of scholarly objectivity or integrity,serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige,gross personal misconduct, or conscious participation inconspiracy against the government. The same principleapplies, a fmtioris to alleged involvement in Communist.inspired activities or views.

The most urgent need for elaboration of the principlesenunciated in 1956 concerns the relative weight thatmay properly, in the context of all other pertinent con-siderations, be given, in reaching It final decision, tothe reasons for the faculty member's continued refusalto make disclosures to his own institution. As the 1956

report recognises, such refusal, in itself, may not bediscreditable to the faculty member if it is based onhonest adherence to principlefor example, a principleof freedom, or belief in the right of privacyeven ifothers disagree with his view. This is true even wheresuch silence may follow a refusal on Fifth Amendmentor other grounds to testify before a Congressional com-mittee or other governmental agency. On the other hand,the faculty member's continued silence may reflect un-favorably upon him if his purpose is to conceal derog-atory information he knows to be pertinent to the ques-tion of fitness.

The assertion by a faculty member of the right towithhold from his institution information which is per-tinent to his fitness casts upon him the burden of ex-plaining his refusal. Following such an explanation.the responsible tribunal or authorities may find it. neces-

sary to determine, as one clement in gauging his fitnessto continue as a teacher, what. his actual reasons forsilence are, even though this will not always be aneasy determination to make.

Even if the tribunal finds that the faculty member'sreasons for silence arc discreditable to him, this adversefactor must be judged in the context of all the otheravailable evidence as to his professional fitness, for here,as in all other aspects of dismissal proceedings, the de-ciding tribunal or authority is always under a duty toreach a just conclusion in the light of the faculty mem-ber's full record. The tribunal also has an obligationto state the reasoning that lies back of its decision in amanner that will show the considerations that have af-

fected the decision and how they have been balanced.On his part, the faculty member who persists in silencewithin his own institution must remember that, althoughthe burden of proof rests on those who are bringingcharges against him, his withholding of information

20

sought by his institution may well leave unchallengedother evidence tending to show him unfit. To put itsomewhat differently, the institution may properly con-cern itself with the facts falling within the area of theteacher's silence as they bear upon the issue of his fit-ness and arrive at a judgment concerning them.

The faculty member may find himself facing anotherdilemma. He may run the risk of losing the protectionof the Fifth Amendment if he answers questions in apublic hearing and on the record, or, conversely, of beingmisjudged if he remains silent. if, in such straits, heoffers to answer privately, and off the record, questionshe has previously refused to answer, the tribunal shouldeither accept the offer or recognize that the offer is initself some evidence of candor and sincerity on the partof the teacher. Such private, off-the-record testimonywould not, in this committee's judgment, violate the re-quirement of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Am.delay Freedom and Tenure that "There should be a fullstenographic record of the hearing available to theparties concerned." It is well to remember that a dis-missal proceeding is not bound by strict legal rules, andthat the aim of the tribunal is to arrive, by all fairmeans, at the fullest truth relevant to the charges. Off-the-record testimony is properly regarded with suspicionand therefore generally forbidden in academic dismissalproceedings, particularly for witnesses testifying againstthe accused faculty member. But its limited use for goodcause by the faculty member, who enjoys the benefit ofthe doubt in the proceedings and on whom the duty ofcandor is being urged, may well enable the tribunal toreach a fair and just decision, In explaining its decision,it may, of course, draw inferences, whether favorable orunfavorable, from such off-the-record testimony, eventhough the testimony itself may not be disclosed.

If the tribunal refuses to accept an honorable reasonoffered by a faculty member in justification of his non-disclosure, there being no rational basis in the recordfor this refusal, and he is then dismissed solely becauseof this silence, the action is censurable because a sufficientground for dismissal has not been established, If, onthe other hand, a decision to dismiss is found to havebeen reached fairly and to be supportable on the recordwhen judged by the foregoing considerations, the Asso-

ciation is not entitled to dispute it,Further comment should be made concerning the

statement in the 1956 Report that the "obligation [of afaculty member to disclose facts concerning himself thatare of legitimate concern to his institution] diminishesif the institution has announced a rigid policy of dis-missal in such a way as to prejudge the case." Theobjection here is not to the fact that an institution maywish to enumerate in a general statement justifiablegrounds for the removal of members of its faculty, suchas those found in the 1956 Report of the Special Com-mittee, for it is often desirable that conduct deemed tobe improper should be defined in advance. Where, how-ever, a rigid policy, in effect predetermining the questionof fitness, is based on inadequate grounds, such as in-vocation of the Fifth Amendment or the simple fact ofmembership in an organisation, the faculty member mayhe justified in refusing to become party to an intra-mural form of self-incrimination.

Report of the Special Committee onAcademic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure

The report which follows is published here, at the direction of the Association'sCouncil, in order that chapters, conferences, members and other interested per-sons may have an opportunity to submit their comments to the Special Com-mittee, All comments should he directed to the Association's Washington Office.

Preamble

The Special Committee considered problems with re-gard to nontenure positions particularly as they concernthree categories of academic people: (1) part-time teach-ers, (2) full-time teachers who arc not considered regularmembers of faculties, and (3) persons who are appointedto full-time research positions. The Special Committee'sfirst effort has been to survey and analyze the policiesand practices of reputable universities with regard tonontenure positions, reports of which were previouslymade to the Council and Committee A. Its second con-cern has been to examine these practices in relation tothe 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure of the Association of American Colleges andthe American Association of University Professors. Itsthird and final effort has been to formulate an interpre-tation of the 1940 Statement that might serve to guidethe Association in advising interested persons about prob-lems and disputes involving nontenure appointments.

The Special Committee soon concluded that the 1940Statement could not be interpreted as guaranteeing ten-ure rights to part-time teachers. Its provisions for a pro-bationary period apply explicitly to ".. . appointment tothe rank of full-time instructor or higher rank." TheSpecial Committee feels, however, that the Associationshould continue to be actively concerned with cases be-longing to this category, and should use its influence topersuade institutions to adopt and use suitable grievanceprocedures so that disputes involving part-time teacherscan be judiciously resolved within the institutions. Wheresuch procedures are inadequate or lacking, the Associa-tion should vigorously uphold the right of part-timeteachers to the same academic freedom that teachers withtenure have. This policy should of course apply equallyto full-time teachers during their probation period.

There has been much discussion by the Special Com-mittee, as there has been among other organs of the

.Association, of the question whether the increasing useof people without doctors' degrees as full-time teacherscalls for clarification of the probationary requirementsset forth by the 1940 Statement. That is, does an educa-tional institution have to count years of full-time serviceaccumulated by a tenure candidate before he has re-ceived his doctorate in determining when the decision togrant or not grant tenure must be made? Or, conversely,is it legitimate for an institution to appoint a doctoralcandidate as a full-time teacher, in a rank below, ordifferent from. that of instructor, and consider that histerm of probation for tenure begins only if and when hereceives the doctorate? The 1940 Statement, whether in-tentionally or not. appears to leave room for the secondinterpretation by saying that the probationary periodshould begin with appointment at the rank of instructoror a higher rank. It does not, however, say at what ranka full-time teacher with the doctorate must be appointed.After full discussion, the Special Committee is unani-mously agrerd that the first interpretation should beAssociation policy: that is. any person whom an institu-tion appoints to a full-time teaching position should betreated as a candidate for tenure under the requirementsof the 1910 Statement, no matter what rank or title hemay be given by the institution. If an :nstitution wantsto exclude a doctoral candidate (or any other personwhom it considers inadequately qualified for regularfaculty membership and status) from tenure candidacy,it should not appoint him as a full-time teacher. TheSpecial Committee believes that less injustice will bedone. both to teachers and to institutions, if this policyis enforced than if the apparent loophole is left open. Aserious doctoral candidate ought not to do full-timeteaching anyhow: it is not in his interest or that of theinstitution to have his attainment of the degree delayedor prevented by overwork. Nor are academic salariesany longer so low, or financial support in the form of

21

fellowships and loans so difficult to attain, that a seriousdoctoral candidate cannot survive a few years on parimepay, The Special Committee feels particularly stronglythat an institution which is unable to recruit enoughdoctors to fill all its full time teaching positions ought notto deny tenure to full-time teachers lacking doctors'degrees, The Special Committee does not believe that thepresent shortage of fully qualified teachers is in anysense a temporary emergency. It was foreseen twenty yearsago, and it should have been prevented. It will continueindefinitely if institutions allow themselves to make dowith underqualified and underprivileged teachers of thekind implied by the term "subfaculty." Institutions shoulddo all they can to increase the number of qualifiedteachers. The Special Committee believes that anyone whodoes an instructor's work should be given appropriaterank and privileges. In short, the Special Committeewishes to eliminate the second problem category by re-fusing to grant that, for purposes of the 1940 State-ment, there is any such thing as a full-time teacher at arank below that of instructor.

The third problem category, that of research peoplewho are not teachers, is relatively new to highereducation. It was not foreseen, and its full effect onthe regulation and conduct of academic institutions is notyet foreseeable. In particular, it seems clear to the SpecialCommittee that the two associations had no majorcategory of such academic people in mind when theyformulated the 1940 Statement. A question may be,therefore, whether it is possible for the Special Commit-tee to apply the 1940 Statement to this category. Itsdeliberations may in fact have led to another question:does the 1940 Statement itself need some revision,amendment, or supplement in order to provide properguidance for Association policy in this area? The 1.940Statement plainly assumes that the normal basic activityof university professors is teaching and that research is afunctionally related activity by means of which teachingis enriched and extended. On this assumption it is en-tirely reasonable and proper to maintain. as the 1940Statement evidently does, that a researcher is the samething as a teacher insofar as his right to academic free-dom, his status as a faculty member, and his entitlementto tenure are concerned. In 1940, with negligible excep-tions, researchers in universities were teachers, part ofwhose teaching was by word of mouth and part by themedium of print. The two parts served the same purposeof transmitting the teacher's individual ideas into thearena of public discussion, and the same principles offreedom and of responsibility applied to both.

Now, however, there are an important number of re-searchers working in universities and university-operatedagencies to whom this assumption does not so clearlyapply. Workers on Department of Defense and Atomic.Energy Commission projects offer the extreme example;but anyone who works on a project which is defined bya contract between the employing institution and a spon-soring agency, government, industry, or foundation is

likely to be more or less limited in his freedom to decidefor himself what line of investigation he will pursue. The

22

question arises whether universities ought to be engagedin this kind of contract research at all. The Special Com.mittee regards this as an important question, but not onethat can be settled at this time by a component of theAAUP, The fact is that many of the best universitiesare so engaged, and the question to be answered is whatthe AAUP policy should be toward the people involved,particularly concerning the conditions of academic free.(horn and tenure under which they work,

The Special Committee recognizes that many and per.haps most of the researchers doing contract work arequalified by education and training to be members ofteaching faculties. What makes them different is theirfunction. A related consideration, which administratorsare quick to point out, is that the shifting character ofthe financial support for contract work imposes a specialproblem in relation to tenure. It is not so much a matterof the total amount of money available as it is of thefact that individual research contracts run for limitedterms, and that researchers are not always transferablefrom one contract project to another within the sameinstitution. Administratively, the logical solution is tolet the individual researcher's contract run for not longerthan the term of the project contract. The situation isroughly parallel to that which arises when an institutiondecides to discontinue a course or department or college.The AAUP recognizes that legitimate academic reasonsmay require such a change, and that it is not alwayspossible for the institution to retain all the people whosepositions are eliminated. Such a situation, rare in teach-ing faculties, is normal and frequent in contract research.

These problems are closely related to the fact thatmany research projects are carried out by teams of re-searchers under the supervision of project directors. Thedirector of a project, often a faculty member with tenure,and very often a kind of entrepreneur in proposing theproject and attracting financial support for it from sourcesoutside the institution, has a legitimate need for freedomin the selection and rejection of team members, and foradequate authority to assign their tasks and coordinatetheir activities. Furthermore, individual team membersare not free to publish results of work they have doneon the project without the consent of other membersand especially of the director. For these reasons, tradi-tional concepts of academic freedom and tenure do notapply to the activities of contract research teams. TheSpecial Committee has gone as far as it believes possible,under the circumstances, in asserting and defending inthe statement which follows such academic freedom andjob security as can be had. Its members feel that aneffort to go beyond the limits imposed by the facts ofthe situation would make the statement weaker, notstronger.

The Special Committee is by no means indifferent tothe conditions under which members of contract researchproject teams have to work, nor does it advocate indif-ference on the part of the AAUP. It believes that goodadministrative and personnel policies ought to operatein this area as in all other areas of academic life, andthat the AAUP should try to define good policies and

encourage institutions to apply them. It also believesthat, whenever academic institutions designate full-timeresearchers as faculty members, either by formal appoint-ment or by conferring the titles of instructor, assistantor associate professor, or professor, those researchers

should have all the rights of other faculty members, aite.that the AAUP should apply the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples to them as strictly as to anyone else.

Statement of the $SpecialCommittee on Academic

Personnel Ineligible for Tenure

A clear definition of acceptable academic practice inAmerican colleges and universities requires some ampli-fication and interpretation of the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Most ofthe 1940 Statement applies without change to the opera-tion of the universities today. The academic freedomstatement however leaves some question about the free-dom of research for the secondary staff of large researchprojects restricted by government or industrial supportand security. The academic tenure provisions leave somedoubt about the tenure rights of part-time teachers andof persons appointed with titles other than those of thefour ranks of instructor to professor.

To make quite clear that the policy of the Associationprovides protection in matters of academic freedom toall teachers at all ranks and on any fractional appoint-ment and to all investigators with university appoint-ments, the following amplifying statement is proposed:

(1) The academic freedom of all teachers and investi-gators with full-time or part-time appointments ina university should have the full protection ofthe Association.

The committee recognizes that it is appropriate tohave, within the university, faculty members with in-structor or professional status who are exclusively in-vestigators. These professors should be selected by thefaculty and should have the full privileges of other pro-fessors. The following statement is within the 1940

Statement but more directly describes the status of theresearch faculty member with an academic appointment:

(2) Full-time teachers and investigators who are ap-pointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Pro-fessor, Associate Professor and Professor should

have the rights and privileges appropriate to theirrank including tenure or the eligibility for tenureafter the appropriate probationary period.

Acceptable academic practice for tenure is describedin the 1940 ,Statement of Principles only for full-timeappointments beginning with the rank of instructor.The Special Committee recommends that these provi-sions be extended to include all full-time teacher ap-pointments in the university. Parttime appointmentsare often given to scholars who are still working on theiradvanced degree programs. If, however, a full-time ap-pointment can be made as a lecturer or acting instructor,without obligating the institution to a limited probationperiod, it will diminish the protection of the Association'sstatement of policy on tenure. To provide for protectionof the young teachers' tenure rights, the committeeproposes:

(3) All full.time teachers, but not investigators, inthe universities regardless of their titles shouldacquire tenure after a probationary period asprovided for appointments to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank in the 1940Statement.

The Association extends the full protection of academicfreedom to all teachers and investigators on full-time orpart-time university appointments. The policy for thetenure of investigators with full-time university appoint-ments without one of the usual academic ranks has notbeen adequately determined. In the science and tech-nology areas of the twenty largest universities, there arenow twice as many full-time investigators as full-timeacademic appointments. Most of these investigator ap-pointments are made from research grants of shortduration that are subject to frequent and uncertainrenewal. The selection and termination of appointeesis made by the project director without the usual pro-cedures of review involved in departmental academicappointments. Until the funds for the support of in-vestigators are assured for substantial periods and untilthe university determines policies for the distributionand use of these funds it will be difficult for the uni-versity to assume the obligation for continuous tenureappointments. The committee makes no recommendationfor a tenure policy for investigators who do not haveregular academic appointments.

23

Report on Retirementand Academic Freedom

This report was prepared by a subcommittee Of Committee A and is publishedhero on the authorization of Committee A and the Council in order that mem-bers may comment on the issues raised in it. Comments should be addressed tothe Association's Washington office.

An earlier Statement of Principles on Academic Re-tirement, endorsed jointly in 1958 by the AmericanAssociation of University Professors and the Associationof American Colleges,1 contains recommendations on re-tirement policy and on plans for retirement annuities.It calls for "a fixed and relatively late retirement age,the same for teachers and administrators," and it statesthat "in the present circumstances the desirable fixedretirement age would appear to be from 67 to 70."

However, a recent survey by the American Associationof University Professors of practices regarding retirementshows that academic institutions currently tend to followtwo different patterns. At some institutions there is afixed age for retirement, with the professor retired priorto that age only by his own choice or by permanentlyincapacitating illness. The usual retirement ages are foundto be 65, 68, or 70 years. The American Association ofUniversity Professors continues to support the concept ofa fixed and relatively late retirement age.

At other institutions the pattern is. flexible, with arelatively early age at which tenure ceases (frequently65 years), with the possibility of reappointment forlimited periods, often on an annual basis. At these in-stitutions there are possible threats to the academicfreedom of faculty members who are approaching retire-ment age or who have been reappointed after reachingthat age.

Many professors desire to remain in active service attheir institutions as long as possible. Definite financialadvantages accompany later retirement. Frequently, thereis strong reluctance to sever one's professional contactsuntil the latest possible age.

1 The text of this Statement was published in the AAUPBulletin, Volume 44, No. 2. pages 513.5, 1958. A joint com-mittee of AAUP and the Association of American Collegesrecently revised the Statement, and a draft of it was publishedin the Autumn, 1968, issue of the AAUP Bulletin (pages295.297) for the purpose of eliciting comments of members,chapters, and conferences prior to formal adoption by theAssociation.

24

In institutions with a flexible retirement age at whichdecisions on retirement are mide by administrators, aprofessor who wishes to continue his academic workbeyond the minimum retirement age may hesitate toexpress opinions contrary to administrative policy, todefend an outspoken colleague, or otherwise to takepositions contrary to those who have the power to retirehim. The occasional victimization of a bold professorwould give reality to this fear. Also, self-restriction offreedom may result from the possibility of nonreappoint-ment. In contrast, where there is a fixed retirement age,with no possibility of deviation, the professor is notnormally subject to penalty, no matter how critical hemay be of institutional policy or how much outside in-fluence for his nonreappointment is brought to bear onthe institution.

The number of people who suffer from the threat ofnonreappointment may not be large. As people becomeolder, some become more outspoken in the defense ofdebatable ideas; others, recognizing the validity of argu-ments on both sides of a question, see less need tochampion locally unpopular causes. However, freedomfor the entire academic community, including its oldermembers, must be scrupulously preserved.

At the present time, a shortage of qualified facultywould usually cause an institution to wish to retainfaculty members as long as possible. However, employ-ment conditions at a given institution may change. Also,with the increased need for faculty, more professors whohave reached the minimum retirement age are beingemployed, either by their own or other institutions.Therefore, the number of instances of possible infringe-ment of academic freedom of professors who are nolonger protected by tenure may increase.

At institutions which have flexible retirement ages,what safeguards are or should be available to facultyduring the period in which tenure no longer protectsthe academic freedom and procedural safeguards of theprofessor as teacher, scholar, and citizen? The approach

used by the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure for instructional staff who have notyet achieved tenure gives applicable guidance. "Duringthe probationary period a teacher should have theacademic freedom that all other members of the facultyhave." Like the probationary teacher, the faculty mem-ber who has lost tenure because of age should haveavailable to him appropriate hearing procedures if hecan present a prima facie case of not being reappointedfor reasons violative of his academic freedom. Like theprobationary appointee, this faculty member should re-ceive explicit and timely notice of nonreappointment:not later than December 15 (or at least six months priorto the expiration of the appointment); or, if the facultymember is in his first year of service at an institutionother than the one at which he had tenure, not laterthan March 1 (or at least three months prior to theappointment's expiration). Where there is a strong tra-dition of academic freedom and good practice, theproblem of involuntary retirement of outspoken pro-fessors before the maximum retirement age does not exist.

The surest protection against premature retirement asa penalty for expressing criticism or dissent is activeparticipation by the faculty in the governance of theinstitution. Decisions not to continue the services of aprofessor to the maximum permissible age should bemade only after the appropriate administrative officerhas received the advice of representatives of the facultyand should be subject to appeal to the proper body orcommittee of the faculty. Details of the procedure, to-gether with a statement of the reasons which wouldoccasion a professor's retirement before the stated maxi-mum age, should be clearly promulgated in writing andavailable to the professor at the time of his appointment.

Faculty participation in decisions to employ professorsbeyond the minimum retirement age occurs at a consid-erable number of institutions. Among the flexible sys-tems worth noting are those at the University of Cali-fornia at Berkeley, Franklin and Marshall College, BeloitCollege, and the University of Texas. These institutionsrepresent two large state-supported institutions and twosmall privately endowed liberal arts colleges.

The Committee on Budget and InterdepartmentalRelations of the University of California at Berkeley tin addition to its responsibility for making recommenda-tions to the appropriate administrative official concerningappointment, promotions and awards of tenurerecom-mends the reappointment or nonreappointment of pro-fessors who have reached the minimum retirement age.

2 The work of this committee and the selection of its mem-bers by a faculty-elected Committee on Committees aredescribed by L. W. Eley, The University of California atBerkeley: Faculty Participation in the Government of theUniversity," AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1964, pp. 5-13.

Its recommendation is based on that of the DepartmentChairman, including a statement concerning the clearlyestablished need for the continuance of the professor'sservices, and its own careful and independent evaluationof the desirability of the reappointment of the professor.Since the recommendations of this committee are usuallyfollowed by the administration, retired professors knowthat their reappointment depends primarily upon broadfaculty judgment. As the primary decision for reappoint-ment is made by faculty rather than administrativeofficials, a professor who wishes to criticize administrativepolicy can do so without fear it will be prejudicial to hisreappointment.

The regulations of Franklin and Marshall College statethat "the mandatory retirement age for members of theFaculty is 65," but provision is made for the appoint-ment "of Visiting Professors or Distinguished ProfessorsEmeriti who exceed age 65." The decision to recommendthe appointment of an emeritus professor is made by thedepartment and reviewed by a faculty-elected ProfessionalStandards Committee. Selection is based on an establishedneed and on the academic qualifications of the individual.Espousal of minority viewpoints would not be prejudicialto appointment after formal retirement.

At Beloit College, a faculty-nominated and electedcommittee advises with the President and Dean on allpersonnel decisions including retention of faculty, pro-motion, and tenure. The College's Policy Manual alsocalls for consultation with the Chairman of the Depart-ment and Division of which the individual is a member.Although retirement occurs at 65, a faculty member maybe reemployed on an annual basis, if reemployment ismutually agreeable to the individual and to the college.Such reemployment, which ordinarily does not includeadministrative and committee responsibilities, is con-sidered by the faculty committee and chief administrativeofficers.

A somewhat different approach to the utilization ofretired professors is used at The University of Texas atAustin. Tenured members of the faculty continue fulltime until age 70. At this age they are put on "modifiedservice" which is half-time work for half-time pay; theymay be allowed to teach required courses at the discretionof the teaching staff of the department. The budgetcouncil of each department must approve annually ap-pointees on modified service as being capable of theduties assigned to them by the Chairman of the Depart-ment, and all departmental recommendations for appoint-ment, or continued appointment, are subject to approvalby a faculty advisory committee on extended service.

Whatever circumstances and conditions affecting retire-ment are present in an institution of higher education,professors should be assured that, even if tenure is ended,the principles of academic freedom, as stated in the 1940Statement of Principles, are applicable to them.

25

American Association of University Professors

American Council on Education

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

Statement on

Government of Colleges and Universities

Editorial Note. The Statement which follows is directedto governing board members, administrators, facultymembers, students and other persons in the belief thatthe colleges and universities of the United States havereached a stage calling for appropriately shared respon-sibility and cooperative action among the components ofthe academic institution. The Statement is intended tofoster constructive joint thought and action, both withinthe institutional structure and in protection of its integ-rity against improper intrusions.

It is not intended that the Statement serve as a blue-print for government on a specific campus or as a manualfor the regulation of controversy among the componentsof an academic institution, although it is to be hoped thatthe principles asserted will lead to the correction of exist-ing weaknesses and assist in the establishment of soundstructure and procedures. The Statement does not at-tempt to cover relations with those outside agencies whichincreasingly are controlling the resources and influencingthe patterns of education in our institutions of higherlearning; e.g., the United States Government. the statelegislatures, state commissions, interstate associations orcompacts and other interinstitutional arrangements. How-ever it is hoped that the Statement will be helpful to theseagencies in their consideration of educational matters.

Students are referred to in this Statement as an in-stitutional component coordinate in importance with trus-tees, administrators and faculty. There is, however, nomain section on students. The omission has two causes:(1) the changes now occurring in the status of Americanstudents have plainly outdistanced the analysis by theeducational community, and an attempt to define thesituation without thorough study might prove unfair tostudent interests, and (2) students do not in fact pres-

enth have a significant i)oie in the government of col-leges and universities; it would be unseemly to obscure,by superficial equality of length of statement, what maybe a serious lag entitled to separate and full confronta-tion. The concern for student status felt by the organiza-tions issuing this Statement is embodied in a note"On Student Status" intended to stimulate the edu-cational community to turn its attention to an impor-tant need.

This Statement, in preparation since 1961, is jointlyformulated by the American Association of UniversityProfessors, the American Council on Education, and theAssociation of Governing Boards of Universities and Col-leges. On October 12, 1966, the Board of Directors ofthe ACE took action by which the Council "recognizesthe Statement as a significant step forward in the clarifica-tion of the respective roles of governing boards, faculties,and administrations," and "commends it to the institutionswhich are members of the Council." On October 29, 1966,the Council of the AAUP approved the Statement, recom-mended approval by the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting inApril, 1967,1and recognized that "continuing joint effortis desirable, in view of the areas left open in the jointlyformulated Statement, and the dynamic changes occurringin higher eaucation." On November 18, 1966, the Execu-tive Committee of the AGB took action by which thatorganization also "recognizes the Statement as a significantstep forward in the clarification of the respective roles ofgoverning boards. faculties and administrations," and"commends it to the governing hoards which are mem-bers of the Association"

I The Annual Meeting approved the Statement.

I. Introduction

This Statement is a call to mutual understanding re.garding the government of colleges and universities. Un-derstanding, based on community of interest, and pro-ducing joint effort, is essential for at least three reasons.First, the academic institution, public or private, oftenhas become less autonomous; buildings, research, andstudent tuition are supported by funds over which thecollege or university exercises a diminishing control. Leg-islative and executive governmental authority, at all lev-els, plays a part in the making of important decisionsin academic policy. If these voices and forces are to besuccessfully heard and integrated, the academic institu-tion must be in a position to meet them with its owngenerally unified view. Second, regard for the welfareof the institution remains important despite the mobil-ity and interchange of scholars. Third, a college or uni-versity in which all the components are aware of theirinterdependence, of the usefulness of communicationamong themselves, and of the force of joint action willenjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems.

II. The Academic Institution: Joint EffortA. Preliminary Considerations

The variety and complexity of the tasks performedby institutions of higher education produce an inescapa-ble interdependence among governing board, adminis-tration, faculty, students and others. The relationshipcalls for adequate communication among these com-ponents, and full opportunity for appropriate joint plan-ning and effort.

Joint effort in an academic institution will take avariety of forms appropriate to the kinds of situationsencountered. In some instances, an initial explorationor recommendation will be made by the president withconsideration by the faculty at a later stage; in otherinstances, a first and essentially definitive recommenda-tion will be made by the faculty, subject to the endorse-ment of the president and the governing board. In stillothers, a substantive contribution can be made whenstudent leaders are responsibly involved in the process.Although the variety of such approaches may be wide,at least two general conclusions regarding joint effortseem clearly warranted: (1) important areas of actioninvolve at one time or another the initiating capacityand decision-making participation of all the institutionalcomponents, and (2) differences in the weight of eachvoice, from one point to the next, should be determinedby reference to the responsibility of each componentfor the particular matter at hand, as developed herein-after.

B. Determination of General Educational Policy

The general educational policy, i.e., the objectives ofan institution and the nature, range, and pace of itsefforts, is shaped by the institutional charter or by law,by tradition and historical development, by the pres-ent needs of the community of the institution, and bythe professional aspirations and standards of those direct-

ly involved in its work. Every board will wish to gobeyond its formal trustee obligation to conserve the ac-complishment of the past and to engage seriously withthe future; every faculty will seek to conduct an opera-tion worthy of scholarly standards of learning; every ad.ministrative officer will strive to meet his charge and toattain the goals of the institution. The interests of allare coordinate and related, and unilateral effort can leadto confusion or conflict. Essential to a solution is areasonably explicit statement on .general educational pol-icy. Operating responsibility and authority, and proce-dures for continuing review, should be clearly definedin official regulations.

When an educational goal has been established, it be-comes the responsibility primarily of the faculty to deter-mine appropriate curriculum and procedures of studentinstruction.

Special considerations may require particular accommo-dations: (1) a publicly supported institution may be regu-lated by statutory provisions, and (2) a church-controlledinstitution may be limited by its charter or bylaws. Whensuch external requirements influence course content andmanner of instruction or research, they impair the edu-cational effectiveness of the institution.

Such matters as major changes in the size or compo-sition of the student body and the relative emphasis tobe given to the various elements of the educational andresearch program should involve participation of govern-ing board, administration and faculty prior to finaldecision.

C. Internal Operations of the Institution

The framing and execution of long-range plans, oneof the most important aspects of institutional responsi-bility, should be a central and continuing concern in theacademic community.

Effective planning demands that the broadest possibleexchange of information and opinion should be the rulefor communication among the components of a collegeor university. The channels of communication should beestablished and maintained by joint endeavor. Distinc-tion Fh ould be observed between the institutional sys-tem of communication and the system of responsibilityfor the making of decisions.

A second area calling for joint effort in internaloperations is that of decisions regarding existing or pros-pective physical resources. The board, president andfaculty should all seek agreement on basic decisions re-garding buildings and other facilities to be used in theeducational work of the institution.

A third area is budgeting. The allocation of resourcesamong competing demands is central in the formal re-sponsibility of the governing board, in the administrativeauthority of the president, and in the educational func-tion of the faculty. Each component should thereforehave a voice in the determination of short and long-range priorities, and each should receive appropriateanalyses of past budgetary experience, reports on currentbudgets and expenditures, and short and long-range bud-getary projections. The function of each component in

27

budgetary matters should be undeistood by all; the allo-cation of authority will determine the flow of informationand the scope of participation in decisions.

Joint effort of a most critical kind must be takenwhen an institution chooses a new president. The selec-tion of a chief administrative officer should follow uponcooperative search by the governing board and the facul-ty, taking into consideration the opinions of others whoare appropriately interested. The president should beequally qualified to serve both as the executive officerof the governing board and as the chief academic officerof the institution and the faculty. His dual role requiresthat he be able to interpret to board and faculty theeducational views and concepts of institutional govern-ment of the other. He should have the confidence ofthe board and the faculty.

The selection of academic deans and other chief aca-demic officers should be the responsibility of the presi-dent with the advice of and in consultation with theappropriate faculty.

Determinations of faculty status, normally based onthe recommendations of the faculty groups involved, arediscussed in Part V of this Statement; but it should herebe noted that the building of a strong faculty requirescareful joint effort in such actions as staff selection andpromotion and the granting of tenure. Joint actionshould also govern dismissals; the applicable principlesand procedures in these matters are well established.2

D. External Relations of the Institution

Anyonea member of the governing board, the presi-dent or other member of the administration, a memberof the faculty, or a member of the student body or thealumniaffects the institution when he speaks of it inpublic. An individual who speaks unofficially should soindicate. An official spokesman for the institution, theboard, the administration, the faculty, or the studentbody should be guided by established policy.

It should be noted that only the board speaks legallyfor the whole institution, although it may delegate re-sponsibility to an agent.

The right of a board member, an administrative officer,a faculty member, or a student to speak on general edu-cational questions or about the administration and oper-ations of his own institution is a part of his right as acitizen and should not be abridged by the institution .2

'See the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Free-dom and Tenure and the 1958 Statement on ProceduralStandards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings. These statementshave been jointly approved or adopted by the Associationof American Colleges and the American Association of Un-iversity Professors; the 1940 Statement has been endorsedby numerous learned and scientific societies and educationalassociations.

'With respect to faculty members, the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure reads: "Thecollege or university teacher is a citizen, a member of alearned profession, and an officer of an educational institu-tion. When he speaks or writes as a citizen, he should befree from institutional censorship or discipline, but his spe-cial position in the community imposes special obligations.As a man of learning and an educational officer, he shouldremember that the public may judge his profession and his

28

There exist, of course, legal bounds relating to defama.tion of character, and there are questions of propriety.

III. The Academic Institution:The Governing Board

The governing board has a special obligation to assurethat the history of the college or university shall serveas a prelude and inspiration to the future. The boardhelps relate the institution to its chief community: e.g.,the community college to serve the educational needs ofa defined population area or group, the church-controlledcollege to be cognizant of the announced position ofits denomination, and the comprehensive university todischarge the many duties and to accept the appropriatenew challenges which are its concern at the severallevels of higher education.

The governing board of an institution of higher edu-cation in the United States operates, with few exceptions,as the final institutional authority. Private institutions areestablished by charters; public institutions are establishedby constitutional or statutory provisions. In private insti-tutions the board is frequently self-perpetuating; in pub-lic colleges and universities the present membership ofa board may be asked to suggest candidates for appoint-ment. As a whole and individually when the governingboard confronts the problem of succession, serious atten-tion should be given to obtaining properly qualifiedpersons. Where public law calls for election of govern-ing board members, means should be found to insurethe nomination of fully suited persons, and the electorateshould be informed of the relevant criteria for boardmembership.

Since the membership of the board may embrace bothindividual and collective competence of recognizedweight, its advice or help may be sought through estab-lished channels by other components of the academiccommunity. The governing board of an institution ofhigher education, while maintaining a general overview,entrusts the conduct of administration to the adminis-trative officers, the president and the deans, and theconduct of teaching and research- to the faculty. Theboard should undertake appropriate self-limitation.

One of the governing board's important tasks is to en-sure the publication of codified statements that definethe over-all policies and procedures of the institutionunder its jurisdiction.

The board plays a central role in relating the likelyneeds of the future to predictable resources; it has theresponsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is re-sponsible for obtaining needed capital and operatingfunds; and in the broadest sense of the term it shouldpay attention to personnel policy. In order to fulfill theseduties, the board should be aided by, and may insistupon, the development of long-range planning by theadministration and faculty.

institution by his utterances. Hence he should at all timesbe accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, shouldshow respect for the opinion of others, and should makeevery effort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokes-man."

7,2,11,, %,,,:7"Mwfr,r,171,Y3,',,A,K 1,,,,,,,,tTr.,..1717',,,,,,,X.,-Mi,,17.4q11,0 Aldf., r",

When ignorance or ill-will threatens the institutionor any part of it, the governing board must be avail-able for support. In grave crises it will be expected toserve as a champion. Although the action to be takenby it will usually be on behalf of the president, thefaculty, or the student body, the board should makeclear that the protection it offers to an individual or agroup is, in fact, a fundamental defense of the vestedinterests of society in the educational institution.

IV. The Academic Institution: The President

The president, as the chief executive officer of an in-stitution of higher education, is measured largely by hiscapacity for institutional leadership. He shares responsi-bility for the definition and attainment of goals, foradministrative action, and for operating the communi-cations system which links the components of the aca-demic community. He represents his institution to itsmany publics. His leadership role is supported by dele-gated authority from the board and faculty.

As the chief planning officer of an institution, thepresident has a special obligation to innovate and initiate.The degree to which a president can envision new ho-rizons for his institution, and can persuade others to seethem and to work toward them, will often constitutethe chief measure of his administration.

The president must at times, with or without support,infuse new life into a department; relatedly, he mayat times be required, working within the concept oftenure, to solve problems of obsolescence. The presidentwill necessarily utilize the judgments of the faculty, butin the interest of academic standards he may also seekoutside evaluations by scholars of acknowledged compe-tence.

It is the duty of the president to see to it that thestandards and procedures in operational use within thecollege or university conform to the policy establishedby the governing board and to the standards of soundacademic practice. It is also incumbent on the presidentto insure that faculty views, including dissenting views,are presented to the board in those areas and on thoseissues where responsibilities are shared. Similarly the fac-ulty should be informed of the views of the board andthe administration on like issues.

The president is largely responsible for the main-tenance of existing institutional resources and the crea-tion of new resources; he has ultimate managerial re-sponsibility for a large area of nonacademic activities,he is responsible for public understanding, and by thenature of his office is the chief spokesman of his insti-tution. In these and other areas his work is to plan,to organize, to direct, and to represent. The presidentialfunction should receive the general support of boardand faculty.

V. The Academic Institution: The Faculty

The faculty has primary responsibility for such funda-mental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methodsof instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspectsof student life which relate to the educational process.

On these matters the power of review or final decisionlodged in the governing board or delegated by it to thepresident should be exercised adversely only in excep-tional circumstances, and for reasons communicated tothe faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, follow-ing such communication, have opportunity for furtherconsideration and further transmittal of its views to thepresident or board. Budgets, manpower limitations, thetime element and the policies of other groups, bodiesand agencies having jurisdiction over the institutionmay set limits to realization of faculty advice.

The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offeredin course, determines when the requirements have beenmet, and authorizes the president and board to grantthe degrees thus achieved.

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a facul-ty responsibility; this area includes appointments, re-appointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, thegranting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary respon-sibility of the faculty for such matters is based uponthe fait that its judgment is central to general educa-tional policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular fieldor activity have the chief competence for judging thework of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicitthat responsibility exists for both adverse and favorablejudgments. Likewise there is the more general compe-tence of experienced faculty personnel committees hav-ing a broader charge. Determinations in these mattersshould first be by faculty action through established pro-cedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers withthe concurrence of the board. The governing board andpresident should, on questions of faculty status, as i,other matters where the faculty has primary responsibil-ity, concur with the faculty judgment except in rareinstances and for compelling reasons which should bestated in detail.

The faculty should actively participate in the deter-mination of policies and procedures governing salaryincreases.

The chairman or head of a department, who servesas the chief representative of his department within aninstitution, should be selected either by departmentalelection or by appointment following consultation withmembers of the department and of related departments;appointments should normally be in conformity with de-partment members' judgment. The chairman or depart-ment head should not have tenure in his office; histenure as a faculty member is a matter of separate right.He should serve for a stated term but without prej-udice to re-election or to reappointment by procedureswhich involve appropriate faculty consultation. Board,administration, and faculty should all bear in mind thatthe department chairman has a special obligation tobuild a department strong in scholarship and teachingcapacity.

Agencies for faculty participation in the governmentof the college or university should be established ateach level where faculty responsibility is present. Anagency should exist for the presentation of the viewsof the whole faculty. The structure and procedures forfaculty participation should be designed, approved and

established by joint action of the components of theinstitution, Faculty representatives should be selected bythe faculty according to procedures determined by thefaculty.

The agencies may consist of meetings of all facultymembers of a department, school, college, di ision or uni-versity system, or may take the form of faculty-electedexecutive committees in departments and schools and a

faculty-elected senate or council for larger divisions orthe institution as a whole.

Among the means of communication among the facul-ty, administration, and governing board now in use are:(I) circulation of memoranda and reports by board com-mittees, the administration, and faculty committees, (2)joint ad hoc committees, (3) standing liaison commit-tees, (4) membership of faculty members on adminis.trative bodies, and (5) membership of faculty memberson governing boards, Whatever the channels of com-munication, they should be clearly understood and ob-served.

On Student Status

When students in American colleges and universitiesdesire to participate responsibly in the government ofthe institution they attend, their wish should be recog-nized as a claim to opportunity both for educationalexperience and for involvement in the affairs of theircollege or university. Ways should be found to permit

30

significant student participation within the limits of at-tainable effectiveness. The obstacles to such participa-tion are large and should not be minimized: inexperi-ence, untested capacity, a transitory status which meansthat present action does not carry with it subsequentresponsibility, and the inescapable fact that the othercomponents of the institution are in a position of judg.silent over the students. It is important to recognizethat student needs are strongly related to educationalexperience, both formal and informal. Students expect,and have a right to expect, that the educational processwill be structured, that they will be stimulated by it tobecome independent adults, and that they will have ef-fectively transmitted to them the cultural heritage ofthe larger society. If institutional support is to have itsfullest possible meaning it should incorporate thestrength, freshness of view and idealism of the studentbody.

The respect of students for their college or universitycan be enhanced if they are given at least these oppor-tunities: (1) to be listened to in the classroom withoutfear of institutional reprisal for the substance of theirviews, (2) freedom to discuss questions of institutionalpolicy and operation, (3) the right to academic dueprocess when charged with serious violations of institu-tional regulations, and (4) the same right to hear speak-ers of their own choice as is enjoyed by other com-ponents of the institution.

1968 Standards for Committee T Investigationsin the Area of College and University Government

Committee T on College and University Government, at a meeting in October,1968, approved these standards for investigation,

1. Area of concern. In considering the necessity ordesirability of investigation and report on institutionalsituations involving college or university government, theAssociation looks to the condition of faculty status andof faculty-administration relations. Investigation will beconsidered in situations where it appears likely that cor-porate or individual functions of the faculty have beenseriously impaired or threatened.

2. Exploration of local remedies. Investigation willordinarily be undertaken only after normal avenues forlocal correction have been explored without substantialsuccess. This condition, recognizably, may not operate insituations where local remedies are inadequate or wheretheir use would worsen the situation or expose individualfaculty members to harm.

3. Decision to investigate. The General Secretary,after such consultation as appears to be appropriate, willdetermine whether to authorize an investigation. Hisdecision may result from a request for investigation fromany responsible group of faculty members or may bebased upon evidence otherwise available to the Associa-tion. A request for a Committee T investigation submitted to the General Secretary should present: (a) ageneral description of the situation, (b) specific informa-tion regarding the past or contemplated use of localremedies, and (c) an indication of the nature and extent

of supporting documentary evidence, It should describethe available resources in the faculty for study of thesituation and for local action looking toward improve.men t.

In reaching a determination, the General Secretary willgive weight to the magnitude of the problem both forthe faculty concerned and for the Association as a wholein its capacity as a representative organization for teachersin higher education.

If an investigation is to take place, the General Secre-tary will appoint one or more persons to serve as anad hoc committee.

4. The report. The report of the ad hoc committeewill be submitted to Committee T, and that body willdetermine whether the report should be published in theAAUP Bulletin. Committee T may also wish to advisethe General Secretary as to the dissemination of the re-port, which will ordinarily be sent to the administrationof an institution, to its trustees, to the concerned ac-crediting body, and to other appropriate agencies andgroups, together with the recommendation of Com-mittee T.

5. Committee T will determine whether to proposefurther action to the Council of the Association, eitherconcurrently with the dissemination of the report, or ona subsequent finding by Committee T that its recommen-dations have not been satisfactorily effected.

31

Policy on Representation of

Economic Interests

This statement of policy was approved by Committee 7' On College and Uni-versity Government in January, 1968, (Ind by the Council of the American Asso-ciation of University Professors in April, 1968. The Fifty-fourth Annual Meetingpassed a ?notion stating: "It is the sense of this Illee ling that it concurs in theStatement of Policy on Representation of Economic interests."

The statement constitutes present Association policy and will be subject tofurther review. Comments on it should be addressed to the Association's Wash-

ington office.

Introduction

The American Association of University Professors haslong maintained that faculty members should have aneffective voice in making and carrying out decisionsaffecting the educational and scholarly life of the institu-tion. The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges andUniversities is the latest reaffirmation of this position.It declares that the faculty has a major role to play indetermining the educational and research policies of theinstitution, and should also have an effective voice inappointments, promotions, actions resulting in tenure,and dismissals or nonreappointments. The faculty shouldplay a part in the selection of principal academic officersand the heads or chairmen of departments; it should have

a voice in budgetary decisions relating to teaching andresearch activities. The Association believes that thenature of the academic enterprise is such that the facultyproperly shares in responsibilities which in nonacademicinstitutions might be entirely those of ownership or man-agement.

The Association has further maintained that the goalsof higher education include effective meeting of sucheconomic and professional interests of the faculty as

appropriate salary scales, fringe lymefits, teaching loadsand other conditions of teaching and research. The Com-mittee on the Economic Status of the Profession in mak-

32

ing its first salary grading report in 1959 declared: "Theobjective of the Association's program is to acceleratethe adjustment of salary levels. . . . The basic idea ofthe program is to create additional incentives for govern-ing boards and other friends of institutions of highereducation to make the needed salary adjustments and toprovide the funds required...."

The outstanding colleges and universities of the UnitedStates characteristically afford to their faculty a genuinevoice in all matters of educational policy and academicconcern, and likewise provide adequately for the economicinterests of their teaching and research personnel. Un-fortunately, many institutions, for a variety of reasons,fail to meet these two essential and related needs, aneffective voice and proper compensation. Such failuresdemand correction. Two main kinds of approach havebeen developed: (1) collective bargaining by an exclu-sive bargaining agent, patterned after union procedures inindustry, and (2) professional self-representation by aninternal faculty agency, based upon faculty authority ofthe kind which the Association supports for the handlingof all kinds of faculty interests.

The Association recommends that faculty members, indecisions relating to the protection of their economic in-terests, should participate through structures of self-gov-ernment within the institution, with the faculty partici-

pating either directly or through faculty- elected councilsor senates, As integral parts of the institution, suchcouncils or senates can effectively represent the facultywithout taking on the adversary and sometimes arbitraryattitudes of an outside representative.

Faculties in publicly supported institutions, afterachieving what they can by themselves, will increasinglyneed to join hands with their colleagues on other cam-puses in order to deal with governing and coordinatingboards that have broad jurisdiction, with executive agen-cies, with the legislatures, and with the national govern-ment. For these negotiating and educational functions,strong professional organizations are needed. This Associa-tion, through its national Council and state and regionalconferences, must equip itself for these functions, andthen proceed to discharge its duties to the academicprofession with vigor and wisdom.

Whatever means may be developed for representation,the faculty must have a truly effective voice both in deci-sions affecting its economic interests and in the wider is-sues of educational policy that confront higher education.

Policy Statement

I. Policy on Legislation.A. Legislatures in several states have enacted statutesthat promote collective bargaining by public employees.Other such statutes will probably come into being. Theprotections and remedies that they offer are doubtlessadvantageous for employees who have little or no voicein setting the terms and conditions of their employment.But statutory models of general application may be ill-suited to the situation of the faculty member in highereducation. As stated above, he has, or should have, accessto avenues of self-government and of shared authorityand responsibility. Because of the importance of thesespecial characteristics of the academic community, pro-fessors should be especially concerned to avoid dependenceon external representative agencies that diminish theopportunities of the faculty for self-government.B. The Association will therefore oppose legislation im-posing upon faculty members in higher education theprinciple of exclusive representation derived frommodels of industrial collective bargaining. When legis-lation of this character exists or is proposed, the Associa-tion will rather support measures that will encourageinstitutions of higher education to establish adequate in-ternal structures of faculty participation in the govern-ment of the institution.C. To implement this policy, chapters and conferencesshould be alert to see that either proposed or existinglaws avoid rigid prescriptions of exclusive representation.

1. Any statute authorizing collective bargaining forpublic employees should permit, for faculty membersof colleges and universities, some system of jointrepresentation. In such a system, collective bargain-ing might be conducted by a committee composedof delegates from each of the organizations whichrepresented a substantial number of faculty members

and which were willing to take part in the systemof joint representation.

2. Any such legislation should make it clear that, inhigher education, a faculty-elected council or senateis eligible to represent the faculty, since such aninternal representative can have the requisiteautonomy and independence of the administrationto carry out its functions.

D. Great importance is attached, in the next few years,to having the views of the Association made known tolegislators and incorporated in new or existing statutesbearing on collective bargaining by public employees.Specific guidance to these ends will be offered by theWashington Office, through memoranda on statutorydrafting problems, and advice in particular circumstances.

II. Policy on the Role of a Chapter or other Asso-ciation Agency in Deciding Whether to SeekRepresentative Status.

A. If conditions of effective faculty voice and adequateprotection and promotion of faculty economic interestsare not met, and a faculty is considering representationthrough an outside organization, the Association believesitself, by virtue of its principles, programs, experienceand broad membership, to be well qualified to act asrepresentative of the faculty in institutions of highereducation.B. The initial decision to consider representative status,whether through a chapter or other agency of the Asso-ciation (including a university-wide council of chaptersin a multi-campus institution, or a conference in the caseof a state-wide system), should be made in consultationwith the General Secretary, and should be the result ofjudgment about the following considerations:

1. Is the internal organization of the faculty, and itsshare in the government of the institution, suchthat, with timely and achievable adjustments, afaculty senate or like body could adequately under-take the role of representation? If so, then the chap-ter or other Association agency should strive to seethat the necessary improvements are made, shouldsupport the internal agency of representation, andshould not offer itself as a representative.

2. But the pressure of events and of other claims forrepresentation may make it unfeasible to accom-plish necessary improvements before choices mustbe made. In such circumstances, the chapter or otherAssociation agency may decide, as an interim meas-ure, to offer itself as the faculty's representative.

3. Is the institution itself so new, or its practice offaculty participation so undeveloped, that a periodof some years may be necessary before an effectiveinternal faculty voice is attainable? If this is thejudgment, then the chapter or other Associationagency may decide to offer itself as the faculty'srepresentative.

4. If the judgment is made that the existing structureand practice of institutional government seriouslyimpairs the ability of the faculty to fulfill the pur-

33

poses of the Statement on Government of Collegesand Universities and it appears that there is littleprospect of remedying this situation under existingprocedures, then a conclusion may also be reachedthat a chapter ought to offer itself as the faculty'srepresentative.

C. A practical judgment that must always be made, alsoin consultation with the General Secretary, goes beyondthe evaluation of institutional government. It relates tothe capacity of the chapter or other Association agencyto undertake the task of representation, considering theextent of support from its members, their readiness toaccept a substantial increase in dues to finance' servicesthat may be required, and whether the leadership isready and equipped to devote the necessary time andenergy.

D. A chapter or other Association agency, before itmakes a final decision to seek representative status, shouldagain consult with the General Secretary and considerhis appraisal of the situation. If the final decision is toproceed, it will then take the necessary formal steps topermit it to be voted or designated as having representa-tive status.

III. Policy for a Chapter or Other AssociationAgency Which Achieves Representative Status.

A. When a chapter or other agency of the Associationattains the status of representative of the faculty, whether

exclusive or otherwise, it will, when acting as representa-tive, and in negotiations with the administration andthe governing board, pursue the following objectives:

1. To protect and promote the economic and otherinterests of the faculty as a whole in accordancewith the established principles of the Association.

2. To establish within the institution democratic struc-tures which provide full participation by all facultymembers in accordance with the Statement on Gov-ernment of Colleges and Universities.

3. To obtain explicit guarantees of academic freedomand tenure in accordance with the 1940 Statementof Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards inFaculty Dismissal Proceedings, and other policystatements of the Association.

4. To create an orderly and clearly defined procedurewithin the faculty governmental structure forprompt consideration of problems and grievancesof faculty members, to which procedure any indi-vidual or group shall have full access.

B. No person shall be required to become a member ofor make any financial contribution to the Association asa condition of his enjoying the benefits of representation.C. It is the policy of the Association (with which chap-ters should comply whether or not they are acting in arepresentative capacity) not to call or support a facultystrike or other work stoppage, except in the extraordinarycircumstances suggested in the provisional Statement onFaculty Participation in Strikes, (See following page.)

Faculty Participation in Strikes

This April, 1968, report of the Special Joint Committee on Representation,Bargaining. and Sanctions, includinti the proposed Statement on Faculty Partici-pation in Strihes, was approved for publication by the Council of the AmericanAssociation of University Professors in April, 1968. Comments on the statementshould be addressed to the Association's Washington office.

On December 15, 1965, the administration of St. John'sUniversity (New York) summarily suspended from teach-ing 22 members of the faculty and notified them and IIothers that they would be dismissed at the end of theirthen current contracts. This unprecedented event, pre-ceded by a period of worsening relations between theadministration and parts of the faculty, was followed, onJanuary 3, 1966, by what was probably the first majorfaculty strike against a university administration in theUnited States. The strike did not succeed, in that theuniversity continued to operate, and the dismissed teach-ers were not reinstated)

Less than a year and a half later, the announcementat Catholic University (Washington, D. C.) that a facultymember would not be retained (after he had been recom-mended for promotion) led to a total and almost spon-taneous refusal by students to attend classes and by thefaculty to meet their classes. After four days, the bishopswho composed the governing board of Catholic Univer-sity rescinded the dismissal. Not long after, an actingRector was appointed, who is reported to have said that,had he been a member of the faculty at the time, hewould have joined in the strike (if what happened couldproperly be called a strike).2

In the same two years, 1966-67, there have been, in anumber of institutions, student-led demonstrations whichincluded mass absences from classes. Some faculty mem-bers have cooperated in some of these demonstrations byrefusing to meet their classes. There has been a strikein a large urban institution, the Chicago City College,in which the grounds, unlike those in the St. John's andCatholic University episodes, were primarily economic.

1 AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1966, pp. 12-19; and Summer, 1966,p. 124.

2 New York Times, April 21, 1967; and October 10, 1967.

The faculty thought that they were underpaid and over-worked; in addition, the Cook County College TeachersUnion was seeking recognition as the faculty's bargain-ing agent. It achieved recognition, some gain in facultysalaries, and a reduction in faculty workload.

Along with these dramatic and unsettling events, thelast five years have witnessed a rise of interest in collec-tive representation and bargaining in public institutionsof higher education, stimulated by the passage of legis-lation in major states designated to legitimate collectivebargaining by public employees.3 Where the AmericanFederation of Teachers has been active in organizing fac-ulties, it has had no hesitation in avowing its willingnessto resort to a union's ultimate weapon in economic bar-gaining, the strike.4

The response of one governing board, the Regents ofthe University of California, to a brief strike by Berkeley,chiefly of teaching assistants, was to threaten the possibil-ity of dismissal of any university personnel "who partic-ipate in any strike or otherwise fail to meet their assignedduties in an effort to disrupt the University administra-tion, teaching, or research. . . ." 5

In view of these events and movements, it has becomeimportant if not imperative for the American Associa-tion of University Professors to review its own positionin respect to the professional propriety of a concertedwithholding of faculty services. In blunter parlance, whatis the Association's position on faculty strikes?

The issues were first adumbrated at an Association con-ference on representation of economic interests convened

3 New York, Michigan, Rhode Island.4 Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, April 23, 1966; New York

Times, August 25, 1966.5 University of California, University Bulletin, May 1, 1967,

pp. 157-8.

35

in December, 1964.8 They might have been left to lei-surely debate had it not been for the shocking dismissalsat St. John's, and the subsequent strike call by the Amer-ican Federation of Teachers when efforts at mediation(including those of our Association) had failed,

The Association's leadership was then obliged to reactto the fact, not simply the theory, of a faculty strike.

The Executive Committee, on January 6, 1966, author-ized the General Secretary to release a statement whichmade the following points of general application (theyhave been numbered by this committee for conveniencein reference).

[1.] The American Association of University Professors hasnever looked upon the strike as an appropriate mechanismfor resolving acautmic controversies or violations of aca-demic principles and standards. Regardless of an immediatesituation it is in the best long-run interests of the institu-tion and the academic community to use approaches andprocedures developed by that community to meet its ownobjectives and needs. Accordingly, the Association does notendorse a strike against an academic institution.

After promising a "thorough investigation" of the sum-mary dismissals at St. John's, and support to faculty mem-bers improperly dismissed, the statement went on to say:

[2.] In their role as teachers, faculty members have aprimary responsibility to their students. Accordingly, if astrike is called, the individual faculty member must care-fully weigh this responsibility to his students in reachinghis decision whether or not to respect a picket line setup by his colleagues. In a continuing and flagrant situation,a refusal by individual faculty members to cross picketlines maintained by their colleagues, when their refusal isbased upon personal dictates of conscience and their inti-mate familiarity with the facts, should not be considereda violation of professional ethics.

[3.] Faculty members must, of course, also honor the posi-tion of those of their colleagues who, on the basis of gen-eral professional considerations and their obligations to theirstudents, continue to meet their classes.

[4.] In the same context the Association believes furtherthat it is not a violation of professional responsibility fora faculty member to refuse to teach the classes of a col-league who has been dismissed in violation of acceptedprinciples of academic freedom or tenure.

We call particular attention to the propositions wehave numbered 3 and 4, because we think there can beno question of their correctness. We also believe thatproposition number 2 is a correct statement of the con-flict of loyalties that an individual faculty member mayencounter, if a strike is called. It points the way to anethical resolution, motivated by an informed conscience.

As for the first proposition, its origin in the history of theAssociation is clear enough but has never been formalized.But it doubtless represented dominant sentiment at thetime. It was soon reiterated, although in a different contextand perhaps for different reasons, when the Council, onMay 1, 1966, adopted an interim policy on "the role ofAssociation chapters as exclusive bargaining representa-tives." If, within the circumscribed conditions there setforth, a chapter should become an exclusive representativeof its faculty, the statement declared that "no strike or

AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1965, pp. 374.7.

36

work stoppage will be called or supported by the chapteror its officers."

Both statements, those of January 6 and May 1, werethe product of some urgency and of limited considera-tion. Many members of the Council were not sure thatthey represented the best that could be said on a trouble-some and potentially divisive topic. The Council ac-cordingly adopted a resolution proposed on behalf ofCommittee A, on April 30, 1967, calling on the Presidentto appoint a committee to "report to the Council on thesubject of the implications of the use by professors ofconcerted refusal to perform services as a sanction forobtaining various objectives, and to report on the ap-propriateness of various kinds of administration re-sponses to the use of this sanction by professors."

The committee formed pursuant to this resolution ahad little experience with faculty strikes to draw upon,even taking into account the episodes mentioned at thebeginning of this report. The history and law of strikesin commerce and industry we think have limited ap-plication in view of the premises we hold about thespecial status of our profession.

We have attempted to arrive at a principled position,which would also be a prudent one. We have come tobelieve that we should not adhere to the implication ofthe January 6, 1966, statement that a strike is never "anappropriate mechanism for resolving academic contro-versies or violations of academic principles and standards."But we are acutely aware that there are a variety of un-predictable elements that would enter into, and of in-volved consequences that would flow from, a decision tosupport a faculty strike. We consequently put forwardin generalized and severely limited terms the suggestionthat sometimes a faculty strike may be appropriatealmost because it becomes unavoidable.

The statement of policy that we propose to the Associa-tion has at least the merit of brevity. We therefore intro-duce it at this point, with a modest commentary follow-ing.

7 AAUP Bulletin, Summer, 1966, p. 230.8 AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1967, p. 335.

The Committee consists of the President, the GeneralSecretary, the Chairmen of Committees A, B, REI, T, and Z.President Byse initially gave the Committee a broad charge toconsider questions of representation and bargaining, along within examination of sanctions that might be invoked by andagainst faculty members. This explains the overwhelmingname of the Committee. It became apparent that the Com-mittee should first concentrate on the propriety of strikes byfaculty members. The related problems of policy with respectto collective representation and bargaining, on which theCouncil had taken positions in 1966, were already underre-examination by Committee T and by the Special Committeeon Representation of Economic Interests until it was absorbedinto Committee T in mid-1967. (Professor Clyde Summers,who had been Chairman of the REI Committee, was also amember of Committee T and continued to serve as a memberof the Special Joint Committee.)

Committee T has proposed to the Council a revised state-ment of policy on Representation of Economic Interests. Therecommendations of this Committee are intended to com-plement those of Committee T. [See above, p. 152]

Statement on Faculty Participation in Strikes

The American Association of University Professors isdeeply committed to the proposition that faculty membersin higher education are officers of their colleges and uni-versities. They are not merely employees. They havedirect professional obligations to their students, theircolleagues, and their disciplines. Because of their profes-sional competence, they have primary responsibility forcentral educational decisions; they share in the selectionof presidents and deans; and their judgment should comefirst in the determination of membership in the faculty.Where these principles (which are more fully stated inthe 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Uni-versities) are not accepted in their entirety, the Associa-tion will continue to press for their realization. We be-lieve that these principles of shared authority and re-sponsibility render the strike inappropriate as a mechan-ism for the resolution of most conflicts within highereducation.

But it does not follow from these considerations of self-restraint that professors should be under any legal disabil-ity to withhold their services, except when such restric-tions are imposed equally on other citizens. Furthermore,situations may arise affecting a college or university whichso flagrantly violate academic freedom (of students as

well as of faculty) or the principles of academic gov-ernment, and which are so resistant to rational methodsof discussion, persuasion, and conciliation, that facultymembers may feel impelled to express their condemna-tion by withholding their services, either individually orin concert with others. It should be assumed that facultymembers will exercise their right to strike only if theybelieve that another component of the institution (ora controlling agency of government, such as a legisla-ture or governor) is inflexibly bent on a course whichundermines an essential element of the educationalprocess.

Participation in a strike does not by itself constitutegrounds for dismissal or for other sanctions against facultymembers. Moreover, if dismissal of a faculty member is pro-posed on this, as on any other ground encompassed by the1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure, the proceedings must satisfy the requirements ofthe 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings. The Association will continue toprotect the interests of members of the profession whoare singled out for punishment on grounds which areinadequate or unacceptable, or who are not offered allthe protection demanded by the requisites of due process.

The proposed statement rests on two attributes offaculty membership in higher education that have beenthoroughly expounded,lo and that we consider axiomatic.One is that professors "share in the government of theirinstitutions." The other is that they have "direct pro-fessional obligations to their students, their colleagues,and their disciplines." From these "principles of sharedauthority and responsibility," how do we derive the con-clusion that "the strike [is] inappropriate as a mechanismfor the resolution of most conflicts within higher edu-cation"?

First, a strike usually (but not always) is called againstan employer, in the hope of exerting pressure on himto prevent unwanted events, or to bring about desiredones. The opponent in a faculty strike will usually bethe administration or the governing board or both. Resortto the strike as a regular mechanism for the resolutionof conflicts with administrations or governing boardsimperils the faculty's just claim to partnership in thegovernment of the institution, by implying acceptanceof the status of mere employees. Of course, for somepurposes, faculty members are employees; they are paidsalaries; they have access to a variety of public benefits

io AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1966, pp. 290-1; and Winter,1966, pp. 375-9.

that favor employees. But the employee status should notbe needlessly extended. Employees strike against employ-ers; co-ordinate and interdependent members of a com-munity do not usually strike against each other.

Second, a strike is a witness of failure. Its occurrencemeans that a relationship that should be one of mutualtrust has become an adversary one. A strike, to be sure,will usually be the outcome rather than the cause of abreakdown of communications Lad coaidc,it.c. But itcarries the risk of further hardening of opposed posi-tions, and of creating deeper rifts. A third and relatedconsideration disfavoring the strike is that it constitutesa reliance on concerted power by those who are pre-eminently charged with advancement and instruction inthe uses of reason. Finally, to the extent that a strike isperceived to be in the personal interests of the faculty,it contradicts the dedication of the faculty to the educa-tional interests of the students.

When this, and more, can be said in opposition tofaculty strikes, what supports our conclusion that in somecircumstances such an act may be justified? The answerdepends largely upon the circumstances, and thereforecannot be fully developed in advance of sufficiently provo-cative events.

The second paragraph of the proposed statement em-phasizes flagrant violations of academic freedom, or of

37

nrea.r,

good academic government, or of the integrity of someother essential element of higher education. It calls forthe pursuit to exhaustion of "rational methods of dis-cussion, persuasion and conciliation." But in the end,one must contemplate situations where self-respect de-mands an end to temporizing. No more than anyone elsecan professors be expected to go about their daily dutiesin an atmosphere poisoned by injustice and destructive-ness.

It may be saidand this course was commended forthose who took it in the St. John's casethat the properresponse to an intolerable environment is to resign, effec-tive at the end of the academic term or year. This hasthe marked advantage of not leaving one's studentsstranded. It is a courageous act which forcefully notifiesthe administration, and others, that the faculty memberfinds the situation so bad that he wishes to sever allconnections with the institution. But such a delayedresponse may permit an intolerable situation to becomeinsuperable. A strike is supposed to have a shock effect,and some shocks are salutary. Either cumulative griev-ances, or a precipitate act of tyranny, may be reversibleonly by a demonstration that galvanizes all componentsof the internal and external community. The facultymay find that it has valuable allies if with deliberatespontaneity it takes a bold stand.

The proposed statement, in a parenthesis that is farfrom incidental, also points out that the source of outragemay be a "controlling agency" outside a particular cam-pus. In a time when the autonomy of local faculty andadministration may be impaired by the creation of state-wide boards, and by the endemic intervention of gov-ernors and legislators, any one of these, if heedless ofacademic freedom or of spheres of professional compe-tence, may become the common enemy. The more remotesuch an external force is, the more insensitive it may beto the legitimate claims of a faculty. Thus a legislature,accustomed to direct political confrontations, may some-times be moved only if the faculty confronts it with adramatic defiance.

None of these observations offers specific guidance foraction or inaction. Our experience with actual cases isso slight that we feel unable to respond with any con-fidence to hypothetical ones. We should perhaps commenton a few recurring situations. What about economicissues, when the faculty is thwarted in demands for morepay and less work? Do such rebuffs create an appropriateoccasion for strikes? We suggest not, when it is a matterof a little more, or a little less. Circumstances can beimagined, of gross disparities, of a severe cut in salaryappropriations, of scandalous teaching loads, that mightproperly be characterized as undermining the educationalprocess. But we emphatically reject the industrial patternwhich holds the strike in routine reserve for use whenevereconomic negotiations reach an impasse.

We are of the opinion that a strike is clearly inapprop-riate when it does not have positive educational objec-tives. For example, if a faculty affiliated with a tradeunion struck in support of claims against the institutionof another trade unionfor example of service employees

38

we should consider this inappropriate. Similarly, a striketo dramatize some national or international political posi-tion could not be countenanced by a professional or-ganization like this Association.

We have been speaking so far of the propriety of strikes,not of their legality. Faculty members in public institu-tions, in most of the states, share in the legal constraintsthat rest generally on public employees.11 The notionthat public servants have no "right to strike" is a persist-ent onekept alive by the same Congress and legislaturesthat guarantee this "right" to those in private employ-ment. Even though many recent episodes, includingteachers' strikes, demonstrate that these punitive restric-tions are often ineffective, we do not suggest that facultymembers in higher education should violate the law.

But we do, in the first sentence of the second para-graph of the proposed statement, place the Associationin opposition to such laws. Public servants directly con-cerned with public health and safetythe classic examplesare police and firemenmay have to endure restraints ontheir freedom to refuse their services. While we place alofty value on higher education, we do not believe thatits interruption by a strike affects the public health andsafety. If declarations of national emergency or otheroverriding public policies generally limited freedom towithhold services, we should not ask for nor expect dis-crimination in favor of teachers. But, along with themany other public functionaries whose continuous serv-ices are not vital to the community, teachers in publicinstitutions of higher education should not have theirliberties automatically restricted simply because (to theextent that they are employees) a governmental agencyis their employer.

The third paragraph of the proposed statement dealsbriefly (and, we concede, incompletely) with institutionalsanctions against participation in a faculty strike. Thereminder that due process in all its fullness must beobserved, especially when dismissal for cause of a facultymember is proposed, is unqualified and needs no ampli-fication. But the declaration that participation in a strikeis not "by itself" grounds for administrative penalties orpunishments is indeterminate. It does not say that facultymembers are free to absent themselves from their dutieswithout any fear of painful consequences. Withholdingof services during term time is prima facie a breach ofcontract. It may not be so if the other party to the con

ii A helpful memorandum to the General Secretary by Pro-fessor Robert A. Gorman (Law, University of Pennsylvania) ,"Statutory Responses to Collective Bargaining in Institutionsof Higher Learning" (January, 1968) , observes: "The mostsignificant deviation [for public employment] from the private-employment model is the wide-spread statutory proscriptionupon the right of public employees to engage in a strike orother form of work stoppage. Beyond the mere proscription,and the statement of penalties for its violation, it is not un-common for a statute to provide that no employee organiza-tion may serve as a representative in collective bargainingunless it affirmatively renounces the right to strike and declaresthat it will not assist or participate in any such strike. Theoutlawing of the strike is understood to apply to any con-certed withholding of services by present employees (probablyincluding the solicitation of mass resignations) . . . ." (p. 9)

tract has by his own acts disabled himself from enforcingit. These observations, we recognize, are barely an intro-duction to complicated issues that must be the subjectfor further exploration.

We note with gratification that the seeming threat ofthe University of California Regents' resolution, men-tioned earlier in this report, was moderated when theRegents, speaking through Acting President Wellman,made it clear that the resolution was intended to "identifya particular cause which might make University personnelsubject to dismissal or other' disciplinary action." [Em-phasis supplied.] The Wellman memorandum also statesthat hearings would be provided in accordance withtenure regulations, and that "all relevant circumstancesof individual cases will be considered." 12 We can onlyagree heartily that "all relevant circumstances" shouldbe considered. Once again, we would remind the acad-emic community that a strike is not a carefree holiday; itis a hostile act leading to possible reprisals. As in war,even victory may be attended by casualties.

Indeed, we might have hesitated to move as far as wehave in the proposed statement in the face of a con-trary tradition within our own Association, and in viewof all the risks and uncertainties that we have tried tosuggest, if we had not found support in an inquiry al-most parallel to ours. An able task force (composedentirely of professors) of the American Association forHigher Education, recently spoke as follows:

We conclude that there are no decisive reasons why thefaculty should be denied the opportunity to strike, interms of either society's essential needs or the long-run in-terests of the institution. Most faculty members will resistthe tendency to strike because use of this weapon seemsinconsistent with their view of themselves as members ofa profession committed to reason. We share this hesitancyto endorse strikes, but we do not automatically reproacha faculty which feels compelled to take this step as a lastresort when other methods have been exhausted. If theadministration has denied the faculty the right to partici-pate effectively in campus decision-making, then it mustaccept a major share of the responsibility when a strikeensues. 13

12 University of California, University Bulletin, September 13 Faculty Participation in University Governance, AAHE,25, 1967, p. 48. 1967, p. 52. See p. v for the membership of the Task Force.

39

Statement on Professional Ethics(Endorsed by the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting)

IntroductionFrom its inception, the American Association of Uni-

versity Professors has recognized that membership in theacademic profession carries with it special responsibili-ties. The Association has consistently affirmed these re-sponsibilities in major policy statements, providing guid-ance to the professor in his utterances as a citizen, inthe exercise of his responsibilities to students, and inhis conduct when resigning from his institution or whenundertaking government-sponsored research.1 The State-ment on Professional Ethics that follows, necessarily pre-sented in terms of the ideal, sets forth those generalstandards that serve as a reminder of the variety ofobligations assumed by all members of the profession.For the purpose of more detailed guidance, the Asso-ciation, through its Committee B on Professional Ethics,intends to issue from time to time supplemental state-ments on specific problems.

In the enforcement of ethical standards, the academicprofession differs from those of law and medicine, whoseassociations act to assure the integrity of members en-gaged in private practice. In the academic professionthe individual institution of higher learning providesthis assurance and so should normally handle questionsconcerning propriety of conduct within its own frame-work by reference to a faculty group. The Associationsupports such local action and stands ready, through theGeneral Secretary and Committee B, to counsel withany faculty member or administrator concerning ques-tions of professional ethics and to inquire into com-plants when local consideration is impossible or in-appropriate. If the alleged offense is deemed sufficientlyserious to raise the possibility of dismissal, the proceduresshould be in accordance with the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1958Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty DismissalProceedings.

The Statement

I. The professor, guided by a deep conviction of theworth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge,recognizes the special responsibilities placed upon him.

1 1964 Committee A Statement on Extra-Mural Utterances(Clarification of sec. lc of the 1940 Statement of Princi-ples on Academic Freedom and Tenure)

1968 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students1961 Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty

Members1964 On Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Government-

Sponsored Research1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities

40

His primary responsibility to his subject is to seek and tostate the truth as he sees it. To this end he devotes hisenergies to developing and improving his scholarly com-petence. He accepts the obligation to exercise criticalself-discipline and judgment in using, extending, andtransmitting knowledge. He practices intellectual honesty.Although he may follow subsidiary interests, these interestsmust never seriously hamper or compromise his freedomof inquiry.

II. As a teacher, the professor encourages the freepursuit of learning in his students. He holds before themthe best scholarly standards of his discipline. He demon-strates respect for the student as an individual, andadheres to his proper role as intellectual guide andcounselor. He makes every reasonable effort to fosterhonest academic conduct and to assure that his evaluationof students reflects their true merit. He respects the con-fidential nature of the relationship between professor andstudent. He avoids any exploitation of students for hisprivate advantage and acknowledges significant assistancefrom them. He protects their academic freedom.

III. As a colleague, the professor has obligations thatderive from common membership in the community ofscholars. He respects and defends the free inquiry of hisassociates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas he showsdue respect for the opinions of others. He acknowledgeshis academic debts and strives to be objective in his pro-fessional judgment of colleagues. He accepts his share offaculty responsibilities for the governance of his institu-tion.

IV. As a member of his institution, the professor seeksabove all to be an effective teacher and scholar. Althoughhe observes the stated regulations of the institution,provided they do not contravene academic freedom, hemaintains his right to criticize and seek revision. He deter-mines the amount and character of the work he doesoutside his institution with due regard to his paramountresponsibilities within it. When considering the interrup-tion or termination of his service, he recognizes the effectof his decision upon the program of the institution andgives due notice of his intentions.

V. As a member of his community, the professor hasthe rights and obligations of any citizen. He measuresthe urgency of these obligations in the light of his re-sponsibilities to his subject, to his students, to his pro-fession, and to his institution. When he speaks or actsas a private person he avoids creating the impressionthat he speaks or acts for his college or university. Asa citizen engage.' :al a profession that depends upon free-dom for its health and integrity, the professor has aparticular obligation to promote conditions of free in-quiry and to further public understanding of academicfreedom.

Statement on Recruitment andResignation of Faculty Members

The Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members, reprintedbelow, was adopted by the Association of American Colleges in January, 1961,with the following reservations as set forth in a preamble prepared by thatAssociation's Commission on Academic Freedom and Tenure:

1. No set of principles adopted by the Association can do more than suggestand recommend a course of action. Consequently, the present statement in no wayinterferes with institutional sovereignty.

2. The Commission realizes that the diversity of practice and control that existsamong institutions of higher learning precludes any set of standards from beinguniversally applicable to every situation.

3. The statement is concerned only with minimum standards and in no wayseeks to create a norm for institutions at which "better" practices already are inforce.

4. The Commission recognizes the fact that "emergency" situations will ariseand will have to be dealt with. However, it urges both administration and facultyto do so in ways that will not go counter to the spirit of cooperation, good faithand responsibility that the statement is seeking to promote.

5. The Commission believes that the spirit embodied in the proposed statementis its most important aspect.

In view of these reservations, the Council of the American Association ofUniversity Professors, in April, 1961, .voted approval of the Statement withoutadopting it as a binding obligation. Endorsement of the Statement in this formwas voted by the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting.

THE STATEMENTMobility of faculty members among colleges and uni-

versities is rightly recognized as desirable in AmeriCanhigher education. Yet the departure of a faculty memberalways requires changes within his institution, and mayentail major adjustments on the part of his colleagues, theadministration, and students in his field. Ordinarily atemporary or permanent successor must be found and ap-pointed to either his position or the position of a col-league who is promoted to replace him.

In a period of expansion of higher education, such asthat already existing and promising to be even more in-tensified as a pattern for the coming years, adjustmentsare required more frequently as the number of positionsand of transfers among institutions increases. These be-come more difficult than at other times, especially in thehigher academic ranks. Clear standards of practice in the

recruitment and in the resignations of members of existingfaculties should contribute to an orderly interchange ofpersonnel that will be in the interest of all.

The standards set forth below are recommended to ad-ministrations and faculties, in the belief that they aresound and should be generally followed. They are pred-icated on the assumption that proper provision has beenmade by employing institutions for timely notice to pro-bationary faculty members and those on term appoint-ments, with respect to their subsequent status. In additionto observing applicable requirements for notice of termi-nation to probationary faculty members, institutions shouldmake provision for notice to all faculty members not laterthan March 15 of each year of their status the followingfall, including rank and (unless unavoidable budget pro-cedures beyond the institution forbid) prospective salary.

1. Negotiations looking to the possible appointment

for the following fall of persons who are already facultymembers of other institutions, in active service or onleaveof.absence and not on terminal appointment, shouldbe begun and completed as early as possible in the aca.demic year. It is desirable that, when feasible, the facultymember who has been approached with regard to anotherposition inform the appropriate officers of his institutionwhen such negotiations are in progress. The conclusion ofa binding agreement for the faculty member to accept anappointment elsewhere should always be followed byprompt notice to his institution.

2. A faculty member should not resign in order toaccept other employment as of the end of the academicyear, later than May 15 or 30 days after receivingnotification of the terms of his continued employment thefollowing year, whichever date occurs later. It is recog-nized, however, that this obligation will be in effect onlyif institutions generally observe the time factor set forthin the following paragraph for new offers, It is also rec-ognized that emergencies will occur. In such an emer-gency the faculty member may ask the appropriate officials

42

of his institution to waive this requirement; but he shouldconform to their decision.

3. To permit a faculty member to give due considera-tion and timely notice to his institution in the circum-stances defined in paragraph 1 of these standards, an offerof appointment for the following fall at another institu.tion should not be made after May 1. The offer should bea "firm" one, not subject to contingencies.

4. Institutions deprived of the services of faculty mem.bers too late in the academic year to permit their replace-ment by securing the members of other faculties in con.formity to these standards, and institutions otherwise pre.vented from taking timely action to recruit from otherfaculties, should accept the necessity of making tempo.rary arrangements or obtaining personnel from othersources, including new entrants to the academic profes.sion and faculty personnel who have retired.

5. Except by agreement with his institution, a facultymember should not leave or be solicited to leave his posi-tion during an academic year for which he holds an ap-pointment.

A Report from Committee BLate Resignation and Professional Ethics

When Committee B on Professional Ethics prevented the Statement on Profes-sional Ethics to the Association's membership for adoption in 1966, it indicatedintention of issuing occasional reports on specific problems. In accordance withthat plan, the Committee has authorized the publication of this report on its cur-rent policies and procedures, particularly as they relate to the issue of late resig-nations.

Of the many problems with respect to professionalethics which have been called to the attention of the Asso-ciation's Washington Office, the most consistent one hasbeen that of late resignations and a failure on a facultymember's part to give clue notice of resignation as definedin the Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Fac-ulty Members, endorsed as Association policy in 1961 atthe Forty-seventh Annual Meeting. Over the past fiveyears, an average of about seven situations per year involv-ing questions of late resignation have been reported to theAssociation. There has been a significant increase, sincethe adoption of the Statement on Professional Ethics, incommunications from faculty members seeking adviceprior to making decisions on whether to resign at a latedate. There has also been an increasing number of in-stances in which persons raising questions in the area oflate resignations have offered the Association specific evi-dence relating to their positions and have sought specificAssociation action.

The Statement on Professional Ethics provides that"When considering the interruption or termination of hisservice, he [the teacher] recognizes the effect of his deci-sion upon the program of the institution and gives duenotice of his intentions." The Statement on Recruitmentand Resignation of Faculty Members defines due notice as"no later than May 15 or 30 days after receiving notifica-tion of the terms of his continued employment thefollowing year, whichever date occurs later." It recognizesthat emergencies may occur, in which case "the facultymember may ask the appropriate officials of his institu-tion to waive this requirement; but he should conform totheir decision [emphasis added]."

Committee B considers the reasonableness of promptnotice of resignation self-evident and widely recognized inthe profession. It takes the need for appropriate noticemost seriously. An Association which urges that facultymembers be given ample notice by a university adminis-tration when their services are terminated must also makeevery appropriate effort to persuade faculty members togive due notice when they initiate a termination.

A faculty member who has committed his services toone academic institution and then accepts a position atanother is often responding to a late offer of appointmentby the other institution. The situation may be analogousto one involving a bribe; it is unethical to accept it, butequally so to offer it. The Statement on Recruitment andResignation of Faculty Members, authored jointly by theAmerican Association of University Professors and the As-sociation of American Colleges, indicates that facultymembers can be considered obligated to give due notice"only if institutions generally observe the time factor . . .

for new offers" defined as follows: "To permit a facultymember to give due consideration and timely notice to hisinstitution in the circumstances defined in . . . thesestandards, an offer of appointment for the following fallat another institution should not be made after May 1."Committee B regards the honoring of faculty commit-ments as being in frequent cases a joint responsibility offaculty members and appointing institutions. It intends toinclude consideration of the party or parties making lateoffers in its inquiries into instances of late resignation(see Statement 5 tnzder "Policies and Procedures" below) -

Committee B views the making of charges againstnamed persons in letters directed to the Association as aserious matter. It expects, therefore, that any party mak-ing such charges will prove willing to support them bysupplying evidence as requested by Committee B, so thatresponsible inquiries can be made.

Policies and. Procedures of Committee B withrespect to the Association's Statement on

Professional Ethics

I. Committee. B reaffirms its position stated in the Intro-duction to the Statement on Professional Ethics, thatquestions involving propriety of conduct should normallybe handled within the framework of individual institu-tions by reference to a faculty group. The primaryfunction of such faculty activity should be educative, toinform faculty, students, and administrators about princi-ples of professional ethics and to encourage their observ-

43

ance. The Association, through the General Secretary andCommittee B, stands ready to counsel in matters relatingto such faculty function or to particular questions of pro-fessional ethics. In a breach of professional ethics deemedserious enough for the possibility of dismissal to be con-templated, the procedures followed by the institutionshould be in accord with the 1940 Statement of Principleson Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1958 State-ment on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Pro-ceedings,

2. The Committee does not recommend or' envisagepublic Association censure of an individual member ofthe academic community because of a breach of ethics. Inthe area of professional ethics, where censure would nor-mally be against an individual, it is difficult to conceive ofprocedures for the adequate redress of wrong and assur-ance of effective removal of such censure.

3. Committee B is continuing its interest in specificcases of professional ethics which do not lend themselves

44

to resolution within the confines of the college or uni-versity where they occur,

4. In inquiring into complaints involving cases of latenotice of resignation, the Committee attempts to securefull information from the parties primarily concerned, in-cluding persons making offers leading to late resignations.To the extent appropriate, the Committee communicatesits views to the principal parties directly involved.

5. The Committee continues to see its own primaryfunction as educative. It is manifestly the Committee ofthe Association which speaks to the individual responsibil-ity of the members of the profession. An Association ofover 90,000 members devoted to high standards of profes-sional excellence need show no uneasiness over such acommittee's role or voice, nor need administrations orgoverning boards find in its presence any reason to abro-gate proper standards and principles of academic freedomand tenure, procedural due process, or a faculty's role ininstitutional government.

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms

of Students

In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from the

American Association of University Professors, U. S. National Student Association,

Association of American Colleges, National Association of Student PersonnelAdministrators, and National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, met inWashington, D.C., and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of

Students published below.

Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each of itsfive national sponsors, as well as by a number of other professional bodies.

Preamble

Academic institutions exist for the transmission ofknowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of stu-dents, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiryand free expression are indispensable to the attainmentof these goals. As members of the academic community,students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for

critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and inde-pendent search for truth. Institutional procedures forachieving these purposes may vary from campus to cam-pus, but the minimal standards of academic freedom ofstudents outlined below are essential to any communityof scholars.

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable

facets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn de-pends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions inthe classroom, on the campus, and in the larger commu-nity. Students should exercise their freedom with responsi-

bility.The responsibility to secure and to respect general con-

ditions conducive to the freedom to learn is shared by all

members of the academic community. Each college anduniversity has a duty to develop policies and procedureswhich provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policiesand procedures should be developed at each institutionwithin the framework of general standards and with the

broadest possible participation of the members of the aca-demic community. The purpose of this statement is toenumerate the essential provisions for student freedom tolearn.

I. Freedom of Access to Higher Education

The admissions policies of each college and university

are a matter of institutional choice provided that eachcollege and university makes clear the characteristics andexpectations of students which it considers relevant tosuccess in the institution's program. While church-relatedinstitutions may give admission preference to students oftheir own persuasion, such a preference should be clearlyand publicly stated. Under no circumstances should astudent be barred from admission to a particular institu-tion on the basis of race. Thus, within the limits of itsfacilities, each college and university should be open toall students who are qualified according to its admissionstandards. The facilities and services of a college shouldbe open to all of its enrolled students, and institutionsshould use their influence to secure equal access for allstudents to public facilities in the local community.

II. In the Classroom

The professor in the classroom and in conferenceshould encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression.

45

Student performance should be evaluated solely on anacademic basis, not on opinions or conduct in mattersunrelated to academic standards.

A. Protection of Freedom of ExpressionStudents should be free to take reasoned exception to

the data or views offered in any course of study and toreserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they areresponsible for learning the content of any course of studyfor which they are enrolled.

B. Protection against Improper Academic EvaluationStudents should have protection through orderly proce-

dures against prejudiced or capricious academic evalua-tion. At the same time, they are responsible for maintain-ing standards of academic performance established foreach course in which they are enrolled.

C. Protection against Improper Disclosure

Information about student views, beliefs, and politicalassociations which professors acquire in the course oftheir work as instructors, advisers, and counselors shouldbe considered confidential. Protection against improperdisclosure is a serious professional obligation. Judgmentsof ability and character may be provided under appropri-ate circumstances, normally with the knowledge or consent of the student.

III. Student RecordsInstitutions should have a carefully considered policy as

to the information which should be part of a student'spermanent educational record and as to the conditions ofits disclosure. To minimize the risk of improper disclo-sure, academic and disciplinary records should be sepa-rate, and the conditions of access to each should be setforth in an explicit policy statement. Transcripts of aca-demic records should contain only information about aca-demic status. Information from disciplinary or counselingfiles should not be available to unauthorized persons oncampus, or to any person off campus without the expressconsent of the student involved except under legal com-pulsion or in cases where the safety of persons or prop-erty is involved. No records should be kept which reflectthe political activities or beliefs of students. Provisionsshould also be made for periodic routine destruction ofnoncurrent disciplinary records. Administrative staff andfaculty members should respect confidential informationabout students which they acquire in the course of theirwork.

IV. Student Affairs

In student affairs, certain standards must be maintainedif the freedom of students is to be preserved.

A. Freedom of Association

Students bring to the campus a variety of interests pre-viously acquired and develop many new interests asmembers of the academic community. They should befree to organize and join associations to promote theircommon interests.

46

The membership, policies, and actions of a studentorganization usually will be determined by vote of onlythose persons who hold bona fide membership in the col-lege or university community.

2. Affiliation with an extramural organization shouldnot of itself disqualify a student organization from insti-tutional recognition.

3. If campus advisers are required, each organizationshould be free to choose its own adviser, and institutionalrecognition should not be withheld or withdrawn solelybecause of the inability of a student organization to se-cure an adviser. Campus advisers may advise organizationsin the exercise of responsibility, but they should not havethe authority to control the policy of such organizations.

4. Student anizations may be required to submit astatement of purpose, criteria for membership, rules ofprocedures, and a current list of officers. They should notbe required to submit a membership list as a condition ofinstitutional recognition.

5. Campus organizations, including those affiliated withan extramural organization, should be open to all studentswithout respect to race, creed, or national origin, exceptfor religious qualifications which may be required byorganizations whose aims are primarily sectarian.

B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression1. Students and student organization should be free to

examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, andto express opinions publicly and privately. They shouldalways be free to support causes by orderly means whichdo not disrupt the regular and essential operation of theinstitution. At the same time, it should be made clear tothe academic and the larger community that in their pub-lic expressions or demonstrations students or student or-ganizations speak only for themselves.

2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hearany person of their own choosing. Those routine proce-dures required by an institution before a guest speaker isinvited to appear on campus should be designed only toinsure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities andadequate preparation for the event, aril that the occasionis conducted in a manner appropriate to an academiccommunity. The institutional control of campus facilitiesshould not be used as a device of censorship. It should bemade clear to the academic and large community thatsponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily implyapproval or endorsement of the views expressed, either bythe sponsoring group or the institution.

C. Student Participation in Institutional GovernmentAs constituents of the academic community, students

should be free, individually and collectively, to expresstheir views on issues of institutional policy and on mat-ters of general interest to the student body. The studentbody should have clearly defined means to participate inthe formulation and application of institutional policyaffecting academic and student affairs. The role of thestudent government and both its general and specific re-sponsibilities should be made explicit, and the actions ofthe student government within the areas of its jurisdic-

Lion should be reviewed only through orderly and pre-scribed procedures.

D. Student PublicationsStudent publications and the student press are a valua-

ble aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere offree and responsible discussion and of intellectual ex-ploration on the campus. They are a means of bringingstudent concerns to the attention of the faculty and theinstitutional authorities and of formulating student opin-ion on various issues on the campus and in the world atlarge.

Whenever possible the student newspaper should be anindependent corporation financially and legally separatefrom the university. Where financial and legal autonomyis not possible, the institution, as the publisher of studentpublications, may have to bear the legal responsibility forthe contents of the publications. In the delegation of edi-torial responsibility to students the institution must pro-vide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomyfor the student publications to maintain their integrity ofpurpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expressionin an academic community.

Institutional authorities, in consultation with studentsand faculty, have a responsibility to provide writtenclarification of the role of the student publications, thestandards to be used in their evaluation, and the limita-tions on external control of their operation. At the sametime, the editorial freedom of student editors and man-agers entails corollary responsibilities to be governed bythe canons of responsible journalism, such as the avoid-ance of libel, indecency, undocumented allegations, at-tacks on personal integrity, and the techniques of harass.ment and innuendo. As safeguards for the editorialfreedom of student publications the following provisionsare necessary.

1. The student press should be free of censorship andadvance approval of copy, and its editors and managersshould be free to develop their own editorial policies andnews coverage.

2. Editors and managers of student publications shouldbe protected from arbitrary suspension and removal be-cause of student, faculty, administrative, or public disap-proval of editorial policy or content. Only for proper andstated causes should editors and managers be subject toremoval and then by orderly and prescribed procedures.The agency responsible for the appointment of editorsand managers should be the agency responsible for theirremoval.

3. All university published and financed student publi-cations should explicitly state on the editorial page thatthe opinions there expressed are not necessarily those ofthe college, university, or student body.

V. Off-Campus Freedom of Students

A. Exercise of Rights of CitizenshipCollege and university students are both citizens and

members of the academic community. As citizens, studentsshould enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assem-

bly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, asmembers of the academic community, they are subject tothe obligations which accrue to them by virtue of thismembership. Faculty members and administrative officialsshould insure that institutional powers are not employedto inhibit such intellectual and personal development ofstudents as is often promoted by their exercise of therights of citizenship both on and off campus.

B. Institutional Authority and Civil PenaltiesActivities of students may upon occasion result in viola-

tion of law. In such cases, institutional officials should beprepared to apprise students of sources of legal counseland may offer other assistance. Students who violate thelaw may incur penalties prescribed by civil authorities,but institutional authority should never be used merelyto duplicate the function of general laws. Only where theinstitution's interests as an academic community are dis-tinct and clearly involved should the special authority ofthe institution be asserted. The student who incidentallyviolates institutional regulations in the course of his off-campus activity, such as those relating to class attendance,should be subject to no greater penalty than would nor-mally be imposed. Institutional action should be inde-pendent of community pressure.

VI. Procedural Standards in DisciplinaryProceedings

In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinaryproceedings play a role substantially secondary to exam-ple, counseling, guidance, and admonition. At the sametime, educational institutions have a duty and the corol-lary disciplinary powers to protect their educational pur-pose through the setting of standards of scholarship andconduct for the students who attend them and throughthe regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In theexceptional circumstances when the preferred means fail

to resolve problems of student conduct, proper proceduralsafeguards should be observed to protect the student fromthe unfair imposition of serious penalties.

The administration of discipline should guaranteeprocedural fairness to an accused student. Practices indisciplinary cases may vary in formality with the gravityof the offense and the sanctions which may be applied.They should also take into account the presence or ab-sence of an honor code, and the degree to which theinstitutional officials have direct acquaintance with stu-dent life in general and with the involved student andthe circumstances of the case in particular. The jurisdic-tions of faculty or student judicial bodies, the disciplinaryresponsibilities of institutional officials and the regulardisciplinary procedures, including the student's right toappeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and com-municated in advance. Minor penalties may be assessedinformally under prescribed procedures.

In all situations, procedural fair play requires that thestudent be informed of the nature of the charges againsthim, that he be given a fair opportunity to refute them,that the institution not be arbitrary in its actions, andthat there be provision for appeal of a decision. The

47

following are recommended as proper safeguards in such

proceedings when there are no honor codes offering

comparable guarantees.

A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Students

The institution has an obligation to clarify those stand-ards of behavior which it considers essential to its educa-tional mission and its community life. These generalbehavioral expectations and the resultant specific regu-lations should represent a reasonable regulation ofstudent conduct, but the student should be as free as pos-sible from imposed limitations that have no direct rele-vance to his education. Offenses should be as clearlydefined as possible and interpreted in a manner consist-ent with the aforementioned principles of relevancy andreasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be insti-tuted only for violations of standards of conduct formu-lated with significant student participation and publishedin advance through such means as a student handbook ora generally available body of institutional regulations.

B. Investigation of Student Conduct

1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances,premises occupied by students and the personal posses-sions of students should not be searched unless appropri-ate authorization has been obtained. For premises such asresidence halls controlled by the institution, an appropri-ate and responsible authority should be designated towhom application should be made before a search is con-ducted. The application should specify the reasons forthe search and the objects or information sought. Thestudent should be present, if possible, during the search.For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordi-nary requirements for lawful search should be followed.

2. Students detected or arrested in the course of seriousviolations of institutional regulations, or infractions ofordinary law, should be informed of their rights. No formof harassment should be used by institutional repre-sentatives to coerce admissions of guilt or informationabout conduct of other sufpected persons.

C. Status of Student Pending Final Action

Pending action on the charges, the status of a studentshould not be altered, or his right to be present on thecampus and to attend classes suspended, except for rea-sons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well-

48

being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-beingof students, faculty, or university property.

D. Hearing Committee Procedures

When the misconduct may result in serious penaltiesand if the student questions the fairness of disciplinaryaction taken against him, he should be granted, on re-quest, the privilege of a hearing before a regularly consti-tuted hearing committee. The following suggested hear-ing committee procedures satisfy the requirements ofprocedural due process in situations requiring a highdegree of formality.

1. The hearing committee should include faculty mem-bers or students, or, if regularly included or requestedby the accused, both faculty and student members. Nomember of the hearing committee who is otherwise inter-ested in the particular case should sit in judgment duringthe proceeding.

2. The student should be informed, in writing, ofthe reasons for the proposed disciplinary action withsufficient particularity, and in sufficient time, to insureopportunity to prepare for the hearing.

3. The student appearing before the hearing commit-tee should have the right to be assisted in his defense byan adviser of his choice.

4. The burden of proof should rest upon the officialsbringing the charge.

5. The student should be given an opportunity to tes-tify and to present evidence and witnesses. He shouldhave an opportunity to hear and question adverse wit-nesses. In no case should the committee consider state-ments against him unless he has been advised of theircontent and of the names of those who made them, andunless he has been given an opportunity to rebut un-favorable inferences which might otherwise be drawn.

6. All matters upon which the decision may be basedmust be introduced into evidence at the proceeding be-fore the hearing committee. The decision should be basedsolely upon such matters. Improperly acquired evidenceshould not be admitted.

7. In the absence of a transcript, there should be botha digest and a verbatim record, such as a tape recording,of the hearing.

8. The decision of the hearing committee should befinal, subject only to the student's right of appeal to thepresident or ultimately to the governing board of theinstitution.

The Role of the Faculty in the Accreditingof Colleges and Universities

The Statement which follows was prepared by the Association's Committee Don Accrediting of Colleges and Universities. It was approved by the Council ofthe American Association of University Professors in April, 1968, and endorsedby the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

Institutional evaluation is a joint enterprise between in-stitutions of higher education and the accrediting commis-sions of regional associations. For their most effective workthe accrediting commissions require the cooperative effortof qualified faculty members and administrators, whoshould be encouraged by their colleges and universitiesto participate in the work of the commissions. Within acollege or university, the nature of the accrediting processrequires common enterprise among the faculty, theadministration, and to some extent the governing board.The appraisal of the academic program should belargely the responsibility of faculty members. They shouldplay a major role in the evaluation of the curriculum, thelibrary, teaching loads and conditions, research, profes-sional activities, laboratories and other academic facilities,and faculty welfare and compensation, all in relation tothe institution's objectives and in the light of its financialresources. To higher education generally, faculty membersmay exercise a special responsibility as the segment of theeducational community which is in the best position torecognize and appraise circumstances affecting academicfreedom, faculty tenure, faculty role in institutionalgovernment, and faculty status and morale. This statementpresents standards for the expression of faculty interestand responsibility in the accreditation process.

Recommended Standards for Institutionsof Higher Education

1. Primary responsibility for the preparation of the aca-demic aspects of the self-evaluation should rest with acommittee composed largely of faculty members and re-sponsible to the faculty as a whole. Additions or deletionsshould be made only after consultation with the authorsof the sections of the report which are affected.

2. The self-evaluation should include a description of:a. Conditions of academic freedom and tenure (in-

cluding provisions for due process);b. Conditions of faculty participation in institu-

tional government (including provisions for theorderly handling of grievances and disputes);

c. Faculty status and morale (including workingconditions and total compensation).

Significant differences of opinion in these and otherareas should be reflected in the self-evaluation.

3. The completed self-evaluation should be made avail-able to the entire faculty prior to its submission to theaccrediting commission and should be subject to amend-ment in the light of faculty suggestions.

.1. Representative faculty, including members of appro-priate faculty committees, should be available to meet withthe visiting committee to discuss questions of faculty con-cern.

5. The report of the visiting committee should bemade available to the entire faculty.

6. The faculty should be fully informed of the ac-crediting commission's action after an evaluation andshould be kept abreast of all significant developments andissues arising between the accrediting commission and theinstitution. It should participate, as in the self-evaluation,in any subsequent activities regarding the institution'saccreditation.

Recommended Standards for theRegional Accrediting Commissions

1. Regular visiting committees should include full-timeteaching or research faculty members.

2. A formally adopted institutional policy on academicfreedom and tenure, consistent with the major provisions

of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure, should be a condition for accreditation.

3. Reports by regular visiting committees should takeexplicit account of:

a. Conditions of academic freedom and tenure (in-chlding provisions for due process);

b. Conditions of faculty participation in institu-tional government (including provisions for theorderly handling of grievances and disputes);

c. Faculty status and morale (including workingconditions and total compensation).

The reports should describe any significant shortcomingsin these areas.

4. When significant shortcomings in the areas listedabove have been found, the commissions should deal withthese as with similar shortcomings in other areas, endeav-oring to secure improvement and applying appropriatesanctions in the absence of improvement within a reason-able time.

5. A gross violation of academic freedom, tenure, or dueprocess should, unless promptly corrected, lead to actionlooking towards withdrawal of accreditation.

On Preventing Conflicts of Interest inGovernment-Sponsored Research at Universities

.The many complex problems that have developed in connection with the ex-tensive sponsored research programs of the federal government have been ofgrowing concern to the government. the academic community, and private industry.Much of this concern has been based upon the interrelationship of the numerousindividual commitments that develop in an annual program now well over abillion dollars and the many conflicts of interest possible as a result. The Asso-ciation, through its Council, and Site American Council on Education, working incooperation with the President's Science Advisor and Site Federal Council ofScience and Technology. have developed a statement of principles formulatingbasic standards and guidelines in this problem area.

An underlying premise of the statement is that responsibility for determiningstandards affecting the academic community rests with that community, and thatconflict of interest problems are best handled by administration and faculty in co-operative effort. In addition to providing guidelines. the statement seeks toidentify and alert administration and faculty to the types of situations that haveproved troublesome. Throughout, it seeks to protect the integrity of the objec-tives and needs of the cooperating institutions and their faculties, as well as ofsponsoring agencies.

The increasingly necessary and complex relationshipsamong universities. Government, and industry call formore intensive attention to standards of procedure andconduct in Government-sponsored research. The clarifica-tion and application of such standards must be designedto serve the purposes and needs of the projects and thepublic interest involved in them and to protect the in-tegrity of the cooperating institutions as agencies ofhigher education.

The Government and institutions of higher education,as the contracting parties, have an obligation to see thatadequate standards and procedures are developed andapplied; to inform one another of their respective re-quirements; and to assure that all individuals partici-pating in their respective behalfs are informed of andapply the standards and procedures that are so developed.

Consulting relationships between university staff mem-bers and industry serve the interests of research and edu-cation in the university. Likewise, the transfer of techni-cal knowledge and skill from the university to industrycontributes to technological advance. Such relationshipsare desirable, but certain potential hazards should berecognized.

A. Conflict Situations1. Favoring of outside interests. When a. university staff

member (administrator, faculty member, professional

staff member, or employee) undertaking or engaging inGovernment-sponsored work has a significant financialinterest in, or a consulting arangement with, a privatebusiness concern, it is important to avoid actual or ap-parent conflicts of interest between his Government-sponsored university research obligations and his out-side interests and other obligations. Situations in orfrom which conflicts of interest may arise are the:

a. Undertaking or orientation of the staff member'suniversity research to serve the research or other needsof the private firm without disclosure of such undertakingor orientation to the university and to the sponsoringagency;

b. Purchase of major equipment, instruments, ma-terials, or other items for university research from theprivate firm in which the staff member has the interestwithout disclosure of such interest;

c. Transmission to the private firm or other use forpersonal gain of Government-sponsored work products,results, materials, records, or information that are notmade generally available. (This would not necessarilypreclude appropriate licensing arrangements for inven-tions, or consulting on the basis of Government-sponsoredresearch results where there is significant additional workby the staff member independent of his Government-sponsored research) ;

a. Use for personal gain or other unauthorized use ofprivileged information acquired in connection with thestaff member's Government-sponsored activities. (Theterm "privileged information" includes, but is not limitedto, medical, personnel, or security records of individuals;anticipated material requirements or price actions; pos-sible new sites for Government operations; and knowl-edge of forthcoming programs or of selection of con-tractors or subcontractors in advance of official announcemen ts) ;

e. Negotiation or influence upon the negotiation ofcontracts relating to the staff member's Government-sponsored research between the university and private or-ganizations with which he has consulting or other sig-nificant relationships;

f. Acceptance of gratuities or special favors from pri-vate organizations with which the university does or mayconduct business in connection with a Governmentspon-sored research project, or extension of gratuities or spe-cial favors to employees of the sponsoring Governmentagency, under circumstances which might reasonably beinterpreted as an attempt to influence the recipients inthe conduct of their duties.

2. Distribution of effort. There are competing demandson the energies of a faculty member (for example, re-search, teaching, committee work, outside consulting) .

The way in which he divides his effort among these vari-ous functions does not raise ethical questions unless theGovernment agency supporting his research is misled inits understanding of the amount of effort heis actually devoting to the research in question. A systemof precise time accounting is incompatible with the in-herent character of the work of a faculty member, sincethe various functions he performs are closely interrelatedand do not conform to any meaningful division of astandard work week. On the other hand, if the researchagreement contemplates that a staff member will devotea certain fraction of his effort to the Governmentspon-sored research, or he agrees to assume responsibility inrelation to such research, a demonstrable relationshipbetween the indicated effort or responsibility and the actual extent of his involvement is to be expected. Eachuniversity, therefore, shouldthrough joint consultationof administration and facultydevelop procedures to as-sure that proposals are responsibly made and compliedwith.

3. Consulting for Government agencies or their con-tractors. When the staff member engaged in Government-sponsored research also serves as a consultant to a Fed-eral agency, his conduct is subject to the provisions of theConflict of Interest Statutes (18 U.S.C. 202-209 as amend-ed) and the President's memorandum of May 2, 1963,Preventing Conflicts of Interest on the Part of SpecialGovernment Employees. When he consults for one ormore Government contractors, or prospective contractors,in the same technical field as his research project, caremust be taken to avoid giving advice that may be ofquestionable objectivity because of its possible bearingon his other interests. In undertaking and performingconsulting services, he should make full disclosure of

such interests to the university and to the contractor in-sofar as they may appear to relate to the work at theuniversity or for the contractor. Conflict of interest prob.lems could arise, for example, in the participation ofa staff member of the university in an evaluation forthe Government agency or its contractor of some technicalaspect of the work of another organization with whichhe has a consulting or employment relationship or a sig-nificant financial interest, or in an evaluation of a com-petitor to such other organization.

B. University Responsibility

Each university participating in Governmentspon-sored research should make known to the sponsoringGovernment agencies:

1. The steps it is taking to assure an understanding onthe part of the university administration and staff mem-bers of the possible conflicts of interest or other prob-lems that may develop in the foregoing types of situa-tions, and

2. The organizational and administrative actions ithas taken or is taking to avoid such problems, including:

a. Accounting procedures to be used to assure thatGovernment funds are expended for the purposes forwhich they have been provided, and that all serviceswhich are required in return for these funds are supplied;

b. Procedures that enable it to be aware of the out-side professional work of staff members participating inGovernment-sponsored research, if such outside work re-lates in any way to the Governmentsponsored research;

c. The formulation of standards to guide the indi-vidual university staff members in governing their con-duct in relation to outside interests that might raisequestions of conflicts of interest; and

d. The provision within the university of an informedsource of advice and guidance to its staff members for ad-vance consultation on questions they wish to raise con-cerning the problems that may or do develop as a resultof their outside financial or consulting interests, as theyrelate to their participation in Government-sponsored un-iversity research. The university may wish to discuss suchproblems with the contracting officer or other appropri-ate Government official in those cases that appear toraise questions regarding conflicts of interest.

The above' process of disclosure and consultation is theobligation assumed by the university when it acceptsGovernment funds for research. The process must, ofcourse, be carried out in a manner that does not infringeon the legitimate freedoms and flexibility of action ofthe university and its staff members that have traditional..ly characterized a university. It is desirable that standardsand procedures of the kind discussed be formulated andadministered by members of the university communitythemselves, through their joint initiative and responsi-bility, for it is they who are the best judges of the con-ditions which can most effectively stimulate the searchfor knowledge and preserve the requirements of academ-ic freedom. Experience indicates that such standards andprocedures should be developed and specified by jointadministrative-faculty action.

41,77,,,r,a^7:7,77

Statement on Instructional Television

The following Statement on Instructional Television was prepared by CommitteeC on Teaching, Research, and Publication. It was approved by the Council of theAmerican Association of University Professors in May, 1969, and endorsed by theFifty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Association.

Preamble

Televised instruction may be by recording, live per-formance, or a mixture of the two, and may be broadcastor presented on a closed circuit. In closed-circuit transmission, the instructional program is usually received ontelevision monitors in viewing rooms within the institu-tion. Broadcasting is often designed for the general publicor off-campus students as well as students located on cam-pus, and may include programs of cultural enrichment("educational television") as well as programs offered forcourse credit or in other ways directly supporting the edu-cational objectives of the institution ("instructionaltelevision").

Both recorded and live performances, whether broadcastor presented on closed circuit, may involve special legal oradministrative problems. Recording, for example, is oftentechnically and administratively simpler than actual per-formance, but may require the consideration of additionalquestions of copyright, not only for materials previouslyprotected but also for materials created expressly for thenew program. Closed-circuit television is more suitablethan general broadcasting for use as a supplement in reg-ular course instruction; its use, however, raises questionsof the appropriate distribution of authority and responsi-bility between the administration and the separatedepartments or programs within a given institution.Broadcasting is technically more complex, more expensive,and directed to a wider audience, and it is under the reg-ulation of the Federal Communications Commission; forall these reasons, it is likely to entail a more elaborate or-ganizational pattern than that required for closed-circuitinstruction, with a greater measure of autonomy for thetechnical and producing staff and a larger expenditure oftime and resources on extra-institutional goals.

More important, the development of instructional tele-vision has brought into being conditions never envisagedin the earlier academic tradition, raising many basic ques-tions about standards for teaching and scholarship. Six of

.7'-'-'777777,77ST

these altered conditions deserve special mention here. Oneis that the teacher typically does not have the usual face-to-face relationships with the student in or outside theclassroom. Another is that special means must be devisedfor assigning, guiding, and evaluating the work of stu-dents. A third is that the teacher is using a means ofcommunication dependent upon an extremely complexand expensive apparatus which is not under his exclusivecontrol and which requires for its operation special tech-nical knowledge. A fourth is that the teacher's lecturesand demonstrations can be recorded and reused withoutthe teacher's being present. A fifth is that the teacher'srights, whether academic or legal, are imperfectly under-stood. And a sixth is that little careful attention has beengiven to the question of the faculty's authority in deter-mining policies and procedures for the use of television inthe institutional program.

It is imperative, therefore, that institutions now usingor planning to use television as an incidental or integralpart of their programs should give full consideration tothe educational functions which the new rieruitm is in-tended to perform and to the specific problems which anygiven application will raise. Traditional principles ofsound academic procedure will often apply to the newmedium, either directly or by extension, but they will notalways cover the new problems. When they fail to do so,new principles must be developed by means of which thenew medium may be made to serve most effectively thebasic, continuing educational objectives of our collegesand universities. It is the purpose of this Statement to of-fer some appropriate guidelines to this end.

Principles

GeneralThe use of television in teaching should be for the pur-

pose of advancing the basic functions of colleges anduniversities to preserve, augment, criticize, and transmit

53

knowledge and to foster the student's ability to learn. Thedevelopment of institutional policies concerning instruc-tional television as an instrument of teaching and re-search is therefore the responsibility of the academic com-munity.

Usually no restriction should be placed by the institu-tion on a faculty member's occasional activities in com-mercial television. Such activities should be sufficientlylimited so that they do not interfere with his obligationsas a faculty member to his institution. In the event thatthere are sufficient reasons for his greater involvement incommercial television, he should make appropriate ar-rangements, such as for reduced teaching load and com-pensation or a leave of absence, in accordance withgoverning academic principles.

Areas of Responsibility

The governing board, administration, faculty, and stu-dents all have a continuing concern in determining thedesirability and feasibility of television as an educationalinstrument. Institutional policies on instructional televi-sion should define the respective areas of responsibility foreach group in terms of the particular competence for thefunctions which that group undertakes. In developingthese policies, all four groups should bear in mind thattelevision is one educational means among many, and notan end in itself, for carrying out the basic functions of acollege or university.

Faculty Responsibility

The faculty should have primary responsibility for de-termining the instructional televisiOn policies of theinstitution. The responsibility should be conferred anddefined by regulations promulgated by the governingbody. The rules governing instructional television shouldbe approved by vote of the faculty concerned or by a rep-resentative faculty body, officially adopted by the appro-priate authority, and published.

The departmental faculty should determine the extentto which closed-circuit television should be used, and themanner of its use, in resident instruction. Such depart-mental practices should conform to institutional policies.

Courses to be given for credit by television broadcast,whether for resident or extension credit, should be consid-ered and approved by the faculties of the department, di-vision, school, college, or university or by such representa-tives of these bodies as pass upon curricular mattersgenerally. These provisions should apply to courseswhether given by actual (live) performance or by record-ings.

The faculty should determine the amount of creditwhich may be earned by a student toward a degree incourses given by television broadcast.

The faculty of the college or university should establishgeneral rules and procedures for the granting of teachingload credit in the preparation and the offering of coursesby television broadcast and for the allocation of support-ing resources. Within the general provisions of these gov-erning regulations, specific arrangements for coursesoffered by its members should be made within the depart-ment.

54

Adequate preparation for a television course, whetherby live broadcast or recording, requires considerable timeand effort for the writing and revision of scripts, planningof course assignments and tests, participation in rehears-als, and the distribution of informational materials to stu-dents. The teacher may, therefore, need to devote fulltime for the period of a term or more to these activities.While the course is being given, the demands on theteacher include not only appearances before the camerabut also communications and conferences with students,evaluation of their work, keeping of course records, andalso supervision of academic and clerical assistants. Insome circumstances, accordingly, a one-semester coursemay constitute a full year's load for the teacher.

Adequate support in the form of academic and clericalassistance, facilities for communicating and conferringwith students, library resources, and an operating budgetshould be provided the teacher so that he may adequatelycarry out his instructional responsibilities. Since instruc-tion by television does not allow for an exchange of reac-tions between students and teacher in the normalclassroom setting, adequate provisions should be made forthe students to confer with the teacher, or his academicassistant, by correspondence or personal conference.

The faculty should make certain that live or recordedprograms which are prepared by the institution for othercolleges and universities, whether for course credit or not,meet the same standards of appropriateness and excel-lence as those prepared for use in its own institution.

Courses prepared by the institution for elementary andsecondary schools should meet the academic standards setby the faculties of the disciplines concerned.

Whenever possible, the faculty should give encourage-ment to television programs of cultural enrichment ad-dressed to the general public as well as to its ownstudents.

Teaching Appointments

The precise terms and conditions of every appointmentshould be stated in writing and be in the possession ofthe faculty member and the institution before the ap-pointment to participate in instruction by television isconsummated.

No member of the faculty should be required to partici-pate in instructional television as teacher, writer, consult-ant, or in any other capacity unless he consents inadvance to such participation. A newly appointed memberof the faculty should not be required to participate in in-structional television unless he has agreed to do so as acondition of his appointment.

Academic Freedom

A faculty member engaged in instructional television isentitled to academic freedom as a teacher, researcher, andcitizen in accordance with the provisions of the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Ten-ure, jointly developed by the Association of AmericanColleges and the American Association of University Pro-fessors and endorsed by many educational and profes-sional organizations.

Because television production is a form of publication,

a faculty member has the same freedom to enter into anagreement with an educational or commercial agency toproduce, or otherwise participate in, a television programas he has in arranging for the publication of his own writ-ings with a commercial, university, or other nonprofitpress or with a scholarly or professional journal.

Selection of Materials

The teacher should have the same full responsibility forthe selection and presentation of !materials and of pointsof view in courses offered by television as he has in thosegiven by traditional means. For departmental and interde-partmental projects the faculty concerned should sharethis responsibility.

Technical Considerations

A faculty member who undertakes to teach by televisionshould acquaint himself with the rudiments of the techni-cal procedures in recording and live performance as theyrelate to his own professional activity so that his subjectmatter may be most effectively presented, and he shouldcooperate with the producer and other members of theproduction staff in every reasonable way. The teacher,ncvcrtheless, has the final responsibility for the contentand objectives of the program.

Proprietary Rights and Educational Policies

To protect the interests of the individual creators andthe educational objectives of the institution, the facultyshould establish and publish appropriate guiding policies,and procedures. Explanations should be provided for fac-ulty members unfamiliar with copyright law.

These policies should include provisions for appropriatecompensation to the creator for his original productionand for its reuse when recorded.

Provision should also be made so that the originalteacher-creator, or an appropriate faculty body, can exer-cise control of the future use and distribution of a re-corded television course and can initiate periodic reviewsto determine whether the course should be revised orwithdrawn from instructional use because of obsolescence.

No recording of a teacher's presentation in thetraditional classroom setting, whether for reuse on instruc-tional television or for any other purpose, should be madewithout his prior knowledge and consent.

A recorded program of instruction is an academic docu-ment. Hence, like any other scholarly work, it should bearthe name of its author, his institutional affiliation, thedate when it was recorded, and appropriate acknowledg-ments.

55

Statement of Principles onAcademic Retirement and Insurance Plans

The Statement which follows was fgepared by a joint committee of the Ameri-can Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges.It was adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Pro-fessors in 'hay. 1Q60. and endorsed by the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting as Asso-ciation policy.

The purpose of an institution's retirement policy forfaculty members and administrators and its program fortheir insurance benefits and retirement annuities shouldbe to help educators and their families withstand the fi-nancial impacts of illness, old age, and death, and toincrease the educational effectiveness of the college anduniversity. This policy and program should be designed toattract individuals of the highest abilities to educationalwork, to sustain the morale of the faculty, to permit fac-ulty members to devote their energies with singleness ofpurpose to the concerns of the institution and the profes-sion, and to provide for the orderly retirement of facultymembers and administrators.

The following practices are recommended:1. The retirement policy and annuity plan of an insti-

tution, as well as its insurance plans, should:

a. Be clearly defined and easily understandable by boththe faculty and the administration of the institution.When the age of retirement is fixed, the facultymember or administrator should be reminded of hisapproaching retirement at least one year prior to thedate on which it is to become effective. When the re-

56

tirement age is flexible, he should be informed of hisimpending retirement at least six months prior tothe date on which it is to occur, except that if he isto be retired as early as age 65, this period should beat least one year.

b. Take into account the old age, survivor, disability,and medical benefits of federal Social Security andother applicable public programs.

c. Permit mobility of faculty members and adminis-trators among institutions without loss of accruedretirement benefits and with little or no gap in an-nuity and insurance plan participation.

d. Be reviewed periodically by faculty and administra-tion of the institution, with appropriate recommen-dations to the institution's governing board, to assurethat the plans continue to meet the needs, resources,and objectives of the institution and the faculty.

2. Retirement should normally occur at the end of theacademic year in which the faculty member or administra-tor reaches the age specified for retirement by his institu-tion's plan. Each institution should make clear whether,for these purposes, the summer period attaches to the pre-

ceding or the forthcoming academic year. Retirementprovisions currently in effect at different institutions varyin the age specified for retirement and in the degree offlexibility relating to extensions of active service. Cogentarguments can be advanced in support of a number ofthese arrangements. Since conditions vary greatly amonginstitutions, however, no universally applicable formula

can be prescribed. Plans in which the retirement age fallswithin the range of 65 to 70 appear to be in conformity

with reasonable practice.Where the institution has a flexible plan that provides

for extension of service beyond its base retirement age, ex-tensions should be by annual appointment and ordinarilyshould not postpone retirement beyond the end of the ac-ademic year in which age 70 is attained. Such extensionsshould be made upon recommendation of representativesof the faculty and administration through appropriatecommittee procedures that assure full protection of aca-demic freedom. Representatives of the faculty should bechosen in accordance with procedures adopted by thefaculty for committee appointment. (This also appliesto the responsibilities noted in Id, 3, and 4.)

3. Circumstances that may seem to justify a facultymember's retirement before the base retirement age in aflexible plan or the stated age in a fixed plan, or his disas-

sociation from the institution for reasons of disability,should in all cases be considered by representatives of thefaculty and administration through appropriate committeeprocedures. Where issues of tenure are involved in a caseof retirement before the base retirement age in a flexibleplan or the stated age in a fixed plan, standard proce-dures of due process should be available.

4. The retirement age for faculty may differ from theage for retirement from administrative duties. Cessation ofadministrative duties, however, with assignment of teach-ing responsibilities only, is not interpreted as a retire-ment.

5. The recall of faculty members from retired status tofull or part-time activity should be by annual appoint-ment upon recommendation of representatives of thefaculty and administration through appropriate committeeprocedures. Such recall should be rare; expected dutiesshould be clearly defined; and full-time service should bearranged only in unusual circumstances.

6. Between the ages of 60 and retirement, facultymembers should be permitted to arrange, on their owninitiative, reductions in salary and services acceptableboth to them and to their institutions. Such reduc-tions in salary and services should occur without lossof tenure, rank, or eligibility for benefit-plan participa-tion.

7. The institution should provide for a plan of retire-ment annuities. Such a plan should:

a. Require participation after not more than one yearof service by all full-time faculty members and ad-ministrators who have attained a specified age,' notlater than 30.

b. Be financed by contributions made during each yearof service, including leaves of absence with pay, with

the institution contributing as much as or more thaneach participant. Moreover, an institution's retire-ment plan should be so organized as to permit volun-tary annuity contributions from employees on leavesof absence without pay. In order that participants in

a contributory plan may have the tax treatment of anoncontributory plan available to them, the individ-ual should have the option to make his required con-tributions by salary reduction in accordance with rele-vant tax laws.

c. Maintain contributions at a level considered suffi-cient to give the long-term participant a retire-ment income that is appropriately related to his levelof income prior to retirement, with provision forcontinuing more than half of such retirement incometo a surviving spouse. The recommended objectivefor a person who participates in the plan for 35 ormore years is an after-tax retirement income includ-ing federal Social Security benefits equivalent in pur-chasing power to approximately two-thirds of theyearly disposable income realized from his salary af-

ter taxes and other mandatory deductions during hislast few years of full-time employment.

d. Ensure that the full accumulations from the individ-ual's and the institution's contributions are fully andimmediately vested in the individual, available as abenefit in case of death before annuity paymentscommence, and with no forfeiture in case of with-drawal or dismissal from the institution.

e. Be such that the individual may withdraw theaccumulated funds only in the form of an annuity.To avoid administrative expense, exception might bemade for very small accumulations in an inactive ac-count.

8. The institution should help retired faculty membersand administrators remain a part of the institution, pro-viding, where possible, such facilities as: a mail address, li-brary privileges, office facilities, faculty club membership,the institution's publications, secretarial help, administra-tion of grants, laboratory rights, faculty dining privileges,and participation in convocations and academic proces-sions. Institutions that confer the emeritus status shoulddo so in accordance with standards determined by the fac-

ulty and administration.

9. When a new retirement policy or annuity plan isinitiated or an old one changed, reasonable transitionprovisions, either by special financial arrangements or by

the gradual inauguration of the new plan, should bemade for those who would otherwise be adversely affected.

10. The institution should maintain a program ofgroup insurance financed in whole or in part by the insti-tution and availablt to faculty members and administra-tors as soon as practicable after employment. The pro-gram should continue all coverages during leave of

absence with pay, and during leave without pay unlessequally adequate protection is otherwise provided for theindividual. The program should include:

a. Life insurance providing a benefit considered suffi-cient to sustain the standard of living of the staff

57

member's family for at least one year following hisdeath. Where additional protection is contemplated,the special financial needs of families of younger fac-ulty members should receive particular consideration.

b. Insurance for medical expenses, with emphasis uponprotection against the major expenses of illness or in-jury in preference to minor expenses that cause noterious drain on a family's budget. Such insuranceshould continue to be available through the institu-tion (1) for the retired staff member and spouse,and (2) for the surviving spouse who does not re-marry and dependent children of an active or retiredstaff member who dies while insured.

c. Insurance providing a monthly income for staffmembers who remain totally disabled beyond the pe-riod normally covered by salary continuation or sickpay. For a person who has been disabled six monthsor more, the plan should provide an after-tax incomeincluding federal Social Security benefits equivalentin purchasing power to approximately two-thirds ofthe income he realized after taxes and mandatory de-ductions prior to his disability. Such income shouldcontinue during total disability for the normal pe-riod of employment at the institution, with adequateprovision for a continuing income throughout theretirement years.

A Statement on Leaves of Absence

A study of faculty benefits other than annuities and insurance was initiated bythe Commission on Faculty and Staff Benefits of the Association of AmericanColleges, one of the precursors of the present Commission on College Administra-tion. This study resulted in the report, by Marh H. Ingraham of the University.of Wisconsin with the collaboration of Francis P. King of TIAA, published un-der the title The Outer Fringe. From the start it was contemplated that theremight be conferences to discuss certain of the topics in the report. In the springof 1965, TIAA sponsored a series of institutes on staff benefits including retire-ment provisions and insurance as well as the types covered by The Outer Fringe.In addition, it seemed that a more formal conference between representatives ofA AC and AAUP concerning leaves of absence would be of value. This conferencewas held in November, 1965. Those present are listed at the end of the report.It was decided that the findings of the group would be published in order tostimulate thought and discussion concerning the matter, but that at present thereport would not be submitted to the Iwo organizations for formal action.

The report of the conference follows:

The college or university teacher should be a scholarwho is constantly increasing his knowledge and keepingabreast of the development of his field. Frequently he isan active investigator, and in many institutions researchis a significant portion of his obligations. He should remain a man of vigor with a fresh mind and broadintellectual interests. Heavy teaching duties performedyear after year may make this impossible. Leaves ofabsence and special research assignments at reasonableintervals of time are among the means of assuring thatinstitutions of higher learning have the kind of facultythat they need. A well-developed program of leaves isof major importance in enhancing the professional de.velopment of faculty members. Moreover, the work donewhile the scholar is on leave, for example, through theresults of his investigation or his public service, oftenis of immediate value to society. The health of thefaculty members is a constant concern of the college,and leaves are one of the means of protecting it.

Hence among the chief purposes for leaves of ab-sence from college teaching are:

I) The protection or recovery of health;2) the direct usefulness of the work expected to be

done while on leave;and most impottant,

3) the professional development of the teacher andthereby the increased effectiveness of highereducation.

American universities consider research which expandsthe boundaries of knowledge as one of their primaryfunctions. Many research assignments, frequently calledresearch leaves, will be given to further the work in theprofessor's field. The timing and the conditions of suchassignments should be determined in large part by theneeds of the project and, of course, the other obligationsof the institution. A period of time with no interrup-tion of teaching may be followed by periods when re-search is a man's chief occupation. One man may studythe means of improving a departmental course in fresh-man English, another may participate in or even directarcheological diggings, while still a third will devote histime, with the collaboration of postdoctoral research as-sociates, to investigation in his own laboratory. For cer-tain institutions and in certain disciplines such "researchleaves" will be of primary importance and will in generalnot only best serve the research function of the univer-sity but also in many cases be the best means for theprofessional development of the teacher.

Research and public service, though often contribut-ing to the future usefulness of the scholar, must be

59

v., 5,1 ll T7.717797,EM n .. /77,..1"7 t-r-4

judged in large part by the direct results expected ofthem. As a form of beauty, a great theorem "is its ownexcuse for being." To serve as an ambassador or to writethe social security law is to be useful irk the presentnot just to prepare for future usefulness.

In the majority of colleges and in many universities,by far the chief purpose of leaves is to insure that theindividual becomes and remains as good a teacher ashis capacities permit. This means that the young scholarshould have as early an opportunity as possible to com-plete his formal education, and to develop his specialfield of scholarship on his own after attaining a Ph.D.degree. The opportunity to keep abreast of rapidly de-veloping fields frequently is needed. Nor is old knowl-edge to be scorned; often it is well to dwell in cultivatedfields, not always struggle amid the smoking stumps ofthe frontier. A change of pace, even a change from oneset of frustrations to another, is often needed. Even inthe research-oriented institution there are individuals whoare better served by a period of sustained general studythan by research assignments, and there are times in thedevelopment of a research scholar who is also a teacherwhen it is better to examine the known than to discoverthe new. Nor should we forget that a wide range of cul-tural and scholarly interests beyond the field of one'sspecialty, when enriched by a well-informed mind, isa precious asset to any teacher. Far more frequentlythan at present, leaves should be planned to nurturesuch interests. Although a leave should have a pur-pose, it need not always be tightly structured. Travel,reading, and seeking perspective for his work are primarysources of enrichment for the teacher and hence hisstudents.

It is our belief that leaves, though serving both thepersonal needs of individuals and the interests of insti-tutions, are primarily an investment of society forstrengthening higher education as well as in the accom-plishments of the individuals while on leave. A soundpolicy in regard to leaves, adopted by many institu-tions, will facilitate such investment because institu-tions can more generously grant leaves when they canexpect to gain in the effectiveness of professors who re-ceive these leaves and to attract stronger men into theirfaculties.

We do not consider leaves as deferred compensationto be furnished to a man by his institution no matterwhat other opportunities he may have had for profes-sional development, or to be given him in cash if heresigns to go elsewhere to teach or do some other kindof work, or paid to his estate if he dies. However, facul-ty members do have a right to conditions of work thatafford opportunities for their development as teachersand scholars. An institution has an obligation to providethese opportunities; an increase in a teacher's bank ac-count is no substitute for an increase in his experienceand his knowledge.

A college should furnish opportunities for growth toall the scholars on its staff. We do not believe that an in-stitution should provide leaves only to those who are ex-pected to remain on its faculty or, for that matter, evenin teaching. An educational institution whose chief pur-

60

pose is to develop the abilities of those who serve thenation, usually in capacities other than formal educa-tion, should not resent improving the minds of thosefew of its staff who may leave the academic profession.

The length of time since an individual has had anopportunity for intensive professional development,whether furnished by the institution or not, is a majorcriterion in determining who should be granted leaves.If a man moves from one institution to another, thelength of time since his last leave should be consideredin determining when he will receive his first leave fromhis new institutiona move may readily be more ex-hausting than refreshing, and the values in it are otherthan those derived from a leave.

Leaves for scholarly or cultural development can beput much more nearly on a periodic basis than researchleaves or, of course, than leaves for public service andhealth. The timing of a research leave is usually relatedto the state of the project. Neither illness during theworking year nor the call of public service comes to allscholars. However, for every teacher the need to learn isconstant. Although time may not generate the right toa leave as compensation, it will generate the need forone as opportunity, a need which should be met byan opportunity the faculty member has an obligationto use. The ticking of a clock should be a reminderboth to the conscience of the institution and to theconscience of the individual.

In considering whether or not to grant a leave, espe-cially for general development, the institution would bewise not to confuse the clarity of the teacher's planswith the possible value of the leave itself. A leave spentgaining perspective and intellectual breadth, throughtravel, reading, and a variety of new experiences, maybe of greater value than one devoted to a definite andclearly organized, but limited, project. The individualeligible for such a leave has an obligation to plan forthe best possible use of the opportunity. It is appro-priate for the selection committee to discuss his leaveplans with an eligible faculty member and to suggestmodifications in them. The committee should strive tomake a wise use of funds available rather than to placean undue burden of proof upon the individual.

It is a good investment to give these leaves more fre-quently to the young than to the old. Yet both the direresults of fossilization and the outraged sense of fair-play preclude a great difference between the two. Webelieve that leaves should be given right up to retire-ment so that the skills and knowledge of the teacher-scholar may be further developed. A man may makegreat contributions in the years just prior to retirement.Moreover, he should retire with the expectation of con-tinued usefulness.

Of course a leave of absence is not a guarantee thata man will increase his effectiveness and, fortunately.many scholars are able to continue their professionalgrowth without leaves. Nevertheless, we consider a well-thought-out and adequately supported plan of leaves tobe a major component of a sound educational policy fora college or university. We recognize that it may wellbe an expensive component. Leaves must compete for

r

funds with salaries, retirement benefits, insurance, addi-tional staff, and occasionally with buildings and thebeauty of the campus. Leaves may not be first on thelist but they do deserve high priority. Moreover, althoughsome funds may be used for any of a large number ofpurposes, this is not true of all potential sources ofsupport. If the need is properly presented, money forthe professional development of the faculty might beacquired from sources that will not provide money foreither buildings or increased salaries. The support ofleaves of absence for the faculty members of our institu-tions, especially of colleges with less adequate means,could well increase the educational and research poten-tial of the nation.

Work leading to an advanced degree is not alwaysthe best educational experience for older teachers with-out such a degree. Universities should plan certain ad-vanced work for these persons which would give thembroader insights into their fields than are afforded bythe scattered glimpses of narrow segments they now re-ceive. Once it is decided to keep permanently a personwithout a Ph.D., the judgments relative to his promotionand salary should be made in terms of his proven worthnot in light of the degree he does not have.

Equalization of OpportunitiesThe funds that an institution may have for leaves

with pay should be used in such a manner as to equalizeopportunities for professional development among vari-

ous fields and even among different individuals in thesame field. However, it should be recognized that leaveswithout pay, from the home institution to work else-where, differ greatly in the contributions they may beexpected to make to this development. In some casesthey may be so supported by additional funds for traveland research facilities as to afford greater opportunityto the teacher than does an ordinary leave. Frequently,however, they are by no means the equivalent of aleave with pay and should not be so considered in se-lecting those who may receive support while on leave.

Length of LeaveLeaves should seldom be for more than one academic

year plus contiguous summers or come more often thanonce in three years. However, this should not be a fixedrule. For example, exceptions can well be made forlonger periods of service in public offices, either electiveor not. Health leaves sometimes are another case forwhich leaves longer than a year or more frequentlythan once in three years are indicated.

Selection of Persons to Receive LeaveThe general criteria upon which choices are made

should be developed in large part by the faculty of aninstitution. The effective development of manpower intheir profession is an important function of a faculty.Although in many institutions the final responsibilityof recommending to the governing board those who areto be granted leaves will rest with the administration,faculty participation in this decision is desirable. Facultycommittees on research or on appointments and per-sonnel may well be given advisory or, under some cir-

cumstances, primary responsibility for selecting the in-dividuals who wal receive leaves. No fixed rule to fitn11 institutions or even all types of leaves within a singleinstitution can be established.

Caring for Work of Absent Faculty MembersThe work of a faculty member while he is on leave can

be cared for in many ways. Some large departments canbe staffed with the expectation that a certain numberof their members will always be on leave. Visitors, assubstitutes, often bring fresh ideas to the institution andthemselves gain rewarding experiences. At times suchvisits provide an opportunity for mutual inspection bycollege and visitor to determine the desirability of amore permanent connection. A new appointment maybe made when the department expects to expand withinthe next year. Overloading one's colleagues and impov-erishing course offerings are detrimental to the institu-tion, but perhaps less so than an inadequate program ofleaves. The plan sometimes used of paying a man thedifference between his salary and the cost of a substi-tute is pernicious and may lead to watered-down instruc-tion and over-burdened colleagues.

Relation of Leaves to Promotion,Salary Increases and Tenure

Leaves for as long as one year should not interferewith salary increases or promotions. When a facultymember is on leave for more than a year, an institu-tion may lose touch with him to the extent that it canmake no reasonable judgment of his development. Thisargument cannot with realism be advanced for leavesof one year or less, for our judgments are seldom thatprecise or that up-to-date. Moreover, leaves are so im-

portant to the development of a scholar that a youngman should not be discouraged from taking them byfear of the effect upon his career.

For faculty members not on tenure, a period on leaveshould normally count as a part of the probationaryperiod. However, when the leave is of such a naturethat the individual's development as a faculty memberwhile on leave cannot be judged, or when the leave isfor purposes other than scholarly, the individual shouldbe allowed, on his request, to have the tenure decisionpostponed for a period equal to the length of the leave.

This should only be done by an agreement, preferablyin writing, made prior to the leave and clearly under-stood by the individual, by his department, and by theadministration of the institution.

Obligation to Return from LeaveLeaves are often granted under circumstances that

place an ethical obligation on their recipient to returnto his institution. Special consideration on the part ofthe institution or his colleagues may lead to such anobligation. It is scarcely fair to expect the college oflesser means, which cannot afford to recruit at the Ph.D.level, to give financial aid toward the graduate work ofyoung men who will not return to the institution. Weshould not demand greater generosity from the poor thanfrom the wealthy even if we have learned to expect it.

61

rI13:77,5771",17.7.,17.1,1r7.77.7.777.,,,,:,z,^1.7,7,7p.Tr7,3 Trz,.,37.7.7.17.711!4737r7i,,^77774,C,T.7.1,1T7177..7,77

If the leave was accepted under agreement to return,this agreement of course should be honored.

Even when there is no obligation to return, the facultymember on leave should observe the same rules of ade-quate notice of resignation that he would if he werenot on leave.

An institution should not knowingly invite a manwho is on leave to join its staff when it would not beproper for the man to accept. At times it would seemonly equitable, if an institution makes an offer to aman on leave and expected to return, for it to take overa part or all of the expenses of his leave since it willbe the most direct recipient of any institutional benefitsderived therefrom.

However, there are many moral obligations that shouldnot be enforced by legal means. Institutions are notwise to retain the less conscientious and the discontentedby rules that are not needed to retain the fair-mindedand the happy. We believe that when a leave is grantedfor graduate study or under other conditions that placean unusual obligation on the individual, a statement thatit is granted with the expectation that the individualwill return would work better than the more stringentrules, even contracts, now in frequent use. Moreover thenormal leave should usually be given without even animplied obligation to return, although such return maybe expected.

Continuation of Insurance andAnnuity Provisions

Institutional participation in faculty retirement andgroup insurance plans should be continued for staffmembers on leaves of absence with pay. This is a partof their regular compensation.

An institution's retirement plan should be so orga-nized as to accept voluntary annuity contributions fromemployees on leaves of absence without pay. Those in-stitutions that continue their contributions towards re-tirement annuities for faculty members on leaves with-out pay are generouswisely generous.

During leaves of absence without pay, an institutionshould continue its group life, health, and total dis-ability insurance for faculty members unless equallyadequate protection is otherwise provided for the in-dividual.

If, however, a member on leave without pay becomesa full-time employee of another institution or organiza-tion, it is reasonable to expect the employing institu-tion to assume the cost of institutional contributionsto the individual's retirement annuity and group insur-ance coverage. Foundations supporting leaves for schol-arship should include an amount sufficient to maintaininstitutional annuity and group insurance contributionsalong with salary in establishing the total grant.

If during a man's absence there has been any dis-continuation of insurance or provisions for annuities,there should be no waiting periods before coverage isresumed upon his return.

Amount Paid to Faculty Members on LeaveWe recognize that for many institutions the present

goal should be to reach the norm of allowing facultymembers, at least once in each seven years, if they haveno other equivalent opportunity for professional growth,a leave of a year on half pay or a half year on full pay.It is also clear that for many faculty members it isnot feasible to take a year on half pay unless supple-mentary funds are available from other sources andthat even a semester away on full pay may represent asevere financial strain upon the individual. Institutionswhich have already attained the normal arrangementshould look forward to improving it by helping theirmembers in seeking outside grants to supplement thesalary provided or by acquiring special institutionalfunds for the purpose, as well as by paying a higherpercentage of salary on leaves of longer than a semester,ultimately perhaps 100 percent. Grants for support dur-ing the summer months to assure freedom for scholarshipbefore or after a period of leave have been found to beespecially productive.

SummaryLeaves of absence are among the most important means

by which a teacher's effectiveness is maintained and en-hanced and a scholar's usefulness enlarged. A soundprogram of leaves is therefore of vital importance to acollege or university. Hence adequate budgetary provi-sions should be made for it and sound principles ofprocedure established.

It is recognized, however, that the resources of aninstitution may be so limited that a satisfactory pro-gram of leaves may not be immediately feasible.

As elsewhere in the educational enterprise, acceptedpolicies and procedural principles should afford flexi-bility to meet the needs of the individual and of theinstitution.

A program of leaves is an investment in a great na-tional assetthe teacher-scholar. It should promote theprofessional development both of those members of thefaculty who are most likely to stay at the institution fora long period and, although not necessarily to an equaldegree, of those for whom there is no such assurance.Leaves are not deferred compensation, but the continuedeffectiveness of the faculty member demands that leavesor equivalent opportunities for professional developmentbe afforded at regular intervals. Not all such opportuni-ties will be paid for by the institution, and it should useits funds to equalize the means of professional develop-ment among the various fields and even within each field.

It is an obligation of the individual to make use ofall available means, including leaves, of heightening hispresent usefulness and his future effectiveness. Leavesare a means to this end.

Leaves without pay for public service, research, orteaching elsewhere should be granted when it is possibleto do so without serious harm to the educational pro-gram of the institution.

In granting leaves, evidence that they will producepresently useful results or increased future effectivenessshould be considered. The individual eligible for a leaveshould plan ahead for the best use of his opportunity.Administrators and faculty members of the committee

determining leaves should encourage individuals to makesuch advance plans and may even suggest changes inthem, but would be unwise to treat the plans as theonly basis for granting leaves. We must not forget thata plan which is designed to provide broad perspectiveand cultural experience, and which is tentative in de-tail, may often be better than one that, even if definite,is more rigid in nature and more limited in scope.

Colleges that grant leaves for graduate work shouldbe willing on occasion to do so when the work is notdirected towards an advanced degree. Universities withextensive graduate programs should develop offeringsespecially planned to increase the effectiveness of maturecollege teachers.

Previous service at another institution since a facultymember's last leave is one of the factors that should betaken into consideration in determining eligibility forleave.

The institution has a right to deny a request for aleave, either for financial or educational reasons, even ifthe faculty member is eligible and the purpose of theleave is valid. It should strive to deny appropriate leavesas infrequently as posgble and, when forced to, withas much equity as is attainable, considering both thepurpose for which the leave is requested and the timesince the individual has had equivalent opportunity forscholarly growth. Policies in this regard should be devel-oped with full faculty participation. The faculty shouldhave a role in making specific decisions.

Leaves usually should not be more than a year inlength nor come more frequently than once in threeyears. Exceptions to this rule should be possible, espe-cially for leaves in the public service.

The amount that a man is paid while on leave shouldnot depend on the cost of caring for his work while heis absent.

Leaves of a year or less should not interfere withfaculty members' promotions or increases in salary. Ifa faculty member has not secured tenure when he takesa leave, the period on leave should count as part of the"probationary period," unless there is a clear under-standing prior to taking leave that this will not be thecase.

The faculty member should consider it an obligationto:

1. Make the request for leave at a reasonable timein advance and through established procedures,except under unusual circumstances.

2. Not accept an appointment elsewhere at a timelater than would be considered ethical if he werenot on leave.

3. Return from leave of absence when the circum-

stances of granting the leave indicate that thisis the only equitable actionfrequently the casewhen leaves on pay are granted to pursue gradu-ate study. He should of course honor any agree-ment to return which he has made.

The institution is wise to trust the faculty in thesematters rather than to create formal rules or contractualrelations to enforce obligations. Moreover, the grantingof a leave under normal circumstances should not createan obligation to return.

A college or university should not knowingly invitea man to join its staff at a time when he cannot honor-ably accept the invitation. An institution may well payfor all or part of a man's leave when it invites him tomove while on leave.

Coverage under various types of insurance programsshould be continued while a faculty member is onleave. Contributions toward retirement annuities shouldbe continued by both the institution and the individualsfor those on leave with pay. It is also desirable to con-tinue these contributions when the leave is without pay.Although an institution cannot be asked to carry thisexpense, it is praiseworthy when an institution is willingto do so.

As funds become available, an increasing percentageof a man's salary should be paid when he has a year-long leave for scholarship, and supplements for travel orother purposes of the leave would be desirable.

Present at the conference were:Peter H. Armacost, AACWilliam J. Baumol, Princeton UniversityJ. Douglas Brown, Princeton UniversityFred C. Cole. Washington and Lee UniversityBertram H. Davis, AAUPWinston Ehrmann, AAUPPaul Fen lon, AAUPWilliam P. Fidler, AAUPWilliam C. Greenough, TIAAPeggy Heim, AAUPEdwin V. Holland, Frostburg State CollegeMark H. Ingraham, University of WisconsinRobert P. Ludlum, Ade 1phi UniversityJames J. McGinley, S.J., Canisius CollegeNeill Megaw, Williams CollegeCarter Murphy, Southern Methodist UniversityJames Papke, Purdue UniversityFrank A. Rose, University of AlabamaSharvy G. Umbeck, Knox CollegeF. L. Wormald, AAC

63

Constitution of the Association'

Article IPurposeThe name of this Association shall be the American As-

soda' tion of University Profemors. Its purpose shallto facilitate a mote effective cooperation among teachersand research scholars in universities and colleges. andin professional schools of similar grade. for the promo-tion of the interests of higher education and research,and in general to increase the usefulness and advancethe standards. ideab, and welfare of the profession.

Article 11ManbershipI. There shall be four classes of members:

a. Active Members. Any person who holds a positionof teaching or research in a university or college inthe United States or Canada. or in the discretion of theCouncil in an American-controlled institution situatedabroad, or in a professional school of similar grade maybe admitted to Active membership in the Association.

b. Junior Members. Any person who is, or withinthe past five years has been. a graduate student maybe admitted to Junior membership. Junior membersshall be transferred to Active membership as soon asthey become eligible.

c. Associate Members. Any member who ceases to beeligible for Active or Junior membership because hiswork has become primarily administrative shall be trans-ferred to Associate membership.

d. Emeritus Members. Any Active or Associate mem-ber retiring for age may be transferred at his requestto Emeritus membership.

2. The admission of members shall require two steps:a. Application. Applications for Active and Junior

membership shall be made to the General Secretary ofthe Association.

b. Acceptance and Notification. When an applicant'seligibility has been determined. it shall be the duty ofthe General Secretary to inform him promptly that hehas been accepted to membership. and to include hisname in the list of new members sent to chapter officers.A person's membership may be protested. on grounds ofeligibility. by an Active member of the Association. If a

Lao amended at the Fifty-third Annual Meeting of theAssociations, at Oeveland, Ohio, April 28-29, 1967.

64

majority of the members of the Committee on Member-ship and Dues votes to sustain the protest. the person inquestion will be informed that his membership has ceasedto be effective.

3. A member may resign by notifying the GeneralSecretary. and may be expelled far cause by a two-thirds vote of the Council after opportunity for a hear-ing. Membership shall be forfeited by nonpayment ofdues under conditions to be established by the Council.

Article 111-0ScersI. The officers of the Association shall be a President,

a First Vice - President, a Second Vice-President, who areelected by the Active members of the Association, anda General Sec retary, a Treasurer. and General Counsel,who are appointed by the Council of the Association.

2. The term of office of the President and the Vice-Presidents shall be two years. and shall expire at theclose of the last session of the Annual Meeting followingthe election of their successors, or if a meeting of theCouncil is held after and in connection with the An-nual Meeting, at the close of the last session of theCouncil.

3. The PresidPat and the Vice-Presidents shall havethe duties usually associated with these offices. ThePresident shall preside at meetings of the Associationand the Council. He shall applimi all committees ofthe Association and shall be ex officio a member ofall except the Nominating Committee. He shall also bea nonvoting ex officio member of the governing bodies ofall conferences.

4. The General Secretary shall carry on the work ofthe Association under the general direction of the Presi-dent. preparing the business for meetings and keepingthe records thereof. He shall conduct correspondencewith all constituents of the Association. He shall collectthe membership dues and any other sums due the As-sociation and transfer them to the Treasurer. He shallhave charge of the office of the Association and beresponsible for its efficient and economical management.He shall be a nonvoting ex officio member of thegoverning bodies of all conferences. He may with theapproval of the President delegate any of these duties

to other members of a professional staff appointed by theCannot

5. The Treasurer shall receive all moneys and de-posit them in the name of the Association. With theauthorization of the Council. he shall invest any fundsn ot needed for current disbursements. He shall pay allbills approved by the General Secretary. He shall makea report to the Association at the Annual Meeting andsuds other reports as the Council may direct. He maywith the approval of the Council authorize an As-

tant Treasurer to act for him. The financial recordsof the Association shall be audited annually by an ex-ternal agency. and the report of the audit shall bePublished.

Article IVThe Council1. The President. the Vice-Presidents. the General Sec-

retary. the Treasurer. the General Counsel, and theChairman of the Assembly of State and Regional Confer-ences, together with the three latest living ex-Presidents.shall. with 30 elective members. constitute the Councilof the Association. Ten members of the Council shallbe elected each year in the manner provided in thisConstitution. to serve for three-year terms. according tothe provision governing the terms of the officers.

2. The Council shall cany out the purposes of theAssociation and, subject to the authority of a meetingas defined in this Constitution. act for the Association.The Council shall (a) determine. for each class of mem-bers. the an, goal dues and regulations governing theirpayment; (b) manage the property and financial Alainof the Association. with power to accept gifts to theAssociation; (c) construe the provisions of this Consti-tution; (d) provide for the publications of the Asso-ciation; (e) appoint and determine the salaries of theGeneral Secretary. members of a professional staff. Gen-eral Counsel, and Treasurer; (f) determine the time.place. and program of the Annual Meeting and con-vene special meetings of the Association at its discretion;(g) publish a record of its meetings to the member-ship; (h) authorize the establishment of committees ofthe Association; (i) authorize the establishment of re-gional offices of the Association; and (j) authorize re-apportionment and redistricting of the membership notkm than once each decade.

3. As a representative of both the Association andhis district, each member of the Council shall promotethe exchange of ideas between the Council and themembership. He may Kirke and transmit to the Coun-cil the proposals of members. chapters, and state andregional conferences within his district. He shall be anonvoting ex officio member of the governing commit-tees of those conferences.

4. Meetings of the Council shall be held in connec-tion with the Annual Meeting of the Association andat least at one other time each year, upon not lessthan two weeks' notice to the Council. Ten memberselected from districts shall constitute a quorum. TheCouncil may also transact business by letter ballot. Aspecial meeting of the Council shall be called by the

President on the written request of at least eight mem-bers of the Council.

5. The President may. with the advice and consentof the Council. appoint an Executive Committee of notfewer than six Council members. including the Presi-dent and First Vice-President ex officio. Between meet-ings of the Council, the Executive Committee may exer-cise suds powers as the Council has delegated to it and.under unforeseen exigencies. exercise other powers sub-ject to the subsequent approval of the Council. Meetingsof the Committee may be called by the President.

Article VElection of Olken and Council1. Only Active members are eligible for election as

officers or members of the Council. Nominations forthe elective offices to be filled and for membership onthe Council shall be made by a Nominating Committeeof five or more members. not offices or other mem-bers of the Council, appointed by the President with theadvice and consent of the Council. Before submitting tothe Council for approval his appointments to the Nomi-nating Committee. the President shall invite suggtstiOnsin writing from the members of the Council as to themembership of the Committee. The Committee shall bechosen each year in time to seek and receive sugges-tions from the members, chapters. and conferences ofthe Association with regard to persons to be nominated.and to meet and submit its report to the General Secre-tary, for publication to the members not later thanOctober 1.

2. One member of the Council shall be elected eachyear from each of ten geographical districts formed withregard to the distribution of the Association's member-ship and to geographical contiguity. In preparation foran election, the Nominating Committee shall nominatetwo Active members of the Association from each dis-trict for the position on the Council to be filled fromthe district.

3. Nominations for members of the Council may alsobe made by petitions signed by at least 50 Active mem-bers of the Arociation resident within the district fromwhich the Council member is to be chosen. providedthat in determining the required number of signaturesnot more than ten shall be members at a single institu-tion. Nominations for the Presidency and the Vice -Presi-dencies may also be made by petition signed by atleast 150 Active members of the Association. providedthat in determining the required number of signature.not more than 15 of those signing a petition shall bemembers at a single institution and not more than 90shall be members in a single district. No member shallsign more than one petition for the same office. Peti-tions presenting nominations shall ,Ire filed in the of-fice of the General Secretary not later than November15.

4. The General Secretary dull prepare ballots con-taining the names of all nominees to office and toCouncil membership. with relevant biographical dataand a statement of the method of nomination. Ballotsshall be mailed to all. Active members of the Asocial' -

65

tion in January and the polls shall be closed two monthsafter the mailing. The nominee receiving a plurality ofvotes shall be declared elected. The President, the Vice-Presidents, and the retiring elective members of theCouncil who have served full terms shall not be eligiblefor immediate reelection to their respective offices.

5. A vacancy occurring on the Council or in the Sec-ond Vice-Presidency shall be filled by a majority voteof the Council for the unexpired term.

Article VIMeetings of the Association1. The Association shall meet annually except when

prevented by war or other national emergency. TheGeneral Secretary shall give notice to the membershipof a meeting at least 30 days in advance. A quorumshall be a majority of the delegates registered for ameeting. A meeting of the Association shall have au-thority (a) to amend the Constitution in the mannerherein provided; (b) to express its views on profes-sional matters; (c) to act on recommendations presentedto it by the Council; (d) to require the Council to reportto the ensuing meeting on subjects within the provinceof the Association; (e) to propose action which, uponconcurrence by the Council, shall become the action ofthe Association; and (f) in the event of disagreementbetween the Council and a meeting of the Association,to take final action as provided in the following section.

2. If the Council declines to concur in a pro-posal of a meeting of the Association, it shall reportits reasons to the ensuing meeting. If that meeting con-curs in the action of the previous meeting, the actionshall become that of the Association. An action of theAssociation reached (a) by concurrence of the Councilin an action of a meeting of the Association or (b)in two successive meetings shall not be changed exceptby the joint action of the Council and a meeting of theAssociation or by two successive meetings of the Asso-ciation.

3. The Active members of the Association in eachchapter may elect not more than one delegate fromthat chapter for each 25 Active members or fractionthereof at the institution, to each meeting of the Asso-ciation. All members of the Association shall be en-titled to the privileges of the floor, but only Activemembers may vote. On request of one fifth of the dele-gates present, a proportional vote shall be taken. In aproportional vote, the accredited delegates from eachchapter shall be entitled to a number of votes equalto the number of Active members at the institution, butany other Active member not at an institution thus rep-resented shall be entitled to an individual vote. Incase a chapter has more than one delegate, each dele-gate may cast an equal portion of the votes to whichthe chapter is entitled.

4. Except as provided in this Constitution or in rulesadopted pursuant to it, the meetings of the Associa-tion shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order.

Article WIChapters1. Whenever the Active members in a given institu-

66

tion number seven or more, they may constitute a chap.ter of the Association. More than one chapter may beestablished in an institution when its parts are geo-graphically separate. Each chapter shall elect, from itsActive members, at least biennially, a President, a Sec-retary, and a Treasurer (or Secretary-Treasurer), and

such other officers as the chapter may determine. Itshall be the duty of the Secretary of the chapter to re-port to the General Secretary of the Association thenames of the officers of the chapter, and to conductthe correspondence of the chapter with the GeneralSecretary.

2. All Active, Junior, and Emeritus members in theinstitution, but not other members of the faculty, shallbe eligible for membership in the chapter. Junior andEmeritus members may vote in chapter meetings at thediscretion of the chapter. Associate members may attendmeetings by invitation of the chapter.

3. A chapter may establish local membership dues.It may meet with other chapters and with other localorganizations. Its actions shall be in harmony with theprinciples and procedures of the Association.

Article VIIIState and Regional ConferencesUpon approval by the Council, several chapters may

organize a conference of the American Association ofUniversity Professors which shall be open to all chap-ters and unaffiliated members within the area or group.A conference may consider and act upon professionalmatters which are of concern to the member chapters,but its action shall not bind the member chapters with-out their authorization and shall be in harmony withthe principles and procedures of the Association. Allconferences are entitled to participate in the activitiesof the Assembly of State and Regional Conferences.Formal recommendations on the purposes, structure,and work of the Association from conferences and theAssembly of State and Regional Conferences shall go tothe Council for consideration and possible transmissionto meetings of the Association.

Article IXAmendmentsThis Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote

of a meeting of the Association. An amendment may beinitiated by the Council or proposed to it by not fewerthan ten Active members. At its next meeting, the Coun-cil shall approve, amend, or disapprove a proposal sub-mitted to it, and report its conclusions to the pro-ponents. It shall report through the General Secretaryto the membership, at least one month before a meet-ing of the Association, a proposal which it initiates orapproves. Upon failure of agreement between the Coun-cil and the proponents of an amendment, the proponentmay, with the concurrence of at least five chapters, se-cure submission of their proposal to the next meetingof the Association by communicating it to the GeneralSecretary at least three months in advance. The Gen-eral Secretary shall transmit all amendments thus pro-posed to each member at least one month before themeeting.