Iowa Academe
Fall 1998

Wartburg hosts fall meeting. National activist to speak on shared governance
PROGRAM: Fall Meeting of the Iowa Conference AAUP
Wachtel: hot topics dominate AAUP Annual Meeting, by Ruth Wachtel
From the president, by Warren Zemke

Wartburg hosts fall meeting. National activist to speak on shared governance

Keetjie J. Ramo, a long-time AAUP activist and an authority on the topic of academic governance, will keynote the fall meeting of Iowa AAUP, scheduled for Saturday, October 17, at Wartburg College in Waverly. Ramo will talk about why faculty participation in academic governance is essential, what obstacles prevent faculty members from playing their proper role, and what steps faculty can take to overcome these obstacles. Ramo, who received a B.S. in psychology from the University of Puget Sound, and an M.S.W. and Ph.D. from the Ohio State University, has just been appointed an associate professor of social work at St. Ambrose University.

A member of the AAUP since 1979, Ramo was a founding member and president of both the Boise State University and University of Wisconsin-Green Bay chapters. In Idaho, she was instrumental in organizing chapters at Boise State University, Idaho State University, and Lewis and Clark State College.

In 1991, she helped revive the inactive Idaho Conference, of which she became president, and has been active as a Committee A volunteer in both Idaho and Wisconsin.

Jim Perley, immediate past president of the AAUP, appointed Ramo to Committee T on College and University Government in 1992, and she served on that committee until 1998. During her term, she wrote a major document, "Assessing the Faculty's Role in Shared Governance," which was published by the AAUP in 1998.

From 1994 to 1997, she served as a Council representative from Wisconsin and Michigan, and she was a member of the Council's executive committee in 1996-97.

Ramo has presented workshops on chapter organization and shared governance at several AAUP national conferences, and at meetings of the Illinois, Michigan, and Nevada state conferences.

She has also led workshops on governance at the AAUP's Summer Institute. Her article "Reforming Shared Governance: Do the Arguments Hold Up?" appeared in the September-October 1997 issue of Academe.

9:30 Registration (free of charge) in the East Room of the Wartburg College Student Union (coffee and pastries)

10:00 Keynote Address: "Professionalism and Shared Governance: Why Faculty Must Play a Role"
Keetjie Ramo, Social Work, St. Ambrose University

10:45 Panel Discussion
Panelists: Ruth Caldwell (Luther College), Greg Scholtz
(Wartburg College)
Bill Shipman (Wartburg College)

11:30 Business Meeting

• President's Report
• Treasurer's Report
• Committee Reports
• Elections

11:50 Chapter Reports

12:00 Adjournment

Wachtel: hot topics dominate AAUP Annual Meeting
by Ruth Wachtel

I was pleased to represent the Iowa Conference at the recent Annual Meeting of the AAUP, June 11-14, in Washington, DC. I attended several business meetings and panel discussions, but found it especially rewarding to speak more informally with colleagues from other institutions, both big and small.

I was amazed to discover that we had so much in common, even though we came from totally different institutional environments and teach subjects that are virtually unrelated.

The following is a synopsis of some of the key issues at the meeting:

I heard many horror stories about plans to abolish tenure at medical schools. Here at the University of Iowa we have the clinical track, which was introduced about five years ago to accommodate clinician/teachers who choose not to do research. Nebraska wants to eliminate tenure by instituting rolling contracts for everyone, including basic scientists. Creighton has been discussing a post-tenure review process that would include re- and de-tenuring. Several institutions are considering extending the probationary period beyond six years or appointing junior faculty as associates prior to joining the tenure track. Universal problems include release time from clinical duties to conduct research, an increased emphasis on supporting salaries through grants, and the need to "buy" research space.

Perhaps the most hotly contested issue at the ASC meeting was a proposal from a Committee F subcommittee to "simplify" the dues structure. Under the present system, annual dues are automatically increased each year by indexing them to cost-of–living measures. The committee recommended that both national and conference dues should no longer be indexed, but instead should be based on annual salary. For an Iowa resident, yearly dues would remain unchanged at $124 for those making $50-60,000 annually. For those making between $20-30,000, dues would be only $59.50, while those making over $80,000 would pay $154 per year.

Rate structures were designed to be revenue neutral based on current income levels, while the dues of an individual member would naturally rise over time as salary increased.

Committee A presented a draft of AAUP’s official position on post-tenure review. The committee strongly reaffirmed the principles of the 1983 statement On Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, which asserts that the AAUP "believes that [post-tenure review] would bring scant benefit, would incur unacceptable costs ... in money and time but also in dampening of creativity and of collegial relationships, and would threaten academic freedom" (AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 1995, p. 49).

However, the committee recognized that post-tenure review is being considered or has been instituted at numerous institutions throughout the country. Its report offered practical recommendations for helping to ensure that a post-tenure review system is aimed at faculty development rather than accountability and that it does not become a re-evaluation of tenure.

These recommendations included the following minimum standards:

• The process must ensure the protection of academic freedom as defined in the 1940 Statement of Principles.
• The process must not be a re-evaluation or re-validation of tenure status. It should not shift the burden of proof from the institution to the faculty member.
• Written standards and criteria should be developed.
• The review should be supported by institutional resources for development or change of professional direction.
• Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers.
• The outcome of evaluations should be confidential.
• If the system of review involves a formal development plan, the plan must not be imposed on the faculty member unilaterally, but must be a product of mutual negotiation.
• A faculty member should have the right to comment in response to evaluations and to challenge any findings and correct the record.
• In the event that recurring evaluations reveal continuing and persistent problems, then a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties should be explored.
• The standard for dismissal or severe sanction remains that of adequate cause. Successive negative reviews do not in any way diminish the obligation of the institution to show cause for dismissal in a separate forum before an appropriately constituted body of peers.

A report from a subcommittee of Committee R on Government Relations was published in the May/June Issue of Academe. It stated, "Distance learning, used properly in its various modes, can enhance the learning and experience and increase access to higher education for a wide variety of potential students."

The report goes on to warn, however, that "distance learning, even if used properly, raises a number of issues that have to be examined carefully, to determine its impact on faculty, students, and the learning experience in general."

A resolution passed at the annual meeting reaffirmed the faculty’s central role in the development, evaluation, and delivery of distance learning programs and the faculty’s responsibility for distance learning education materials: "Whatever the technological means used to transmit the course material, most decisions regarding distance learning involve pedagogical and curricular questions – matters about which the faculty has the knowledge and expertise and on which it should exercise primary responsibility. Faculty are in the best position to ensure the academic quality of distance learning programs."

The subcommittee also emphasized that faculty should retain ownership of intellectual property used as part of distance learning programs: "Ownership of all academic work should reside with the individual faculty member(s) who create that work, regardless of the mode of transmission used to communicate that work, and whether the audience consists of students sitting in a lecture hall, reading a book, watching a video, or taking a course over a network or the Internet." This issue is addressed in greater detail by a Committee A subcommittee on Intellectual Property Rights, which also published its report on copyright issues in the May/June Issue of Academe.

The subcommittee recognized that the various forms of distance learning increase the preparation requirements of the instructor. Furthermore, distance learning requires faculty to develop additional expertise in technical areas and requires them to modify their teaching styles and assessment methods. These factors should be considered when determining workload and compensation formulas.

From the president
by Warren Zemke

The AAUP has a new president, Jim Richardson from Nevada. Still, it was meaningful for me to hear outgoing president Jim Perley give his speech at the Association’s Annual Meeting in June. Jim has been a very good friend to us in Iowa, having been our keynoter at two different Iowa Conference meetings in the past 4 years. I will try to get the new Jim, Jim Richardson, to visit us in the spring.

Perley alerted us to what he sees as two major developments that challenge higher education today. The first is a huge growth in part-time faculty. A year ago at Drake, Iowa Conference members heard keynoter Karen Thompson, chair of AAUP’s Committee G on Part-Time and Non-Tenure Track Appoint-ments, warn us of the dire consequences of the rise in part-time faculty (see Iowa Academe, Winter 1997-98).

Although not finalized yet, there is a move afoot to add an Iowa Conference Committee G to our existing committee structure. I have spoken with several executive committee members and am hopeful we can get something put together soon.

Perley’s other challenge is that of distance learning. Ruth Wachtel’s article (page 2) addresses important issues discussed at the annual meeting, including the report on distance learning from Committee R on Government Relations. With the growing popularity of the ICN, distance learning is facing us head-on in Iowa. The resolution presented at the Annual Meeting "reaffirms the faculty’s central role in the development, evaluation, and delivering of distance learning and the faculty’s responsibility for distance learning educational materials" (July-August 1998 issue of Academe).

Prior to the June national meeting, there was a flurry of activity concerning a new dues schedule.

After heated debate about whether or not dues should be prorated according to individual salaries (not according to rank as is currently the case), no action was taken and the matter was sent by the Council to a new committee outside of Committee F.

In addition, the Council passed a resolution "that emeritus members be accorded all rights and privileges of active membership including voting in national elections." This will mean a constitutional change which will come before the 1999 annual meeting.

Finally, the Assembly of State Conferences announced a new initiative of "per capita" grants to conferences of less than 500 members (like Iowa). We are eligible for this grant since we produce a newsletter (last year ours received national recognition), hold annual meetings (we hold two per year in Iowa), have key conference committees (like A and W), fund delegates to attend the Annual Meeting, attend regional leadership training workshops, and maintain a Web page.

This two dollars per head will help our treasury significantly. And, not incidentally, have you looked at the Iowa Conference Web page recently? It’s a good one and worthy of your attention: <http://www.public.iastate.edu/~aaup/>. Thanks to Heimir Geirsson (philosophy) of Iowa State for constructing and maintaining it.

I encourage you to make every effort to attend the fall meeting at Wartburg. Keetjie Ramo is a dynamic speaker with considerable background and experience in the area of institutional governance. You won’t want to miss her presentation on the faculty’s primary role in shared governance.