Iowa Academe
Fall 1996
Expert on sexual harassment policies to speak at Oct. 5 meeting
of Iowa AAUP
PROGRAM
Appeals court concurs with AAUP's position in sexual
harassment case
U of I honors David Baldus
From the president, by Iowa AAUP president Warren Zemke
Iowa AAUP now on the Web
New committee supports faculty women, by Joanna Courteau,
Chair, Iowa Committee W
First-time delegate shares impressions of AAUP's annual meeting,
by Heimir Geirsson
Crowder appointed to Iowa Committee A
Send letters/submissions to
Greg Scholtz
English department
Wartburg College
Waverly, IA 50677
-or-
Linda E. Fisher, associate professor of law at Seton Hall School of Law and director of
the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, heads the program for the fall meeting of the
Iowa Conference, to be held October 5 at Iowa State University in Ames. In the afternoon,
a panel of ISU faculty and administrators will discuss program discontinuations at Iowa
State.
Fisher will talk about ways of resolving the conflict between two goals: protecting
academic freedom and preventing sexual harassment in academia.
Fisher's knowledge of sexual harassment policies comes from her work on AAUP committees
W and A, which spent several years revising the AAUP statement on sexual harassment (The
new policy was finally approved in June of 1995). Fisher, who holds law degrees from
Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, also has extensive experience in
civil rights litigation.
Her presentation will be followed by a panel discussion. Panelists will be Joanna
Courteau, chair of Iowa Committee W and member of the AAUP National Council; Greg Scholtz,
chair of Iowa Committee A and one of the principle architects of the Wartburg College
sexual harassment policy; and Carla Espinoza, interim affirmative action officer and
assistant vice president for human resources at ISU. Ms. Espinoza had previously been
director of the department of human resources at the University of New Mexico and
assistant chancellor of affirmative action at the University of California-Irvine. She has
drafted several sexual harassment policies and served as an expert witness in sexual
harassment cases. The discussion will be moderated by ISU chapter president Mack Shelley.
In the afternoon, a panel consisting of ISU faculty and administrative staff will
discuss recent program discontinuations at the university.
[Back to top]
| 9:15 | Registration (free of charge) in Campanille Room, Memorial Union |
| 10:00 | Keynote Address: "Harassment Policy: Chapter Two." Professor Linda Fisher, Seton Hall School of Law |
| 11:45 | Panel Response Panelists: Joanna Courteau, Carla Espinoza, Greg Scholtz |
| 11:45 | Lunch Break (Meals can be purchased in the Union basement and consumed in the Campanille Room.) |
| 12:20 | Panel Discussion of Program Discontinuations at ISU Panelists: ISU faculty and administration |
| 1:45 | Business Meeting *President's Report *Treasurer's Report *Committee Reports *Chapter Reports |
| 2:00 | Committee Meetings |
| 3:00 | Adjournment |
The AAUP played a role in an August 19 decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit expunging discipline imposed on a professor for discussion of
sexuality and other controversial topics in hisremedial English class.
Professor Dean Cohen sued San Bernardino Valley College in California under the First
Amendment. AAUP supported his claims in a brief filed jointly as a friend-of-the-court
with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Freedom to
Read Foundation. The brief argued that the Constitution gives wide latitude to the
classroom speech of professors and that the college's rules were unduly vague. The court
of appeals agreed.
AAUP Counsel Ann H. Franke commented, "Eradicating sexual harassment is vitally
important, but so is the protection of free expression in the classroom. You can't
approach the academic discussion of sexuality with Victorian-era scruples."
The case arose from a complaint by a student, whom the court identified as "Ms.
M.," that in Cohen's spring 1992 course he used provocative language and discussed
sexual issues. She refused to write an assigned essay on defining pornography. Ms. M.
filed a sexual harassment grievance against Professor Cohen under the college's new sexual
harassment policy.
In the first case heard under the policy, Cohen was found guilty of creating a
"hostile learning environment." The college president concluded that he had
engaged in "sexual harassment which had the effect of unreasonably interfering with
an individual's academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
work environment." Cohen was ordered, among other steps, to "become
sensitive" to his students, to attend sexual harassment training, and to modify his
teaching techniques when they created a hostile climate. The college indicated that a
future violation of the policy could result in his termination.
In its ruling, the court of appeals vacated the discipline imposed on Professor Cohen.
It found that the college's policy was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his
longstanding teaching methods. The court pointed out that the college previously seemed to
have considered Cohen's approach to be pedagogically sound. The new sexual harassment
policy violated the First Amendment in failing to provide Professor Cohen with adequate
notice of new requirements. "[O]fficials of the college, on an entirely ad hoc basis,
applied the Policy's nebulous outer reaches to punish teaching methods that Cohen had used
for many years," wrote Judge Robert Mehrige for the unanimous court.
The court of appeals confirmed that, under the First Amendment, colleges and
universities must adopt sexual harassment policies involving the classroom that are
narrow, clear, and precise. AAUP has developed a model policy defining classroom sexual
harassment.
Under the Association's recommended approach, the speech not only must be offensive to
a reasonable person; it must impair the academic opportunity of students, and it must be
"persistent, pervasive,and not germane to the subject matter."
[Back to top]
The University of Iowa has named David C. Baldus as a 1996 recipient of the Michael J.
Brody Award for Faculty Excellence in Service. The Brody Award honors faculty who have
made exceptionally effective contributions to the university.
Baldus, the Joseph B. Tye Professor of Law in the University of Iowa College of Law, is
a long-time AAUP activist. As a chapter officer and member of the UI Committee A on
Academic Freedom and Tenure, Baldus has worked to develop fair and humane personnel
policies at the university and has spent long hours counseling faculty colleagues in
matters related to academic freedom, tenure, and due process.
One of his nominators offered this tribute: "At the center of David Baldus are at
least two powerful drives: first, a deep compassion for the less fortunate among us; and
second, an abhorrence of the abuse of power by the more fortunate against the less
fortunate."
[Back to top]
From the president
by Iowa AAUP president Warren Zemke
The annual meeting of the AAUP was held in Washington, D.C., on June 7-9, preceded by
the annual meeting of the AAUP Assembly of State Conferences (ASC) on June 6-7. For me the
ASC meeting was more action-packed than any floor session of the Association.
The ASC has encouraged each conference to have its own Committee A because the first
point of inquiry related to problems with academic freedom and tenure often comes at the
conference level. This surely seems to be the case in the state of Iowa.
The Association, however, strongly recommends that conference Committee A workers
consult with national Committee A in order to "insure uniform interpretation of the
Association's principles and policies" (ASC chair H. C. Ferrell, in a letter to State
Conference Presidents, 11/6/89).
That the successful implementation of this policy has not always been easy to achieve
became evident when, spurred on by members of the New York State Conference, ASC delegates
and national Committee A representatives heatedly debated existing procedures for handling
and processing complaints related to issues of academic freedom and tenure. At issue was
the exclusion of a state conference's Committee A and conference president from
consultation with national Committee A, even though the case included a national committee
investigation with the potential for AAUP censure.
It was an Iowa Conference resolution passed in our fall 1995 meeting that brought the
debate to closure. Passed unanimously was the resolution "that the ASC in conjunction
with national Committee A establish a set of written guidelines to assist state conference
Committee A members in conducting their work."
A year ago an ASC Task Force on Part-time Faculty was appointed. Receiving the task
force report and subsequent floor debate was another important point of discussion.
President Jim Perley and General Secretary Mary Burgan were present to listen to ASC
delegates; they assured us that issues of part-timers and state/national Committee A
consultations would be put on the agenda of the National Council.
A new ASC development is the regional training institute program. In the spring of
1997, a regional institute will be held in Chicago, sponsored by the Illinois Conference
and the National Council. If it follows the format of the April 1996 institute in Memphis,
there will be workshops on building chapter effectiveness, membership recruitment tips,
lobbying instructions and Committee A training. The institute will run from a Friday
evening through Saturday until Sunday noon. There will be scholarship assistance from the
Council. Please start now to think of current and future leaders from your chapter who
would benefit from this institute. I hope there will be at least a half dozen Iowa
participants at the spring institute!
On the evening of June 7, delegates were able to hear a dialogue on tenure, led by the
Task Force on Tenure. Faculty from the University of Minnesota and Arizona State
University described attacks on tenure at their institutions. In addition, there was
lively discussion on a range of topics, from concerns about post-tenure review to the
erosion of tenure through the use of part-time faculty. We have not heard the last of
these issues!
The two Iowa delegates (Heimir Geirsson and I) stopped in to visit Senator Tom Harkin's
office on Capitol Hill. Although we were unable to speak with the senator himself, we did
find a sympathetic ear concerning our invitation for the senator to address our fall
conference meeting in Ames. (Unfortunately, we learned on August 28 that he will not be
able to come.)
Finally, welcome to new Iowa Committee A member, Prof. Diane Crowder of
Cornell College!
[Back to top]
The purpose of this committee is (1) to assist women professors throughout the state
with professional development, (2) to survey women professors on issues of concern to
women and to discuss them in public fora, newspaper articles, and other media, with the
intent of gathering as complete information as possible concerning these issues, and (3)
to educate the professoriate and the public-at-large to the uniqueness of problems faced
by women in the academy and to develop strategies for their successful resolution.
Some of the issues of concern which we might address may be the conflict which exists
between spousal accommodations and peer selection of colleagues or accommodation of
maternity leave within the tenure clock, etc.
More importantly, however, the committee wants women professors to know that it is
ready to offer them whatever assistance and support they might need.
Members of Committee W are Jacqueline Wilkie (wilkieja@martin.luther.edu), Ruth Wachtel
(ruth-wachtel@uiowa.edu), Elaine Kalmar (elaine.kalmar@uni.edu), and Joanna Courteau
(courteau@iastate.edu).
Please do not hesitate to contact one of us if you have any concerns.
[Back to top]
Since this was the first time I attended the national meeting of the AAUP, I arrived
early for the first session, waiting to catch a glimpse of the high priests of the
organization. One thought stuck in my mind as I saw them arrive: "Damn, these guys
are old!" And then a second thought crept up: "Perhaps they are new to this
too!" I didn't have much time to wonder whether or not this second thought
represented an optimistic possibility, for the meeting was soon called to order.
The first couple of days of the four-day-long conference were devoted to meetings of
the Assembly of State Conferences, a money-holding subgroup of AAUP whose purpose, among
other things, is to support development of state conferences and chapters and to
facilitate cooperation and coordination within and across state lines.
As conference participants continued to file in after the first ASC meeting began, ASC
chair John Hopper greeted each one from the podium by name and identified his or her
conference. It was obvious that most of the late-comers had attended previous ASC
meetings. Not surprisingly, the Second Annual AAUP Tenure-Track 5K Run, Jog, and Walk was
canceled for lack of participants.
As in a typical classroom, the great majority of comments from the floor and discussion
of motions came from a handful of individuals. And they were eager participants. Even I,
who am notoriously bad at connecting faces with places, eventually started to associate
faces with the microphone into which they were speaking. Jeff Butts, president of the
North Carolina Conference, told me that he made most of the connections that I was now
making over ten years ago.
What the general meetings lacked in interest was made up for by various small meetings
set aside for discussion. There were breakfast discussion groups, luncheon discussion
groups, dinner discussion groups, and even groups where nothing was offered except
discussion. Topics were interesting and varied, including Committee W issues, Committee A
issues, sexual harassment, threats to tenure (featuring case studies from Arizona and
Minnesota), the use of part-time and non-tenure-track faculty, and homosexuality on
campus, to name a few. Discussion at the meetings waslively and very valuable.
Committee A issues were of most interest to me and, apart from the discussion on the
attacks on tenure (see the Iowa AAUP homepage for a link to a site which covers some of
these topics), two issues stand out. At a discussion meeting on Committee A issues one of
the main speakers, Eileen Burchell, president of the New York Conference, told how the
national Committee A had, when conducting an in-state investigation, ignored New York
Committee A and its results from a preliminary investigation. Eventually, after repeated
efforts, New York Committee A was able to supplynational Committee A with key information
that the national Committee had overlooked. Understandably, the New York delegation was
not pleased with the national committee and raised the issue both in a discussion group
and at the ASC assembly, suggesting that because of increased demands, national Committee
A should start to work more closely with state Committee As. The issue relates closely to
what Iowa Committee A has long considered a problem: namely, that the national office does
not show much faith in state Committee As and their work, the main reason being that the
members of state committees have to learn on the fly as they deal with individual
incidents. As a result of the discussion in Iowa Committee A and a subsequent motion at an
Iowa Conference meeting, an airily succinct Warren Zemke presented to the ASC assembly a
resolution to the effect that the national office should take serious steps towards
preparing a handbook, or a manual, to aid state committee A members in their work. The
resolution passed unanimously.
A second issue that was hotly debated at discussion meetings was post-tenure review.
Many did not see post-tenure review as being much of an issue, but others saw the
potential for severe misuse of the process. It is fairly typical that post-tenure reviews
include a list of areas of improvements and steps one might take to improve. The main
concern focused on this list and what would/could happen if someone did not improve or did
not improve sufficiently. This was particularly a concern for those who have seen members
of the administration-e.g., a dean-participate in the post-tenure review process.
Many thanks to Iowa AAUP for supporting my attendance at this fascinating event.
Professor Geirsson, one of Iowa AAUP's three delegates to the annual meeting,
teaches philosophy at Iowa State University. He is a member of the Iowa Conference
Executive Committee and of Iowa Committee A.
[Back to top]
Iowa AAUP president Warren Zemke has appointed Cornell College professor Diane Crowder
to the Iowa Conference Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
Members of Iowa Committee A (see box on page 4) offer free advice and counsel to any
faculty member seeking assistance in matters related to academic freedom and tenure.
[Back to top]