Iowa Academe
Spring 1998
National
leaders to talk about chapter development at Quad Cities meeting
How to
recruit and promote minority faculty: start by playing fair, Jonathan Alger
What we talk about when we talk
about tenure, Mary Burgan
Report: Iowa Committee A, Greg Scholtz,
chair
From the president, Warren Zemke
PROGRAM, Spring Meeting of the Iowa Conference AAUP , April 18,
1998
National leaders to talk about chapter development at Quad Cities meeting
Iris Molotsky, AAUP’s director of membership development, and John Hopper, chair of the Association of State Conferences (ASC), will be keynoting the spring meeting of the Iowa Conference, to be held April 18 at St. Ambrose University in Davenport.
Both speakers will focus on membership and chapter development. Molotsky will offer advice on how to form new chapters, and Hopper will talk about how to keep chapters vital and active.
Besides handling membership development for the national office, Molotsky also directs the public information office and serves as associate editor of Academe. A graduate of SUNY-Stony Brook and a former professor of history and women’s studies, Molotsky has been an AAUP staff member since 1982.
Hopper is a professor emeritus of history and philosophy at Northwest Missouri State University. He earned his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in history from the University of Chicago. He retired from Northwest Mis-souri State in 1993 in order to devote himself full-time to AAUP activities.
In addition to chairing the ASC since 1995, Hopper has served on a number of national AAUP bodies, including Council, Committee R on Government Relations, Committee F on Chapters, and Committee T on Governance. He is also the executive secretary of the Missouri Conference.
Registration for the meeting begins at 9:15 a.m., with the first address scheduled for 10:00 (see program at left).
The meeting will be held in McMullen Hall, which is
located on the corner of Gaines Street and West Locust. Parking is available in three lots
along Gaines Street. Those coming from the west should take Interstate 280 south and exit
on West Locust Street.
How to recruit
and promote minority faculty: start by playing fair
Jonathan Alger
Alger is AAUP Counsel
Sometimes, you have to review the rules of the game to make sure that you are applying them fairly to everyone.
Recent legal attacks on affirmative action have made colleges and universities nervous about their efforts to recruit faculty (as well as students) from under-represented minority groups. Special initiatives designed to attract minority faculty are of particular concern, especially in view of the fact that minority representation among tenure-track faculty in many disciplines remains alarmingly low.
At several recent conferences on these issues, I have been disappointed to hear deans and affirmative action officers express the belief that their own faculties often erect the highest hurdles to minority faculty recruitment and retention. What can be done to ensure that the rules are fair and fairly applied?
Before pursuing new programs that might be legally susceptible, faculty members should first examine how they currently evaluate candidates for appointment and promotion.
The search process for new faculty members is a good place to begin.
Are your search committees given any training to broaden their perspectives, or any resources to ensure that they are reaching out to the complete pool of potentially qualified applicants? Do they advertise in journals and periodicals that make special efforts to reach minority graduate students and faculty? Do they rely on some sort of ranking of graduate schools in evaluating candidates? If so, what is the basis of those rankings, and how do historically black universities and other minority-serving institutions fare in them? Such questions can yield surprising answers.
What about mentoring new faculty members? Do your senior faculty members reach out to junior colleagues with different racial and ethnic backgrounds? Do you communicate regularly with minority faculty members about the environment in your department, campus, or community?
Studies show that informal mentoring relationships usually develop between senior and junior colleagues who have much in common, because people tend to seek out younger versions of themselves when imparting their wisdom and experience.
The traditional criteria applied in evaluations for promotion and tenure often appear to be neutral, but in practice they can have a disparate effect on minority scholars.
In analyzing research, for example, reliance on narrow definitions of "merit" that emphasize publication in traditional journals may slight new or emerging areas of scholarship or practical applications of theory to real-life problems.
In weighing merit in teaching, courses on ethnic studies or courses that include minority perspectives are often taken less seriously than more "mainstream" courses.
If an institution offers such courses, why should they be given less weight than other academic subject matter? Sometimes institutions that want to offer such courses force minority faculty members to teach them, even if those individuals do not specialize in the topic at hand—and then the institutions hold the faculty members’ teaching evaluations against them.
Time and service commitments are often given lip service in tenure and promotion decisions but accorded little weight in practice. For minority faculty members who are asked to serve as representatives on many campus committees, these assignments carry a special burden.
Minority faculty members are also often asked to be mentors to minority students regardless of the students’ subject-matter interests, a burden rarely imposed on white faculty members.
"Collegiality" is another criterion that is creeping into more and more faculty evaluation processes. Collegiality can be a code word for favoring candidates with backgrounds, interests, and political and social perspectives similar to one’s own. This vague and subjective criterion can be used against faculty members whose work and ideas challenge traditional orthodoxy in their departments or institutions.
If we care about recruiting and retaining minority faculty
members, we don’t need to lower standards or discard the concept of merit. Instead,
we need to ensure that existing criteria are applied with a broad enough perspective so
that each individual’s true contributions to the learning environment at the
university—both in and outside the classroom—are fully and fairly taken into
account.
What we talk about when we talk about
tenure
Mary Burgan
Mary Burgan is general secretary of the AAUP. Before assuming that post, she was a professor of English at Indiana University.
I have spent two recent weekends defending tenure at higher education conferences, one actually set in Disney World!
Do faculty members realize how many higher education conferences come to the aid of the hotel industry in the off-season? Do they understand that administrators get together to trade strategies at such gatherings? When they hear deans talk about "asynchronous pedagogy," "learning communities," and "stakeholders," does it dawn on them that the discourse comes from education Chautauquas that spin lingo nearly as exotic as the jargon at MLA meetings?
The fact is that while faculty are debating the nature of knowledge in their own conclaves, their administrative colleagues are talking elsewhere about managing the university. These conversations proceed in relative isolation from each other, though in an increasing mood of mutual suspicion. Indeed, it is this suspicion that has come to color the current debates on tenure.
On the one side, faculty see administrators as undermining their authority by hiring more and more part-time and adjunct faculty, threatening increased surveillance over every aspect of their work, and eliminating departmental home bases. They hear their leaders preach about teaching and service in public forums while intensifying mandates for publication, grantsmanship, and national research recognition behind closed doors. And faculty are exasperated by the euphoric pedagogy now being peddled by consultants who fly onto the campus to accuse the typical faculty member of yearning to be a "sage on the stage rather than a guide at the side" of students.
At one long Saturday morning lecture from such a guru recently, a satirical colleague was heard to murmur over and over, "We’re sorry. We’re sorry." The tenor of many of the current mandates for change in the world of higher education management seem anti-faculty, if not anti-intellectual.
On the other side, educational managers say that it is very hard to engage tenured faculty in making plans for such critical eventualities as shifts in enrollments, the demands for consumer satisfaction in education, and the deflation of the market for new Ph.D.’s. When they talk about faculty governance, they complain that it is expensive, inflexible, and impervious to the bottom line. The subplot of their talk is that tenure could be abolished and governance made less intrusive, if only one research university would make the first move.
Fed up with the difficulties of reform, some of our educational managers don’t understand that the culture of academic freedom carries a mandate for faculty to be fearless in the expression of knowledge not only in research but in the classroom.
I worry that our administrative colleagues forget that in a world now so bound by competition, there is a social value in the cultivation of autonomous professionals who claim the right to criticize progress, efficiency, public relations, and management fads.
That is why tenure cannot be limited to a few research faculty in seats of educational privilege. Indeed, it is students in less privileged locations who most require the fresh air of a contrarian opinion blithely spoken or a controversial book bravely taught.
Of course, under the stress of change, faculty cannot afford to be rude or automatically oppositional. But neither can administrators dismiss academic freedom as the faculty’s self-indulgence.
Academic freedom is not a rule to guide the settlement of one or another pedagogical incident; it is an environment in which the exploration of solutions can breathe rather than gasp from one put-down to the next.
We could use more of this climate when we talk about
tenure.
Report:
Iowa Committee A
Greg Scholtz, chair
Since October, Iowa Committee A has assisted six Iowa faculty members who contacted the committee with complaints related to academic freedom, tenure, or due process. Because Committee A treats all requests for assistance in confidence, this report will protect the identities of the faculty members and their institutions.
 | A faculty member whose part-time contract at a community
college was summarily terminated last January contacted Committee A with information about
the events leading to the termination. It was not clear that the faculty member had been
terminated for appropriate reasons or had been afforded access to grievance procedures.
Commit-tee A will continue to monitor the situation at this institution.•A
tenure-track faculty member at a private, four-year institution was denied tenure when the
administration did not concur with the strongly affirmative recommendations of the
department and the college personnel committee. The administration did not feel that a long-term need existed for the position held by the faculty member, despite the contrary view of the department. Committee A members assisted the faculty member by meeting with administrative officials, by referring her to national Committee A, and by assisting with the drafting of an appeal document. The appeal is still pending. |
| A tenure-track faculty member at a private, four-year
institution was denied tenure after receiving negative recommendations from the
department, the college personnel committee, and the dean. The faculty member claimed that
the decision was arrived at improperly and gave notice to the administration that he
intended to appeal. At first it appeared that the administration would not allow him to appeal or give him written reasons for the tenure denial. According to AAUP-recommended policies, faculty members have a right to an appeal and to a written statement of reasons. Iowa Committee A referred the faculty member to national Committee A, and, after reviewing the faculty handbook and pertinent AAUP statements, offered advice relative to the appeal, which eventually was allowed to go forward. The appeals committee, however, found no evidence to support the faculty member’s claims. According to the faculty member, the administration would not allow the appeals committee to access the faculty member’s personnel file (contrary to AAUP policy), nor did the committee meet with the faculty member. The faculty member remains in contact with both the state and national Committee A and has retained an attorney. Since several policies at this institution deviate significantly from the professional standards articulated by the AAUP, the chair of Iowa Committee A advised chapter officers to initiate efforts to revise the faculty handbook. |
| A tenured faculty member at a public university sought the assistance of Iowa Committee A in dealing with a number of grievances against the department chair. A member of Iowa Committee A on that campus provided advice and counsel. |
| A tenure-track faculty member at a private, four-year
institution sought the advice of the committee upon receiving notice, after her
fourth-year review, that she would not be reappointed beyond her fifth year of service.
After three years of largely positive evaluations, the faculty member reportedly received
negative recommendations from the department, the college personnel committee, and the
provost. According to the faculty member, the reasons for the nonreappointment came as a
surprise. A member of Committee A explored available options with this professor, reviewed the pertinent AAUP statements, and provided a list of attorneys with higher education experience. The faculty member chose not to appeal or to consult an attorney, but she did assert that her nonreappointment was another instance in a longstanding pattern of administrative actions discriminating against outspoken female faculty at the college. Iowa Committee A will continue to monitor the situation at this institution. |
| A tenure-track faculty member at a private, four-year institution was denied tenure upon the recommendation of the college personnel committee and the administration. After receiving a written statement of the reasons for the decision, he filed an appeal based upon a claim of inadequate consideration. On behalf of Iowa Committee A, a local chapter leader undertook the task of providing advice and counsel to the faculty member. The appeal is pending. |
Committee A stands ready to provide confidential
assistance to any faculty member of an Iowa institution of higher education who
experiences problems related to due process, tenure, or academic freedom. Complainants
will receive help regardless of whether or not they are members of the AAUP. Names, phone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of Iowa Committee A members are printed in the box on page 5
of this newsletter.
From
the president
Warren Zemke
Two weeks ago, the Des Moines Register printed an article entitled "Iowa Colleges Conduct Searches for Presidents." It seemed like there were a lot of vacancies around Iowa in 1998: Drake University, Grinnell College, Simpson College, Wartburg College, and William Penn College.
If you scan over the last 3 to 4 years, there are another 8 Iowa institutions that obtained new presidents: Central College, Coe College, Cornell College, Grand View College, Luther College, the University of Iowa, the University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, and the University of Northern Iowa.
So, what's the big deal? New presidents seem to be "happening" in our state, that's all. The Register article even noted that the vacancies are probably more a coincidence than a trend.
My point isn't about the increased frequency of presidential searches. Rather, it’s about the search process for a new president and especially the faculty’s central role in that process. The AAUP Redbook delineates the faculty role in its statement Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators (p. 190).
Thirty-two years ago, the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities was jointly formulated by the AAUP, the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. It stands today as the profession's guiding statement on shared governance in colleges and universities in the U.S.
At Wartburg, we are beginning the final on-campus interviews for our new president. It is perhaps the most important issue affecting the college's destiny for the foreseeable future.
Thanks to the AAUP chapter, the Wartburg faculty has been apprised of its proper role in the search process. What is the situation at your institution?
Turning from governance issues to Iowa AAUP news, I am pleased to announce that Jim Andrews of the University of Iowa will replace Ed Kottick as a member of Iowa Committee A. Ed has served Committee A admirably over the years, and we wish him well in his "retirement" from that committee. Jim comes to the Iowa Conference Committee A with considerable experience: he chairs the UI Committee A. Welcome, Jim!
Another piece of good news: I have been informed that the national's Committee F on Chapters, Conferences, Members, and Dues has renewed the integrated dues plan for the Iowa Conference. That means we are going to remain financially strong for the next three years.
Finally, at the business meeting on April 18, we will
select conference delegates to the national meeting in Washington, D.C., this summer. We
should be able to partially support 2-3 delegates from the conference treasury. Be sure to
let me know before the spring meeting if you are planning to attend the national meeting
in June.
Spring Meeting of the Iowa Conference AAUP
April 18, 1998
St Ambrose University, Davenport, Iowa
9:15 Registration (free of charge) in Room 211 of McMullen Hall (coffee and pastries)
10:00 Keynote Address: "Act I: How to Form a Chapter."
Iris F. Molotsky, Director, Membership Development, AAUP
Discussion Moderator: Richard Geiger
11:00 Keynote Address: "Act II: How to Keep ‘Em Going."
John E. Hopper, Chair, Assembly of State Conferences
Discussion Moderator: Richard Geiger
12:00 Lunch Break and Committee Meetings
1:30 Business Meeting
•President's Report
•Treasurer's Report
•Committee Reports
•Elections
2:30 Chapter Reports
3:00 Adjournment