american international college

Academic Freedom and TenureAMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE

(Massachusetts)1

I. INTRODUCTION

American International College is a privateinstitution located in the center of Spring-field, Massachusetts. It enrolls about 200students who are instructed by a facultyof approximately 150 in Schools of Arts

and Sciences, Business Administration, andPsychology and Education, a Division of Nursing, anda College of Continuing and Graduate Studies. It of-fers a Bachelor of Arts degree, and additionallyBachelor of Science degrees in Business Administationand Human Services and Nursing. On the graduatelevel, it awards the M.A. degree in three fields, thedegrees of M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., and M.S. inCriminal Justice Studies, and a master's degree inPublic Administration. This considerable variety ofprograms stems from what the College catalogue de-scribes as "the best charter of any institution of higherlearning in [Massachusetts]."

The College acquired its charter to "grant.. . andconfer such honors, degrees, and diplomas as aregranted or conferred by any university, college orseminary of learning in this commonwealth" in 1888,when, three years after its founding in Lowell, Massa-chusetts, as the French-Protestant College, it was of-fered financial aid and a site in Springfield to serve theFrench-Canadian population of the Connecticut Valley.Continuing to meet the needs of recent immigrants anddecreasing its denominational emphasis, it changed itsname to the French-American College in 1894. In 1905,it became known as American International College.Until the tide of immigration slackened in the 1920s,the College addressed itself to training in United Statescitizenship. It stressed instruction in the Englishlanguage, American history and culture, and basic vo-cational skills. It survived a financial crisis over the nextdecade by redirecting its programs to meet the needsof native born students in its immediate geographical

area. By 1935, its 300 students were "predominantlyAmerican." The College was first accredited by theNew England Association of Schools and Colleges in1933.

The subsequent history of American InternationalCollege reflects its continued adaptability. It estab-lished evening and summer schools in the 1940s. Ser-vicing what it called its "zooming enrollment" afterthe Second World War, the College: created its grad-uate program in education in conjunction with theSpringfield public schools in the late 1940s; ran twooverseas branches during the 1950s for U.S. airmenstationed in Bermuda and the Azores; conducted a"training program for skilled artisans from MarshallAid countries"; designed an executive developmentprogram leading to an M.B.A. in the late 1950s; andconducted degree-eligible courses for "several thou-sand" servicemen and civilians stationed at WestoverAir Force Base in nearby Chicopee throughout the1960s and until the base was "deactivated" in 1974.In the 1960s, like other colleges, it greatly expandedits physical facilities, adding eleven new buildings. Inthe 1970s, it added its programs in nursing and crimi-nal justice as well as programs in special education,in learning disabilities, and, after acquiring an en-dowed Chair of Free Enterprise, in economiceducation.

Dr. Harry J. Courniotes, the current president ofAmerican International College, began there as amember of the faculty in 1946 and was appointed tohis present position in 1969. He is accountable to athirty-member board of trustees, twenty-seven of themmen who are corporate and bank managers or officersand attorneys, all drawn from locally based firms; thethree others are women who are identified simply as"community leader" or "educator."

II. POLICY ON TENURE ANDTHE CASE OF PROFESSOR PROVOST

Mr. Paul E. Provost was initially appointed to theAmerican International College faculty, at the rank ofinstructor in the Department of Philosophy, for the

xThe text of this report was written in the first instance by themembers of the investigating committee. In accordance with Associa-tion practice, the text was sent to the Association's Committee Aon Academic Freedom and Tenure, to the teacher at whose requestthe investigation was conducted, to the administration of American

1967-68 academic year. He was then doing graduatework in philosophy at New York University. Thepolicy on tenure in effect at the College at that time

International College, to the chapter president, and to other per-sons directly concerned in the report. In the light of the suggestionsreceived, and with the editorial assistance of the Association's staff,the report has been revised for publication.

42 A C A D E M E May-June 1983

provided for continuous tenure for faculty membersholding professorial ranks upon reappointment follow-ing a probationary period: four years for professors;five years for associate professors; and six years forassistant professors. In 1971, at the end of his fourthyear of service, Mr. Provost was promoted to the rankof assistant professor and reappointed for a two-yearterm. President Courniotes, in notifying him of thepromotion, referred to his lack of a master's degree (hehad embarked on a doctoral program without it) andto his consequent inability to be continued at the Col-lege should he complete his probationary periodwithout having completed the requirements for thedoctorate and with nothing more than a bachelor'sdegree.

Through Professor Provost's first four or five yearsof service at American International College, tenureseems to have been granted to faculty members rou-tinely upon the completion of their probationaryperiods. By 1972, however, student enrollment was nolonger increasing and the size of the faculty was nolonger expanding. President Courniotes wrote onSeptember 28, 1972, to eight members of the faculty,including Professor Provost, who were approachingthe end of their probationary service. He stated thatvirtually the entire current faculty would have tenurein another three years under existing policies andtrends, according to projections, unless those becom-ing eligible for tenure were not retained. He informedthem that the tenure system at the College was beingreviewed to decide whether it should be eliminated ormodified. He invited the eight faculty members "towaive any and all tenure rights under the presenttenure provisions," in return for which all except Pro-fessor Provost would receive two-year contracts withno reduction in rank or salary and with notification byOctober 1 of the second year if the contract was notrenewed.

Professor Provost was offered only a one-year con-tract because he lacked the master's degree. He hadby then accumulated seventy-two course creditstowards his doctorate, had passed his language re-quirements and comprehensive examinations, and hadstarted work on his dissertation. The following year,New York University changed its position on awardinga master's degree to doctoral candidates and the degreewas granted to Professor Provost. His lack of the de-gree until the 1973-74 academic year was not an issuein the events that followed.

The eight faculty members met among themselves,with President Courniotes, and with a local attorney.According to what some of them later said to theundersigned ad hoc investigating committee, theybecame convinced that the president would denytenure to some among them and release them if theyresisted the waiver. The attorney advised them thatthey had little legal recourse. They all signed thewaiver. Within a few years, six of the eight facultymembers were granted tenure, one was releasedfollowing a severe decline in enrollments in his depart-ment, and Professor Provost, as will be explained, wasserving annually on a "terminal" contract.

New tenure regulations for American International

College, with an extremely complex "Schedule forDecisions Concerning Tenure (with implications)" andan accompanying "place value lexical," were approvedby the faculty on March 1, 1974, and became effectiveon September 1 of that year. The regulations state thata decision to extend an appointment beyond the ninthyear of service, if neither tenure nor the issuance ofa one-year "terminal" contract (as opposed to a multi-year renewable contract) has resulted by then, "willbe a decision to grant tenure to the faculty memberwhen a tenured position in his department becomesavailable. The determination of the availability oftenured positions is the sole responsibility of the ad-ministration." With respect to a "terminal" contract,the regulations state that although it "should be con-sidered to be terminal, the administration reserves theprerogative to grant an extension of this or any subse-quent contract." Accordingly, either through lack ofan available tenured position as determined by the ad-ministration or through being placed on "terminal"status, a faculty member at the College can be retainedindefinitely on term appointment at the administra-tion's pleasure. The regulations specified that the ser-vice of Professor Provost, because he had signed awaiver of his tenure rights under the previous policyand because he had not been granted tenure or reap-pointed with a multiyear contract, would henceforthbe terminal at the discretion of the administration.

Each year through 1979, Professor Provost wasoffered a one-year "terminal" contract which, until1979, was annually renewed. On December 7, 1979,President Courniotes wrote to inform Professor Pro-vost that he would not be offered a contract for thenext academic year and that his affiliation with the Col-lege would end on July 31, 1980. Professor Provost thusreceived eight months of notice that his thirteenth yearof continuous service to American International Col-lege would be his final year. His last seven contractsat the College had been "terminal."

Some months prior to the commencement of whatproved to be Professor Provost's final year on thefaculty, the local AAUP chapter at American Interna-tional College had petitioned the National Labor Rela-tions Board for certification as the faculty's exclusiverepresentative for purposes of collective bargaining. Ahearing on the petition was held by the board'sregional office in Boston in April and May, 1979, withthe College administration objecting to certification ongrounds, like those asserted in the case of YeshivaUniversity, that the members of the faculty were essen-tially managerial. Even before the U.S. Supreme Courtissued its decision on Yeshiva University in February,1980, the board's regional office director referred thecase of American International College to the board inWashington. At this writing, the case still remainsundecided.

Professor Provost had played an active role in theAAUP chapter's presentation at the hearing on cer-tification. When he received notice the followingDecember that his current appointment would indeedbe terminal—a notice against which he had no avenueof appeal within the College—the chapter in his behalfpromptly filed a charge against the College administra-

ACADEME May-June 1983 43

tion of unfair labor practice, asserting that the actionto terminate his services was violative of his rightsunder the National Labor Relations Act. In January,1980, an investigator from the board's regional officevisited the College for two days in connection with thisand other charges. On February 8, the board's regionaldirector found Professor Provost's charge justified andissued a complaint against the administration and anotice of hearing before an administrative law judgeon July 15, 1980. The hearing was postponed at therequest of counsel for the administration first untilNovember and then, at the administration's further re-quest, rescheduled until such time as the primary caseover certification has been decided by the NationalLabor Relations Board. The complaint against theadministration of an unfair labor practice in ProfessorProvost's case thus remains open and unheard.

Professor Provost also sought assistance from theAmerican Association of University Professors. TheAssociation's staff wrote to President Courniotes onJanuary 31, 1980, setting forth its concern that the ad-ministration's action to terminate Professor Provost'sservices, taken long after those services had exceededthe seven years of probation permitted under the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenureand unaccompanied by a statement of specific causeand opportunity for a hearing, appeared to deny Pro-fessor Provost his rights under the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples. President Courniotes's reply, sent on March12, was brief. He acknowledged the January 31 letterand went on to say that "in view of the fact that thereis a complaint before the NLRB, which is in the pro-cess of adjudication, regarding Professor Provost, I donot believe it is appropriate to comment at this time."

Subsequent letters sent by the staff to PresidentCourniotes, in April and in October, 1980, wentunanswered. After several additional months, duringwhich awaited actions by the National Labor RelationsBoard did not materialize, the Association's generalsecretary authorized an investigation, and PresidentCourniotes was so notified by letter of July 21, 1981.

The undersigned ad hoc investigating committee wasappointed, and its names were transmitted to Presi-dent Courniotes on August 12. Six days later, the presi-dent telephoned the member of the staff who had beenwriting to him. He requested that the Association"disinvite" the investigating committee because hehad been advised by counsel not to meet with the com-mittee while the charge against the administration ofunfair labor practice was pending.

With the administration unwilling to cooperate, theinvestigating committee relied on the president of theAAUP chapter, Professor Lawrence Habermehl, forarrangements for interviews. The committee, afterexamining the available documentation, made threeday-long visits to American International College onNovember 6, 13, and 30, 1981. No member of the ad-ministration accepted an invitation to meet with thecommittee. Meetings were held, however, with Pro-fessor Provost, with four now-tenured faculty mem-bers who signed the 1972 waiver of tenure rights, witha member of the Faculty Steering Committee (the bodyresponsible for, among other things, the processing offaculty grievances), with the secretary of the facultyduring the period of transition from 1972 to 1974 andthe adoption of the current tenure regulations, withthe professor of mathematics who designed the "lex-ical" that tracks faculty appointments under the regu-lations, with the retired chairman of the Departmentof Philosophy who had initially recruited ProfessorProvost, and with Professor Habermehl, who ispresently chairman of the department and its solemember. Although the faculty members who met withthe committee were courteous and communicative, anumber of interviews that had been arranged werecancelled, rescheduled, and cancelled again. The com-mittee found that it was unable to speak with facultymembers who were generally sympathetic with the ad-ministration's action until late in the day of its thirdand final visit, just as the committee was about to giveup hope of any such contact.

III. ISSUES

A. Safeguards of Tenure and the Action AgainstProfessor Provost

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedomand Tenure provides for continuous tenure after a pro-bationary period that should not exceed seven years.Termination of tenure, except for retirement for ageor under extraordinary circumstances because of finan-cial exigency, can occur under the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples only for adequate cause, with opportunityfor a hearing before a faculty committee and with af-for dance of other safeguards of academic due process.

Professor Provost was in his thirteenth year of ser-vice when the administration notified him that hewould not be retained beyond that year. As to causefor the action, President Courniotes's notification ofDecember 7, 1979, stated simply that it was issued with

the concurrence of all of the academic administratorsand that the decision was "part of our overall and con-tinuing evaluation of personnel not on tenure and ourreview of all other pertinent factors concerning the Col-lege's teaching personnel requirements." ProfessorProvost requested a more specific explanation. Presi-dent Courniotes, replying on December 21, stated that"in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, your con-tract is understood to be a terminal one, and there wereno compelling reasons for the administration to renewit." He stated further that the administration, in itsreview of the contracts of all nontenured facultymembers, considered three questions: the overallneeds of the particular department; the comparativeneeds of other departments; and how, if a search fora new person were conducted, the qualifications of thecurrent faculty would compare with those of others


who were available. "When the administrationevaluated the answers to these questions in your par-ticular case," President Courniotes stated to ProfessorProvost, "the answers were such as to result in thedecision not to renew your contract." This was all thatProfessor Provost received from the administration byway of reasons for its decision not to retain him, andhe had no opportunity for a hearing at American In-ternational College. The notice that he received wasinadequate by several months when measured againstthe year of notice that the 1940 Statement of Principlesprovides.

The investigating committee appreciates that Pro-fessor Provost signed a waiver, written into each of hisseven "terminal" contracts, of tenure rights such asthose noted above. While the regulations of AmericanInternational College may allow such a waiver,however, the 1940 Statement of Principles does not. Itaffords the rights of tenure to all full-time facultymembers who are retained beyond the maximumperiod of probation. Moreover, Professor Provost'scase was not one in which he sought out continuedservice without tenure because he anticipated that animpending evaluation of his qualifications for tenurewould go against him on the merits. Rather, the Col-lege administration in 1972 went to him and to allothers who were approaching the time for a decisionon tenure, indicated to them that if they were can-didates for tenure some might be denied it because toomany of the current faculty were obtaining tenure, andinvited them to avoid taking an immediate risk by sign-ing a waiver of tenure rights in return for a period ofassured further appointment while a new tenure policywas being formulated. The investigating committee re-jects the proposition that Professor Provost, in sign-ing the waiver together with the seven others as it wasput to them by the administration, divorced himselffor the next year and all the years that followed fromthe rights of tenure that prevail in the academicprofession.

The investigating committee finds that the Ameri-can International College administration acted in viola-tion of the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure by dismissing Professor Provost atthe end of his thirteenth year of service without statingspecific cause for its action and without affording himthe opportunity for a hearing and other protections ofacademic due process.

B. Professor Provost's Union Activities

As was stated earlier, Professor Provost has allegedthat his activities to gain representation rights for theAAUP chapter for purposes of collective bargainingconstituted the basis for the administration's decisionnot to renew his "terminal" contract for the 1979-80academic year as it had renewed his six previous "ter-minal" contracts, and the AAUP chapter filed a chargeof unfair labor practice on this matter which as of thiswriting still remains unadjudicated by the NationalLabor Relations Board and may never be adjudicatedif the prior issue of certification is not resolved in thechapter's favor.

What constitutes protected conduct in labor organiz-ing under the National Labor Relations Act may wellinvolve considerations that are distinct from conductprotected by academic freedom under the 1940 State-ment of Principles. Still, the investigating committeedoes not doubt that a professor who speaks out public-ly in behalf of collective bargaining for faculty membersat his institution is engaging in protected conductunder principles of academic freedom and that a seri-ous issue of academic freedom is raised by ProfessorProvost's allegation.

The investigating committee, in examining this issue,notes that the administration retained Professor Pro-vost year after year and dismissed him only after hebecame active in attempting to establish a facultyunion. It notes also that the regional director of the Na-tional Labor Relations Board, after a preliminary in-vestigation, found Professor Provost's allegation suffi-ciently justified so that he issued a complaint againstthe administration. The committee notes, on the otherhand, that no hearing has been held on that complaint.It notes also that the administration did not replaceProfessor Provost in the Department of Philosophy,which is staffed now solely by Professor Habermehl,and that this suggests, as did President Courniotes'svery general letter of explanation to Professor Provost,that the president's action was motivated at least inpart by a wish to reduce the size of the department.The investigating committee discussed ProfessorProvost's allegation with him and with other facultymembers, but it was unable to discuss it with Presi-dent Courniotes or with other administrative officerswho supported the president's action. The administra-tion had declined to meet with the committee ongrounds that the complaint against it of unfair laborpractice in Professor Provost's case was under adjudi-cation, and the committee can appreciate the admin-istration's reluctance to talk with a committee of theAssociation about its reasons for acting against Pro-fessor Provost while a charge filed by the Association'slocal chapter with the National Labor Relations Boardon this very matter remained unresolved. Conceivably,if the administration had been generally interested incooperating with the Association's investigation, con-ditions for discussion could have been arranged thatwould have safeguarded the administration from anyresulting damage to its position in the case before thelabor board. In any event, the administration wouldnot discuss the case with the investigating committee,and without having had the opportunity for that dis-cussion the committee cannot reach a determinationas to whether the action against Professor Provost wasbased significantly on considerations violative of hisacademic freedom.

A suspicion of violation of academic freedom none-theless lingers, in the investigating committee's judg-ment, a suspicion which would not have arisen hadthe administration afforded Professor Provost the pro-tections of academic due process. A hearing on statedcharges, as called for by the 1940 Statement of Principles,would have allowed Professor Provost to pursue theacademic freedom issue in presenting his defense. Pro-fessor Provost was, of course, not recognized at Ameri-

A C A D E M E May-June 1983 45

can International College as having attained tenure,but nontenured faculty members are entitled under theAssociations's Statement on Procedural Standards in theRenewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments to thereasons for a decision against reappointment and toa hearing if they allege that the reasons were basedon factors violative of their academic freedom. Pro-fessor Provost, however, in his longtime status atAmerican International College as a "terminal" ap-pointee, was denied any such procedural protections.As a result, the issue of whether or not the Collegeadministration violated his academic freedom has beenallowed to remain open to speculation.

C. The College Regulations and Conditions forAcademic Freedom and Tenure

American International College, in the preamble tothe tenure regulations that it adopted in 1974, holdsthat the regulations "do not compromise the traditionof tenure which the profession has, largely through theefforts of the AAUP, developed over the years." Theinvestigating committee believes that those at the Col-lege who made this assertion are greatly mistaken.Prominent in the regulations is the highly complex"Schedule for Decisions Concerning Tenure (withimplications)" that says little about qualitative deci-sions, emphasizes that affirmative decisions are the ad-ministration's prerogative, and concentrates on lengthsof contracts, dates of notice, and how many monthsof "guaranteed job security" each decision on renewal

or nonrenewal will bring. The regulations allow nineyears for a decision on whether a faculty member quali-fies for tenure, and they allow for indefinite servicewithout tenure after that time until the administrationmay decide, a determination which is its "sole respon-sibility," that a tenured position has become available.They allow, as has been seen in Professor Provost'scase, for a paradoxically unlimited "terminal" appoint-ment which, once initiated, can continue through theyears at the administration's pleasure with no furtherentitlement to evaluations, reasons for eventual ter-mination, or opportunity for review.

The investigating committee regrets that membersof the faculty of American International College joinedin formulating these arrangements and voted to adoptthem. Whatever may have been their sense of insecur-ity, their action reflects a purchase of a limited amountof job security at the price of surrendering the long-range professional protections inherent in the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenureand derivative Association standards for academic dueprocess. It is the investigating committee's judgmentthat under the current tenure regulations academicfreedom at American International College cannot beassured.2

2The Association has long maintained that inadequate protectionsfor principles of academic freedom and tenure are no more accep-table if adopted by action of the faculty than by that of the administra-tion. See "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Smith College," AAUPBulletin, Spring 1946, pp. 146, 147.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

1. The administration of American International Col-lege acted in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principleson Academic Freedom and Tenure in the case of ProfessorPaul E. Provost by dismissing him after thirteen yearsof service without setting forth specific cause for itsaction and without offering him a hearing and othersafeguards of academic due process.

2. The validity of Professor Provost's allegation thathe was dismissed because of his activities in behalf ofa faculty union, and thus the possibility that hisacademic freedom was violated by the American In-ternational College administration, has been permit-ted by the administration, in not allowing for a hear-ing on the matter, to remain open to speculation.

3. The current tenure regulations of American Inter-national College, by allowing indefinite faculty servicewithout the protections of tenure and in some cases'without even minimal procedural safeguards, leaveacademic freedom at the College unassured.

STANLEY J. YOUNG (Management),University of Massachusetts,Amherst, chairman

MARJORIE R. KAUFMAN (English)Mount Holyoke College

Investigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has by voteauthorized publication of this report in Academe: Bulletin ofthe AAUP.

MATTHEW W. FINKIN (Law), Southern Methodist University,chairman

MEMBERS: BERTRAM H. DAVIS (English), Florida State Univer-sity; ROBERT A. GORMAN (Law), University of Pennsylvania;MARY W. GRAY (Mathematics), American University; WALTERP. METZGER (History), Columbia University; JACK L. NELSON(Education), Rutgers University; THOMAS M. SCANLON, JR.(Philosophy), Princeton University; JUDITH J. THOMSON(Philosophy), Massachusetts Institute of Technology;WILLIAM W. VAN ALSTYNE (Law), Duke University; JORDANE. KURLAND (History and Russian), Washington Office, exofficio; IRVING J. SPITZBERG, JR. (Education and Policy Studies),Washington Office, ex officio; VICTOR J. STONE (Law), Univer-sity of Illinois, ex officio; RALPH S. BROWN (Law), Yale Univer-sity, Consultant; CLARK BYSE (Law), Harvard University, Con-sultant; PETER O. STEINER (Law), University of Michigan, Con-sultant; CAROL SIMPSON STERN (Interpretation), NorthwesternUniversity, Consultant.


DevelopmentsRelating to Censure by the Association

Members of the Association's staff, act-ing on behalf of Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, com-municate during the course of each

year with administrations under censure. The staffoffers its assistance and that of Committee A inbringing about developments at the institutionwhich would enable the committee to recommendto the annual meeting that the censure be re-moved. A summary of developments at institutionson the list of censured administrations appears an-nually in the issue of Academe (prior to 1979, theAAUP Bulletin) that immediately precedes the an-nual meeting.

The statements that follow, in chronologicalorder according to the date of imposition of cen-sure, constitute my appraisal of developments at

t:he listed institutions for the year preceding April1-3, 1983. Relevant actions of significance whichoccur after April 15 will be reported to CommitteeA;; the council, and the annual meeting at the ses-sions of these bodies in Washington, D.C., on June13-18, 1983.

The list of censured administrations, appearingelsewhere in this issue, cites the published reportsthat, were the basis for the censure in each case.

JORDAN E. KURLAND

Associate General Secretary

South Dakota State Colleges and Universities under SouthDakota Board of Regents1

The forty-eighth annual meeting in 1962 directed censureagainst the Board of Regents of Education of the State ofSouth Dakota. The censure followed an investigating com-mittee's report on the regents' dimissal, without the protec-tions of academic due process, of a professor who had beenon the South Dakota State University faculty for fifteen years.

The Association's staff has continued over the past yearto correspond with the administration of South Dakota StateUniversity, but no specific progress can be reported.

Grove City College (Pennsylvania)

In 1963, the administration of Grove City College was cen-sured by vote of the forty-ninth annual meeting after theadministration dismissed an experienced professor withouta hearing and other safeguards of academic due process.

1Censure was voted on the board of regents with respect to a casewhich occurred at South Dakota State University. The 1982 annualmeeting determined that the regents also now have sole respon-sibility with respect to a case of summary dismissal which occurredin 1966 at Northern State College.

Dr. Charles S. MacKenzie, president of the College since1971, has not responded to invitations from the staff this pastyear to provide a basis for discussion of the censure and itspotential removal by furnishing a copy of the current officialpolicies of Grove City College.

College of the Ozarks (Arkansas)2

Censure was voted specifically on the Board of Trustees ofthe College of the Ozarks by action of the fiftieth annualmeeting in 1964. The investigating committee's reportpreceding the censure found that the board had dismisseda professor without protections of academic due process asprovided in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards inFaculty Dismissal Proceedings.

The staff this past year has been in correspondence withthe new president of the College of the Ozarks and with afaculty committee about prospective changes in revised Col-lege regulations. The case that initially occasioned investiga-tion and censure remains unresolved.

Nebraska State Colleges3

Censure was voted specifically against the governing boardby the fifty-first annual meeting in 1965. The action followeda published report which found that the contract of a newlyappointed instructor at Wayne State College was abrogatedin violation of his academic freedom and without requisitesafeguards of academic due process.

A new president of Wayne State College has been in com-munication with the staff about steps that might be takento effect removal of the censure. The staff has provided areview of the current regulations relating to academic free-dom and tenure. They remain seriously deficient whenmeasured against applicable Association standards.

Amarillo College (Texas)

The investigating committee's report on Amarillo Collegedealt with a series of actions against a faculty member withfifteen years of service. The report found that the administra-tion acted, in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, first to reduce this facultymember to part-time status, then to suspend her, and thensummarily to dismiss her. Censure was imposed in 1968 bythe fifty-fourth annual meeting.

The staff has proposed modifications of the College regula-tions which would bring them into closer conformity withAssociation-supported standards, but President H. D.Yarbrough this past year informed the staff that a facultycommittee has voted to retain the current regulations for theforeseeable future. The issue of redress for the dismissedfaculty member remains unresolved.

2Censure was voted on the board of trustees.3Censure was voted on the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska StateColleges with respect to a case which occurred at Wayne StateCollege.


Southern University (Louisiana)

The 1968 annual meeting voted censure on the administrationof Southern University following a published report on onecase of summary dismissal, two cases of broken commit-ments by the administration, and several cases of seriouslylate notice of nonreappointment. Two cases of summarydismissal in 1972 and additional cases of late notice werereported in succeeding years' accounts of "DevelopmentsRelating to Censure."

Faculty proposals for changes in the institutional regula-tions, noted last year, still await action by the SouthernUniversity administration. Issues of redress are as yetunresolved.

Troy State University (Alabama)

The fifty-fifth annual meeting in 1969 imposed censure onthe Troy State University administration pursuant to aninvestigating committee's report which found that the admin-istration had terminated the services of a nontenured instruc-tor for reasons which violated his academic freedom.

Last year's account of "Developments Relating to Cen-sure" reported a new case that occasioned the Association'sconcern. A faculty member whose services had exceeded themaximum probationary period permitted under the 1940Statement of Principles was released by the administration withonly four months of notice.

Correspondence between the administration and theAssociation's staff has continued over the past twelvemonths. The administration has informed the staff that revi-sions in the University policies, proposed by the staff threeyears ago, are still under consideration.

Frank Phillips College (Texas)

The 1969 annual meeting imposed censure on the FrankPhillips College administration following a published reporton the summary dismissal of a faculty member as she wasconcluding her tenth year of service.

This year, as last, the staff's invitations to the presidentof Frank Phillips College to resume discussions of the cen-sure have received no response.

Central State University (Oklahoma)

The investigating committee's report concluded that the ad-ministration of Central State University dismissed a tenuredprofessor for reasons which were in violation of his academicfreedom. The fifty-fifth annual meeting placed the institu-tion on the Association's list of censured administrations.

The staff has received no reply over the past year to itsreiterated suggestions to President William J. Lillard forreview of the outstanding issues relating to the censure.

Laredo Junior College (Texas)

The fifty-seventh annual meeting in 1971 acted to impose cen-sure on the Laredo Junior College administration. Censurewas based on the findings of an investigating committee thata tenured faculty member was dismissed in violation of the1940 Statement of Principles and of stated College policy.

The Laredo Junior College administration, this past yearas in previous years, has been unresponsive to communica-tions from the staff seeking to encourage discussion ofoutstanding issues.

Southern Arkansas University

The Southern Arkansas University administration was placedon censure by the 1971 annual meeting after it terminated

the services of three faculty members. The investigatingcommittee concluded that violations of academic freedomoccurred in the dismissal of a tenured faculty member andin the nonreappointment of a probationary faculty memberand that all three faculty members were denied requisite safe-guards of academic due process.

Correspondence this past year between the staff and thepresident of the University has led to no change in positionon the unsettled issue of redress. As reported in last year's"Developments Relating to Censure," the president hasreiterated that the governing board is hostile to any expen-diture of funds on the matter while the staff has reiteratedits hope that the board can be persuaded to modify its stance.

Tennessee Wesleyan College

The fifty-seventh annual meeting voted to censure in thiscase following a published report which concluded that atenured professor had been dismissed without the protec-tions of academic due process to which she was entitledunder the 1940 Statement of Principles and the 1958 Statementon Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.

The official policies of the College, as has previously beenreported, are in accord with applicable Association standards.Earlier this year the president took a step towards providingredress to the dismissed faculty member but the matter hasnot been resolved. Efforts to settle this issue are continuing.

Onondaga Community College (New York)

By vote of the fifty-eighth annual meeting in 1972, the Onon-daga Community College administration was censured forhaving terminated the services of a professor for reasonswhich the Association's investigating committee found to beviolative of his academic freedom.

As a result of the staff's correspondence in recent monthswith President Andreas A. Paloumpis, the president's officehas provided the staff with copies of the faculty handbookand the collective bargaining agreement currently in forceat the College. The staff has prepared comments on the appli-cable provisions of these documents as a basis for discus-sion of the governing regulations on academic freedom andtenure.

Armstrong State College (Georgia)

The administration of Armstrong State College was placedon censure by the 1972 annual meeting. The published reportdealt with the suspension of a nontenured faculty memberwithout demonstration of a threat of immediate harm, asuspension that was kept in force until the faculty member'sappointment expired. The report concluded that the actionwas tantamount to a dismissal in violation of the 1940 State-ment of Principles.

An interim president who took office within the past yearmoved quickly to address the outstanding issues relating tothe censure. Agreement on a settlement of the case of thedismissed faculty member has been reached. Changes in theinstitutional regulations that were recommended by the staffhave been made. Committee A will review current devel-opments at Armstrong State College when it meets just priorto the annual meeting in June.

Colorado School of Mines

The Colorado School of Mines was placed on the list of cen-sured administrations in 1973 by the fifty-ninth annualmeeting. The investigating committee's report found that aprofessor in his eighteenth year of service was releasedwithout the safeguards of academic due process. The report


concluded that the School lacked a recognizable system ofacademic tenure.

Last summer, following a visit by a staff member to theSchool of Mines, the staff provided the administration witha detailed critique of the current institutional regulations onacademic freedom and tenure. The administration recentlysent proposed revisions to the staff for its comments. Theissue of redress remains unresolved.

McKendree College (Illinois)

This censure was imposed by the fifty-ninth annual meetingafter the McKendree College administration dismissed anontenured faculty member. The published report found thatthe faculty member had been denied academic due processand that his case raised serious issues concerning the climatefor academic freedom at McKendree College.

As has been previously noted in "Developments Relatingto Censure," the board of trustees has adopted CommitteeA's Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedomand Tenure as official College policy. The staff and the officersof the Association's Illinois conference have communicatedwith the College administration this past year on theunresolved issue of redress, but no specific progress can bereported.

Rider College (New Jersey)

The 1973 annual meeting placed the Rider College adminis-tration on censure after it acted to terminate the services ofa professor at the conclusion of his thirteenth year on thefaculty. The investigating committee's report found that theprofessor had been denied the safeguards of academic dueprocess set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles for facultymembers who have served beyond a seven-year maximumperiod of probation.

The staff this past year has continued discussions with theadministration and with the local AAUP chapter, which isthe faculty's representative for collective bargaining. Whilethe issue of redress is as yet unresolved, recent discussionshave centered on official College policies, particularly the pro-visions in the collective bargaining agreement governingdismissal for cause. A new three-year agreement, like itspredecessor, incorporates procedures which are deficientwhen measured against the 1958 Statement on ProceduralStandards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.

Camden County College (New Jersey)

Camden County College was placed on the Association's listof censured administrations by action of the sixtieth annualmeeting in 1974. Censure followed a published reportdescribing the summary dismissal, with no further paymentof salary, of an instructor in the middle of his initial year ofappointment. A collective bargaining agreement in force atthe College was found to be seriously deficient in affordingacademic due process.

As has been his pattern since censure was first imposed,President Otto R. Mauke has not responded to the staff'sinvitations this past year to open discussion of the censureand its potential removal.

Voorhees College (South Carolina)

The vote of the 1974 annual meeting to censure the VoorheesCollege administration resulted from an investigating com-mittee's report on the abrupt dismissal of five facultymembers after they had been given notice of nonreappoint-ment. The report concluded that the administration had not

demonstrated adequate cause for dismissal and that one caseraised a serious issue of academic freedom.

Shortly after the imposition of censure, the College policieson academic freedom and tenure were brought into substan-tial accord with applicable Associationsupported standards.The College administration this past year has expressed inter-est to the staff in settling the outstanding issue of redressand has indicated that the matter will be raised with the boardof trustees.

Virginia Community College System

The sixty-first annual meeting in 1975 imposed this censure,which followed a published report on actions by thechancellor and the State Board for Community Colleges toend any further granting of tenure in the twenty-three col-leges comprising the Virginia Community College System.The report found that these actions were taken withoutprevious faculty knowledge and contrary to manifest facultywill. It found also that new procedures governing facultyappointments left all faculty members in the system withmuch less procedural protection than they would receiveunder the Association's applicable recommended standards.

The current chancellor of the system, Dr. James H. Hin-son, Jr., just recently informed the staff that he is leavingoffice in July but that he will refer his successor to recom-mendations for revisions in the system's policies that the staffproposed in 1980 as a potential basis for achieving removalof the censure.

Concordia Seminary (Missouri)

The investigating committee's report found that the servicesof a Concordia Seminary professor were terminated becauseexternal ecclesiastical authorities objected to the professor'sbeliefs on matters which were within his academic com-petence. The report concluded that the action violated the1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.The 1975 annual meeting voted to impose censure.

The staff this year has again informed the ConcordiaSeminary administration of its interest in pursuing substan-tive discussions on outstanding issues of concern, but no pro-gress towards a resolution of these issues can be reported.

Houston Baptist University

The sixty-first annual meeting imposed censure on theHouston Baptist University administration pursuant to apublished report on the termination of a professor's services,without stated cause and affordance of academic due proc-ess, after he had served beyond the maximum probationaryperiod. The report dealt also with the abrogation of the insti-tution's tenure system by the board of trustees.

The administration this past year has again not conveyedany interest in resolving the case that led to censure or inrestoring the system of tenure at Houston Baptist University.

Murray State University (Kentucky)

Censure was voted in 1976 by the sixty-second annualmeeting after an investigating committee reported on the ter-mination, without showing of adequate cause, of the appoint-ments of nine faculty members whose service had exceededthe seven years of probation allowed under the 1940 State-ment of Principles. The report found that the Murray StateUniversity administration had taken these actions in disre-gard of the appropriate role of the faculty as set forth in theStatement on Government of Colleges and Universities.

Correspondence on the censure among the staff, theadministration, and local AAUP representatives has con-


tinued through this year, and the staff met recently with theoutgoing president of the University. Specific progresstowards resolving outstanding issues is not yet evident,however.

Arizona State University

The 1976 annual meeting placed Arizona State University onthe list of censured administrations as the result of a pub-lished report on action by the board of regents to dismissa tenured professor. The report concluded that the dismissalviolated the professor's academic freedom on several countsand that it was substantively and procedurally violative ofthe 1940 Statement of Principles.

Two years ago, the regulations governing Arizona StateUniversity were brought into substantial conformity withrecommended Association standards relating to academicfreedom and tenure. Subsequent discussions focused on theissue of redress. This past winter the University administra-tion transmitted to the staff an offer of cash payment to thedismissed professor. The professor has informed the staffthat he will accept the offer as settlement of his case. Com-mittee A will review these developments at its June meeting.

Blinn College (Texas)

The administration of Blinn College was censured by voteof the sixty-second annual meeting following an investiga-tion of the termination of the services of sixteen facultymembers. Eight of the sixteen were found to have been enti-tled to the protections of tenure under the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples yet were denied requisite academic due process.The other eight were found to have been denied the safe-guards for nontenured faculty provided in the Association'sStatement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewalof Faculty Appointments.

Again this past year, the staff has notified the presidentof Blinn College of its interest in commencing discussionson the censure. The president has remained unresponsive.

Marquette University (Winconsin)

The published report which preceded censure describes thetermination of a tenured professor's appointment followinghis resignation from a religious order and his release fromreligious vows. The report concluded that the MarquetteUniversity administration had not afforded the professoracademic due process as required under the 1940 Statementof Principles. Censure was imposed by the 1976 annualmeeting.

The staff's correspondence with the administration thispast year has revealed no change in the administration's posi-tion that it acted properly in the case of concern.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

This censure, voted by the sixty-third annual meeting in 1977,followed a published report on the summary suspension and'dismissal of a faculty member who was engaged in laboratoryresearch. The report found that the administration took theseactions in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles and indisregard for the safeguards set forth in the 1958 Statementon Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.

The staff was informed a short time ago that there has beenrecent progress towards achieving a resolution of the caseof the dismissed faculty member. Differences relating to theinstitution's regulations as compared with applicable Associa-tion standards governing academic freedom and tenureremain unresolved.

City University of New York

The 1977 annual meeting placed the City University of NewYork on the list of censured administrations on the basis ofan investigating committee's report on the financial emer-gency confronting the City University during the 1975-76academic year and the termination of the appointments ofsome 1000 full-time faculty members the following summer.The report, while recognizing the financial burden underwhich the University had to operate, emphasized severe defi-ciencies in the institution's official procedures for terminatingappointments on grounds of financial exigency: inadequatefaculty participation in decisions to terminate appointments;opportunity for review only on very limited issues; andassurance of only thirty days of notice.

Since the beginning of the 1982-83 academic year, the staff,the officers of the AAUP chapter (the Professional Staff Con-gress), and the University administration have held ongo-ing discussions in an effort to achieve requisite modificationsin the University's procedures governing financial exigency.Significant progress has been made. These discussions areexpected to continue in the weeks immediately ahead.

University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences(Iowa)

The Association's sixty-third annual meeting placed censureon the administration of the University of OsteopathicMedicine and Health Sciences. An investigating committeehad found that the administration violated the 1940 State-ment of Principles in summarily suspending and then dismiss-ing a tenured professor and in banishing a nontenured pro-fessor from the campus.

President J. Leonard Azneer, responding this past year toa letter from the staff, stated that he considers the cases ofthe faculty members to be closed because litigation in theirbehalf proved unsuccessful. The staff has replied that theAssociation's concerns over violations of academic freedomand due process in these cases have not abated.

Wilkes College (Pennsylvania)

The investigating committee found that actions by the WilkesCollege administration to terminate the services of fourfaculty members, each of whom had taught at the Collegefor more than seven years, were in violation of the 1940 State-ment of Principles. Cause was not demonstrated, nor wereother protections of academic due process provided. Cen-sure was voted by the 1977 annual meeting.

The staff has been informed of progress this past year atWilkes College in bringing the official policies on academicfreedom and tenure into closer conformity with the Associa-tion's recommended standards. Issues of redress remainunresolved.

State University of New York

The sixty-fourth annual meeting voted censure on the admin-istration of the State University of New York in 1978 follow-ing a published report concerning the dismissal of more thanone hundred tenured and nontenured faculty members. Thereport concluded that the administration had not demon-strated a bona fide financial exigency that required the ter-mination of tenured appointments. It found that thedismissals, which occurred on several campuses, were over-seen by the central administration with little concern for therights of tenure, for the role of the faculty in academic govern-ment, and for adequate notice. The report found that theadministration apparently acted in accordance with the pro-visions on retrenchment in the collective bargaining agree-


ment with the faculty. As the report emphasized, however,the fact that an action may be contractually permissible doesnot determine its soundness under widely accepted academicstandards.

The chancellor of the State University of New York, inresponding to letters from the Association's staff during thepast year, has reiterated his previous refusal to engage indiscussion with the Association on the merits of the collec-tive bargaining agreement. Two additional cases of concernthat came to the Association's attention after censure wasimposed have not been resolved.

University of Detroit

The Association's sixty-fourth annual meeting acted to im-pose censure on the University of Detroit. The censureresulted from an investigating committee's report describ-ing the administration's actions to terminate the appoint-ments of some forty faculty members after the board oftrustees declared a condition of financial exigency. The reportfound that the administration did not demonstrate the exist-ence of a financial crisis so severe as to require the termina-tion of tenured appointments and that faculty involvementin the decisions and subsequent hearings was inadequate.

Last year's "Developments Relating to Censure" noted thesettlement of all but one of the cases that led to the censure.The staff's correspondence this year with the administrationhas revealed, however, that efforts to remove shortcomingsin the University of Detroit collective bargaining agreementhave continued to be unsucessful.

Phillips County Community College (Arkansas)

The 1978 annual meeting voted censure on the administrationof Phillips County Community College after an investigatingcommittee concluded that the administration violated the1940 Statement of Principles in dismissing a faculty memberat the end of his tenth year of service. The investigating com-mittee found that the College has no system of tenure andno stated policies that would assure academic freedom anddue process.

As was noted last year, litigation entered by the dismissedfaculty member was decided in his favor and his case hasbeen satisfactorily settled. The staff has recently written tothe president of Phillips County Community College to invitediscussion on the institutional regulations.

University of Maryland

The published report, leading to the placement of the Univer-sity of Maryland administration on censure by the sixty-fifthannual meeting in 1979, dealt with a decision not to approvea recommended professorial appointment. After the appoint-ment had been recommended by a faculty search commit-tee and the campus administration, the acting governor ofMaryland and individual members of the board of regentstook exception to it on grounds that the professor was aMarxist. A new president, who assumed office shortly afterthese events, decided not to approve the appointment. Heasserted that his decision was based on the academic meritsof the candidate and not on the candidate's political beliefs,but he declined to specify his grounds for reaching this judg-ment. The Association's investigating committee concludedthat the president's refusal to provide a full explanation, inthe face of the events that preceded his decision, left academicfreedom at the University of Maryland under a cloud.

In early April the federal court of appeals affirmed the 1981ruling of the trial court that no violation of the professor'sconstitutional rights had occurred. Two other cases at the

University of Maryland, noted in previous accounts in"Developments Relating to Censure," remain unresolved.Last fall the staff provided the University administration andthe local AAUP chapter with a detailed evaluation of defi-ciencies in the current regulations of the University onacademic freedom and tenure when measured against appli-cable Association standards.

University of Texas of the Permian Basin

The 1979 annual meeting voted to censure the administrationof the University of Texas of the Permian Basin followinga published report on the termination of two faculty appoint-ments with financial exigency as the stated reason and onthe nonreappointment of a third faculty member who allegedthat the action violated his academic freedom. The reportfound that the administration had not shown that the institu-tion's financial situation required the terminations, that thefaculty members were not afforded academic due process,and that the nonreappointed faculty member's academic free-dom had indeed been violated

While the Association's staff has continued to correspondwith the administration over the past twelve months, thereare no substantive developments to report concerning thecensure and its potential removal.

Wingate College (North Carolina)

The investigating committee's report described abrupt actionsby the Wingate College administration to terminate the ser-vices of six faculty members. In three cases, the report foundthe actions to be summary dismissals in violation of the 1940Statement of Principles. In the other three cases, the reportfound that the faculty members were denied the protectionsdue them under the Association's Statement on ProceduralStandards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments.The report concluded that at Wingate College there is nomeaningful system of tenure and no discernible voice for thefaculty in determinations of faculty status. Censure was im-posed by the sixty-fifth annual meeting.

The staff's letters this past year to the Wingate Collegeadministration have elicited no response from the president,who recently submitted his resignation, or from other admin-istrative officers.

Olivet College (Michigan)

The sixty-sixth annual meeting in 1980 voted to censure theOlivet College administration on the basis of a publishedreport describing the summary dismissal of a visiting pro-fessor. The report also discussed the practice at Olivet Col-lege, implemented some years earlier, of placing seniorfaculty members on five-year renewable contracts rather thangranting them continuous tenure. The report went on todiscuss the case of a professor who under this system hadbeen notified of nonreappointment after sixteen years of ser-vice. The report concluded that he was denied his rightsunder the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure.

As was reported last year, a settlement of the case of thevisiting professor was achieved in the late spring of 1981.This past September, a settlement was reached in the caseof the senior professor whose appointment was not renewed.President Donald A. Morris visited with the staff thisFebruary to discuss outstanding issues relating to the institu-tional regulations. The staff has agreed to propose ways inwhich important elements in the regulations might bebrought into conformity with applicable Associationstandards.


Nichols College (Massachusetts)

The 1980 annual meeting placed the Nichols College admin-istration on censure following the dismissal of a nontenuredmember of the faculty in the middle of an academic year.The published report that was the basis for censure con-cluded that the administration's action deprived the facultymember of his academic freedom and speaks poorly foracademic freedom at Nichols College.

Correspondence this past year between the staff and thepresident of the College has not reflected progress towardsresolving outstanding issues.

Bridgewater State College (Massachusetts)

The administration of Bridgewater State College was cen-sured in 1981 by the sixty-seventh annual meeting. The actionwas preceded by an investigating committee's report on thedismissal of a tenured professor. The report found that theprofessor was denied academic due process and that theadministration's charges against him did not warrant theextreme action of dismissal.

The staff's correspondence over the past year with the Col-lege administration reveals no new developments concern-ing the censure and its potential removal.

Harris-Stowe State College (Missouri)

The 1981 annual meeting imposed censure on the Harris-Stowe State College administration pursuant to a publishedreport on action by the Board of Trustees to dismiss nine-teen faculty members on the occasion of the transfer of theCollege from municipal to state control. The report foundthat the College was the same institution after the transferas before. It found that the board selected particular facultymembers for dismissal by ignoring the faculty and academicadministrators and relying wholly on an outside consultantwho viewed tenure as a factor against retention. The reportfound in two specific cases that the dismissal of the facultymembers was in violation of their rights under the 1940 State-ment of Principles.

Last year's account in "Developments Relating to Cen-sure" noted that one of the members whose specific caseis reviewed in the report had initiated a lawsuit. Late lastspring, following a trial, a federal district judge ruled thatthe faculty member was dismissed on impermissible groundsand ordered his reinstatement. The board of trustees ap-pealed, and a month ago the trial court's decision wasaffirmed by the federal appellate court. The staff has writ-

ten to the president of the College to invite discussion of dif-ferences between existing institutional policies relating toacademic freedom and tenure and applicable Associationstandards.

Yeshiva University (New York)

By vote of the sixty-eighth annual meeting in 1982, YeshivaUniversity was placed on the Association's list of censuredadministrations. The action followed an investigating com-mittee's finding that the administration, in terminating theappointments of three tenured professors on stated groundsof reorganization of academic programs and in placing themon involuntary suspension from further teaching respon-sibilities for the remainder of their appointments, had actedcontrary to the applicable provisions of the 1940 Statementof Principles, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards inFaculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the Association's Recom-mended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.The committee found that the administration had acted inthe absence of a bona fide financial exigency, that there wasinadequate opportunity for meaningful faculty participationin the administration's decisions, and that the administra-tion declined to take responsibility for demonstrating its caseat an appropriate hearing.

The Association's staff has written to the administrationin an effort to initiate discussion of the censure, but noresponse has been received.

Eastern Oregon State College

The annual meeting in 1982 voted to place Eastern OregonState College on the Association's list of censured administra-tions, following an investigating committee's report on thecase of a tenured professor who was removed from her posi-tion after eighteen years of service on grounds of "programreduction" arising out of a shortfall in budget. The admin-istration retained the professor for an additional two yearson a part-time basis and at a severely reduced salary, andat the end of that time released her entirely. The investigatingcommittee found that the administration acted in violationof the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure by dismissing the professor without demonstrationeither of cause for dismissal or of a bona fide financial exigency.

The staff and the officers of the Association's OregonFederation have written to a new president at Eastern OregonState College to invite discussion of outstanding issues. Theadministration has just replied, indicating interest in pursu-ing the matter.


american international college

Documents