There is a familiar rhythm to the work of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure as we consider cases and policy matters, write statements, and make proposals to the AAUP's Council and annual meeting. In the course of this work, we are aware of certain persisting dangers to academic freedom as well as of new threats to freedoms we never get to take for granted. This year, the committee was particularly struck by developments in two areas, one having to do with an intensified threat to academic freedom, the other with the institution of tenure.
The new threat to academic freedom is both a product of the September 11, 2001, attacks and of efforts by various groups on the right (many of them off campus) to impose controls on teachers and campus activities in the name of diversity, individual rights, and student rights. Fortunately, both the Colorado and the California state legislatures, where bills to enact an Academic Bill of Rights were pending, have tabled these bills at the urging of university presidents, faculty leaders, and the AAUP. But the advocates of these bills have not given up and are organizing student groups on campuses (often under the aegis of Young Republicans clubs) to report on teachers whose views are purportedly biased against conservative values and ideas. Committee A was especially troubled to learn that supporters of the Academic Bill of Rights have invoked AAUP principles to advance their cause. The committee issued a sharp rebuke, pointing out that the Academic Bill of Rights is antithetical to academic freedom.
We have also been concerned about the impact of pro-Israel lobbyists on pending federal legislation and on foundations. Conflating criticism of current Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, these groups have tried (sometimes in the name of diversity and balance) to prevent speakers critical of Israel (among them left-wing Israelis) from coming to campuses. They have also had a hand in the introduction into the pending reauthorization of Title VI of the Higher Education Act of a politically appointed oversight committee for foreign studies programs. Their pressure and a more general concern about inadvertent funding of terrorists has led the Ford and Rockefeller foundations to issue letters to their grantees stating that grant recipients may not (in the words of the new Ford Foundation policy) "promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state." A group of university provosts, objecting to the vague requirements in the new policies, has written to the foundations to ask that they be revised. The foundations have indicated a willingness to discuss that possibility. The AAUP wrote its own letters to the two foundations protesting a provision of the new grant policy that holds universities responsible for monitoring the words and actions of their faculty and students.
What is worrisome about all of this activity, as well as of renewed attempts by the Bush administration to generate support for an extension of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, is its inevitably chilling effect on classroom and campus expression.
The second area of concern has to do with tenure and with a new way of undermining it: the creation of the category of "professor of practice." The picture for tenure nationwide is not good: the numbers of part-time faculty and full-time non-tenure-track faculty continue to increase, while the numbers of tenured and tenure-track faculty decline (see the March-April 2004 issue of Academe). But "professors of practice" are a new twist on this theme. One university president describes them as "chosen through a rigorous academic review process" and as "premier participant[s] in the education of students," but as not eligible for tenure. Committee A was particularly disturbed by the idea that tenure (and the academic freedom it confers) was considered necessary only for publishing scholars and not for teachers. In fact, as the attempts to enforce the Academic Bill of Rights suggest, it is precisely the teaching function of faculty members that most often requires the protection of academic freedom. Committee A has authorized a subcommittee to prepare a report on this matter.
Judicial Business
Imposition of Censure
Committee A at its June meeting considered two cases that had been the subject of reports published in Academe since the 2003 annual meeting. The committee adopted the statements printed below concerning these cases. In the Philander Smith College case, censure was recommended, the Council concurred, and the annual meeting voted to impose censure. In the Medaille College case, the committee recommended to the annual meeting that it defer action, saying that it will report back to the 2005 annual meeting about developments in the case. The Council concurred with the committee's statement. The annual meeting also concurred, but, in addition, adopted a motion condemning the college's administration and board of trustees for the actions against the two subject professors.
Philander Smith College (Arkansas)
The report of the investigating committee focuses primarily on a professor's dismissal on grounds of insubordination. An unexpected financial shortfall at the college, leading to notices of layoff and of reduced salaries, had attracted the interest of the media. The college president thereupon issued a directive, stating that faculty or staff contacts with the media or with state or accreditation agencies, unless previously approved by the president, would constitute insubordination and be a basis for immediate dismissal. The professor, asked by a newspaper reporter to comment on current conditions at the college, informed the reporter of the content of the presidential directive. The president, upon learning this, dismissed the professor, evicting her from her office and stopping salary payment as of that date.
The investigating committee concluded that the college administration's dismissal of the professor for alleged insubordination relating to the president's directive violated the professor's academic freedom. The committee concluded that the very issuance of the directive threatened the academic freedom of every faculty member at the college. The committee concluded further that the administration's dismissal action was in disregard of academic due process as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and indeed in the college's own regulations.
At approximately the same time, the Philander Smith College administration terminated the appointments of six other professors prior to their expiration, attributing these actions to financial exigency. The investigating committee, discussing the case of four of the professors in its report, found that the administration had not demonstrated that a bona fide condition of financial exigency existed and had not released the professors on the basis of seniority, the only criterion for layoff stated in the college's regulations. Neither did the administration assert that the decisions had been based on an evaluation of professional performance. (Two of the professors alleged that they were being released because the administration viewed them as disloyal to it and that their academic freedom was thereby violated.) Requests for a hearing on terminations were denied by the administration.
Committee A recommends to the Ninetieth Annual Meeting that Philander Smith College be placed on the Association's list of censured administrations.
Medaille College (New York)
The investigating committee's published report deals with the suspension and dismissal of two tenured professors. The administration decided to take action against the two professors upon determining that they had wrongfully distributed the confidential minutes of a meeting of the college's promotion and tenure committee. One of the professors was also charged with insubordination for not cooperating with the administration's investigation. The administration characterized the conduct of the two professors as turpitude, which, according to the administration, justified cessation of their salaries effective with the date of their dismissals. Prior to the dismissals, the administration, giving no reason for its actions, suspended both professors with pay and barred them from the campus.
The investigating committee concluded that the two professors were suspended without evidence that they presented a threat of immediate harm to themselves or others, as required by the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings and the college's official policies. Further, such hearings as were afforded to the two professors presented a welter of departures from the Association's recommended standards. The investigating committee found that, in one dismissal proceeding, the professor in effect had to prove why she should not have been dismissed; that both professors were denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was central to their cases; and that the grievance committee itself declined, in one case, to consider the charge of turpitude on grounds that its jurisdiction was limited to matters of procedure, and, for the same reason, declined in the second case to hold a hearing on the dismissal. The investigating committee concluded that the administration denied the two professors academic due process as called for in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards, the Association's derivative Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and the college's own policies. The investigating committee further concluded that the faculty grievance committee contributed to these denials of due process.
With regard to the substantive charges of breach of confidentiality and insubordination, the investigating committee found no support among the Medaille College faculty that such conduct constituted turpitude. The investigating committee concluded, in light of the available evidence, that the charges against the two professors, even if sustained, were not of sufficient gravity to warrant dismissal and therefore could not justify the extreme action of dismissal without terminal salary on grounds of turpitude.
Committee A is persuaded that the actions against the two professors are censurable. However, recent encouraging developments at Medaille College have led the committee to consider more effective action to achieve the Association's purposes.
The chair of the Medaille College Faculty Handbook Revision Committee provided the Association with the draft text of proposed revisions to the handbook, formulated during the past academic year. The chair has informed the Association's staff that the draft text has been discussed in a series of general faculty meetings, that revisions dealing with dismissals enjoy broad faculty support, and that the faculty is likely to vote on the revised handbook in mid-October. Committee A is pleased to note that the draft text incorporates verbatim the standards of academic due process applicable to a dismissal that are set forth in the Association's Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
This draft text awaits faculty action before it is submitted to the administration, but in the meantime the president of the college has forwarded to the Association draft dismissal procedures that he supports. These procedures are drawn in every essential respect from the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.
The Association has also just recently learned that discussions have been taking place between the administration and the two dismissed professors, looking toward a resolution of their respective cases. In one case the administration has proposed reinstatement, and in the second case, the focus has been on a cash settlement.
Committee A's experience with developments in cases similar to those that are occurring at Medaille College is that not imposing censure at this time holds greater promise of achieving the Association's ends. Accordingly, mindful of the positive developments at Medaille College, but also concerned to ensure that these several matters, including acceptable settlements with the faculty involved, be satisfactorily and completely resolved, Committee A believes that the best course for the achievement of desired results is to defer Association action. Committee A thus withholds a recommendation regarding this case to the 2004 annual meeting but will report again on Medaille College to the annual meeting in 2005.
Removal of Censure
The committee approved the statements below with respect to Amarillo College (Texas), Houston Baptist University, and Mount Marty College (South Dakota), recommending that the 2004 annual meeting remove these institutions from the list of censured administrations. The Council concurred, and the annual meeting voted to remove censure. The committee also approved the statement below concerning Olivet College in Michigan. The Council concurred with the substance of the committee's statement. It voted, however, that the annual meeting not be asked to delegate authority to Committee A to remove the censure but that instead the censure be removed contingent upon the committee's verifying favorable action by the college's board of trustees on revised policies. The annual meeting accepted the committee's statement and the Council's action. Shortly after the annual meeting, Committee A verified that the Olivet College board of trustees had approved the revised policies, and the censure was removed.
Amarillo College (Texas)
The administration of Amarillo College was placed on censure by the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting in 1968 after it suspended a senior member of the faculty and ultimately dismissed her. The Association's investigating committee found that these actions violated the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the college's own regulations.
The faculty member whose case led to the censure died several years ago, and no other unresolved cases of Amarillo College faculty members have been brought to the Association's attention. The censure has remained in effect, however, because of problems with the college's tenure policies. The policies underwent substantial improvement over time, but a maximum period of probation remained unspecified, and full-time members of the teaching faculty were retained indefinitely on successive term appointments without tenure's protections.
A new president of the college took office last fall and promptly expressed interest in bringing the censure to closure. Responding to questions from the Association's staff, he reported that there were 21 full-time faculty members who had served beyond seven years and had not been granted tenure. (The tenured faculty numbered 70, and the other full-time members of the faculty, numbering 132, had not yet served seven years.) He reported further that none of the 21 individuals had sought tenure and been denied it. The staff suggested recognizing the attainment of tenure by the 21 because of their length of service but was informed that the tenured faculty balked at approving tenure for those who, unlike themselves, had chosen not to be evaluated for it. Further discussion, however, led the faculty to approve providing their nontenured colleagues with procedural safeguards against termination commonly associated with tenure, including suspension only upon threat of harm and the administration's bearing the burden of proving stated charges before a hearing body chaired by the elected president of the faculty senate. The faculty also joined the administration in approving AAUP-recommended procedures relating to financial exigency and to program discontinuance. All of these policy changes were adopted by the college's board of trustees at its spring meeting late in April.
A few days later, an Association representative from another Texas institution visited Amarillo College and held meetings with the president, the academic dean, the faculty senate president, and seven other senate members. He subsequently reported strong faculty support for the president's initiatives, uniform support for the adopted policy changes, and a healthy current climate at the college for academic freedom, tenure, and due process. The president of AAUP's Texas Conference has been kept abreast of these developments and has indicated no concerns.
Committee A recommends to the Ninetieth Annual Meeting that Amarillo College be removed from the Association's list of censured administrations.
Houston Baptist University
The 1975 annual meeting placed Houston Baptist University on the Association's censure list after its board of trustees abolished any further granting of tenure and its administration subsequently released a professor who, according to the investigating committee's report, should have had tenure because of the length of his faculty service. The report found that the professor had been denied basic safeguards of academic due process.
A letter to the current administration from the Association's staff, proposing a new approach toward resolving differences over policy, prompted the administrative officers to consult about the censure in late February with a Houston law professor who is a former AAUP general counsel. The administrative officers subsequently prepared a submission requesting removal of the censure and sent it in draft form last month to the Association's staff with a request for comments. The staff urged, as key to achieving censure removal, adoption of an additional provision assuring to all full-time faculty members with over seven years of service AAUP-supported protections of academic due process if their fitness to continue should be challenged.
The administration has accepted this provision. The administration has also concurred in a staff recommendation to offer a modest payment to the professor whose case occasioned the censure. The professor, who had gone on to teach elsewhere for nearly three decades and is now retired, reports his pleasure with the offer and with the prospects for removing the censure.
The foregoing developments have been reported to the president of AAUP's Texas Conference, who has voiced no concerns.
Committee A recommends to the Ninetieth Annual Meeting that Houston Baptist University be removed from the Association's list of censured administrations.
Mount Marty College (South Dakota)
The investigating committee's report that led to censure of the Mount Marty College administration by the 1999 annual meeting dealt with the suspension and dismissal of a tenured professor. The report concluded that the administration and board of trustees had dismissed the professor for reasons that violated his academic freedom. The report also concluded that the dismissal was effected without having afforded the professor requisite safeguards of academic due process. Moreover, the report also expressed concern that the administration and board of trustees had been seriously derelict regarding the faculty's role in academic governance.
The dismissed professor initiated litigation, and in September 1999 a South Dakota jury awarded him damages for having been wrongfully discharged.
In January 2003, a new president of Mount Marty College visited the Association's Washington office to discuss the censure and its potential removal. He visited again this past January, providing a draft text of a substantially revised faculty handbook that had been approved by the faculty senate the previous November. The Association's staff proposed additional changes to the handbook in order to bring its provisions into conformity with Association-recommended standards governing faculty dismissals. All of these changes were subsequently approved by the faculty senate and adopted by the administration with the authorization of the board of trustees.
A former officer of the Association, who had been to Mount Marty College at the time of the events that led to the censure, returned this April to visit the campus as the Association's representative. She met with the president and the vice president for academic affairs, with current members of the faculty, and with the dismissed professor, who had been invited by the president to talk with her. Writing in support of censure removal, she stated that the faculty "spoke of the high morale and trust that now exist on the campus," and, in contrast to the earlier years, of the important role of the faculty in the selection of deans and department chairs and in the development of the curriculum.
Committee A recommends to the Ninetieth Annual Meeting that Mount Marty College be removed from the Association's list of censured administrations.
Olivet College (Michigan)
Censure of the Olivet College administration was imposed by the 1980 annual meeting pursuant to a report on the summary dismissal of a visiting professor. Prior to that action, the board had discontinued the grant-ing of indefinite tenure, and subsequently the administration denied reappointment to another professor after sixteen years of service. The two cases occasioning the censure were settled many years ago, but senior faculty members continued to serve without tenure, and a 1985 case of terminal suspension remained unresolved.
The current president of Olivet College came to Washington this past winter to discuss the censure and its potential removal with the Association's staff. The president noted that the last two members of the faculty to have attained tenure at the college before its granting ceased had recently retired. The staff asked if the college procedures for dismissing a tenured faculty member, which tracked the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, continue to be included in the college regulations. The president replied that they remain as the procedure for dismissing a faculty member within a term under the current system of renewable five-year appointments, although to his knowledge the procedure has never been used. The staff proposed that the procedure, with its safeguards against unilateral administrative action, be available to all full-time faculty members after an initial five-year period of probation should their fitness to continue come into question, whether within the term of an appointment or upon the appointment's expiration. The president expressed support for the proposal and said that he would seek the faculty's concurrence and then bring it to the board of trustees for adoption.
At the president's invitation, the staff provided him with specific language for accomplishing what had been discussed. Similarly, the staff provided language requested by the president for affording postprobationary faculty procedural protections against termination in the event of financial exigency.
In addition, the staff proposed a financial offer that would settle the case that dates back to 1985. The president, readily agreeing, extended a formal offer at the amount recommended.
The executive director of AAUP's Michigan Conference was informed of the foregoing and invited to comment.
With these steps toward achieving removal of censure well under way, a professor from a nearby Michigan institution who is a member of the Association's Council visited Olivet College as the AAUP's representative. She met with the president of the college, the president of the faculty senate, and numerous other faculty senators. She reported having heard no reservations about removal of the censure, strong support for the proposed new policies, and a real commitment to academic freedom. She wrote that she looked forward to the lifting of the censure with the board's adoption of the recommended policies.
Action on the policies had been anticipated at a meeting of the board late in April, but questions by some board members on implementation were regrettably not susceptible to immediate response. The matter was accordingly held over for the next meeting of the board, scheduled for June 18. The members' questions have now been answered, and the president and the board chair are fairly confident that on June 18 the board will act affirmatively.
Committee A believes that the censure, assuming the board's favorable action, should be removed. It believes that waiting another year to achieve removal will lessen the prospect for prompt action by the board of trustees. It accordingly asks the Ninetieth Annual Meeting to delegate authority for removing the censure to the committee, which will do so by mail ballot upon receiving confirmation that the board has adopted the policies.
Case Brought Back to the 2004 Annual Meeting
Committee A approved the statement printed below concerning the University of South Florida, which responds to the motion of the 2003 annual meeting that the committee give further consideration to this case. The statement was provided to the Council and to the annual meeting.
University of South Florida
Committee A presented a statement to the June 2003 annual meeting that severely faulted the administration of the University of South Florida for substantial violations of AAUP-supported standards but included no recommendation for censure by the annual meeting. The annual meeting voted to return the statement to the committee for further consideration. The delegates did not specify the concerns that they wanted the committee to address but did adopt a Council resolution condemning the administration of the University of South Florida "for its grave departures from Association-supported standards that resulted in serious professional injury" to Sami Al-Arian, a tenured associate professor of computer science.
Committee A has reviewed its June 2003 statement and subsequent developments in light of the actions of the Council and the annual meeting as requested. Committee A notes that the grounds stated for condemnation in the resolution adopted by the Council and the annual meeting express opinions that go beyond the specific findings and report of the investigating committee and those in the Committee A resolution. Committee A recognizes that these concerns are important but does not consider that they pertain directly to the question of whether to recommend censure for two reasons.
On the one hand,the investigating committee and Committee A findings included violations of AAUP-supported standards sufficient to provide grounds for censure of the administration's actions. The committee noted that, prior to Al-Arian's indictment on February 20, 2003, the administration, having initially suspended Al-Arian based on a concern that it was unable to ensure his safety on the campus, continued the suspension long after acknowledging that his return would no longer pose a threat to his safety. The administration thus suspended Al-Arian without demonstrating cause. Moreover, the administration first tried unsuccessfully to sue him to obtain a declaratory judgment against him, and then, following his arrest, dismissed him without respect for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
On the other hand, Committee A recommendations for censure have entailed not only a finding of substantial violations of AAUP-supported standards but also have required the identification of reasonable requests for specific remedial actions respecting institutional policy and the faculty member whose rights have been violated. The university had already moved to correct a policy deficiency in that, where prior regulations did not provide for a pretermination peer review hearing, the university has established such a provision. Moreover, the university remains prepared to provide a postdismissal hearing in accordance with prior policy, but Al-Arian, who remains incarcerated, has had to request deferral of such a hearing until such time as he may be free to participate.
Committee A respects the concern expressed in the resolution of the annual meeting that the university administration improperly yielded to the political climate when it suspended and dis-missed Al-Arian following public disapprobation of his extramural expression and without having affording him the procedural protections that are especially needed at such times. We also share the implicit concern that the decision of Committee A not to recommend action might mistakenly appear to signal to the academic community acceptance of the university administration's deviations from essential protections of academic freedom.
Accordingly, Committee A reiterates here that the actions of the University of South Florida administration violated the fundamental standards of the academic community when it suspended Al-Arian without having demonstrated cause, pursued a declaratory judgment against him in court, and dismissed him without having demonstrated adequate cause in an appropriate adjudicative proceeding.
We remain of the opinion, however, that the university administration has shown its recognition of a significant failing by changing university procedures to require now a peer hearing prior to dismissal. It has recently addressed another failing by providing assurance that, should the continuance of a threat of harm be questioned in a future case of suspension, it will consult with the appropriate faculty body on the need and duration of any further suspension from faculty responsibilities.
In these difficult times, it is no less incumbent upon us than upon academic institutions to adhere to established procedures and standards. Since we have no further specific corrective ac-tions to propose at this time, our procedures do not call for cen-sure. Our procedures do, however, permit us to keep the case under review and to insist that Al-Arian receives that hearing to which he is entitled at such time as he may be free to do so. We shall continue to keep in close touch with those concerned at the University of South Florida and shall bring a recommendation to an annual meeting if and when that should be necessary.
Legislative Business
The Council adopted, in November, the report Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession, prepared by a joint subcommittee of Committee A and the Committee on Part-Time and Non-Tenure-Track Appointments. We were pleased to have taken part in discussions of this report, which is an important one for the Association. At its fall meeting, Committee A approved a report for publication, prepared by a joint subcommittee of Committee A and the Committee on College and University Governance, titled Financial Exigency, Academic Governance, and Related Matters. The report appeared in the March-April 2004 issue of Academe. For Committee A's meeting next November, we expect to have a report from another joint subcommittee of Committee A and the Committee on College and University Governance with regard to procedures for case investigations.
During its June meeting, Committee A discussed the published report Verification and Trust: Background Investigations Preceding Faculty Appointments, and called for a few revisions before it is issued in final form. The committee also discussed and offered specific changes to a report on academic freedom and electronic communications initially published in the July-August 1997 issue of Academe. The report as further revised will be on the committee's meeting agenda in the fall.
Committee A continues to receive updates from the Special Committee on Academic Freedom and National Security in a Time of Crisis. Members of the special committee have spoken on a number of campuses and at several AAUP chapter meetings about developments since the publication of the committee's report in the November-December 2003 issue of Academe.
Our Canadian Colleagues
James Turk of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has become a regular visitor to our meetings. In June, he presented a fascinating talk on the activities of CAUT, which enabled us to appreciate the similarities and differences in the problems our sister association faces. We have found the collaboration with CAUT to be a fruitful one for the committee.
Recognition of Mary Burgan
The June meeting of Committee A was the last for Mary Burgan, who has retired as general secretary of the Association. We expressed our gratitude for her generous and impassioned leadership over the past ten years and wished her well in her retirement. In
Conclusion
If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, Committee A has its hands full. Now, more than ever, academic freedom is under assault. I realize I've written words like these before, but the national mood seems to have intensified and, of course, the world situation is very grave. We continue to try to do our part in protecting academic freedom from abuse and, in that effort, we are ably assisted by the national office staff, without whom our work would be less efficient and effective and to whom we express our gratitude and appreciation.
JOAN WALLACH SCOTT (History), Institute for Advanced Study, chair
Cases Settled Through Staff Mediation
The work of Committee A's staff in bringing cases to a sound resolution is illustrated in the three 2003-04 accounts that follow. Over a dozen such cases were closed during the past academic year after having been resolved through mediation by the staff.
An Associate Professor at a Private College in the Midwest
An associate professor at a private college in the Midwest was notified in the summer that his appointment for the new academic year was being designated as terminal, although his years of service entitled him under the 1940 Statement of Principles to protections against involuntary termination. He was told that his teaching and scholarship met with approval but that his "interrelationship" with administrative officers, whom he had criticized sharply, was not acceptable. If he would apologize for past remarks and refrain from further criticisms, he was also told further, the "terminal" designation might be withdrawn. The associate professor, insisting that he had done nothing wrong and should be free to speak his mind about administrative performance at the college, declined to apologize. He continued his criticism into the fall, whereupon the administration suspended him from teaching during his final semester and evicted him from his office.
Efforts by the Association's staff to convince the existing administration to rescind its actions were unavailing. The staff took up the case with the administration that followed. With the associate professor by then having assumed a teaching position in Europe, a potential financial settlement was discussed. The staff proposed a specific offer, but that administration did not follow through. With a successor administration, however, the result was quite different. The staff reiterated its proposal, and the administration finally settled the case by promptly offering the amount recommended.
Two Probationary Faculty Members
Two probationary faculty members at a public university in the South were notified in June, following their first year of service, that they would not be reappointed beyond December. The administrator who issued the notifications viewed them as providing the six months of notice for second-year faculty members called for in the university's regulations. The Association's standards for notice, however, call for the effective date of notice to be the end of the academic year. An Association staff member telephoned an officer of the university's central administration and explained the Association's interpretation of the standard. The officer concurred in the interpretation, as did the university's provost, and the two faculty members were informed of the extension of their appointments for the additional six months.
A Faculty Member in her Second Year of Service
Deteriorating personal relationships between a faculty member in her second year of service and her administrative superior at a small private college in the Southwest led to issuance of notice of nonreappointment to the faculty member on April 15. Without an appeals procedure at the college through which she could contest the notice, the faculty member filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and she requested assistance from the Association.
The Association's staff discussed the faculty member's case with the college's chief academic officer and proposed a mutually acceptable resolution. He was receptive to it, as was the faculty member when the staff discussed it with her. Because of the late notice of nonreappointment (which should be issued to a second-year faculty member by December 15 under the AAUP's applicable standard), the faculty member received an additional four months of salary. The administration withdrew the notice it had issued and cleared the record of references to the faculty member's involuntary departure, and in turn the faculty member (who by then had no wish to remain at the college) submitted her resignation and withdrew her EEOC complaint.