Developments Relating to Censure, 2007

The statements that follow, in chronological order according to the date of imposition of censure, constitute our appraisal of developments at the listed institutions for the year through April 1, 2007. Relevant actions of significance that occur after April 1 will be reported to Committee A, the Council, and the Ninety-third Annual  Meeting at the sessions of these bodies between June 1 and June 9. The list of censured administrations, which appears in each issue of Academe, cites the published report that was the basis for the censure in each case. 

Jonathan Knight
Director, Program in Academic Freedom and Tenure 

Grove City College (Pennsylvania), 1963 (.pdf)
Censure followed an investigating committee’s report on the case of an experienced professor who was dismissed without having been afforded opportunity for a hearing and other safeguards of academic due process. The college administration continues to indicate no interest in discussing the censure and its potential removal.

Frank Phillips College (Texas), 1969 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from the investigation of the summary dismissal of a faculty member in her tenth year of service.

The issue of redress for the dismissed faculty member has long been resolved, but the college continues to lack a system of faculty tenure. Last October, the college president provided the staff with current regulations that include a newly instituted grievance procedure. The staff in its reply addressed a new concern in the regulations regarding lack of due process in cases of dismissal.

Concordia Seminary (Missouri), 1975 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the termination of a professor’s services because of objections by external ecclesiastical authorities to his views on subjects within his area of academic competence.

The seminary administration has remained unresponsive to overtures from the staff to discuss the censure.

Murray State University (Kentucky), 1976 (.pdf)
Censure followed an investigating committee’s report on the dismissal, without demonstration of cause, of nine faculty members who had served beyond the maximum period of probation allowed under the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

A new president who took office in December requested information concerning the censure. The staff compared the current regulations with previous policies and noted several improvements, but has indicated continuing concerns regarding dismissal procedures. Issues of redress remain unresolved.

State University of New York, 1978 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the dismissal of more than one hundred faculty members in the state university system on grounds of retrenchment. The report concluded that the administration had acted without demonstrating the existence of a state of financial exigency mandating the termination of continuing appointments. A summary of Committee A’s major concerns relating to issues of academic freedom and tenure in the State University of New York can be found in the 1997 issue of “Developments Relating to Censure.”

A new university counsel inquired this winter about steps that need to be taken to resolve the censure, and the staff provided the requested information. In early March, the chancellor of the State University of New York announced his resignation, effective May 31.

Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas, 1978 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the summary dismissal of a faculty member for reasons that violated his academic freedom. The case of the dismissed faculty member was resolved many years ago, but the college, which in 1996 became part of the University of Arkansas, does not provide for continuous tenure.

This past year, like the two preceding years, the administration has not responded to staff letters inviting resumed discussion of ways to bring the censure to closure. 

Nichols College  (Massachusetts), 1980 (.pdf)
Censure followed an investigation of the dismissal of a nontenured faculty member in the middle of the academic year, with the investigating committee’s report concluding that the action violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

The staff’s letters during the past year proposing discussion of the censure have not elicited a response. 

Yeshiva University (New York), 1982 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report’s findings that found the university’s financial condition did not warrant terminating the appointments of three tenured professors and that the administration had declined to justify its actions before a faculty hearing body.

The three cases were settled several years ago, but deficiencies in the university’s policies and procedures governing faculty appointments have remained uncorrected. 

American International College (Massachusetts), 1983 (.pdf)
Censure followed action by the administration to dismiss a faculty member after thirteen years of service without having afforded him opportunity for a hearing. The administration did not contest the faculty member’s allegation that he was dismissed for attempting to form a faculty union.

In a December letter to the staff, the college dean expressed a wish “to rectify the relationship with the Association” and requested a review of the current faculty handbook. The staff’s reply addressed ongoing problems with the institution’s tenure regulations. Additional developments are awaited. 

Metropolitan Community Colleges (Missouri), 1984 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on actions by the administration to terminate eight faculty appointments on grounds of financial exigency and decreasing enrollment. The report disputed the stated grounds for the terminations, concluding that they were designed to reduce the size of the full-time faculty in favor of engaging part-time teachers and assigning overloads.

This past summer, the current administration provided the staff with a copy of the colleges’ current policies regarding faculty appointments. The staff responded with extensive comments on the policies. The administration has expressed an interest in making the revisions that are necessary to achieve censure removal, and further developments are anticipated. 

Talladega College (Alabama), 1986 (.pdf)
Censure followed a published report on actions to terminate the services of three professors in violation of their academic freedom. The current administration has not responded to the AAUP staff’s letters proposing discussion of the censure and its potential removal. 

Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, 1987 (.pdf)
Censure was imposed after the administration had dismissed a tenured professor upon learning that she had remarried following a previous Catholic marriage that ended in civil divorce. The report of the investigating committee concluded that the professor was denied academic due process and that dismissing her on grounds unrelated to professional performance violated her personal rights and freedom.

Previous accounts of “Developments Relating to Censure” have noted that the administration has requested removal of the censure because of a Puerto Rico Supreme Court finding that the professor’s constitutional rights were not violated. The AAUP staff has responded by conveying Committee A’s position on the difference between a legal finding on constitutional rights and a professional finding on rights under academic freedom. This past year witnessed no further developments. 

Husson College (Maine), 1987  (.pdf)
Censure resulted from the termination of the services of a professor who had disagreed with the president over college regulations. The investigating committee found that the professor should have been free to express his disagreements. Although his case was settled years ago, an issue over the adequacy of the college’s official policies remains unresolved. As has been the case for many years, letters from the Association’s staff inviting discussion of the issue have not brought a response. 

Hillsdale College (Michigan), 1988 (.pdf)
Censure followed a published report finding that a nonreappointed faculty member had been denied procedural safeguards to which he was entitled under the Association’s Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments. The report found prima facie evidence that the administration’s decision to notify the faculty member of nonreappointment resulted from activity that merited protection under principles of academic freedom. The administration did not respond to recent staff letters inviting discussion of outstanding issues. 

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (North Carolina), 1989 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report on actions by a board of trustees that, determined to have a seminary reflecting its views, appointed a dean over unanimous faculty objections and refused to reappoint two adjunct faculty members for reasons that violated their academic freedom. A new seminary president wrote to the Association in July 2004 that the administration, faculty, and trustees “do not recognize the AAUP as having any authority with respect to how the institution functions. Therefore, this will be the last and only time I will respond to your correspondence.” This past year, like the year before, he has held to this position. 

Catholic University of America (District of Columbia), 1990 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the case of a tenured theology professor declared by Vatican authorities to be no longer eligible to teach Catholic theology because of his published views on sexual ethics.

The report found that the administration suspended the professor without having shown that his teaching posed a threat of immediate harm, and that the administration and the board of trustees violated the professor’s academic freedom by preventing him from teaching anywhere in the university from the announced perspective of a Catholic theologian. In June 1991, the trustees adopted a statement on academic freedom that Committee A found to be severely deficient.

The university president, writing to the Association’s staff last October, stated that the professor whose case led to the censure “will not be invited back to campus for any formal or official purposes,” and he expressed satisfaction with the existing statement on academic freedom. “If these two points remain as obstacles to the termination of the censure,” he wrote, “then there is no real purpose for discussion.” 

Dean College (Massachusetts), 1992 (.pdf)
Censure was based on a report concluding that the administration had terminated the services of two faculty members because of activities that warranted protection under principles of academic freedom. Shortly after publication of the report, the administration summarily dismissed a third faculty member.

The three cases were settled several years ago, but the college’s official policies do not provide for tenure and are deficient in other respects. Staff letters this past year to the college president, inviting discussion of the policies, went unanswered. 

Baltimore City Community College (Maryland), 1992 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report that described the termination of the services of a tenured faculty member without affordance of academic due process following abolition of tenure commitments when the college was transferred from municipal to state control. The report rejected the administration’s contention that a new institution had resulted, finding that the institution remained essentially the same.

The Association’s staff wrote to a new president of the college, who took office last July, to invite discussion of outstanding issues, but its letter to date has gone unanswered. 

Loma Linda University (California), 1992 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the administration’s actions to dismiss three professors, denying them academic due process as called for in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings.

Litigation initiated by two of the professors resulted several years ago in out-of-court settlements. The university’s chief executive officer spoke with the Association’s staff this past summer about resuming earlier discussions regarding official institutional policies, and the staff followed up with specific proposals for action. Further word from the administration is awaited. 

Clarkson College (Nebraska), 1993 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from an investigating committee’s report on the administration’s actions to terminate the services of four faculty members whom it released on short notice without a hearing. The report concluded that the college’s policies failed to afford minimal protections of academic due process.

Three of the cases that led to the censure were resolved several years ago. The staff has written to a new president of the college, who assumed office last January, inviting discussion of outstanding issues.

North Greenville College (South Carolina),1993 (.pdf)
Censure followed a published report on actions to terminate the services of two professors after each had been on the faculty for eleven years. The report concluded that the administration treated the cases as simple nonrenewals of term appointments, and that its actions were based significantly on considerations that violated the professors’ academic freedom.

One of the two cases of concern has been resolved. This past year’s letters to the administration from the Association’s staff brought no response. 

Savannah College of  Art and Design (Georgia), 1993 (.pdf)
Censure followed an AAUP report’s finding that the administration disregarded the 1940 Statement of Principles in dismissing two faculty members without having demonstrated cause. The report also found a prima facie case of violation of academic freedom in the termination of the services of six other members of the faculty.

A member of the Association’s staff met this spring with an officer of the administration to resume previous discussions of the censure and its potential removal. The staff member proposed specific revisions in policies and suggested steps to resolve issues of redress. The administration’s response is awaited. 

University of Bridgeport (Connecticut), 1994 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report on the release of two tenured professors with only thirty days’ notice and the subsequent termination of the services of several additional tenured professors “for reasons of institutional need.”

The two cases addressed in the report were resolved several years ago. The later cases remain unresolved, as do issues regarding the university’s official policies. The administration has not responded to recent staff proposals for resuming discussion of the issues of concern. 

Benedict College (South Carolina), 1994 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from an investigation of actions to terminate the services of three professors. Settlements in the three cases were reached many years ago, but the censure continued because of unresolved problems with the college’s official policies.

A supplementary 2005 report describes the current president’s dismissal of two professors on grounds of insubordination for having declined to change student grades and his punishment of two AAUP chapter officers for having supported the right of the professors to grade according to their best professional judgment. Responding to an invitation last fall from the Association’s staff to work toward removing the censure, the president wrote that he was not interested in doing so at that time.  

Bennington College (Vermont), 1995 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the administration’s action to terminate the services of more than two dozen faculty members on grounds of financial exigency and on the governing board’s abolition of the further granting of tenure in favor of term appointments indefinitely renewable at the administration’s discretion. Most of the released faculty members pursued litigation, which led to an out-of-court financial settlement.

Still to be resolved are subsequent cases of dismissal and nonreappointment as well as deficiencies in college policies on academic freedom and tenure. This past year, the administration has not responded to the staff’s letters inviting discussion of these continuing concerns. 

Alaska Pacific University, 1995 (.pdf)
Censure was based on an investigation of the release of seven faculty members, most of whom were entitled to the protections of tenure under the 1940 Statement of Principles. The investigating committee concluded that financial exigency was not a basis for termination, that some of the terminations could not be justified by program discontinuance, and that severance arrangements were sorely inadequate.

As in previous years, no response has been received from the administration this past year to the staff’s invitations to discuss the censure and its potential removal. 

St. Bonaventure University (New York), 1996 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report on actions by the administration to terminate the appointments of eighteen tenured professors on grounds of financial exigency. The report concluded that the administration had acted in disregard of Association-supported standards by failing to provide adjudicative hearings and by refusing to allow the presence of counsel in the appeals procedure that was used. The president subsequently denied reappointment to an assistant professor, making an unsupported aspersion about the professor’s character that Committee A found to be reprehensible.

Satisfactory settlements were reached several years ago in the above-noted cases that were contested. The censure has continued, however, because of problems relating to the university’s regulations. The current university president has been working to eliminate these problems. Still needing to be accomplished is the adoption of sound provisions on terminating appointments because of financial exigency. An attempt a year ago to achieve consensus on acceptable provisions did not succeed, but the president in a letter last summer stated that she will continue her efforts to see the matter through. 

National Park Community College (Arkansas), 1996 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the termination of the services of two instructors, one in her initial year and the other at the conclusion of her tenth year. In each case, the report found that scant notice was provided and requisite safeguards of academic due process were not afforded.

Letters this past year to the administration from the Association’s staff, inviting discussion of issues that need to be resolved, have gone unanswered. 

Saint Meinrad School of Theology (Indiana), 1997 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the dismissal of a tenured professor for having joined in signing a letter to the pope calling for continued discussion of ordaining women. Although the school had adopted the 1940 Statement of Principles, the administration rejected requests that the professor be given a faculty hearing.

This past year, as has been the case for the last several years, the staff’s communications to the administration have not been answered. 

Minneapolis College of Art and Design (Minnesota), 1997 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from a report on the dismissal of five senior faculty members at the end of the second year of a three-year term contract with a year of severance salary. The administration, after having denied the faculty any salary increases over successive years, had induced most long-term faculty members, including the five, to accept a three-year contract permitting termination “without cause one year prior to the expiration of its term” in exchange for a substantial increase in salary. The report found that the actions were tantamount to summary dismissals in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles.

In a meeting this winter with the current college president and in subsequent correspondence, the Association’s staff recommended several revisions in college documents and offered suggestions regarding redress for the dismissed faculty members. Further developments are awaited. 

Brigham Young University (Utah), 1998 (.pdf)
Censure stemmed from a report on the case of an assistant professor who was denied tenure because of actions and words deemed contrary to the tenets of the university’s sponsoring church. The report found that the university’s stated limitations on academic freedom provide inadequate guidance on what is unacceptable and give excessive discretion to the administration in this regard. The report noted references to displeasure with the assistant professor’s focus on feminism. It found, to the extent that this focus was a factor in denying her tenure, that her academic freedom was thereby violated. The report cited an array of other complaints regarding academic freedom and concluded that the climate for academic freedom at Brigham Young University was distressingly poor.

This past October, the administration provided the Association’s staff with a requested copy of the university’s current Statement on Academic Freedom. This document does not reveal any change in the previously existing limitations.

University of the District of Columbia, 1998 (.pdf)
Censure followed a report on the administration’s action to terminate the appointments of 125 members of the faculty on grounds of financial exigency. While recognizing the financial constraints under which the university had to operate, the report found that the administration did not demonstrate the need for massive terminations and failed to provide for meaningful faculty participation in the decision-making processes. The report also found that the six weeks of severance salary provided to the released faculty members were severely inadequate.

This past year, the staff received no response to its letters to the administration inviting resumption of discussions that had occurred a year earlier. 

Lawrence Technological University (Michigan), 1998 (.pdf)
Censure resulted from an investigating committee’s report on the termination of a professor’s appointment on grounds of program discontinuance. Minimal safeguards of academic due process were not afforded. The professor initiated litigation and reached a settlement with the university a year later. Two additional cases the following year, one involving dismissal and the other suspension, ended with out-of-court settlements.

A new president took office last November. He has not replied to a staff communication inviting discussion of the censure and its potential removal.

Johnson & Wales University (Rhode Island),1999
Censure followed a report on the nonreappointment of two first-year faculty members. The report found that a disagreement over educational policies was the determining factor in the decision of the administration, which, in not reappointing them, thereby violated their academic freedom.

As has been true in previous years, the administration did not respond this past year to staff communications. 

Albertus Magnus College (Connecticut), 2000
Censure resulted from a report on the nonreappointment and terminal suspension of a nontenured professor. The committee found that the administration had effectively dismissed the professor in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles and the college’s own policies. It found that the administration of this church-related institution had expressed concern about the professor’s teaching courses in religious studies and about the eventual publication of his research on sexual ethics. The committee concluded that the administration, to the extent that it acted against the professor because of these concerns, violated his academic freedom.

The professor’s case was settled several years ago. As has been true since the censure was imposed, the staff’s letters to the college president over the past year have brought no response. 

Charleston Southern University (South Carolina), 2001
Censure was based on a report dealing with the dismissal of a professor in his eleventh year on the faculty after he had sharply criticized the administration at a memorial service for a deceased colleague. The report concluded that the administration violated his academic freedom to the extent that it dismissed him because of displeasure with his critical remarks.

The report also dealt with the administration’s denial of reappointment to another faculty member after six years of service, concluding that its actions in his case were at odds with the Association’s Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments.

Responding to a request this winter from a new vice president for academic affairs, the Association’s staff provided him with information on the censure and the issues that will need to be resolved in order to effect its removal. 

University of Dubuque (Iowa), 2002
The report followed an investigation of the termination of appointments of two tenured professors on grounds of financial exigency and their removal from further teaching prior to the expiration of their existing contracts. The investigating committee found that the professors were denied procedural safeguards to which they were entitled under the 1940 Statement of Principles and the Association’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

The staff’s letters to the administration this past year yielded no response.

Tiffin University (Ohio), 2002
Censure followed a report on the dismissal of a professor in his twelfth year of service without a statement of charges or opportunity for a hearing. The report concluded that the administration violated the 1940 Statement of Principles by having dismissed the professor because of conduct that should have been protected under principles of academic freedom and that the absence of a system of academic tenure inhibits the faculty’s exercise of academic freedom.

The dismissed professor reached a settlement with the university several years ago. As noted previously in “Developments Relating to Censure,” the university adopted AAUP-recommended policies on academic freedom as well as new policies relating to academic government, but deficiencies in the policies relating to academic due process in cases of dismissal remained unresolved. This past fall and winter, following the staff’s recommendations, the administration agreed to further changes in the regulations, and they have been adopted by the board of trustees. Committee A will review these positive developments at Tiffin University at its coming meeting in June.

Philander Smith College(Arkansas), 2004
Censure was based on a report that dealt primarily with a professor’s dismissal on grounds of insubordination. The college’s president had issued a directive stating that faculty contacts with the media, unless previously approved by her, would constitute insubordination and be a basis for immediate dismissal. The professor, asked by a newspaper reporter to comment on current financial conditions at the college, informed the reporter of the content of the directive. The president thereupon dismissed the professor, evicting her from her office and stopping further salary payment. The report concluded that the dismissal violated the professor’s academic freedom and that the mere issuance of the directive threatened the academic freedom of every member of the faculty.

In addition, the administration terminated the appointments of several other professors prior to their expiration and attributed these actions to financial exigency. The Association’s report found that the administration had not shown that a condition of financial exigency existed and that its denial of a hearing on the terminations left unrebutted the allegations of two of the professors that they were being released because the administration viewed them as disloyal.

A new president, who took office in December 2004, rescinded the directive on contact with the media, referring the faculty to the provision on public utterances in the 1940 Statement of Principles as “a fair guideline that we can all support.” In continuing correspondence with him, the staff has recommended additional changes in college policies and a means of resolving the issue of redress for the professor who was abruptly dismissed. One of the recommendations failed initially to gain faculty approval last year, but the president informed the staff in December that he and the head of the faculty senate would be resubmitting it this spring.

Meharry Medical College (Tennessee), 2005
Censure resulted from an investigating committee’s report concluding that the administration acted in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles in the cases of eleven professors whose services it terminated. In the cases of two of the professors, the report found unrebutted evidence that the administration acted for reasons that violated their academic freedom. The notice of termination received by all the faculty members, the report concluded, was severely inadequate. Moreover, the report found that the administration effectively scuttled faculty tenure of indefinite duration by granting tenure for a span of ten years without assurance that the administration bears the burden of proof in a decision against further retention.

A new president of Meharry Medical College took office in December. He reacted positively to the staff’s letter inviting discussion of the censure, indicating interest in turning to the matter. His further response is awaited. 

University of the Cumberlands (Kentucky), 2005
Censure followed a report on the coerced oral resignation, in the middle of an academic year, of a professor who had created an off-campus Web site that was highly critical of the administration. The report also dealt with the constructive nonrenewal of the appointment of a second professor, who had been the first professor’s department chair. In the case of the first professor, the committee found that the administration deprived him of academic due process. In the case of the second professor, the report found that a contract proffered to him, placing him in the status of an “at-will” employee subject to dismissal “at any time and without [stated] cause,” could reasonably be construed as intended to force his departure. The report further found that the administration’s decision regarding his reappointment was based principally on its displeasure with his failure to follow directives it had issued to him regarding action against the first professor, thereby violating his academic freedom. Finally, the report found that the institution’s policies do not provide for faculty hearings of any kind.

This past year, like the previous year, the administration did not reply to the staff’s letters inviting discussion of the censure. 

Virginia State University, 2005
Censure stemmed from a report dealing with the dismissal of two tenured members of the faculty, after each of them had been required to undergo post-tenure review. The report found that the post-tenure review, as the administration implemented it in the two cases, made no provision for faculty-peer involvement in the performance evaluation, permitted an unsatisfactory evaluation effectively to stand alone as grounds for dismissal, and shifted the burden of proof for retention from the administration to the affected faculty members. The report also found that the administration wrongfully suspended one of the professors from her teaching duties without evidence that her continuance represented a threat of immediate harm and that the notice or severance salary in the two dismissals—in one case, five days, in the other case, just over three weeks—was grossly inadequate. Finally, the report found that the administration’s practices were seriously deficient in meeting the standards for faculty participation in institutional governance under the principles enunciated in the Association’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.

This past year, settlements were reached in both of the dismissal cases. The staff has proposed revisions in applicable university policies and procedures that the faculty and administration are currently reviewing.

New Mexico Highlands University, 2006
Censure followed a report on the cases of two faculty members, both of them unsuccessful candidates for tenure. In the case of the first faculty member, the report found that shortly after the administration had notified him of the rejection of his tenure candidacy, it dismissed him from the faculty and banished him from the campus, presumably because of public statements he made that were sharply critical of actions taken by administrators. The report concluded that the administration did not demonstrate cause for its actions and that, to the extent that it acted to dismiss him because of displeasure with his public criticism, it violated his academic freedom.

With regard to the second professor, the report concluded that the administration acted in disregard of the Association’s Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments by not providing a statement of reasons for rejecting his candidacy for tenure and by setting aside without substantive comment the judgments of two faculty appeals committees that inadequate consideration had been given to his qualifications and that numerous procedural irregularities had occurred.

Last fall, the university reached a settlement with the first professor, reinstating him to the faculty and granting him tenure. The issue of redress in the case of the second faculty member was resolved late in February. Last summer and fall, the AAUP staff commented on draft revisions in official institutional policies relating to academic freedom and tenure aimed at bringing them into closer conformity with Association-supported standards. A new president of New Mexico Highlands University took office in January and has been working with AAUP staff to address remaining issues relating to the censure. Committee A will review these positive developments at its meeting in June.