|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Academic Ethics: Problems and Materials on Professional Conduct and Shared Governance
Reviewed by Larry Gerber
Neil W. Hamilton. American Council on Education/Praeger Series on Higher Education. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2002.
Neil Hamilton's volume in the American Council on Education/Praeger Series on Higher Education is a response to two important developments affecting American colleges and universities: increasing attempts to apply to higher education corporate models of governance that are, in many instances, based on the inappropriate logic of the market; and the increasing failure of faculty to become socialized in the ethics and traditions of the academic profession. Hamilton persuasively argues that if the professoriate proves unwilling or unable to reverse the second of these developments, it will be unable to resist the negative effect of further corporatization on the ability of American colleges and universities to carry out their historic role as centers of critical inquiry. His book is intended as a practical guide and workbook to be used to strengthen a weakening sense of professionalism among academics. Hamilton deems such strengthening essential to convince the larger society to grant faculty the substantial degree of autonomy that has historically made it possible for them to fulfill their mission as teachers and researchers.
Academic Ethics is divided into three sections of approximately equal length. The first section offers a short, thoughtful history of the traditions of academic freedom and shared governance in American higher education and an insightful discussion of current challenges to those traditions. The final section is an extensive appendix of key documents ranging from the 1915 founding statement of the AAUP to the 1998 statement of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) on governance.
The most distinctive aspect of Hamilton's work, however, is the middle section of his book, which presents forty-nine "problems," or hypothetical case studies, organized around five different themes: the duties of individual professors, the academic freedom rights of individual professors, the duties of the faculty as a collegial body, the rights of the faculty in shared governance, and the academic freedom rights of students. Each problem consists of a hypothetical situation, such as a professor devoting substantial class time to material that is irrelevant to the course topic, or a governing board and president deciding to alter their institution's mission and strategic goals, followed by a list of questions exploring the ethical and professional issues raised by the situation. Hamilton envisions the problems being used as focuses for discussion among small groups of prospective or current faculty. Such discussions, he hopes, could be part of a broader program to foster better understanding among faculty of the need to define and enforce professional ideals and standards.
The problems and questions that Hamilton presents are all well designed to stimulate meaningful dialogue, since they raise issues that do not have simple solutions. However, discussion participants are likely to find it much more difficult to reach consensus or generate clear answers to some questions than others. The problems that deal with individuals raise questions of right and wrong that are susceptible of clear ethical judgments, even if the means of enforcing those judgments may be difficult to determine. The problems dealing with issues of shared governance, on the other hand, more frequently raise questions of power and responsibility in which it is difficult to draw a clear line.
Hamilton's overview of the evolution of academic freedom and shared governance over the last century emphasizes that these traditions developed not as a means of establishing individual rights or privileges for faculty, but rather as a means of helping faculty collectively to serve the needs of society. Faculty rights thus developed in conjunction with faculty duties and obligations, with peer review of professional competence and adherence to ethical standards becoming the "linchpin of academic freedom in the United States." Ironically, in contrast to members of the other professions, faculty, for whom teaching is so central, devote virtually no time at any point in their careers to education in professional ethics.
Hamilton pays homage to the AAUP as the only professional faculty organization that transcends disciplinary boundaries and for its role in formulating the principal statements setting forth the rationale for academic freedom and shared governance. While defending the core principles of the AAUP, Hamilton expresses reservations about some current AAUP positions on the faculty role in governance. He agrees that faculty expertise justifies faculty exercising primary responsibility for the curriculum, but he contends that such primacy does not extend to "decisions to cut back or terminate programs, de-partments, or faculties," in which the "professorate's proper role . . . is consultative." Even more significantly, Hamilton argues that the model of governance spelled out in the AAUP's 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities should not be considered universally applicable to all institutions of higher education. In particular, he questions the appropriateness of the model for technical and community colleges, which, in contrast to traditional colleges and universities, do not have the same "mission of knowledge creation and dissemination" that justifies the traditions of academic freedom and shared governance.
While challenging some AAUP positions, Hamilton is generally more critical of the AGB's recent stance on governance. He charges the AGB's 1998 Statement on Institutional Governance with making "three major breaks" from academic traditions that Hamilton believes have served higher education well. He criticizes the AGB statement for failing to acknowledge how the traditions of academic freedom and shared governance contribute to the ability of colleges and universities to carry out their "special mission," and for failing to recognize that the faculty is not simply another "stakeholder" comparable to other constituencies, but rather the group with primary responsibility for carrying out the core missions of teaching and research. Finally, just as Hamilton is critical of the AAUP for supporting a single model of governance based on the traditional research university, so, too, is he critical of the AGB for developing a single model of governance based on the community college with only a "limited or no knowledge creation mission."
With the help of Academic Ethics, faculty can heed Hamilton's call to understand and enforce their own ethical standards more effectively. Such efforts should strengthen the case for shared governance, but they must be part of an even broader campaign to defend the integrity of our academic institutions against those who would treat American higher education as another industry in need of corporate restructuring.
Larry Gerber is professor of history at Auburn University and first vice president of the AAUP.
|