AAUP
American Association of University Professors
Oregon State University Chapter
PROBLEMS WITH PROPOSED PROGRAM REDUCTION GUIDELINES
Overview:
The letter below was sent by the AAUP Executive Board to point out some of the problems arising from the new "Program Reorganization Guidelines". These guidelines will replace the existing guidelines developed by the Faculty Senate in 1992. The guidelines define a set of criteria to be used in evaluating possible program reorganizations, as well as procedures to be carried out before and after the decision to reorganize. In this context, program reorganization is a general term referring to potential reductions, redirections, mergers, and eliminations of existing programs. As such, these guidelines will be used to justify and defend the various decisions involved in the OSU Strategic Plan, and are thus of crucial importance its ultimate success or failure.
As the letter notes, the proposed OSU guidelines diverge widely from AAUP principles.
1. Whereas the AAUP requires extensive input from faculty in the affected departments, the OSU guidelines provide a multiple loopholes through which faculty input can be bypassed. Such neglect of faculty input violates the principle of shared governance, is likely to lead to faulty decisions, and has been characteristic of recent administrative decisions.
2. Whereas the AAUP would call for an open process, the OSU guidelines suggest that the decision making process should be confidential. Such confidentiality deprives the affected faculty of the information necessary to defend their careers and disciplines. This would appear to deprive faculty of their right to due process, and makes it very difficult to correct faulty decisions.
3. Whereas the AAUP recommends that program reorganization be based essentially on "educational considerations", the OSU guidelines propose a set of criteria that tend to be dominated by financial considerations. This inappropriately conflates educational and financial issues, blurs the common understanding of the role of higher education, and opens the door to a reorganization process driven by financial motives.
4. The proposed guidelines also fall short of the AAUP's recommendations regarding the possible termination of tenured professors, their subsequent financial compensation, and their right to grievance.
Most remarkably, the OSU guidelines applaud themselves for their consistency with AAUP principles such as academic freedom and tenure! In reality, the guidelines are extremely inconsistent with the AAUP's values. They completely miss the point that academic freedom depends very much on shared governance, and thus both principles tend to be undermined by this set of procedures and criteria.
If implemented in the present form, these guidelines will be extremely dangerous to the future of the university.
December
3, 2003
Faculy Senate Executive Committee
Oregon State University
To the members of the Executive Committee:
The Executive Board of the local AAUP chapter has reviewed the draft version
of the new Program Reorganization Guidelines (May 29, 2003). We appreciate
the effort that went into revising the guidelines. We are sorry to say,
however, that we see a number of serious problems with the proposed guidelines.
We describe these problems in the paragraphs below, and where appropriate,
make recommendations for improving them.
Before beginning, we should emphasize that we view the quality of these
guidelines to be absolutely crucial to OSU’s future success. The
decisions related to reorganization can have serious consequences for
the future development of academic disciplines at OSU, as well as for
the quality of education we provide our students. We fear that inappropriate
decisions will be made because the necessary faculty input is likely to
be bypassed, and because decisions will tend to be based on financial
rather than educational considerations.
Also, we should point out that the new guidelines are misleading in suggesting
that they are consistent with AAUP standards (third introductory paragraph).
The new guidelines deviate widely from AAUP standards, as illustrated
in the following set of concerns.
(1) The most serious deviation from AAUP standards involves the wording
used in regard to faculty consultation. The AAUP has long held that in
cases of program reorganization, input from the affected faculty must
be obtained (Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, 1966).
The AAUP’s reasoning here is that faculty in the affected program
will have the most knowledge and expertise, and that decision processes
which bypass this faculty knowledge are likely to be faulty. This same
reasoning is at the heart of most applications of AAUP’s principle
of shared governance. It applies not only to cases of program reorganization,
but to all areas impacting instruction and faculty status, such as program
reduction, program redirection, and program termination.
Unfortunately, the proposed guidelines allow for three ways in which faculty
input can be bypassed:
a) As stated on page 2, a group of three individuals ( the Provost, Faculty
Senate President, and Chair of Curriculum Council) will "meet and
determine among themselves whether, in their opinion, the administrative
or academic changes warrant the convening of the FCG." Thus, there's
a good chance that in some cases the FCG will not even be called. Note
that this is what happened in the recent dissolution of the Entomology
Department, where the FCG was not convened until after the decision was
made, and faculty had been informed of the fate of their department.
b) The guidelines also state that "The FCG has the right to call
or consult with department heads or affected faculty as the group deems
necessary”. Although this may sound like an improvement over the
earlier 1992 guidelines, it actually decreases the probability of legitimate
faculty input. For example, it leaves open the possibility that the FCG
will not “deem it necessary” to solicit any faculty input.
c) Even it the FCG deems faculty input necessary, they can choose to consult
with the department head rather than the individual faculty. The problem
here is that in many cases department heads may not be the best representatives
of their faculty, due to administrative links or pressures.
To summarize, the document allows three different pathways for bypassing
faculty input: 1) the "group of three" may fail to convene the
FCG, 2) the FCG may deem it unnecessary to consult with faculty, and 3)
the FCG may consult with the head but not the faculty. Thus, the document
is highly inconsistent with the AAUP's principles regarding shared governance.
To restore consistency, the following wording should be used: "The
FCG has the responsibility to solicit direct input from all members of
the affected department".
One might argue that our interpretation is overly pessimistic. However,
we’ve seen three cases in which faculty input was bypassed in the
last year alone.
(2) Another very serious problem with the new guidelines involves the
lack of transparency in the FCG deliberations: "All meetings are
confidential and rest upon the trust that has been established between
the members of the FCG and the Provost". We do not understand what
"trust" refers to in this context, but we do know that the "confidentiality"
can easily be misused to the point of secrecy. For example, just last
year the administration initially refused, on the grounds of confidentiality,
to release the notes from the FCG meetings to the Extension Faculty (some
of whom were facing termination). This is clearly unfair to the affected
faculty, who should have every right to defend themselves and their departments
against faulty decisions. Such confidentiality deprives the affected faculty
of the necessary information that they need to defend their careers, students,
and disciplines. The AAUP believes that faculty have the right to due
process, which is likely to be undermined by such confidentiality. It
is also worth noting that the confidentiality constraint is new -- it
was not part of the 1992 guidelines, even though it was used last spring
against the Extension Faculty. It should be eliminated.
(3) Another serious deviation from AAUP principles arises from the guideline's
proposed set of criteria. Although we appreciate the effort to identify
specific criteria, the proposed criteria are problematic because they
conflate educational and financial considerations. Specifically, the AAUP
argues that "The decision to discontinue formally a program or department
of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations,
as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee
thereof" (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom
and Tenure, 1999) In our view, the new guidelines violate this principle
in two ways: First, given that the AAUP makes no mention of "financial
considerations", the OSU criteria, which appear to be dominated by
financial considerations, are in serious conflict with the AAUP’s
emphasis on educational factors.
In addition, we fear that effective application of these criteria will
be undermined due to the constraints described above on faculty input.
Who could be better informed than the affected faculty to determine whether:
1) the profession or discipline has changed at a national level; 2) the
program's scope is too narrowly focused and needs broader, perhaps interdisciplinary,
focus 3) two programs have a substantial similarity or affinity of objectives;
and 4) the clarity of the program's identity and function will be increased
by transfer or consolidation with another program? Thus, four of the eight
criteria supporting reorganization (listed on page 7) are areas where
faculty knowledge is necessary and critical to applying the criteria.
And yet the process seems designed to bypass faculty input.
To summarize, a legitimate decision based on "educational considerations"
should be based on input from the faculty with the most expertise in the
relevant discipline(s). To the extent that the Curriculum Council is involved
in the reorganization process, this body should also consider input from
the affected faculty. Given the proposed guidelines' multiple pathways
for bypassing such input, decisions based on "educational considerations"
seem unlikely. Thus educational considerations are undermined by the lack
of faculty input, as well as by the inclusion of financial considerations
within the criteria. In a worst-case scenario, the faulty decision process
could be obscured by the proposed confidentiality, making it impossible
to correct.
(4) The remainder of our concerns involve the specific treatment of affected
faculty. To begin, the guidelines are inconsistent AAUP principles in
making the implicit assumption that tenured faculty can be terminated.
Although the AAUP does allow for the dismissal of tenured faculty, such
dismissal must be based on moral turpitude (which is irrelevant to the
present document), financial exigency (which is never declared), or legitimate
program reduction. Given the serious problems noted above, the AAUP would
question the legitimacy of any program reduction based on the proposed
guidelines. Thus, termination of tenured faculty would also be illegitimate.
(5) Along related lines, the guidelines fall short of AAUP principles
in their proposed treatment of terminated faculty. The AAUP states that
"Before the administration issues notice to a faculty member of its
intention to terminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance
of a program or department of instruction, the institution will make every
effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position."
To their credit, the OSU guidelines begin to approach this goal: "If
necessary, the FCG will assure that provisions are being made for reassigning,
re-employing and/or retraining faculty and staff whose positions are eliminated
or altered by reorganization or elimination". However, we worry about
the meaning of the phrase “if necessary”. In addition, no
mention is made of compensation, and thus the guidelines fall short of
the AAUP's recommendation: "If placement in another position would
be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other
support for such training will be proffered. If no position is available
within the institution, with or without retraining, the faculty member’s
appointment then may be terminated, but only with provision for severance
salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of past
and potential service." In other words, the AAUP would allow termination
(in extraordinary cases based on legitimate educational concerns) provided
that the tenured faculty are compensated for their financial burdens.
Such compensation should be included in the new OSU guidelines.
(6) The AAUP also emphasizes that "A faculty member may appeal a
proposed relocation or termination resulting from a discontinuance and
has a right to a full hearing before a faculty committee. The hearing
need not conform in all respects with a proceeding conducted pursuant
to Regulation 5, but the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing
will be observed." A statement along these lines is contained in
the OSU guidelines, but it is buried at the end of the last paragraph
regarding procedures. This basic faculty right (to due process) should
be emphasized and spelled out in more detail.
In closing, we note again that the document applauds itself on its "commitment
to academic freedom, tenure, affirmative action, and accountability"
(page 4 and again on page 5). To put it mildly, we do not understand how
accountability can emerge from a confidential process. And as mentioned
earlier, the guidelines begin by claiming to be consistent with AAUP standards.
This is simply not true. Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Shared Governance
are interacting processes, dependent upon one another. Because these guidelines
place strong constraints on shared governance (by limiting faculty input
and enhancing confidentiality), they will function to diminish Academic
Freedom and Tenure. The same will result from the criteria’s conflation
of educational and financial considerations. The OSU guidelines are highly
inconsistent with the AAUP's principles, especially when viewed in relation
to recent administrative actions. All references to the AAUP and academic
freedom should be eliminated from the document.
Finally, we should point out that it would be quite easy for OSU to conform
to the AAUP's principles. All of the problems noted above can be easily
fixed. This might limit the administration's flexibility in reorganizing
the university, but it would lead to a more informed, fair, and effective
reorganization process.
Sincerely,
Doug Derryberry, for the
Executive Board of the OSU Chapter
American Association of University Professor
cc: Sabah Randhawa, Tim White
