Although I happily toil as a midlevel bureaucrat at the University of Georgia, I have been fortunate to have published several articles, and an essay, in several professional publications. My field is information technology, and my publications focused on that topic.
As my professional horizons expanded, I became more interested in organizational design, organizational cultural development, and leadership. It was the publication of one such article, "The Sirens of Business Thinking," that prompted me to think about academic freedom for campus administrators. My article debunked what I believe to be an overapplication of business practices in the public sector, a position of mine that runs counter to the views of my superiors, many of whom are steadfast in their belief that the University of Georgia should be run "like a business."
After the article was published, I experienced no negative repercussions. But it got me thinking: What if I had? I work at a university where academic freedom is held in high regard, but every policy reference I could find clearly granted the privilege of academic freedom to faculty members. There were no mentions of administrators.
I did not feel threatened by expressing my opinions in the article. I just felt somewhat unprotected and exposed. The more I pondered the topic of academic freedom for the administrative scholar, the more I believed that I, as an administrator, should have as much right as a faculty member to contribute to the intellectual corpus with no fear of retribution.
I began the process of seeking the answer to this question: Does the administrative scholar have the expectation, right, or privilege of academic freedom?
I initially posed the question to faculty friends, to the American Association of University Professors, and even to a reporter at The Chronicle. The answer I received was consistently the same, and best summed up Robin Wilson, the reporter: "It seems to me that staff members do not earn tenure and do not have the protections of tenure or academic freedom."
I had always understood that academic freedom was associated with job security; however, and forgive my naïveté, I was disappointed to learn that academic freedom was inexorably tied to tenure. Before that revelation, I had always thought of academic freedom as a principle complemented by tenure, not contingent upon it. I also believe that a contingent principle is a compromised principle, and a compromised principle is a weakened one.
I brought my dismay to a co-worker and friend, B. Lewis Noles, a historian and trained archivist. He encouraged me to "begin from the beginning" and loaned me a book, The American College and University: A History by Frederick Rudolph (University of Georgia Press, 1990). A chapter called "Academic Man" details the beginnings of academic freedom in the United States.
Rudolph presents a litany of cases in the 1890s and early 1900s in which professors, and even college presidents, were dismissed for expressing their views on free trade, coolie labor, and monopolies. "Economic nonconformity was the great and abiding sin of the professors who were involved in these key cases of academic freedom," says Rudolph.
"Out of these cases emerged the principles of American academic freedom, Rudolph writes, "and to these principles in the early decades of the 20th century were added principles of academic tenure, the terms of professional office, that would safeguard both the principles of academic freedom and the professor at this work." Then, in 1915, the AAUP was established, and "now the organization man, university model, had an organization to protect him from the organization itself, to sustain him in as noble an endeavor as man had ever assumed—the pursuit of truth, the conquest of ignorance."
Buoyed by that historical context, I found renewed significance for my position in a discussion I had with Janet Frick, an associate professor of psychology at Georgia. "I think of academic freedom as a 'spirit of intellectual inquiry' and a position that allows and even encourages paradigm shifting and pursuit of radical ideas," she said. "But it's also part of my job requirement to produce ideas, knowledge, research, etc. It is important to remember that it's tenure, not academic freedom, that keeps me from getting fired if I pursue a controversial or unpopular line of research."
Her comments raised a question in my mind: Is it a part of my job responsibilities to produce ideas, knowledge, and research? In my case, it is. I am asked by my supervisors to demonstrate "national administrative visibility" regarding information technology to the higher-education community. Regardless of an explicit requirement, it is an implication of membership in the academic community that its members have a responsibility, and a right, to contribute to the intellectual corpus of their time.
Faculty members who criticize their institutions publicly are usually protected by academic freedom, and I believe the same should be true of administrators. Just as a faculty member should obey rules of reasonable engagement—attempt to effect positive change through proper channels, provide evidence and facts, and avoid libelous or slanderous remarks—the administrative scholar should be allowed the same privilege of open criticism. Neither group has the privilege of public criticism without cause and justification.
I am opposed to the notion that academic freedom is the eminent domain of tenured professors. Academic freedom protects the rights of scholars, regardless of their roles, to communicate ideas and facts without fear of punishment, and it is wrong to assume that only the tenured are "allowed the pursuit of truth, the conquest of ignorance."
It is time to rethink the AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure to be more inclusive, removing the direct correlation between academic freedom and tenure. That is even more important today—not just for the administrative scholar, but for the traditional scholar. The erosion of tenure is becoming an increasing concern, summed up well by Bill Tierney in his article "Academic Freedom and Tenure, Again (Part II)," which appeared in the January 2010 issue of 21st Century Scholar. Tierney wrote, "the erosion of tenure means the erosion of academic freedom."
All members of the academic community should be granted the intellectual sanctuary of academic freedom to ensure the free and universal exchange of ideas.
Comments
1. tleas03 - March 31, 2010 at 06:43 am
If academic freedom is the eminent domain of only tenured professors, then other faculty (adjunct, temporary, etc.) would have no academic freedom. I cannot believe the AAUP intended to restrict academic freedom to such a select group. Perhaps the time has come to refine the definition of academic freedom and to whom it applies?
2. snwiedmann - March 31, 2010 at 07:43 am
"[S]taff members do not earn tenure . . ."?! My institution is a part of the USG (University System of Georgia), and when an Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs was recently hired, she was hired with tenure. My dean is tenured and holds faculty status as well as administrative status (if there is such a thing). I am beginning to wonder which is the exceptional case -- UGA or my (much smaller) institution?
3. beverlyh - March 31, 2010 at 07:50 am
Thanks Albert, from another staff member - it is great to see another staff member's POV. We do not get tenure at our institution either.
4. rogmar - March 31, 2010 at 08:47 am
I would add that with freedom comes responsibility. Since the NCAA wants to hold coaches accountable for student-athlete outcomes, then administrators (including college presidents) and faculty should share in that accountability.
5. tuxthepenguin - March 31, 2010 at 09:02 am
Faculty members are hired to do research and express their expert opinion. It would be impossible to do so without academic freedom.
The issue raised here has to do with being publicly critical of the university when you disagree with decisions that are made. It's difficult to understand how that has anything to do with academic freedom. If you disagree with your boss's decisions, get a new job.
6. honore - March 31, 2010 at 09:32 am
Albert, your points are valid if not a bit naive. At my campus most administrative staff are hired without tenure, even those with terminal degrees and in very high administrative posts. Without the protection of this lifetime guarantee of employment that tenured faculty get, very few administrators at any level with any academic background are going to be too willing to indulge their penchant to exercise their "academic" freedom. My experience has been that when you speak (even in a barely contradictory or in a non-threatening manner), you put yourself immediately in the cross-hairs of upper administrative minion/drones who have and do not hold back from using their "power" to silence you from behind closed doors. I have seen truly competent and innovative admininistrators run out of their jobs with the support of racist, biased "evaluations", smear campaigns and outright hostile treatment/harrassment when s/he had asked one too many questions that her/his dean didn't like. Our college of letters and sciences is the perfect example of silence by administrative execution. Academic freedom is a very elusive luxury and hardly a concern in a politically-correct culture where nepotism, cronyism and insiderism are the hallmarks of administative decision-making and hiring/firing...Madison, WI
7. 7738373863 - March 31, 2010 at 10:25 am
When the AAUP statement on tenure was first published seventy years ago, the academic staffs of colleges and universities looked nothing like they do today, and very few highly trained and qualified professionals served on them. And that's the point: the positions were jobs, not professional positions, and nothing other than the usual employment safeguards applied--or should have applied.
What seems reasonable at this juncture is to craft a separate statement that recognizes that non-tenured/tenure-track professionals are just that, to uphold their right to engage freely in the debates and controversies in their professional spheres, and to make it clear that the freedom of speech requisite to engaging in such debates and controversies does not apply to public debate on matters of opinion beyond those professional spheres, especially if the college/university that employs said professionals has a stake in that debate.
8. 7738373863 - March 31, 2010 at 10:25 am
Check that . . . AAUP statement on academic freedom.
9. sgtrock - March 31, 2010 at 10:40 am
There is some confusion here between "rights" and "responsibilities".
As a staff member, you are usually considered to be part of the
management team and clearly, there is no room for public dissent. You
have the "right" to speak freely in management meetings, but once
decisions are made, you have the "responsibility" to support these
decisions.
If you cannot support the decisions made by your "leader", then you
may resign and speak freely against them. This model has been used
very effectively everywhere I've worked over the past forty years --
including long military service.
10. tkklein - March 31, 2010 at 11:33 am
The lament about being forced to "run like a business" is a warping of a constructive insight on the administrative work of an educational organization. Jim Collins in the monograph "Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer" makes the case that the dictum "run like a business is a shallow statement. What businesses should we emulate? Enron? WorldCom? Chrysler? Obviously not.
Collin's point is that what is meant by the phrase "run like a business" is that non profit organizations (including educational institutuions) should carry out their mission in a disciplined purposeful manner that focuses on the intended results. He argues that there are some things that some businesses do really well and very efficiently. And when non profits need to do the same or similar work (food service, accounting, registration, etc) it makes sense to use the techniques and discipline that successful corporations use.
"Run like a business" can be an insightful or stupid statement. It depends on us, the people in the organization, especially the leaders to get it right. "Good to Great and the Social Sectors" is a short read - 34 pages. I highly recommend it during difficult times.
11. 22037310 - March 31, 2010 at 11:38 am
The AAUP adopted a policy statement endorsing academic freedom for non-instructional academic staff entitled "College and University Academic and Professional Appointments" in 2002. It may be found on pages 93-97 of AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th Ed. It applies to those academic administrators who are not "senior administrators." It provides that "those with significant academic responsibilities should have academic freedom in the discharge of those responsibilities and in their civic lives." It further provides that "colleges and universities should recognize the free expression rights of all their employees." And, it recommends appropriate procedural protections and safegaurds.
Ernie Benjamin
12. vpostrel - March 31, 2010 at 12:19 pm
What about Larry Summers?
13. szgoldberg - March 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm
As is often the case there is a serious misunderstanding about academic freedom as it relates to tenure.
According to AAUP standards ALL FACULTY are entitled to academic freedom, which is the freedom to pursue their academic studies in whatever areas they chose and follow the direction of those studies no matter where they lead.
Tenure is a status which is EARNED by a faculty member after a probationary period in which the faculty member must demonstrate his/her value to the academic community to which he/she belongs.
While it may often be the case that holding tenure may be of value if a faculty member is charged with something for speaking out against a policy or practice of an administration that is not related to the faculty member's academic freedom.
One should also not confuse academic freedom with first amendment rights of freedom of speech.
Personally, I do not believe that administrators should hold tenure unless they have earned it as a faculty member. Others may feel differently, but if they do they should think clearly about the distinction between academic freedom and tenuure.
Stephen Z. Goldberg
Professor of Chemistry, Adelphi University
President, NY State Conference of the AAUP
14. drj50 - March 31, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@tkklein: Thanks for mentioning Collins's work. "Like a business" means very different things to different people. Universities take in and spend lots of money, so they of course operate in some ways "like a business" -- what is the alternative? But (except for for-profits) universities don't generate a profit, so they are not "like a business." The discussion would be much clearer if users had to define what they meant. Slogans do little to advance understanding.
15. lynnellison - March 31, 2010 at 01:05 pm
I'm currently taking a higher education law class as part of my doctoral program and have found this discussion fascinating.
Last night, we discussed Garcetti v. Ceballos, in which the US Supreme Court held that speech conducted as part of a public employee's official duties is not protected by the 1st Amendment. It seems to me that public university administrators fall directly within this decision. If it is indeed part of our duties as administrators to contribute scholarship, we may not enjoy the protections that our faculty colleagues enjoy (absent whistleblower status).
16. jkwilso2 - March 31, 2010 at 03:27 pm
Vpostrel asks, "What about Larry Summers?" Yes, what about Larry Summers, who voluntarily resigned after he was condemned by the faculty in the wake of firing a dean. What about that dean's academic freedom? It is also notable, as I point out in my book (collegefreedom.org), that Summers retained his tenured position as a professor. It is worrisome that college presidents are fearful of speaking publicly on controversial issues, liberal or conservative. But we can't give incompetent presidents like Summers their posts for life. We should be far more worried about the lower-level administrators who face retribution from tyrannical presidents for expressing controversial views.
17. jeraldr - March 31, 2010 at 06:29 pm
Some of us seem to believe that one has to earn tenure in order to have the right to speak freely without retribution. But in order to earn tenure, faculty have to bend over backwards, often hiding their true opinions, for many years in order to please tenured higher ups with whom they may not agree. Further, tenured faculty tend to hire new faculty who are already like themselves. This ensures that those who most conform to the status quo are also those most likely to be granted tenure. Finally, administrators and staff alike shut even tenured faculty out of many decision making processes and other events if they don't like them, for whatever reason. How much academic freedom is really allowed now? Those of us unprotected (should I say unfettered?) by tenure can speak out freely all we like in many other venues, thanks to the wonders of the Internet.
18. gavinmoodie - April 04, 2010 at 01:56 am
This discussion displays the conceit common in academe of university exceptionalism, the view that universities are exceptional and that their circumstances don't apply in other parts of society.
Intellectual freedom is a good example: it is also enjoyed, for example, by advocates, judges, witnesses and others engaged in court proceedings whose statements are protected absolutely from defamation; and by legislators whose statements in parliament are similarly protected absolutely from defamation.
Qualified forms of intellectual freedom are enjoyed by auditors, doctors and holders of defined public offices.
This suggests, first, that intellectual freedom isn't unique to professors, and secondly, that intellectual freedom isn't a fixed state but a privilege that is specific to its situations and has degrees or gradations.
19. eliffmavi - April 24, 2010 at 06:57 am
<Comment removed by moderator>