1973 Report of the Special Committee on Nontenured FacultyAuthor(s): Donald J. YannellaSource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), pp. 185-187Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239773 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 20:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to AAUP Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1 973 Report of the Special Committee on Nontenured Faculty

The following report, prepared by the Special Committee on Nontenured Faculty, was presented to the Council in April, 1973, and to the delegates to the Fifty-ninth Annual Meeting.

During the past year the Special Committee on Non- tenured Faculty has been most concerned with consider-

ing the many suggestions offered by Association members and the recently published "Report and Recommendations

by the Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Edu- cation."

The Special Committee has weighed all of the sug- gestions offered by those who attended the panel on non- tenured faculty at the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting in 1972 and the many people who corresponded with us

during the year, and our recommendations are set forth below.

With regard to the report of the Commission on Aca- demic Tenure, the single document appearing this year which promises to have the greatest effect on nontenured

faculty, the Special Committee's reception of the report was generally favorable. The large majority of the Com- mission's recommendations merits our warm commenda- tion, and we would like to congratulate the members of the Commission for their forthright articulation and defense of the highest standards of the profession.

Because we have not had time to deliberate fully on the entire report since its publication last month, we have concentrated on particular recommendations of the Com-

mission, such as those on tenure quotas, the length of the probationary period, and credit for prior service. These matters are of concern to other Association com- mittees as well, and Committees A and Z will have some-

thing substantive to say in connection with the Tenure Commission report. But the Special Committee on Non- tenured Faculty has a particular perspective, and our

views, beginning with the very serious matter of quotas, derive in part from it.

Increasingly these days, one hears of institutions which are either considering or have already established fixed

percentages beyond which the number of faculty on tenure will not be allowed to rise. The judgment found in the recently published report of the Commission on

Academic Tenure, that "it will probably be dangerous for most institutions to permit the tenured faculty to con- stitute more than one half to two thirds of the total full-time faculty in the decade ahead," will doubtless add

currency to the interest in this device. But before com- menting on the pros and cons of tenure quotas from the standpoint of their academic desirability - and offering reasons in support of our view that the Association should resist their implementation - the Committee should like to address itself to several of the social, economic, and political developments which have led to their considera- tion.

We are witnessing in the present day a series of inter- related developments, with their origins outside the aca- demic community, which seriously threaten higher educa- tion and the professors who are its mainstay: increasing resistance from the taxpayers; growing insensitivity of federal and state governments to the aims of higher education, compounded by an escalated bureaucratization of public higher education; nationwide economic insta-

bility with its origins partly in the huge military expendi- tures of the Vietnam War; population trends which find fewer persons reaching college age; cutbacks in research funds available to institutions of higher education; out- cries against the principles of faculty tenure from those who do not understand it or who do not know how to administer it. Add to these parallel developments to which we as a profession have contributed (an abundance of trained scholars and teachers, and a huge expansion of facilities and programs for higher education, initiated in a day when money was readily available) and we have the makings of a serious crisis. Tenure quotas seem, in

large part, to be a response to this crisis, and are being viewed, indeed, as a panacea.

Although the present economic conditions are not

primarily of our own making, the corrective measures which have been suggested would have the faculty com-

munity, and through us the educational endeavor itself, pay

SUMMER 1973 185

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the price. We cannot accept this burden wholly or even in

large part. To the extent necessary and possible we will

put our own house in order, but we must insist that the federal government, state legislatures, blossoming state- wide educational bureaucracies, and campus administra- tors share not only in the ramifications of having the size of faculties shrink, but in the agonies of doing something constructive about it. We are dismayed and we take issue with the attitude of those bodies and individuals who view professors as an easy target in these difficult times, and we urge upon the Association and its members a counter- offensive to ensure that transition to an era of "no growth," to the extent that such a transition cannot be avoided, is not at the expense of the basic values and commitments which unite our profession.

By "basic values" of our profession, we obviously mean a number of things, but we mean most importantly the commitment to excellence in our pursuit of knowledge and to reaching decisions based upon that commitment. It is on this ground that we must oppose the imposition of tenure quotas, for they would supplant the vital criterion of merit with the artificial measure of an arbi- tary percentage or range of percentages.

The proponents of quota systems assert that they would ensure continued access to the profession to younger teachers (the "new blood" argument), and they say that it will provide a more economical way of structuring and supporting a college or university faculty. We do not agree. Our own prediction would be that most institutional quotas, once set, would be filled within a fairly short period of time and that, because of the relative youth of the permanent faculty and the scarcity of attractive al- ternative possibilities, new tenure openings would be rare. What is likely to emerge from such a development would be disastrous: a settled and relatively secure faculty, numbering slightly more than half of the profession, and a gypsy-like tribe of permanently nontenured faculty mov- ing from place to place, if they can avoid dropping out entirely, waiting for a senior colleague to retire or die or enter full-time administration. We know of no reason- able economy resulting from tenure quotas which would be worth this price. As to the "new blood" theory, the conclusion seems inescapable to us that no arrangement relating to tenure or the lack of tenure will in itself lead to more positions or fewer positions on our college and university faculties. And the blood of these permanently nontenured teachers, assuming that most of them will hang on rather than yield to new products of our graduate schools, is likely to become increasingly tired. We need to continue to make it possible for competent and

promising graduate students to enter the profession, but we doubt that tenure quotas will do much to accomplish this. Rather, we would estimate that faculties and ad- ministrations, as they become alerted to the problems of

"tenuring-in," will avoid closing out the possibility of new appointments to teachers just entering the pool by applying a higher standard of merit (in response to con- ditions of supply and demand in the marketplace).

Flexibility can and should be retained through the

raising of standards, we are convinced, not through the

imposition of an artificial formula. It has been argued that the distinction between raising standards and im-

posing quotas is an empty one; we do not agree. Tenure

quotas say to a young faculty member: "no matter how

good you are, your prospects for advancement will be determined solely by the resignations, retirements, and deaths of others, and even if you are acknowledged to be

superior you will not be invited to remain unless forces

wholly outside of your control and our control are in your favor." Tenure decisions made on the basis of a more

rigorous standard of excellence are, to us, fairer to the nontenured faculty member and in keeping with the con-

cept of probation and the overall values of our profession. They say to the young faculty member without tenure: "We are in difficult financial times, we are able and in fact compelled to demand the highest standards in grant- ing tenure, but, unless we are forced to reduce positions below the current level, you can be assured that our decision on your continuance will be made solely on the merits of your candidacy."

One of the attractive features of tenure quotas to

legislators and administrators, we are sorry to say, is its devaluation of the tenure system per se. This Association is committed to the principle that tenure is a vital com-

ponent of academic freedom, and consequently we would not in principle be unduly concerned with a trend to some- what larger numbers of faculty on tenure; by the same token, we would ask those who see quotas as a panacea for the economic ills of our profession to consider the adverse implications for academic freedom resulting from

consignment of a large proportion of faculty members in the United States to more or less continuous nontenured status. Tenure and academic freedom would in our judg- ment be debased if we were to decline to grant tenure

primarily for reasons other than those related to academic merit.

The imposition of quotas would also engender un- welcome side effects. There would in all likelihood be considerable pressure for major changes in the tenure

system in the direction of individual negotiation on such matters as the maximum probationary period, extensions of nontenured service beyond that permitted under the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, waivers of credit for prior service at other in- stitutions, etc. These trends would be, it seems to us, a natural outgrowth of the utter frustration which would face the faculty member blocked from being considered for tenure at an institution because its quota happens to be filled.

Consistent with our responsibilities, the Special Com- mittee would like to present several modest suggestions, most of them offered by the Association's membership, about what we and others might do to ease the economic

pressures which have led to discussion of quotas. First, we call on our colleagues and on their institutions to take measured steps to reduce the production of often un-

employable doctorates. Second, we urge the government, which more than any other participant contributed

186 AAUP BULLETIN

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

through its funding policies to the great academic ex-

pansion of the 1960's, to take immediate measures to restore lost funds so that our vital resource can be con- served and so that greater economic disaster for our colleges and universities can be averted. Third, we com- mend the development of alternatives and supplements to traditional higher education (such as adult education and

community schools) as a means of providing increased services to our population and gainful professional em-

ployment to those faculty members who, quotas or no, will not be able to secure professional positions. Other means, such as reduction of student/ faculty ratios and attractive arrangements for voluntary early retirement, deserve con- sideration as well. But our basic call is to this society, so long a world leader in its understanding of the im-

portance of higher education, to renew its commitment to our honorable profession, and to demand that govern- mental agencies charged with the allocation of resources

respond accordingly. There are other aspects of the report of the Commission

on Academic Tenure, and of current practice relating to tenure, to which we should draw your attention, however briefly. We have already shared these concerns with pertinent Association committees.

The Commission discusses the rather short probationary period presently employed in a number of institutions, and we commend to you the Commission's recommenda- tion that no college or university set its maximum pro- bationary period at less than five years. Such a standard, if adopted by institutions presently maintaining maximum probationary periods of four years or three years or even less, would obviously not preclude earlier decisions, but in an era of rising standards it would provide more time to gauge the qualifications of a candidate.

With increasing frequency, the Association is asked to place its approval upon individual arrangements which would extend the probationary period beyond its limit under institutional policy or the 1940 Statement. We

oppose such "waivers," for they erode the tenure system. It may be comfortable and often convenient for an in- stitution to respond affirmatively to such a request, but

an institution which does so, or which itself makes the proposal, will have difficulty justifying later actions it seeks to take in accordance with its policies. And if it con- tinues to allow extensions it will find itself without an identifiable tenure system.

The Tenure Commission's report suggests a degree of flexibility which we consider to be ill-advised in connection with crediting (or not crediting) prior service elsewhere towards tenure. The Commission's recommendation, as it is worded, offers far too much latitude to those institu- tions which would seek means of avoiding compliance with their responsibilities in this area under the 1940 Statement.

The Commission recommends that in statewide systems or multicampus institutions tenure be granted only in a particular institution or campus. While in general this strikes us as an acceptable principle, we are concerned that the wording of the generalization is too sweeping. In some multicampus universities the tenure decision on branch campus faculty members may be based upon the judgments of persons at the main campus, and we would think that in these instances an argument might be made that tenure is in the university as a whole.

The Commission recommends the exclusion of non- tenured faculty from "formal participation" in deter-

mining individual faculty status, a proposal which is not in keeping with this Special Committee recommendation of last year. Our negative response is compounded by the Commission's call for the "formal participation" of stu- dents in such matters.

In conclusion, we would like once again to voice our

appreciation to the Keast Commission for having pro- duced a report which is in many respects excellent. However, we would also urge the Council as well as the various members and bodies of this Association to ponder seriously the many specific recommendations of the Com- mission which will no doubt have a profound effect on

higher education in the immediate future. Donald J. Yannella (English)

Glassboro State College Chairman

SUMMER 1973 187

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:19:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions