College and University Government: Long Island University

College and University Government: Long Island UniversityAuthor(s): Walter AdamsSource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Mar., 1971), pp. 58-67Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40224336 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 12:22

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 [email protected].

.

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 188.72.96.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:22:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40224336?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


College and University Government:

Long Island University

On September 22, 1967, The New York Times reported that The Brooklyn Center of Long Island University was to be sold to the City University of New York for a price estimated at about 30 million dollars. The decision, The Times reported, was apparently reached at a meeting of the Executive Committee of Long Island University's Board of Trustees on September 19.

During the following months until May 3, 1968, when it was announced that the City University had decided not to purchase The Brooklyn Center, Long Island Uni- versity-Brooklyn was the scene of intense controversy. The New York and Long Island press covered the events in great detail as did, to a lesser extent, some of the national media. The proponents and opponents of the proposed sale attempted to win their case in the courts, before the New York State Department of Education, in the City Council, in the mayor's office, through the political parties, and perhaps most of all through the media. The Washington Office of the American Association of University Professors received news of the proposed sale at an early stage, and officers of the AAUP chapter at LIU-Brooklyn protested to the Washington Office that the decisions leading to the proposed sale had been completed without any significant faculty consultation. After the City University rejected the opportunity to purchase the property, the Association continued to receive reports of problems at LIU involving the lack of faculty participation in the appointment of administrators, the appointment and removal of department chairmen, the lack of a faculty voice in the allocation of University resources to each of the University centers, and the question, which many still considered unresolved, of whether it is the prerogative of the Board of Trustees to dispose of a University center without adequate prior consultation of the faculty and student body.

Following a formal request for a full investigation from the Association's chapter at The Brooklyn Center, the General Secretary authorized the appointment of an ad hoc committee to investigate the situation and prepare a report for submission to the Association's Committee T on College and University Government. The ad hoc committee visited The Brooklyn Center and the C. W. Post campuses on June 12 and 13, 1969. Its report and the extensive documentation and other information com-

piled by the Association's staff both prior and subsequent to the foregoing visit have served as the basis for this

report from Committee T.

The Institution

Long Island University is a privately incorporated, nonprofit, and nonsectarian multicampus institution, with four major campuses and four extension units. Like all institutions in the State of New York, both public and

private, it is subject to some supervision from the New York State Board of Regents. The University was founded on December 9, 1926. The first students, 312 of them, matriculated in rented quarters in Brooklyn's business district on September 21, 1927. In 1928 the

University acquired its own building, also in downtown

Brooklyn; and in 1929 the Brooklyn College of Pharmacy, an older institution, affiliated with the University.

At the time the University was established, the founders received assurances of large endowment gifts from private backers. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the

subsequent depression, however, the expected grants were not available and the University remained heavily de-

pendent, as it continues to be at the present time, on funds obtained through tuition. The University's financial

problems became particularly acute during World War II

58 AAUP BULLETIN



when, on a single day in 1943, some 200 students received draft notices. The curriculum was then compressed to permit students to graduate in three years, if possible prior to their entry into the service, and special courses

designed to serve armed forces personnel were intro- duced. In spite of these efforts the student body decreased from a prewar high of over 1,000 to a low of 307, with

only 24 full-time faculty members, many of them frequently teaching for weeks without salary. The situation became so severe in 1943 that creditors forced the Uni- versity into federal receivership. As part of the subse-

quent reorganization, Mr. John P. McGrath, the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees, was appointed as Secretary of the Board.

The economic position of Long Island University im-

proved considerably after the war. After large numbers of veterans eligible for the benefits of the G. I. Bill enrolled, it was possible in 1947 for the Board of Trustees to terminate federal receivership. In addition, federal assistance under the Housing Act of 1949 enabled the University to obtain seven and one-half acres of land in downtown Brooklyn, and in 1950 the present campus of The Brooklyn Center was acquired.

In 1951, the University acquired a 176-acre estate at Brookville, Long Island, from Mrs. Marjorie Merri- weather Post. After a long struggle in that community over the establishment of a University Center in a residential area, the new President of Long Island University, Admiral Richard Lansing Conolly, and the first Dean of C. W. Post College, Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, brought an end to major opposition by giving the new C. W. Post College a local identity separate from The Brooklyn Center. Another campus was added in 1963 at South- ampton, near the far end of Long Island, this time with community support.

Between 1955 and 1968, Long Island University was the fastest-growing private university in the United States. The student body at The Brooklyn Center in 1955 was 1,875; in 1966 it was 7,078. At C. W. Post, the enrollment jumped from 200 to 9,000; Southampton enrollment quadrupled from 300 to 1,200 students between 1963 and 1968. Statistics published by the American Council on Education showed the Long Island University enrollment on all campuses at 21,298 in 1969. Almost overnight, in the history of universities, Long Island Uni- versity had become one of the largest private universities in the United States.

In spite of the rapid growth of the University "from one end of Long Island to the other," The Brooklyn Center, the so-called "mother campus," retained a certain promi- nence. During the academic year 1969-70 it enrolled over 8,000 students, and a vast majority of alumni of the University are graduates of LIU-Brooklyn.

It is important to note the particular role that The Brooklyn Center has played in higher education in New York City during the years since World War II. Until the recent expansion of both the State University of New York and the City University, and the more recent adop- tion of a program of "open enrollment" in the City

University, it was becoming increasingly difficult for com- muting students in the New York City area to find places at institutions of higher education. The City University restricted its admissions during these years to the top students in a high school graduating class. The "prestige" colleges in the area were available to the wealthy and/ or brilliant, but in any event their students were recruited from a national constituency. The Brooklyn Center of Long Island University was one of the few secular institutions of general purpose available to the "average" high school graduate, particularly those from the Borough of Brooklyn, which, it is often pointed out, would be the fourth major city in the United States if it had remained an independent jurisdiction. Because the Center did not receive much in the way of public funds and could not rely on large private resources, the tuition paid by students and to some extent the willingness of faculty members and administrators to work for long hours at relatively low salaries were important factors in keeping the University going. Recent years have also seen an increasing commitment at the Center to the education of youth from working-class and from underprivileged families. Perhaps because of these factors, a relatively high degree of loyalty and esprit seems to exist among local administrative officers, faculty, students, and alumni, helping to explain the exuberance with which much of the local academic community joined together in battle against the central administration of the University, Board of Trustees, and indeed anyone whom it regarded as an enemy of the Center.

Proposed Sale of the Brooklyn Center

In 1962, after three separate campuses had been established, a visiting evaluating committee from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools recommended that the University develop procedures to provide the centers with stronger central administration. The Board of Trustees responded by establishing the office of Chancellor of the University. Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, then President of C. W. Post College, was appointed to the position in 1964, and he served as Chancellor until he left office following conflict with the Board of Trustees in the fall of 1968. Throughout the period that Dr. Hoxie held the position of Chancellor and for some time there- after, much of the history of Long Island University was characterized by tensions between the central administration and the three centers, particularly The Brooklyn Center.1 Tensions between the Chancellor's office and The Brooklyn Center became particularly acute during the academic year 1966-67 in a dispute over the removal of the Provost at The Brooklyn Center, Dr. William

1 Former Chancellor Hoxie, commenting on a prepublica- tion draft of this report, has registered his belief that the report's emphasis on tension inadequately reflects his own record of cooperation with the faculty during his term of office, particularly during the first few years, and his efforts to improve faculty salaries and to put the institution as a whole on a firmer financial footing.

SPRING 1971 59



Birenbaum. This controversy appears to have been im-

portant in setting a pattern for faculty-administration relations during the months when the proposed sale of The Brooklyn Center was at issue, and therefore merits treatment at this point in the report.

The issue which precipitated the crisis was a proposal by Chancellor Hoxie to increase tuition. Dr. Birenbaum

vigorously opposed the Chancellor on the grounds that higher tuition would make it impossible for The Brooklyn Center to attract students who did not have considerable financial resources. Chancellor Hoxie argued that tuition increases were necessary in order to provide funds for capital and academic improvements. Also at issue were the educational direction and the autonomy of The Brooklyn Center. Provost Birenbaum and his supporters claimed that improvements and innovations which were needed at Brooklyn were being blocked by the central administration, while Chancellor Hoxie contended that Dr. Birenbaum was consistently disregarding the policies and authority of the central administration and the Board. There were also some faculty members who have stated that they declined to support Dr. Birenbaum because of disagreements with his administrative policies and procedures.

The dispute over the proposed tuition increase polar- ized relations between Dr. Birenbaum, backed by a substantial majority of the Brooklyn faculty, and Chancellor Hoxie, who had the support of most members of the Board of Trustees. This polarization was dramatized when Dr. Birenbaum 's resignation was requested by the Chancellor. The majority of the Brooklyn faculty and a large majority of the Brooklyn students immediately ral- lied in support of the Provost's continuation in office. Late in March, ninety faculty members at The Brooklyn Center (including thirteen department chairmen) and fourteen administrators (including several deans) signed a petition expressing their "deep commitment to and confidence in ... Birenbaum." Eight chairmen reportedly refrained from the endorsement. On March 21, Chancel- lor Hoxie called at The Brooklyn Center but was tempo- rarily prevented from reaching the administrative offices by 1,500 students carrying signs in support of Dr. Biren- baum. The Chancellor was able to avert mass boycott only by agreeing to reconsider his request for Dr. Biren- baum's resignation. (In the spring of 1967, large demon- strations were rare in American higher education, and what may now seem a relatively minor incident took on dramatic significance at that time.) On March 26, however, Chancellor Hoxie stated that the decision to accept the resignation was firm, and on the following day he announced that Dr. Birenbaum was being dismissed immediately.

During the next days The Brooklyn Center was in turmoil. A student boycott, 90 per cent effective by April 3, according to The New York Post, stopped most college activities. On April 6, the Brooklyn faculty over- whelmingly (168-32) voted "no confidence" in Chancel- lor Hoxie. In response, the Board of Trustees threatened on April 7 to close the University unless the student strike

was ended, and on April 11, students voted to suspend their boycott. Chairman William Zeckendorf said the Trustees would form a standing committee to deal with

faculty and students on all Long Island University problems, but would not discuss demands that Chancellor Hoxie be dismissed and that Provost Birenbaum be rein- stated.

At the approximate time of the dispute over the Pro- vost, the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees became aware of the need of the City University of New York to

expand its facilities in the Borough of Brooklyn. Dis- cussions were held between officials of Long Island Uni-

versity and the City University during the summer of 1967; at a meeting on September 19, 1967, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Long Island Uni-

versity decided to offer The Brooklyn Center for sale to

City University. The Trustees* decision to sell the Center was confirmed

at further meetings between September 19 and October 9, when Dr. Hoxie wrote to Dr. Albert Bowker, Chancel- lor of the City University, to offer him the opportunity to purchase the Center on behalf of the City University and the Board of Higher Education of New York City. The reasons for the decision of the Long Island Univer-

sity Board of Trustees to sell the Center remain a matter of controversy, and this report will not attempt to resolve the matter. Many have alleged that the Board wished to be rid of a troublesome entity in the city while at the same time acquiring funds for the support of its suburban and small-town centers. Chancellor Hoxie, on the other hand, stated to members of the Association's staff that the Board made the decision because of its genuine concern for the future of The Brooklyn Center, which could not continue to operate successfully on the basis of

existing resources. In a subsequent letter to the Asso- ciation, the Chancellor stated that he regarded the proposed purchase as a transfer of an educational center, and not simply as the transfer of real estate. What is

significant here is that the decision to sell and the negotiations with the City University occurred in the absence of any arrangements for participation by or consultation with representatives of the faculty of The Brooklyn Cen- ter, a faculty whose careers and whose work would be affected profoundly by any such sale.

The negotiations apparently remained unknown for a time not only to the faculty of The Brooklyn Center and the students and alumni, but possibly to some members of the Board as well.2 Immediately, however, after the

September 19 meeting, the day on which the Executive

2 Mr. John P. McGrath, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Long Island University in 1970 (but not the Chairman at the time of these decisions), told the ad hoc committee that he heard about the discussions from members of the faculty at The Brooklyn Center before he was informed of them by the Chancellor. Former Chancellor Hoxie, on the other hand, has stated, in reviewing the p re publication draft of the text, that he advised Mr. McGrath, Mr. Zeckendorf, and Dr. Heald in the winter of 1966-67 of the City University plans for a new campus in Brooklyn. He states further that he stressed the importance of faculty participation at the September 19 meeting of the Board.

60 AAUP BULLETIN



Committee of the Board of Trustees met and decided to sell the Center, news of the negotiations was divulged by someone to the public. That same day the president of the Association's chapter at The Brooklyn Center was informed of the negotiations by two members of the Board of Trustees. On October 2, after the news had been reported in the New York press, Chancellor Hoxie wrote an open letter to the faculty of the entire University announcing that "the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Long Island University at its meeting of September 19, 1967, resolved that we sell The Brooklyn Center to the City University." The central administration then acted immediately to implement the decision. The admissions office announced that as of October 6 further admissions to The Brooklyn Center would be

suspended, although students currently enrolled at the Center would be able to complete their work toward academic degrees.

On October 3, 1967, several thousand students, faculty members, alumni, and other opponents of the sale marched from downtown Brooklyn over the Brooklyn Bridge to

City Hall in Lower Manhattan. This dramatic event may have occasioned a unanimous resolution passed that same

day by the New York City Council, asking the Board of

Higher Education to hold a public hearing before it ac-

quired The Brooklyn Center. There were other marches and rallies, and there were a series of faculty meetings that resulted in angry resolutions. Several members of the New York State Legislature from Brooklyn also were reported in the New York press as demanding a state

investigation of the financial affairs of the University. On October 7, 1967, after two Association staff mem-

bers visited the Center and discussed the proposed sale with local faculty members and local administrative officers, the Association's General Secretary wired Chancel- lor Hoxie and Mr. William Zeckendorf, then Chairman of Long Island University's Board of Trustees. The tele-

gram was sent in the wake of a statement by the central administration that the decision to sell the Center was based on a consultants' report by Henry Heald and Asso- ciates, a statement which led to hostile reaction from

many faculty members who argued that they had not had an opportunity to present their position to the authors of the report nor to see the document prior to the Board's decision. The telegram read:

We greatly regret that vital information regarding pend- ing sale of Brooklyn Center has apparently not been made available to academic community. In particular we recommend release of Heald's Report in time for full consideration by Brooklyn Center faculty and others concerned. Information available to us suggests Center is not experi- encing immediate and severe budgetary crisis and that haste in disposal of Center is therefore unnecessary and unde- sirable.

A press release informed the public of the Association's

position. On October 10, Chancellor Hoxie responded to the

General Secretary, stating that "you have received certain misinformation in the matter." Chancellor Hoxie wrote:

Far from the "termination of valuable educational services," the sale to City University will make possible greatly expanded educational services in liberal arts and in teacher education as well as in business administration. In the matter of the contemplated relationship with and transfer of services to City University, there has been, on the part of Long Island University, the fullest possible faculty involvement. . . .

In addition, I have sought to keep not only the entire faculty of the University as fully advised as possible - and in turn to seek their views - but also the parents of the students at the Brooklyn Center. In this connection, I enclose herewith a copy of my letter of October 2, 1967, to all of the faculty and professional staff of the University and a copy of my letter of October 6, 1967, to the parents of The Brooklyn Center students. Also, herewith, I enclose a copy of two resolutions adopted by our Board of Trustees at its meeting of October 9, 1967, with regard to the faculty and the students. You will agree, I believe, that our Board has acted completely honorably in this entire matter in backing up its concerns for the faculty and students with guarantees of employment and of continuing educational opportunity. In this, it has fully supported the position not just of myself but of Mr. William Zeckendorf, our long- time Board Chairman, and of his successor, Mr. John P. McGrath, who was elected Chairman at yesterday's meeting.

On October 17, 1967, the New York State Joint Legis- lative Committee on Higher Education held hearings on the proposed sale. Among those testifying were the Chair- man of New York City's Board of Higher Education, Chancellor Bowker of City University, Chancellor Hoxie, and a member of the Association's staff.

Some opponents of the proposed sale attempted to get the courts to enjoin the Board from selling the Center. They supported a suit filed by two members of the Board who opposed the sale, requesting the court to prohibit the Board from divesting itself of the Center. Despite actions such as these, as well as the opponents' ability to marshal support for their cause from many public figures, it appeared, by late February, 1968, that efforts to stop the sale had failed. On February 23, the State Board of Regents approved a request of the New York City Board of Higher Education to expand the Bernard Baruch School of Business and Public Administration into an autonomous four-year college of the City University, to be located in downtown Brooklyn. The Board of Regents also stated terms for the acquisition of the Brooklyn Cen- ter by the Board of Higher Education.

Still, protests against the sale continued into March and April. What may well have been a key change in the balance of power in the controversy took place when Mayor Lindsay announced his opposition to the sale. On April 17, the Mayor was quoted in The New York Times as saying in a letter to Chancellor Hoxie that The Brook- lyn Center provided a unique service to its students and to the general community and should be continued. Ac-

cording to The Times account, "the Mayor also told Dr. Hoxie that he had advised Dr. Albert Bowker, the Chan- cellor of the City University, that he would support the location of the Baruch College in the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area which is near the Long Island Uni- versity center." The Mayor thus appeared to support a

SPRING 1971 61



new campus for the Baruch College, rather than having the City University acquire The Brooklyn Center.

On April 28, The New York Times reported continued efforts by the Long Island University Trustees in support of the sale of the Center. The story described the Trustees as putting forth the argument that the City University could be more responsive to minority students than a private institution and as asserting that the City University could begin operations immediately at The Brooklyn Center, in contrast to the usual period of seven

years before an entirely new campus would begin operations. These arguments did not persuade the New York City Board of Higher Education which, The Times reported on May 3, 1968, decided not to purchase The Brooklyn Center of Long Island University.

In short, the basic decision to offer to sell The Brooklyn Center to the City University was made by the Board of Trustees without any formal faculty participation. To be sure, the members of the faculty did later express their opinions, vigorously and vociferously, concerning both the desirability of the transfer and the condition and terms associated with it, but this was after the Board's decision had been made.

Chancellor Hoxie and the members of the Board made numerous efforts to explain and justify the decision to sell the Brooklyn facility - not only to the protesting members of the faculty, but also to the students, alumni, and various other groups which soon became involved. Chancellor Hoxie told the Association's General Secre- tary that he had reported the Board's intentions to the University Senate on September 22 (three days after the Executive Committee's decision). During the next months the Chancellor attended, or attempted to attend, meetings at which he explained his support for the decision to sell the Center. He and the majority of the Trustees maintained throughout this period that the interests of both faculty members and students would be protected. All tenured members of the faculty at The Brooklyn Cen- ter would be transferred to other campuses of Long Island University if they could not secure positions at the City University.3 Every effort was to be made to secure appropriate placement for nontenured faculty members. Matriculated students would be able to finish their degree work at Long Island University.

These explanations and assurances do not alter the fact that a decision of far-reaching importance to the whole University, and particularly to the faculty members and students of The Brooklyn Center, had been reached by the Board of Trustees without any notice to or consultation with the faculty of the University in general or of The Brooklyn Center in particular.

The Chairman of Long Island University's Board of Trustees has taken exception to the foregoing conclusion on two grounds: (1) the faculty did participate, for individual faculty members had heard of and known about

the negotiations even in advance of the Executive Com- mittee's September 19 decision, and faculty members had

ample opportunity to express their views at later stages; (2) the legal right to make major decisions as to the location and nature of the programs of the University rested with the Board of Trustees, not with the faculty, the acquisition and disposition of property being clearly within the province of the Board. This report has spoken to the Chairman's conclusions on the first point; the second warrants some comment.

It is unreasonable to assume that the Board's legal authority to acquire and dispose of property precludes the faculty's right, under standards of sound academic

government, to participate in the making of such decisions, especially when the decision will have profound consequences for the academic program. The closing or sale of a major component of a university or college should not reach the point of serious consideration, let alone decision, without the fullest possible involvement of the institution's faculty. The Statement on Govern- ment of Colleges and Universitiest jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the Association of

Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, sets forth the basic relationship which should obtain between faculty and governing board:

The board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable resources; it has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is respon- sible for obtaining needed capital and operating funds; and in the broadest sense of the term it should pay attention to personnel policy. In order to fulfill these duties, the board should be aided by, and may insist upon, the development of long-range planning by the administration and faculty.

Perhaps a still more basic applicable tenet is that found in the opening paragraph of the 1940 Statement of Prin-

ciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure: "Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole." An academic institution is not subject to purchase or sale, by those hold- ing legal responsibility for it, in the same manner as a

piece of real estate. Decisions in the academic world that involve considerations of money and property are appropriately made in the light of larger obligations to students who have come to the institution to further their intellectual powers and professional careers, and to the faculty, which holds the charge of teaching and en-

gaging in research under conditions which will benefit the students, the general community of scholars, and society at large.

College and University Government at Long Island University

With Dr. Hoxie's departure in the fall of 1968, Dr. George D. Stoddard, who had been Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, assumed office as Acting Chancellor. He had earlier occupied the positions of President of the University of the State of New York, Chancellor of New

3 Faculty members who had spent their entire careers living and working in Brooklyn did not react with enthusiasm to what some of them saw to be the possibility of a position in Brookville or Southampton.

62 AAUP BULLETIN



York University, and President of the University of Illi- nois. In July of 1969, Mr. Glenn L. Ferguson, formerly the United States Ambassador to Kenya, succeeded Dr. Stoddard. Chancellor Ferguson resigned after one year in office during which there was continued turmoil over the future of the University and its centers. As this re-

port goes to press, the position has not been filled. The Chancellor is the chief administrative officer of

university campuses separated by a distance and differen- tiated by structure, community, and relative degrees of

autonomy. The offices of the central administration are in Greenvale, New York, thirty miles from The Brooklyn Center and separate from but in the vicinity of the C. W. Post campus. C. W. Post is located in a wooded area surrounded by expensive homes and estates. Most students travel to the college by automobile. The South- ampton campus, a residential college in a semi-rural environment, is 100 miles from the downtown Brooklyn Center, which is a "subway college" located adjacent to

inexpensive public housing and decaying commercial

property. Each college has its own catalogue, curriculum, admissions office, alumni association, administration, and

faculty. Although the office of the Chancellor and a Uni-

versity Faculty Senate were established by the Board to serve as coordinating agencies for the three administrations and faculties, they do not appear to have had much success in creating common academic programs.4

Divisions over the making of policy and over relation- ships between faculty and administration at each of the centers of Long Island University have frequently, if not

invariably, been linked to the conflict over the relative

autonomy of the center and the powers of the Chancellor's office. Outside consultants, accrediting bodies, the Board of Trustees, and the central administration of the Uni-

versity have tended to favor centralization, maintaining that the entire University would benefit from sharing central services in the context of limited resources and from the coordination of curricula and programs. The faculty and local administrative officers of each campus have tended to favor a high degree of autonomy, maintaining that the distinct characteristics and role of each center require separate treatment. There are, however, minority views about these matters on the Board, in the central administration, and at the individual centers.

The University Statutes The statutes in effect at the time of the events de-

scribed in the previous section were officially superseded on July 1, 1969. The major efforts at revision began in October, 1968, after eighteen months of deep controversy at The Brooklyn Center and quiet only by contrast at C. W. Post College and Southampton College.

The record indicates that there was substantial consultation and participation by the faculty in the drafting of the new statutes. A Trustee committee of five, charged with formal authority for revising the regulations, solicited suggestions from representatives of the faculty on all the

campuses (the three Centers and the College of Phar- macy), from the student organizations, and from alumni agencies. These groups created their own revision committee which, though formally distinct from the Trustee committee, met with it from time to time, and there appears to have been general support for the revisions as finally approved by the Board of Trustees. On the other hand, it is not clear that the revisions were submitted in a systematic way to the faculties of each Center or to the whole faculty prior to their approval by the Board.

As might be expected, the most difficult problem con-

fronting the two revision committees was whether to emphasize centralization of the University or the auton-

omy of the Centers. The result was statutes which provided for "substantially autonomous colleges within a federated university." In addition, the new statutes re- flected major efforts to increase the level of communica- tion and participation among and between Trustees, administration, faculty, students, and alumni. Among the statutory changes were the designation of the president of the University Senate and the president of the alumni federation as ex officio members of the Board of Trustees; the creation of separate Advisory Councils for each of the campuses, councils composed primarily of trustees, alumni, and interested citizens of the community; provisions for faculty consultation in the appointment of

departmental chairmen; the admission of the president of the University Senate and the president or chairman of each of the campus senates to ex officio membership on the Cabinet, the chief working advisory body to the Chancellor; and greater specificity in describing the role of the University Senate.

Recognition of faculty responsibility in several areas of direct faculty concern was stated with greater clarity in the following statement, which incorporates language from the Statement on Government of Colleges and Uni- versities:

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reap- pointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. Determinations of these matters will primarily be by faculty action, reviewed by the dean, president, Chancellor, and Board of Trustees. The Board and Chancellor should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.

No faculty University regulation can be adopted or changed without consultation with appropriate faculty bodies.

It would appear that the new regulations provide the statu-

tory basis for significant faculty participation in the government of Long Island University.

Agencies of Faculty Government Since the degree of participation by a faculty in insti-

tutional government is not fully revealed by statutes, the ad hoc investigating committee asked each person it interviewed to offer judgment on the actual conditions of government in the University. What follows is based

4 There is also a College of Pharmacy, which appears to be an affiliate rather than an integral part of the University.

SPRING 1971 63



on both documentary evidence and statements made during the committee's visit.

An elected Faculty Tenure Board on each campus possesses considerable potential authority on matters of

faculty status. There were no complaints of interference with faculty prerogatives regarding the formulation of academic policy in such areas as curriculum and require- ments for degrees. The faculties of the specific cam-

puses, and faculty members through committees and departmental, divisional, and college organizations, appear to participate adequately in reaching these determinations. It was not quite so clear that the faculty has been appropriately involved in the establishment of completely new

programs. For example, a project for the addition of a law school was apparently initiated by the central administration without any significant faculty consultation.

The Senates at each Center seem to have been active, especially through their executive and other standing committees. Administrators appear to recognize the role of the Senates at the Centers as policy-making bodies; significant matters are debated and discussed in their general sessions. With regard to the Faculty Senate at The

Brooklyn Center, in the words of a statement submitted to the Association by officers of the Senate and of the Association's local chapter, "the elected Faculty Senate Budget Committee has access to the line-by-line budget of the Center. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate meets with the President of the Center monthly, before the regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting. The President of the Faculty Senate is a member of the President's Cabinet and the President's Budget Planning Committee. In addition, he selects members of the faculty to serve on four of the Faculty Standing Committees." The Standing Committees of The Brooklyn Center, according to information furnished by these officers, include, variously and in varying proportions, faculty, student, administrative, and alumni representatives.

On the other hand, there is considerable difference of opinion as to the potential utility and effectiveness of the University Senate. Supporters of the University Senate also tended to support University-wide programs and policies, while its critics usually were the same people who asserted that the policies and programs determined by the faculty and administration at a center were of most importance. An examination of its agenda and minutes indicates that the University Senate has been asked to consider policy at Long Island University on sabbatical leaves, retirement, long-range salary goals, and similar matters. In general, however, it appears that the Senate has not functioned actively or effectively, and indeed for a protracted time was unable to muster a quorum, perhaps because a large portion of its membership find it extremely inconvenient to attend meetings not held on their own campus.

Several other reasons have been offered for the lack of

faculty interest in the University Senate and for its in-

activity. A general sense of exhaustion may have followed the hectic controversies of Chancellor Hoxie's administration, with a consequent shying away from "university

politics." The continued concern of faculty members at The Brooklyn Center during the academic year 1969-70 about reports and rumors that the Trustees planned to

separate the Center from the University, again without local consultation, as well as the belief held by numbers of faculty members at all Centers that the truly important policy decisions for the University are made by the Board and central administration, may also have been respon- sible for the lack of faculty involvement with the Uni-

versity Senate. In addition, the large size of the Senate

may well contribute to its ineffectiveness. A much smaller

representative body, elected by the faculties, might make more of its responsibilities and opportunities.

Perhaps the most important question to be raised after an examination of the record of the University Senate is whether its lack of success reflects the failure of this group of disparate Centers of higher education to find a basis on which they can function as a University. It is recommended that the faculty, administration, students, trustees, and alumni of the University take a hard look at the

problems of the last ten years in order to evaluate the

prospects for the success of any central governing system. Any university which operates under such arrangements must be more than a group of isolated institutions.

Faculty Role in the Appointment and Removal of Department Heads, Campus Administrators, and the Chancellor of the University

At the time of the visit by the ad hoc committee, the

faculty members questioned reported that there was ade-

quate faculty participation in the selection of department chairmen."* Such participation has not always existed, however, with regard to removal of chairmen. The committee was informed of several cases at The Brooklyn Center where department chairmen were removed by the administration after little or no consultation with the

department's faculty. In two of these cases, according to

faculty members who spoke with the committee, the removal was protested vigorously by some or most of the members of the affected department.0

In addition to the dramatic 1967 controversy over Dr. Birenbaum's position as Provost at The Brooklyn Center which was discussed earlier in this report, there have

5 The current situation, according to officers of the Senate and of the AAUP chapter at The Brooklyn Center, is as follows: "By administrative directive, which was issued in accordance with a resolution passed last spring by the faculty, each department must hold an election for chairman before the Spring Term, 1971. (Most of these elections have, in fact, taken place, and although it is, of course, the Dean who appoints the chairman, in no case has the Dean failed to appoint the faculty member elected by his department.)"

6 President Alexander Aldrich of The Brooklyn Center writes, in commenting on this point, "I know of only one case since my arrival in which the department chairman was 'removed by the administration after little or no consultation with the department's faculty.' The said chairman is once again chairman of his department, and new procedures for consultation with faculty have been developed, installed, and are in use."

64 AAUP BULLETIN



been other conflicts at Long Island University over appointments to and removal from senior administrative posts. While Dr. Birenbaum's continuation was at issue, the New York newspapers carried reports of a dispute over an attempt to dismiss the Provost at C. W. Post

College. In the fall of 1968, after Dr. Hoxie announced the appointment of Dr. Stoddard as Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, many faculty members complained that the appointment was made without any formal consultation with appropriate faculty groups.

The extent of faculty involvement in subsequent selec- tions of important administrators has varied considerably. There was substantial consultation with The Brooklyn Center's faculty representatives on the successor to Pro- vost Birenbaum. (The title of the chief administrative officer of The Brooklyn Center has been changed to "President.") A faculty committee discussed nominations and candidates for more than a year before the position was filled. Although the individual who received the

appointment, Dr. Alexander Aldrich, was nominated by the Trustees, faculty members have reported that persons they suggested were seriously considered, and that there was considerable discussion with the faculty about the

prospective appointee. In mid- June, 1969, the Dean of Conolly College (the

arts and sciences college at Brooklyn) resigned. The fac-

ulty of the College elected a search committee to repre- sent the faculty in the quest for candidates for the

position.7 When Dr. Stoddard succeeded Dr. Hoxie, first as Act-

ing Chancellor and then as Chancellor, he announced at the time that he would serve only until the end of June, 1969. The level of faculty involvement and participation in the search for his successor, Chancellor Ferguson, does not appear to have been great. The Board and Chancel- lor Stoddard announced that they would welcome nominations or suggestions from the faculty, from students, the alumni, or any other source. Although some members of the faculty apparently made suggestions, this open invitation for nominations hardly constituted real participation in the selection. Later there was some degree of faculty-administration-trustee discussion on the office, but it appears to have occurred under rather awkward and unpleasant conditions with accusations of bad faith

emanating from both Trustees and faculty members. Basic differences exist, then, between the majority of

the Board and faculty leaders, particularly from The

Brooklyn Center, as to what constitutes faculty participation in the selection of administrators. The Chairman of the Board contended that the invitation to submit nominees and the opportunity to react to the candidates discussed by the Board constituted an adequate level of participation. Some members of the Board asserted that faculty leaders could not be trusted to be discreet in the early stages of negotiation, citing instances during the crises of 1967 and 1968 when faculty members had used the press as a forum for their differences with the Trus- tees. The faculty leaders interviewed by the investigating committee stated that the level of faculty participation envisioned by the Board was inadequate if the faculty were to be given a real opportunity to consider the candidates and their qualifications and to discuss faculty views with the Board. Continuing conflicts at Long Island Uni- versity over the appointment of chief administrative officers, although related to differences over educational policy, are largely attributable to the unwillingness of the Board to recognize that the faculty's role is not merely advisory but part of a joint effort. Mr. John McGrath, the Chairman of the Board, has described the appointment of chief administrators as essentially a Board responsibility. The Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, however, provides as follows:

Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty. His dual role requires that he be able to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of institutional government of the other. He should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.

Observations

The Role of the Faculty in the Government of the University as a Whole

At Long Island University, a very small number of individual faculty persons have been actively involved in

planning and effectuating the growth and development of the whole University. Although a group of faculty at each center has been determined to make its particular part of the University work, there is little sense of mem-

bership in an all-university faculty. While the unit faculties have been deeply involved in creating and resolving educational challenges and controversies, the all-univer-

sity faculty has been ineffective and, for extended periods, inoperative.

The Resolution of Disputes

In response to many frustrations and much unrest at

Long Island University, there has been intense faculty involvement of a kind, although not the kind one would recommend to an academic community. The faculty of

7 On this passage, President Aldrich states, "Since I arrived here, we have had two search committees for Deans at The Brooklyn Center. The first one successfully found Dean Arden, recommended him for Dean of Conolly College, and he was appointed by me with the approval of the Board of Trustees. The second searched for more than a year, and ended up by recommending two candidates for Dean of the School of Business Administration. The preferred candidate, Dr. Albert Johnson, was appointed by me, and my appointment was ratified by the Trustees at their December 5th meeting. I consider the actions of these two search committees to have been ... a model for search committees everywhere."

SPRING 1971 65



The Brooklyn Center was deeply involved in the Chan- cellor Hoxie-Provost Birenbaum confrontations of 1966- 67. Together with trustees, administrators, and students, the faculty members chose their sides and weapons. Pro- tests, interrupted classes, strikes, and pickets became

commonplace at the Brooklyn Center. It is hardly sur-

prising that within a few months both chief figures to the

dispute had left the University. Most faculty members at The Brooklyn Center were

stunned at reports of the proposal to sell the Center and

apply the money received to the use of remaining cam-

puses. The Trustees had decided on the sale without consultation with or even informing the faculty, and

faculty members entered into vigorous and outspoken opposition without confining their activity to campus and

University committees and channels. Rather, they protested to minority members of the Board of Trustees and to influential persons in the community, they went to the

press and to the courts, and they secured political support. They succeeded in blocking the sale, but the episode only exacerbated the existing disunity and distrust.

Although the cleavages caused by the disputes of the last years were still very deep at the time of the visit by the investigating committee, and remained visible in the winter of 1970-71, recent changes in the structure and the policies of the central administration could provide the basis for greater harmony. Forward steps have in- cluded consultation with faculty committees on the appointment of new chief administrators for the centers, the expansion of the Chancellor's cabinet to include fac-

ulty members and students, and the revision of the Uni-

versity statutes by committees of both the faculty and the Trustees, working first separately but later together.8 Even here, however, some serious problems continue to exist. In September, 1970, following Chancellor Ferguson's resignation, the Board authorized separate faculty, alumni, and student search committees for a new Chancellor, although the manner in which the faculty committee was

appointed raised serious faculty misgivings, the Chairman of the University Senate objecting that the Senate as a

single body, rather than (as was the case) the local senates through their respective chairmen, should be repre- sented in the search. According to press reports, Chair- man McGrath stated clearly that the committees would

have only advisory, and no veto, powers in the search.9 Some students and faculty objected further that the search had already been prejudiced by Mr. McGrath's stated

preference for one of the candidates who had been named

Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Board at the same meeting at which the establishment of the search committees had been authorized.

The Action of the Board

The Board of Trustees of Long Island University has insisted on unilaterally exercising its legal right to make decisions which profoundly affect the entire academic

community. It should be asked whether a majority of the Board of Trustees can effectuate plans for educational

buildings, and the teaching and learning therein, without consultation with the faculty: the body which possesses primary responsibility for the academic program. Can these controlling Trustees, in fact, sell one part of a uni-

versity and use the resulting dollars for development of those parts which remain, without hearing from the members of the faculty? Can they rest on the position that the Trustees are charged by law with these responsibilities and rights and that they have within themselves the competence to take such actions?

These questions must under accepted academic standards be answered strongly in the negative. Appropriate practice for an institution of higher education demands that its governing board exercise appropriate restraint, and that the board recognize a responsibility to the academic community which entails common purpose and

joint endeavor.

Concluding Remarks

Since the ad hoc investigating committee visited Long Island University, reports indicating that the University continues to be an institution in crisis have been widely publicized. Another Chancellor has resigned. There have been allegations of reprisals against faculty members who did not support Dr. Birenbaum in the earlier controversy. Controversies over the future of the University have been fought in the political arena.10 In addition, like so

many private institutions, Long Island University suffers from financial problems which have become particularly acute in the case of The Brooklyn Center because the

open enrollment policies of the City University now permit many students who might have enrolled at Long Island University to enroll without tuition at the City University. The student newspaper of The Brooklyn Center, Seawanhaka, reported on September 17, 1970,

8 In stressing the fact that "an institution such as Long Island University is capable of significant reform in the face of a very divisive situation," President Aldrich has written as follows with respect to this passage of the report: "Beyond the question of central administration and the revised statutes, every one of the campuses had undergone structural reorganization in the past year, in each case to involve faculty and students on an unprecedented scale in the decision-making process. On each campus the Handbook is being completely rewritten; and in each case there is not only faculty participation, but virtual control of the process by faculty members. Furthermore, the campus legislative body ('Senate' in Brook- lyn, 'Council' in Southampton and at Post) consists mainly of faculty and students; at The Brooklyn Center, for example, deans and alumni representatives will sit with the Senate, but as non-voting members."

9 A single search committee was subsequently established, composed of the Chairman of the University Senate, the Executive Committee of the University Senate, one student representative from each of the four campuses, one alumnus from each of the four, and one alumnus from the Arthur T. Roth Graduate School of Business.

10 According to President Aldrich: "Controversies over the future of the University have, indeed, been fought in the political arena, but the problem is the impact of open enrollment at City University, not problems of administration at The Brooklyn Center."

66 AAUP BULLETIN



that in response to a question at a faculty meeting, Presi- dent Aldrich indicated that nineteen letters of nonreap- pointment had gone out to probationary members of the

faculty over the summer, most of them prompted by budgetary considerations. In an appearance before the Joint Legislative Committee on Higher Education on October 7, 1970, President Aldrich testified in some detail as to the financial pressures on The Brooklyn Center. Ac-

cording to his prepared testimony:

I intend to explore with the deans the opportunity of com- bining departments, dropping non-tenured faculty members who are no longer necessary because our student body is contracting, and possible other areas where essential services can still be given with fewer people.

He also discussed the falling enrollments, and various avenues through which assistance might be sought by the Center. It should also be noted, on the other hand, that assurances have been made recently to the University Senate by Mr. McGrath that there will be no change in the basic structure of Long Island University, specifically by way of "dissolution" or separation of one of its cam-

puses from the system.

The history of the University during the period described in this report was thus a prelude to the even more serious problems of recent months. In addition, that

history holds implications in the light of growing financial

pressures for much of privately supported higher education across the country. To such institutions, the occur- rences at Long Island University narrated here may serve as a clear warning for the need for governing boards, administrations, and faculties to develop procedures for

faculty participation in decisions which are necessitated

by conditions of financial stringency. To be effective, such participation must be predicated on timely access to information affecting the institution's future and must involve informed faculty decision-making in those areas which the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities describes as lying within the primary responsibility of the faculty.

A sentence in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Aca- demic Freedom and Tenure, quoted earlier in this report, is worth repeating:

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

The Board of Trustees of the University alone cannot determine the definition of the common good. It must consult with and be responsive to the entire academic community and its constituency. It is our conclusion that there is a need at Long Island University for open decisions openly and jointly arrived at. This does not mean, of course, that there can be no private discussions or that all decisions must be made in the full glare of publicity. It does mean that the principles governing college and

university government in the United States must be exer- cised in practice as well as incorporated in the regulations.

Committee T on College and University Government has by vote authorized publication of this report in the AAUP Bulletin.

Walter Adams (Economics), Michigan State Univer-

sity, Chairman.

Members: Bertram H. Davis (English), Washington Office, ex officio; Julius A. Elias (Philosophy), City Col-

lege of the City University of New York; C. Addison Hickman (Economics), Southern Illinois University; Butler A. Jones (Sociology), Cleveland State University; Cenap R. Kiratli (Modern Languages), Essex Community College; Ritchie P. Lowry (Sociology), Boston College; Henry L. Mason (Political Science), Tulane University; John Morris (Law), Arizona State University; Otway Pardee (Systems and Information Science), Syracuse University; Lawrence S. Poston, HI (English), Washing- ton Office; Henry H. H. Remak (German), Indiana Uni-

versity; Richard F. Schier (Political Science), Franklin and Marshall College; Harriet C. Stull (Sociology), Stanislaus State College; Julius Wishner (Psychology), University of Pennsylvania.

SPRING 1971 61



Documents

College and University Government: Long Island University