American Council of Education
ACE Fellows Program
2013-14
Live Institution Case
Study Findings
Team III
Faculty Senate Leadership
1
PURDUE UNIVERSITY CALUMET CASE STUDY
Final December 3, 2013
i. Team Topic: Faculty Concerns
Governance: The current structure of University Governance at Purdue University Calumet, while
allowing formal and informal input from faculty on many matters of importance, does not appear
to have a clear policy regarding the role of the faculty or the faculty senate in governance. Though
this may have been an issue in the past, more recently this arose as a concern regarding fiscal
initiatives at the University.
Faculty Code of Conduct: At the present time, although there are extensive policies at Purdue
University Calumet regarding ethics and conduct
(http://www.purdue.edu/policies/ethics.html#conduct), there appear to be significant areas that
remain unregulated. A particular case involving a professor’s postings on social media raises
concerns that may not be answerable with the current ethics policies.
ii. Team members (name, position, home/host institutions)
Peter A. Blitstein, PhD
Home: Associate Professor of History, Lawrence University
Host: Deans of Faculty and of Strategic Planning and Academic Resources, Vassar College
Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD
Home: Professor and Chair; Department of Family Medicine Alpert Medical School/Memorial
Hospital of RI Brown University
Host: Deans Office, Alpert Medical School of Brown University
C. Cindy Fan, PhD
Home: Interim Vice Provost for International Studies, Professor of Geography, UCLA
Host: Chancellor Timothy White, California State University (CSU) System
Tamara Jhashi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Art History
Home: Oakland University
Host: Mount Holyoke College
Scott Newman, EdD
Home: Division Chair; Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology
Host: Chancellor; University of Arkansas
Deborah Tyksinski, PhD
Home: Associate Provost; State University of New York Institute of Technology
Host: System Chancellor; State University of New York System Administration
2
iii. Team charge (questions raised by our hosts): list of concerns and questions
a. “Negotiating” the Chancellor’s vision and strategic plan insofar as it is not deemed
appropriate or legitimate for managing our crisis, e.g. the role of intermural sports.
b. Maintaining confidence in the Chancellor’s vision and management. The coming year
features the imminent resignation of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Administration and
the February resignation of the VCAS, leaving the Chancellor relatively more alone in
articulating a vision and responding to changing conditions. This includes creating additional
channels for faculty communication.
c. Creating professional codes of conduct for colleagues. Codes of conduct need to allow for
freedom of speech / expression but provide boundaries of acceptable and professional
behavior.
iv. Methodology and resources used to arrive at conclusions
The methods used to arrive at our recommendations and conclusions included group discussion,
analysis of the literature, website and database research, and communications with key contacts.
Multiple resources were utilized for arriving at the recommendations and conclusions. These
included consulting key documents (such as the Purdue University Calumet Senate Constitution);
extracting relevant information from websites and databases (e.g., from peer institutions regarding
governance and codes of conduct), and searching and summarizing the professional literature.
v. Background and Recommendations
GOVERNANCE:
Background:
It appears that all of the Purdue University Calumet peer institutions have faculty senates
(assemblies or councils) that serve in an advisory capacity rather than in decision-making role.
Each institutional website offers information about the structure of faculty governance; some
offer overviews and others feature by-laws and university policy. Overall, each institution
supports a representative body of faculty that reviews policies, procedures and sometimes
practices to ensure that the faculty point of view is heard by the administration.
The degree of interaction with administration appears to vary by institution. What remains
constant is that the role of faculty governance is advisory rather than decision-making.
General principles regarding academic governance were gleaned from an examination of
websites, databases and the literature on the topic. One of the most important sources is the
"Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities," which dates back to the 1960s and
was agreed upon by the American Council on Education (ACE), American Association of
University Professors (AAUP), and the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) at that time. It
remains the touchstone for shared governance. The 2009 study of the AGB on, "Faculty,
Governing Boards, and Institutional Governance,” also provides insights. This study was based
in large part on surveys of presidents about faculty-board interactions; although its focus is not
3
on administrations, it reinforced the theme of the importance of faculty participation in shared
governance and the need for good communication between presidents and faculty
representatives.
Shared Governance at Purdue University Calumet
Thomas Keon became Chancellor of the Purdue University Calumet (Purdue-Calumet) campus, a
regional university in the Purdue University System, in Hammond, Indiana, on July 1, 2011. Until
August 2013, the leadership of the Purdue-Calumet Faculty Senate had an overall positive working
relationship with Chancellor Keon, the University’s Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Ralph Rogers,
who joined Purdue Calumet in July 2008, and Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services, Ken Johnston,
who had served in that capacity since June 1, 2005.
During the ACE Fellowship team’s August 2013 visit to the Purdue-Calumet campus, Faculty Senate
representatives stated that recent developments had resulted in disequilibrium among faculty regarding
their roles in key University decisions and concerns regarding President Keon and the University’s
trajectory. They also regretfully shared that Rogers and Johnston would be departing the institution.
According to its Constitution, the Purdue-Calumet Faculty Senate “shall have the power and
responsibility to propose and adopt policies, regulations, and procedures intended to achieve the
educational objectives of Purdue University Calumet and the general welfare of those involved in
Purdue Calumet’s educational processes.” Not unlike the power and authority granted to most Faculty
governing bodies, the Faculty Senate at Purdue Calumet is largely advisory in matters related to
resource allocation and budget priorities (IV,C,8). Similarly, the Faculty Senate serves in an advisory
capacity to create policies affecting the “general welfare, privileges, tenure and responsibilities of the
Purdue University Calumet faculty” and standards for promotion and tenure (IV,C,9). Therefore, the
Faculty Senate’s role in these matters is clearly advisory as specified in the Senate Constitution.
Interestingly, another category, that of “authority” (as distinct from advisory) stipulates that the Faculty
shall have the authority “to establish policies for Purdue University Calumet’s participation in
intercollegiate athletics (IV,B,7.)
The By-Laws outline the charges and responsibilities of the six standing committees subsumed under the
aegis of the Faculty Senate. Of particular significance to the current issues under discussion by the
faculty at PUC is the role of the Faculty Affairs Committee. This body “shall be concerned with those
matters which pertain primarily to the responsibilities, rights, privileges, opportunities, and welfare of
the Faculty, collectively and as individuals.” These matters include issues regarding tenure and
promotion, as well as “all proposed changes in the academic organization of Purdue University
Calumet…” (4.07, B.1,2)
Consistent with recent trends, Purdue-Calumet’s enrollment projections for the Fall 2013 term reflected
a six- or seven-percent decline over the previous year. In August 2013, seven faculty members—one
contingent, six tenure-track—were notified their faculty positions would be eliminated at the end of the
2013-14 or 2014-2015 academic years due to anticipated budget shortfalls resulting from reductions in
enrollment.
Faculty at Purdue-Calumet were distressed by the lack of opportunity to provide input into what they
viewed as a strategic institutional decision—which occurred a week prior to the return of faculty to
campus for the fall, and proceeded despite increased expenditures on University athletics and additional
administrative positions. Precipitated in part by the elimination of existing faculty positions, faculty at
4
Purdue Calumet established a chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The
Chapter subsequently published a letter criticizing the University’s faculty terminations and their
handling. In its letter, the AAUP Chapter urged the Purdue University System Board, President Mitch
Daniels, and Chancellor Keon to reconsider the decision and pursue other, less drastic, cost-saving
measures than the elimination of faculty positions.
Fortunately, Purdue-Calumet’s enrollment for Fall 2013 was only three percentage points lower than
anticipated. The University reported that the better-than-projected enrollment combined with savings
achieved through other financial strategies (e.g., early retirements) had allowed Purdue Calumet to
reinstate the seven faculty positions previously earmarked for elimination. While pleased that the
positions were preserved, faculty remain concerned about the perceived lack of transparency in the
administration’s decision-making processes, as well as faculty participation in them.
Preliminary Conclusions:
1. Purdue University Calumet’s structure is reasonably robust from the shared governance
perspective. The faculty senate constitution is divided into areas where its role is merely
advisory, and those where it has "authority"
(http://webapp.purduecal.edu/facultysenate/constitution/). The latter includes curriculum,
the granting of degrees, athletics, etc. The former, advisory, role includes (among many other
areas) resource allocation and budget priorities and, importantly for our purposes, "To create
policies affecting the general welfare, privileges, tenure and responsibilities of the Purdue
University Calumet Faculty, standards for appointment, and procedures for academic promotion
of members of the Faculty."
2. The ACE/AAUP/AGB guidelines indicates that "Faculty status and related matters are primarily a
faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to
reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the
faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general
educational policy." This guideline, and, for that matter, the advisory role noted above, could
lead to the conclusion that the process of since-rescinded dismissals of tenure-track faculty was
done in a manner which violated the spirit, and perhaps also the letter, of shared governance.
To that end, we might offer two recommendations/reminders:
1. Purdue University Calumet's own shared governance structure gives the faculty senate authority
over "policies" for participation in inter-collegiate athletics. Given that this is a concern voiced
by faculty, we could remind the Chancellor of this policy and recommend consultation with the
faculty senate.
2. We could recommend that the faculty senate leadership, the Chancellor, and the incoming
VCAA (when that person is hired) review policies for reducing faculty. Given PUC’s financial
and enrollment situations, it is possible that faculty reductions may be necessary in coming
years. It would be in the spirit of PUC’s own shared governance regulations, as well as the
AAUP/AGB/ACE statement, for some procedures about this to be agreed upon in advance. First
and foremost, transparency and timelines should have priority.
5
Recommendation for Further Action
● Emphasize the importance of the advisory role of the Faculty Senate and Senate standing
committees in the decision-making process at the institution
● Establish greater transparency in communications with the Faculty Senate and reiterate the value of
shared governance in the university community
● Create substantive opportunities for wide Faculty participation and engagement in discussions
related to resource allocation and budget prioritization, with the possibility of creating an additional
Senate standing committee that would be tasked with matters regarding Budget and Planning at the
institution. Membership could include staff from the Office of Administrative Services.
FACULTY CONDUCT:
Background:
On November 6, 2011, a tenured, Purdue-Calumet associate professor posted a photo on Facebook that
members of the campus community considered ethnically and religiously insensitive. By mid-November,
following on-campus protests, the University’s Muslim Student Association and some faculty members
and students had filed complaints claiming that the faculty member had violated Purdue Calumet’s
Equal Opportunity, Equal Access and Affirmative Action Policy, and the University’s Anti-Harassment
Policy. In February 2012, following an internal investigation, Purdue Calumet found in favor of the
associate professor, who claimed he was singled out because he is an Orthodox Jew.
Purdue Calumet later determined the faculty member had, in violation of the University’s AntiHarassment Policy, retaliated against two faculty complainants in incidences subsequent to its
investigation. The faculty member appealed the retaliation findings; his appeal was denied. In May 2012,
the professor filed a lawsuit in Lake Superior/Circuit Court against Purdue University, Purdue
Calumet, Chancellor Keon, in his official capacity, and several Purdue Calumet faculty stating they had
violated his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit is pending.
The situation described above has generated interest among the Faculty Senate’s leadership
in the implementation of professional codes of conduct which: 1) preserve individual civil rights, yet 2)
establish restrictions on unacceptable behavior. Currently, Purdue Calumet has no such guidelines.
Faculty Codes of Conduct:
Although there are extensive policies at Purdue Calumet University regarding ethics and conduct
(http://www.purdue.edu/policies/ethics.html#conduct), there appear to be areas of concern that
remain unaddressed. The case involving the profess who was accused, and later cleared, of harassing
Muslims on social media (http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/purdueprofessorwho-beat-charges-of-anti-muslim-bias-sues-over-investigation/43368) raises concerns about
the effectiveness of PUC’s current policy to reduce risks of negative faculty behavior.
The current policy spells out clearly that Purdue University does not tolerate harassment in the work
place:
It is essential that Purdue University demonstrate its intellectual and ethical leadership by
reaffirming its strong position against Harassment in all forms. All members of the University
6
community must be able to pursue their goals, educational needs and working lives without
intimidation or injury generated by intolerance and Harassment.
Harassment in the workplace or the educational environment is unacceptable conduct and will
not be tolerated. Purdue University is committed to maintaining an educational and work
climate for faculty, staff and students that is positive and free from all forms of Harassment.
Equally important is Purdue University’s commitment to freedom of expression:
Freedom of thought and expression are the lifeblood of our academic community and require an
atmosphere of mutual respect among diverse persons, groups and ideas. The maintenance of
mutually respectful behavior is a precondition for the vigorous exchange of ideas, and it is the
policy of the University to promote such behavior in all forms of expression and conduct.
In addition, the policy statement provides detailed definitions of harassment, including Racial
Harassment and Sexual Harassment. The definition of racial harassment is as follows:
Conduct that demonstrates hostility towards another person (or identifiable group of persons) on the
basis of race, color, national origin or ancestry and that has the purpose or effect of:
1. Creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment, work environment or
environment for participation in a University activity;
2. Unreasonably interfering with a person's educational environment, work environment or
environment for participation in a University activity; or
3. Unreasonably affecting a person's educational or work opportunities or participation in a
University activity.
The University is strongly committed to providing a safe and Harassment free environment for
members of those groups that have historically been, and are still likely to be, at greatest risk of
Harassment for reasons of prejudice.
For about two years, PUC has attempted to deal with the controversy surrounding this professor.
According to Ralph Cherry, Chair of the Faculty Senate’s Agenda Committee,
Probably my greatest frustration this semester concerns codes of conduct for faculty. My
colleagues have in various ways dealt with this issue two years ago, and frankly, several are
intimidated by the threat of being sued for violations of “academic freedom”. The particular
case of my concern involved allegations against a faculty member that appear in another faculty
member’s blog. Though I see these blog allegations as racist harassment – by Purdue’s own
policy – the lawyer handling the case when a complaint was filed did NOT view the blog as
harassment. Although the Chancellor asked the faculty blogger to take down the blog, he as yet
has not done so. The complaint may now go to civil court.
It is not our charge to analyze or take a position regarding the above case. Nevertheless, this case
suggests that the current policy’s language does not adequately delineate boundaries of acceptable and
professional behavior vis-à-vis freedom of speech and expression.
7
Insights from Peer Institutions
We reviewed the websites of ten of PUC’s peer institutions. We searched for terms such as “code of
conduct,” “ethics,” “academic freedom,” and “harassment.” If the search did not lead us to an
appropriate document, we would also review the faculty handbook or similar policy statements
available from the websites.
Eight of the institutions offered relevant information (University of Southern Indiana and University of
North Carolina, Wilmington were the exceptions). (See Appendix 2).
Recommendations for Adopting a Formal Document
● Emphasize the relationship between responsible, professional academic conduct and a faculty
member’s public expressions as a university citizen.
● Underscore respect for others, especially civility in one’s expressions, even if and especially
when there are disagreements.
● Give clear definitions and examples of harassment and review procedures for adjudicating
complaints.
vi. Issues for further consideration
vii. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the PUC Faculty Champions -- Ralph Cherry, PhD, Associate Professor of
Sociology, and Michael Dobberstein, Associate Professor of English, who introduced us to the
issues, provided the charge, and contributed valuable time, insights, and energy. In addition, we
would like to thank the Faculty Senate for their willingness to engage in the process.
8
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1: GOVERNANCE
Calumet Peer Institutions
Faculty governance as listed on university websites
Listed below are several representative samples of the ways in which faculty governance is featured on
the websites. The links for remaining peer institutions lead to their versions of faculty governance
descriptions.
Kennesaw State – An overview
http://www.kennesaw.edu/universitycouncil/
The University Council as the organization that includes elected representatives of all university
constituent groups, subject to the powers vested in the president of the university and Board of Regents
(BOR), shall have the functions described below:
Assign issues to the most appropriate governance body (or bodies), but with the understanding that
other bodies may also comment if they wish;
Assure that the appropriate governance bodies are consulted in the creation of any ad hoc committee or
task force addressing issues of general importance, and, if desired, will have the opportunity a nominate
members to such ad hoc committees or task forces;
Assure that the appropriate governance bodies are given the opportunity to consider and offer formal
comment on the final reports of any such ad hoc committee or task force;
Report to the President and other UC members the results of deliberations in various bodies when
issues or reports are considered by multiple bodies; and
Seek to reconcile conflicting advisory opinions when different bodies have conflicting views.
9
University of Michigan, Dearborn – their structure is similar to that of PU & Calumet.
http://www.umd.umich.edu/facultysenate/
The UM-Dearborn faculty governance structure established by Campus Bylaws in 1993 consists of three
bodies:
The UM-Dearborn Faculty Senate is composed of 19 elected faculty representatives with three-year
terms, plus eleven ex-officio members including the Chancellor, the Provost, the Student Government
president, one emeritus at-large faculty member, two LEO-at-large representatives, and the campus's
five representatives to the University-wide Senate Assembly. The Senate serves as the legislative arm of
the Faculty Congress, and it is authorized to make recommendations to the Chancellor, Provost, and
Board of Regents. Actions of the Senate have the effect of an action of the Faculty Congress unless they
are revoked by Congress. The Senate normally meets once a month from September through June.
The UM-Dearborn Faculty Senate Council is composed of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate,
four elected Senate members, and the Chancellor and Provost. (The Council membership must include
at least one Senate member from each academic unit.) The Council acts as an agent of the Senate and
advises the Chancellor and Provost on an interim basis until matters requiring Senate action can be
placed before the Senate or Faculty Congress. The Council also serves as a liaison between the Senate
and the Chancellor and Provost. The Council normally meets twice a month from September through
June.
The UM-Dearborn Faculty Congress is composed of the governing faculty and deans of the schools and
colleges, the senior officers of the campus, and the professional librarians and curators. It is authorized
to consider any subject pertaining to the interests of the campus and to make recommendations to the
Chancellor and the Board of Regents. The Faculty Congress normally meets once or twice a year.
The University Senate - Ann Arbor
Currently Dearborn is apportioned five representatives on the University Senate Assembly who are
elected to serve three-year terms by annual vote on the Dearborn campus. This body meets in Ann
Arbor on the third Monday of each month during fall and winter terms.
The Bylaws of the Regents of the University of Michigan (Section 4.01) define the membership of the
University Senate as all members of the professorial staff, the executive officers of the university, the
deans of the schools and colleges, such members of the research and library staff as may be designated
in accordance with standards and procedures approved by the Senate Assembly, and such other major
officers as may be designated by the Board of Regents from time to time. This body is inclusive of all
campuses of the University of Michigan, including Dearborn.
The Regents have designated the University-wide representative body in Bylaw 4.03:
There shall be a Senate Assembly which shall consist of seventy-four senate members apportioned
among the various schools and colleges according to the number of senate members in each school or
college.
The Ann Arbor Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) is the executive committee for
the University-wide Senate Assembly. If elected, a person qualified for the Senate Assembly (including
10
representatives from Dearborn and Flint) may serve on SACUA for a three-year term. This election is
held annually in the University Senate meeting held in Ann Arbor near the end of the winter term; all
members of the governing faculty of the University of Michigan are invited to vote in that
election. Candidates for SACUA are invited to provide a picture and statement that is printed in the
University Record, although nominations from the floor are allowed on the day of the vote.
Some confusion arises from the different uses of "Senate" and "Senate Assembly" between Dearborn
and the University as a whole. By Regents' Bylaw, the entire governing faculty for the University as a
whole is described as "the University Senate" and the representative body is called the "Senate
Assembly." On the Dearborn campus, the governing faculty of our campus is described as "Faculty
Congress" and the representative body is called the "Faculty Senate." The Dearborn Faculty Senate and
Faculty Congress are not prescribed by the Regents' Bylaws but were formed in agreement with the
senior officers of the University of Michigan-Dearborn. The Flint campus has a different faculty
governance structure altogether.
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville – another overview approach
http://www.siue.edu/ugov/faculty/
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Faculty Senate
Welcome to the University Faculty Senate home page. The Faculty Senate represents the entire faculty
in organizing faculty governance on all matters relevant to the educational interests of the University
and serves as a communication link between the faculty and the higher administration.
Statement on Shared Governance at SIUE
Shared governance is the collaborative effort of all constituents toward interpreting and achieving the
university mission. The strengths of all constituents are acknowledged and respected, and all strive for a
clear and common understanding of their respective contributions to decision-making. While it is
understood that some decisions are the sole or ultimate responsibility of a single constituent, and that
specific authority is often established by either policy or charge, both faculty and administrators remain
continuously invested in shared governance, and make every effort to provide the appropriate input
needed to ensure the best outcomes. Because it takes full advantage of the collective expertise and
diverse experiences of all constituents, shared governance maximizes the quality of decision-making,
reinforces the collective value of all members of the academic community, and encourages shared
ownership of and responsibility for SIUE's mission, vision and values. Shared governance both assumes
ethical conduct by all constituents and accommodates reasoned disagreement. It also supports
respectful interaction and timely decision-making by all constituents vested in a given decision. When
authority and responsibility for decision-making rest in separate constituencies, reasonable efforts are
made to communicate across constituencies during the decision-making process. Whenever there is
shared authority and responsibility for a decision, the precise nature of that sharing, whenever not
already designated by policy or charge, should be negotiated in good faith and agreed upon by involved
constituencies. Finally, shared governance assumes that policies will be operationalized in a manner
that provides balance in the voice, responsibility, and authority of all involved in the academic mission
of the university.
Final: "Statement on Shared Governance" was endorsed by the Faculty Senate on April 5, 2012Approved
by the Chancellor June 14, 2012
11
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville governance chart
William Patterson University – features text from by-laws
http://www.wpunj.edu/human-resources/faculty-and-professional-staffhandbook/universitygovernance-statement.dot
This statement is a call to mutual understanding among the Board of Trustees, administration, faculty,
and students (operating within the laws and agreements of the legislative and executive agencies of the
State of New Jersey and the collective bargaining units) regarding their roles and responsibilities in the
governance of William Paterson University. It is recognized that the participation of these constituent
bodies in University governance is an integral part of the institution's decision-making process.
Therefore, the cooperative and collaborative resolution of problems and addressing of issues is a shared
value for all members of the community. There is mutual responsibility to assure that in all institutional
matters and deliberations, regard for the welfare of the University is of the utmost importance. Each
constituent group supports and affirms the roles and responsibilities of the others in University
governance.
Roles and Responsibilities
The governance of William Paterson University is vested in the Board of Trustees pursuant to statute
18A:64-2-6 of the State of New Jersey. The Board of Trustees is the final institutional authority
overseeing the affairs of the University. While maintaining a general overview, the Board entrusts the
management, administration, and conduct of William Paterson University to the President and his/her
designees. In consultation with and/or upon the recommendation of the President, as necessary, the Board
adopts policies in support of the mission of the University and provides general direction on matters
including but not limited to planning, curriculum, instruction, research/scholarship and service, funding
and budgeting, student development, enrollment management, human and physical resources, and
institutional advancement. The Board appoints the President through a process that can include
participation by faculty, staff, students and other appropriate constituents. In developing, adopting or
amending its bylaws, the Board may consult the President, faculty and staff. The Board takes all
appropriate actions to assure and protect the integrity of the University and its mission.
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the University and has responsibility for the operation and
general management of the University as defined by acts of the state legislature (NJSA 18A:64-2-6) and
the bylaws of the William Paterson University Board of Trustees. He/she is responsible directly to the
Board. The President shall exercise all the powers requisite for the overall leadership and administration
of the University, and shall develop, execute and enforce the policies, rules and regulations relating to that
responsibility through his/her designees. The President, with the approval of the Board of Trustees,
appoints members of his/her administrative team including the Provost, Vice Presidents, Deans and others
with the advice and consultation of the appropriate faculty, staff and students. He/she represents the
University to the public, and with his/her designee, presents the views of faculty, staff and students, when
and if appropriate, to the Board, and transmits the Board's response and views directly back to the faculty,
staff and students.
The faculty is responsible for developing and making recommendations regarding academic and
curricular matters, policies and requirements. This includes but is not limited to instruction, research,
scholarship, creative activity, service, course content/subject matter, student advisement, classroom
standards, grading standards, assessment, course assignments and schedules, degree requirements and
initiation of academic programs, continuing education and distance learning offerings, standards for
12
academic freedom and procedures and/or agencies for handling conditions of employment. Action on
some of these responsibilities (i.e., curriculum, academic standards, standards for academic freedom and
assessment) is more properly recommended to the President or his/her designee through the Faculty
Senate. Faculty and staff should also be accorded the opportunity to participate in formulating policies on
such issues as admissions standards, standards for student conduct and discipline, planning, marketing,
resource allocation, the structure of the various academic units, and other items as negotiated with the
appropriate collective bargaining unit. The faculty of each department elect their chairperson at a
department meeting, or as specified in the department's bylaws and established University policy subject
to approval and appointment by the President. The faculty elect their department committees and
recommend course assignments and schedules through their chairperson and dean of their respective
college. The faculty recommend to the administration on the perquisites of faculty status, including
tenure, the allocation of faculty positions, appointment, retention, and promotion of colleagues in their
department.
The Faculty Senate is the elected representative body of the faculty, librarians and professional staff, and
acts in an advisory capacity to the University administration on matters of campus-wide concern to
faculty. The Senate will have discussions and input, both from committees and the Senate forum provides
a mechanism to foster the goals, objectives, policies, and procedures of the University community. The
Senate has the authority to appoint its own standing and ad-hoc committees in accordance with its bylaws.
Matters pertaining to collective bargaining are the responsibility of the bargaining units, and are not
within the purview of the Senate.
The respect of William Paterson students for the University will be enhanced if they are given at least
these opportunities: (1) to be heard in the classroom without fear of institutional or faculty reprisal for the
substance of their views; (2) to be free to discuss questions of institutional policy or operation within the
formal governance bodies of the institution, i.e. representation on the Board of Trustees, Faculty Senate,
and other campus committees; (3) to have access to due process when charged with violations of
University regulations; (4) to have the same right to hear speakers of their own choice based on the
principles of the University's mission as is enjoyed by other constituencies of the institution.
The Student Government Association (SGA) is the elected representative body of the students and serves
in an advisory capacity to both the University administration and faculty. Students of William Paterson
University are encouraged to participate responsibly in the governance of the University. Their
participation should be recognized as a claim to opportunity both for educational experience and for
involvement in the affairs of their University. Ways should be maintained, explored and expanded
whenever possible to permit significant participation by students. If institutional support is to have its
fullest meaning it should incorporate the strength, vitality, and idealism of the University student body.
Generally, all constituent groups as defined in this statement affirm their commitment to work and
cooperate with one another for the fulfillment of the University's mission, including long range planning.
The Administration, colleges, departments and the Faculty Senate have the right to appoint committees to
perform various tasks. Efforts should be made, if and when appropriate, to ensure that appointed and/or
advisory committees are inclusive and representative of the University community, and that they are
complementary to rather than duplicative of one another. Care should be taken to preserve the rights of
individuals.
The faculty, staff, and students expect to make recommendations before final action is taken on the
matters herein, but acknowledge that these recommendations are subject to the final decisions of the
President and/or Board of Trustees. February 24, 2001
13
University of Central Oklahoma – another featuring by-laws
http://busn.uco.edu/facultysenate/
ARTICLE V. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SENATE
Section 1. The Faculty Senate shall actively participate in the academic policy and decision-making
process at the University of Central Oklahoma. Major areas of concern shall be teaching, research, student
relationships, community service, faculty welfare, faculty personnel policies, and budgeting matters
pertaining to those concerns. Examples of specific activities included in these areas are academic
advisement; evaluation procedures; student admission, retention, and exit standards; governance,
structural design of governance; tenure; ethics; honors program; media center; curriculum; certification
programs; faculty academic committees; university catalog; and school calendar. The naming of these
areas, however, shall in no way be construed as exhausting all possible area of concern.
Official policy of the University of Central Oklahoma is to be published in a dated University Academic
Policy manual. All policy of the University is to be made available to the Faculty Association in looseleaf
form and kept current by dated revisions to reflect change.
Section 2. Standing committees appropriate to the areas of concern shall be listed in the Bylaws, with the
selection and/or naming of chairpersons and members to be directed by the President of the Faculty
Senate. Provision for the creation of special committees shall also be made in the Bylaws.
Section 3. The Faculty Senate shall receive, review, and act upon resolutions and proposals from the
standing and special committees and from individual Senators. For such resolutions and proposals (bills)
to be passed, the approval of more than one-half (1/2) of those Senators voting in regular or special
meeting shall be required.
Section 4. The Faculty Senate shall submit its resolutions and proposals, in writing, to the President of the
University of Central Oklahoma and shall send copies of such resolutions and proposals to the members
of the Faculty Association.
Section 5. Either the President of the University of Central Oklahoma of the Faculty Association - upon
written petition of more than one-fourth (1/4) of the members - may require that a resolution or proposal
of the Faculty Senate be submitted to a vote of the Faculty Association.
Vetoed Senate measures are to be returned to the Senate within twenty-one (21) days after receipt by
the University President, at which time the Senate may refer the matter to the Faculty Association by a
three-quarter (3/4) vote. The Faculty Senate President shall notify the University President of the time
and place of the meeting. After hearing the University President or a representative explain the basis of
the veto, the Association will debate the issue in his/her presence and cast a referendum vote upon the
matter for the purpose of the President’s reconsideration.
The remaining peer institutions used similar website approaches
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
http://uncw.edu/facsen/
http://uncw.edu/facsen/documents/UNCWSharedGovernance.html
University of Wisconsin, Platteville
http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/governance/
http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part3/faculty/senate.html
14
Kean University
https://sites.google.com/a/kean.edu/faculty-senate/home
Univ. of Southern Indiana
http://www.usi.edu/facultysenate/senate-function
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
http://www.utc.edu/faculty-senate/
http://www.utc.edu/faculty-senate/committeereports.php
15
APPENDIX 2: FACULTY CODES OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
a. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville has a “Faculty Code of Ethics and Conduct” which
includes both a “Statement of Professional Ethics” and a “Statement on Freedom and Responsibility”
(http://www.siue.edu/policies/1q1.shtml). Kennesaw State University likewise has a section of its faculty
handbook on “Academic Freedom and Responsibilities”. Both of these draw heavily on AAUP
recommended documents which seek to balance freedom of faculty to teach and express themselves with
their responsibilities as teachers and scholars. We believe these might provide possible models for PUC,
and so we are attaching Kennesaw State University’s section in the Appendix and have pasted especially
relevant language below (http://www.kennesaw.edu/handbooks/faculty/section2_1.php):
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be
careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their
subject.
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of
an
educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional
censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations.
As
scholars and education officers, they should remember that the public may judge their
profession
and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should
exercise
appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every
effort
to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
Membership in the academic community imposes on students, faculty members, administrators,
and trustees an obligation to respect the dignity of others, …
As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community
of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend
the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect
for the opinions of others.
b. The institution most like PUC, U of Michigan Dearborn, shares with the U of Michigan a “Statement on
Academic Freedom” that offers no guidelines about conduct or inappropriate
speech. (http://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/handbook/1/1.C.html)
c. William Paterson University of New Jersey has a very brief statement on academic freedom of a
general
nature (http://www.wpunj.edu/human-resources/faculty-and-professional-staffhandbook/statementofacademic-freedom.dot. In addition it has a statement on “Fulfillment of professional responsibilities”
which list the duties of a faculty member, mostly with regard to teaching
(http://www.wpunj.edu/human-resources/faculty-and-professional-staff-handbook/fulfillmentofprofessionalresponsibilities-.dot>)
d. University of Tennessee, Chattanooga has a “Code of Conduct” statement from the University of
Tennessee System (http://policy.tennessee.edu/hr_policy/hr0580). We find the following language
especially relevant and useful:
16
Even the appearance of unethical or irresponsible conduct can be damaging to the public’s trust
in the university.
Respect for Others
People are the University of Tennessee’s most important resource for accomplishing its
teaching,
research, and public service missions. Accordingly, employees are expected to be committed to
creating an environment that promotes academic freedom, diversity, fair treatment, and respect
for others.
Specific Examples of Prohibited Conduct
Respect for Persons
Disorderly conduct, including, but not limited to, using discriminatory, abusive, or
threatening language; fighting, provoking a fight, or attempting bodily harm or injury to
another employee or to any other individual or threatening physical action or injury on
university property or during university activities; or other conduct that threatens or
endangers the health, safety, or well-being of any person.
e. University of Central Oklahoma’s Faculty Handbook has a chapter on “Faculty Policies and Procedures
(http://www.uco.edu/academic-affairs/files/faculty-handbook/OFFICIALFacultyHandbook13-14.pdf).
We find its language on faculty members’ responsibilities to their colleagues very relevant:
Faculty members’ responsibilities to their colleagues include, among others:
1. respecting and defending the free inquiry of their colleagues.
2. respecting the opinions of others.
3. acknowledging academic debts.
4. exercising objectivity in the professional evaluation of their colleagues.
5. participating in ongoing programs of professional and pedagogical development.
6. supporting the professional and pedagogical development of their colleagues.
f. Kean University adopts the Ethics Standards of New Jersey’s Executive Branch
(http://www.kean.edu/admin/uploads/pdf/ethics/Ethics_plainlanguage.pdf) which emphasizes
conflicts of interest associated with official positions and duties.
g. University of Wisconsin-Platteville’s Employee Handbook
(http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/Emp_Handbook/2006-2007/index.html) includes a
policy statement on discrimination and harassment, but the definitions of both are vague and
difficult to measure.
Kennesaw State University
2.1. Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Kennesaw State University endorses the following statements as published by the American Association
of University Professors in defining the academic responsibilities of faculty members (Excerpts from the
1990 Edition of the AAUP Policy Documents & Reports, pgs. 3-4, 77-78). Document is on file at the
KSU Sturgis Library in the general reserve section.
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 expression.
17
Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research.
Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching
aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to
freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.
a. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject
to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary
return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
b. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should
be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to
their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the
institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of appointment.
c. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of
an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes
special obligations. As scholars and education officers, they should remember that the public
may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all
times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the
opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for
the institution.
Membership in the academic community imposes on students, faculty members, administrators, and
trustees an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express
differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction,
and free expression on and off the campus. The expression of dissent and the attempt to produce
change, therefore, may not be carried out in ways that injure individuals or damage institutional
facilities or disrupt the classes of one’s teachers or colleagues... Students are entitled to an
atmosphere conducive to learning and to evenhanded treatment in all aspects of the teacher student
relationship. Faculty members may not refuse to enroll or teach students on the grounds of their
beliefs or the possible uses to which they may put the knowledge to be gained in a course. Students
should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to make particular personal
choices as to political action or their own part in society. Evaluation of students and the award of
credit must be based on academic performance professionally judged and not on matters irrelevant
to that performance, whether personality, race, religion, degree of political activism, or personal
beliefs. It is the mastery teachers have of their subjects that entitles them to their classrooms and to
freedom in the presentation of their subjects. Thus, it is improper for an instructor persistently to
interject material that has no relation to the subject, or to fail to present the subject matter of the
course as announced to their students and as approved by the faculty in their collective
responsibility for the curriculum.
Instructional Responsibilities
Kennesaw State University also endorses the following statement on professional ethics for college
and university faculty as published by the American Association of University Professors (1990
Edition of the AAUP Policy Documents & Reports, pgs. 75-76). Document is on file at KSU
Sturgis Library in the general reserve section.
I. Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of
knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary
responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end
18
professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence.
They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using,
extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although
professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or
compromise their freedom of inquiry.
II. As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold
before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors
demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as
intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest
academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true
merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student.
They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They
acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their
academic freedom.
III. As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the
community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They
respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas
professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic
debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept
their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
IV. As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers
and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided
the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize
and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their
institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When
considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of
their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.
V. As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other
citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their
responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution.
When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or
acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon
freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote
conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.
Pasted from <http://www.kennesaw.edu/handbooks/faculty/section2_1.php>
19