www.ilaaup.org ����� The award-winning newsletter of the Illinois Conference of the American Association of University Professors ����� Fall 2005

American Association ofUniversity Professors of IllinoisP.O. Box 477Chicago, IL 60614

I L L I N O I S

ACADEMECORNER

Marketopia U

WWW.ILAAUP. ORG

PR

ES

IDE

NT’S

PRESIDENT’S CORNER continued on page 3

MichaelMcIntyre

President,AAUP-Illinoismcintyremichael @mac.com

Inside This Issue

UNDERFUNDING HIGHER

EDUCATIONWhy colleges deserve money.

Ken Andersen column, page 2

SHARED GOVERNANCE &ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Why faculty need to help run highereducation.

Peter Kirstein article, page 4

ACADEMIC FREEDOMCases at SIU and DePaul.

John K. Wilson reports, page 5

AAUP INSTITUTELessons learned from the AAUPsummer trainings.

Lee Maltby reports, page 7

Anyone who has read the Chronicle of Higher Educa-tion over the past decade or so has heard the drumbeat: theuniversity needs to get with it and embrace the market.Anyone who has taught in that decade, perhaps exceptingthose lucky few at universities well-insulated from the mar-ket by multi-billion dollar endowments, has felt thedrumbeat’s effects: pressure on class sizes, marketing stud-ies for new academic programs, students treated as cus-tomers. For just as long, AAUP and the faculty at largehave protested loudly that treating the university as onemore business will degrade our main tasks of scholarshipand teaching. But, since our high-minded sentiments ap-pear to be getting us nowhere fast, let me suggest that weabandon the high ground and engage the battle where itwill be lost and won, on the terrain of the political economyof the university.

The university may not be a business, but it does haveto pay the bills. For most private universities, that meanstuition dollars are overwhelmingly important. As statespending on higher education stagnates or even drops,public universities, too, come to generate an increasing shareof revenues out of tuition dollars. As a result, the studentbecomes a producer of marginal revenue. Even though theuniversity may not run a profit, adding one extra studentgenerates more revenue than costs. It may be an oversim-plification to say that the student is a customer – after all,parents and the government may kick in a significant por-tion of the price – but it’s not fundamentally wrong.

If students are quasi-customers, what are they showingup to buy? We know from the UCLA surveys of enteringstudents that they’re buying the promise of future higherincomes. We also know that to secure those higher incomes,students need to complete the degree. Students with somecollege make somewhat higher incomes than students with-out, but the real break in incomes in the U.S. is betweenworkers with undergraduate degrees and those without.So, students come to the university to buy a credential.That credential certifies them as having certain general skills(literacy, numeracy, and perhaps, dare we say, compliance),and in some cases specific skills relevant to the labor mar-ket (accountancy, public relations, hotel management, etc.).That puts us in a very strange business, for it makes stu-dents both the customer and the product.

That peculiarity manifests itself in the fact that studentsmust labor for their credential as well as purchase it, andthey themselves are the material upon which they labor.That credential certifies a degree of self-transformation, butit contains little information about how the student wastransformed while obtaining the credential. For the economi-cally rational student, the best strategy is to obtain thiscredential at the lowest cost. Not for nothing doesratemyprofessor.com tell you which professors are easy andwhich aren’t.

Please don’t mistake this as a moralistic attack on lazystudents. Students are caught in a collective action prob-lem. If all students at a particular university work hard, anefficient labor market will recognize that the credential fromthat university is worth more, and will reward the studentsaccordingly. However, an individual student’s effort will not

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

US POSTAGE MAILASTORIA, ILPERMIT NO. 9

Joe Berry

Reclaiming theIvory Tower

More on the Web:Read Joe Berry’sIllinois Academearticle aboutcontingent facultyin Chicago atwww.ilaaup.org. Toorder his book, visitwww.reclaimingtheivorytower.org.

Roosevelt University Adjunct Joe BerryWrites a Guide for a Contingent WorldBy John K. Wilson

Of all the dramatic changes in higher education in the past three de-cades, perhaps none is as important as the growing dependeence on con-tingent faculty. In the next few years, the number of contingent faculty inhigher education will exceed all of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. Soit is a fitting time for Chicagoan Joe Berry’s new book, Reclaiming theIvory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education (MonthlyReview Press).

The subtitle is significant: organizing adjuncts is essential to changinghigher education. Unless we confront the problems caused by a facultydominated by temps, the major problems facing us (corporatization ofcampuses, loss of shared governance, attacks on academic freedom, de-clining economic value of faculty work) will only be exacerbated. As Berrynotes, “A generation or more ago, most college faculty were salaried, butpretty independent professionals, with the protection of tenure after a fewyears.” That reality has dramatically changed, but all too often academics(including the AAUP) try to pretend that nothing is different.

Berry’s short but useful book provides a quick analysis of the problemposed by exploited contingent faculty. A substantial part of the book isdevoted to practical advice on how to go through the steps of organizingadjuncts. Berry is an organizer above all else.

As a longterm adjunct himself, Berry understands that contingent fac-ulty are not the problem; they are an essential component of higher educa-tion. The problem is that adjuncts are so vulnerable to exploitation, andtreated as second-class (or third-class) citizens in academe. Berry’s bookis full of anecdotes, beginning with the adjunct who had to win a MacArthur“Genius” award before getting a permanent position.

Berry also understands the barriers to organizing. He recounts theadjunct who lose their jobs for daring to start a union. He reports the manydifficulties of bringing together adjuncts.

Berry has a bigger vision than simply organizing individual campuses.He promotes the intriguing idea of “regional” union organizing, such asbringing all the colleges in the Chicago area under unions that could setminimal standards for all faculty. It is unfortunate, but accurate, that Berrydoubts if the AAUP could ever undertake such a project, since it lacksorganizational strength and has no bargaining units in the Chicago area.

The adjunct, Berry argues, is a bridge between different worlds, theworlds of working-class students and the tenured professoriate. He be-lieves students are sympathetic to the plight of adjunct faculty if they aremade aware of the circumstances under which they work and how it nega-tively affects the quality of their education: “It does not seem as strange tomany students to support a struggle of campus workers as it did ten orfifteen years ago.”

He also sees the adjunct as a bridge between the often elitist profes-sors and the service and clerical workers on campus. Berry is more skepti-cal, though, about graduate assistants: “Many of them resist recognizingthe likelihood of their future as contingents.” However, the increasinglydifficult job market is beginning to make clear a terrible reality identified byBerry: “College teaching is one of the few places where people sometimestake a pay cut upon completing their training.”

Berry sees tenure and organizing as the solutions for the adjunct crisisin academia, to make sure that institutions cannot exploit their faculty andmust treat everyone fairly.

————————————————————————— Illinois Academe · Fall 2005 · Page 2 ——————————————————————————

KEN ANDERSENCan Anything Be Done?

YES! But It’s Up to You!Midterms are graded and we are getting ready for the

end of the term, and the holidays. The spring term will be onus before we know it. Maybe it is time to think about ournew year’s resolutions. After all, faculty are often describedas taking too much time and engaging in too much delibera-tion before they make a decision, if they do.

We could focus on national/international issues. Thenation is worried according to the opinion polls. But let usfocus on Illinois as our state offers much to contemplate forthose of us concerned about the role of higher education inshaping the state and nation’s future. As former AmericanEducation Council President Stanley Ikenberry pointed outat the October 18 meeting of the IBHE, we have done a greatjob of convincing the public of the great value of an educa-tion for the individual. But, we have done a terrible job ofconvincing the public of the great societal contribution ofhigher education in its contributions economic, medical,civic, aesthetic and to the overall quality of life attainable inthis country. He issued an urgent call for the IBHE to speakon behalf of the needs of higher education.

Last year the Governor and the legislature refused toaddress the structural deficit that exists in the state’s bud-get. They had that opportunity in SB/HB 750 and chose notto do so. They piled greater debt on our students, our chil-dren, and our younger colleagues to handle in the future.They not only underfunded the state pension systems butalso agreed to do so again next year. No use having thatfight in the legislature when everyone wants to get home—adjournment date is set at April 7— to run for reelection orfind an alternative to serving as a legislator. Illinois pensionwoes attracted attention this fall in major articles in Timeand the New York Times Magazine. The underfunded pen-sions will be an increasing drain on the financing of highereducation for many years to come limiting student financialaid, needed building maintenance and new facilities, andsupport of public colleges. This affects private schools,albeit differently than public colleges. Nor will the fundsrequired to improve elementary and secondary educationbe there.

The underfunding threatens access to Illinois highereducation now that a college education is as essential as ahigh school diploma used to be. Public universities are mov-ing toward a high tuition, high financial aid model. Yet Con-gress is preparing to cut back on student aid and Illinoishas yet to recover from MAP cuts. Reallocation of tuitionmoney for needy students is unlikely to meet the need whileit may provoke a negative reaction from many parents andstudents leading to more legislative efforts to cap tuitionincreases. Institutions correctly say aid is available but thehigh tuition rates inevitably discourage many students fromeven considering college. Many families have learned frombitter experience to fear debt and some need whatever in-come the prospective student can earn.

Have you looked at tuition and fees at your institutionrecently? (My tuition and fees as an undergraduate were$100 a year and $110 a semester on my doctorate.) The 2005-06 undergraduate tuition and fees reported in The Chronicleof Higher Education are startling: Bradley $18,630; ChicagoState $6,625; Columbia (Chicago) $15,998; DePaul $21,100;DeVry $12,160; Illinois College $15,400; IIT $22,982; IllinoisWesleyan $27,624; Loyola $24,612; National Louis $16,935;Northwestern $31,789; Quincy $18,330; Roosevelt $14,430(a reduction from the previous year by $2,000); SIU-C $6,831;Chicago $32,265; UIC $8,302; UIS $5,375; UIUC $8,688,Wheaton $21,100. Most community colleges fall in a rangefrom $1,800 to $2,300. These figures do not include othercosts such as textbooks and materials, a major concern ofstudents, food and housing and personal expenses.

While tuition and fees at public institutions are stillsharply lower than at private schools, particularly the moreprestigious ones, they have risen sharply in recent yearsand the public four-year institutions are being pressured/forced to adopt a high tuition-high aid model by the declinein state support. With the emphasis on higher education asa private good, many believe public institutions should settuition at whatever level the market will bear. This will effec-tively close the doors to many students and fracture theAmerican dream.

It is not that faculty are overpaid. IBHE reports thatmedian faculty salaries at the four-year publics are at 93.5%of peer institutions and our benefits packages lag as well.Community college salaries fare better in salary compari-sons but there is a running dispute about the comparisonbase. Independent college and universities exceed those oftheir peer groups on the average but actual salaries vary

dramatically from institution to institution. (For much greaterdetail, see the AAUP Academe data of last spring or theIBHE report of its October 18 meeting available online.)

What can we do? One of the governor’s aides told melast year, “No one fears an angry faculty,” and “No one willsupport a tax increase to pay for pensions.” But the realityis the tax increase is needed to support education amongother state needs. And yes, we need to resolve the prob-lems caused by past and continued disastrous decisions tounderfund the pension systems. That burden grows everyyear. One estimate is the shortfall is equal to two years ofthe state budget.

What can an individual do? Maybe the recent nationalaccolades for Rosa Parks tell us something. First, individu-als can make a difference. Perhaps even more important,they remind us of the importance of narratives, of telling astory that captures attention and motivates change. Thecurrent emphasis on getting control of the “story” and “fram-ing” by both the administration and the opposition sug-gests the importance of controlling the narrative.

What does all of this suggest about our New Year’sresolutions?

· We will tell the story of the impact on our stu-dents, our institutions, and ultimately the citizens of Illi-nois of the cuts imposed on higher education. Every institu-tion, private or public, has been negatively impacted. Un-less the pattern of declining state support for higher educa-tion is reversed, the state faces a significantly darker future.We are destroying the seed corn needed for tomorrow’sgrowth. We need to tell the story to friends, neighbors,legislators. It is not for our personal benefit that they needto support higher education, it is for the public good as wellas their personal advantage for the long term. Surely weknow something about the value of investing for the futureand the value of compounding.

· We will recognize and respond to the realities ofthe political climate. Little will be done during the springlegislative session to deal with the substantial financial is-sues that Illinois faces. But, substantial risks and opportu-nities will come with the fall 2006 veto session after theelection. Now is the time for us to establish contact withlegislators if we are to have any impact during that vetosession. It is too late then. Yes, most legislators will be re-elected given the ability to carve out safe political districts

for incumbents. But don’t overlook those not reelected forthey have greater freedom to vote their conscience. Don‘toverlook the power of the lame duck.

· We will be active in shared governance on ourcampus and across the state. Fewer and fewer faculty areactive in the shared governance process. We need to rein-vent some elements of the process to ensure faculty have ameaningful voice and have ownership of change. If not ac-tively engaged in shared governance activity we should bemonitoring their activity and expressing appreciation tothose who are actively engaged. Meaningful faculty par-ticipation in institutional governance is at greater risk nowthan it has been since tenure became a reality for most fac-ulty. The role and responsibilities of the faculty are beingredefined—too often without faculty participation in thatprocess.

Two years ago the National Communication Associa-tion gave me the honor of addressing our national conven-tion on the topic “Recovering the Civic Culture.” I arguedthat we have been seeing a well-documented loss of partici-pation in the civic communal activities nationally and lo-cally in voting, in civic groups such as the Rotary and thePTA, and in our own universities, colleges, and departments.In part, the decline in shared governance is because wehave stopped participating in governance activity. We havevoted with our feet and our allocation of time and commit-ment.

I conclude as I did then with a citation by Molly Ivins.Although focused on politics, her words apply to everydomain where we have need of a vibrant civic culture—ourinstitutions are certainly one such place. “In this country,we have the most extraordinary luck—we are the heirs tothe greatest political legacy any people have every received.Our government is not them, our government is us.. . . It’sour government, we can make it do what we want it to whenwe put in the energy it takes to work with other people,organize, campaign, and vote—we can still make the wholeclumsy money-driven system work for us. And it’s hightime we did so.”(Molly Ivins, “Offering up a host of ex-amples identifying Bush’s many problems,” Chicago Tri-bune, September 18, 2003.)

Ken Andersen is Professor Emeritus of Speech Commu-nication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

INSTITUTION PRESIDENT SALARY BENEFITS TOTALAugustana College Steven Bahls $200,000 $31,121 $231,121Aurora University Rebecca L. Sherrick $230,631 $30,237 $260,868Benedictine University William J. Carroll $219,647 $13,179 $232,826Blackburn College Miriam R. Pride $98,196$7,365 $105,561Bradley University David C. Broski $298,355 $67,992 $366,347Columbia College Chicago Warrick L. Carter $280,763 $81,421 $362,184Concordia University Manfred B. Boos (interim)$117,285 $15,193 $132,478DePaul University Rev. John P. Minogue $0 $0 $0Dominican University Donna M. Carroll $221,943 $31,849 $253,792Illinois Institute of Technology Lewis M. Collens $292,900 $15,575 $308,475Illinois Wesleyan University Janet McNew (interim) $200,148 $35,583 $235,731Knox College Roger L. Taylor $160,000 $0 $160,000Lake Forest College Stephen D. Schutt $190,000 $87,128 $277,128Lake Forest Graduate School of Management John N. Popoli $265,625 $20,076 $285,701Lewis University James Gaffney $158,693 $10,315 $169,008Loyola University Chicago Michael J. Garanzini $0 $0 $0Loyola University Medical Center Anthony L. Barbato $999,136 $39,230 $1,038,366Midwestern University Kathleen H. Goeppinger$552,214 $46,555 $598,769Monmouth College Richard F. Giese $203,200 $68,859 $272,059National-Louis University Curtis L. McCray $379,794 $46,192 $425,986North Central College Harold R. Wilde $244,879 $62,051 $306,930North Park University David G. Horner $169,797 $56,656 $226,453Northwestern Memorial Hospital Gary A. Mecklenburg $1,600,782$149,742 $1,750,524Northwestern University Henry S. Bienen $593,250 $97,770 $691,020Olivet Nazarene University John C. Bowling $131,906 $29,445 $161,351Quincy University Mario DiCicco (interim) $29,750$1,755 $31,505Robert Morris College Michael P. Viollt $484,875 $27,978 $512,853Rockford College Paul C. Pribbenow $159,200 $16,660 $175,860Roosevelt University Charles R. Middleton $284,720 $39,259 $323,979Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine & Science K. Michael Welch $527,083 $185,458 $712,541Saint Xavier University Judith A. Dwyer $237,500 $22,732 $260,232Shimer College Don P. Moon $55,754$2,788 $58,542University of Chicago Don M. Randel $501,714 $93,055 $594,769University of Chicago Hospitals Michael C. Riordan $1,118,855$577,751 $1,696,606University of St. Francis Michael Vinciguerra $175,000 $19,250 $194,250VanderCook College of Music Roseanne Rosenthal $80,000$3,200 $83,200Wheaton College Duane Litfin $202,136 $67,606 $269,742

Salaries of Private College Presidents in Illinois

SO

UR

CE

: Ch

ron

icle o

f Hig

he

r Ed

uca

tion

, 20

03

-04

da

ta, ch

ron

icle.co

m.

————————————————————————— Illinois Academe · Fall 2005 · Page 3 ——————————————————————————

PRESIDENT’S CORNER continued from page 1

2005 Higher Education Legislative ReportHigher Education SummitBy Leo Welch

The first Higher Education Summit ever held in Illinoistook place on November 9, 2005 at the Embassy SuitesHotel in Chicago. The meeting was organized by the Illi-nois Board of Higher Education.

The theme of the conference was “Higher Education:Why It Matters.” This issue was the main topic for anaudience of 200 higher education leaders, members of thegeneral assembly, state government officials, business lead-ers, students and faculty. Apparently higher education mustconvince the general public and in turn our state legisla-tors that higher education is important because state fi-nancial support for higher has diminished since FY 2001.

Five panels were convened with a main speaker and apanel of responders. The common statements from legisla-tors, as one might expect, are Illinois does not have suffi-cient revenue to meet current financial demands and K-12education is the current priority. Legislatures know fullwell that colleges and universities have the ability to en-hance revenue by increasing tuition and fees and that isexactly what they have been forced to do.

Although each of the five panels had been assignedspecific topics, there was in fact only one common theme:what direction is the U.S. going in light of decreasing sup-port by both state and federal government for higher edu-cation and how can the higher education community con-vince the general public as well as legislators to returnhigher education to a national high priority.

The concern of affordability is reflected in MeasuringUp 2004, the national report card on higher education. Inthe 2004 report card Illinois is given a grade of D onaffordability. The report states that “Illinois has consis-tently provided a high level of need-basen financial aid forstudents, but recent policy decisions have begun to un-dermine this historic high level of performance.”

The impact on students was placed in a personal per-spective by Adam Howell, a student from Eastern IllinoisUniversity, when he related in one panel discussion thatmany of his student colleagues are forced to work theequivalent of full-time jobs to meet the increasing costs ofobtaining a college degree.

Although many of the speakers provided detailedanalysis of a variety of issues many of the spontaneouscomments were revealing. A few of the comments were asfollows.

“There is no light at the end of the tunnel” — SenatorMiguel delValle

“Due to revenue constraints, do not expect any helpfrom the General Assembly” — Representative RichMeyers

“You must do a better job in explaining the role ofhigher education to the general public” — RepresentativeKevin McCarthy

“Why should the next state dollar be spent on highereducation when there are other competing needs?”— Elliot Regenstein, Director of Education Reform,Office of the Governor

“We will look for educated employees elsewhere if theU.S. cannot provide them.” — Richard Stephens, SeniorVice President, The Boeing Company

“Public higher education should explore other sourcesof revenue” — Senator Rick Winkel

The last panel of the day was entitled “Where Do WeGo From Here?” which raised the question of an actionplan. Although this summit did not develop specific crite-ria for an action plan, one of the speakers, Stanley Ikenberry,President Emeritus of the University of Illinois, part of anational coalition of higher education associations andinstitutions called Solutions for the Future. They are pre-paring to launch a national dialogue in 2006 about thechallenges faced by society and the role of higher educa-tion.

The focus of the coalition will be on the “public good”provided by higher education and the attempt to returnhigher education to a priority, not only in Illinois, but tothe nation as a whole.

The challenge to us all was stated by the President ofRoosevelt University, Charles Middleton. He said “If thissummit is held again next year, I predict we will report backthat nothing significant will have happened.” Will the pub-lic be convinced that higher education needs more sup-port or will we be in this same place next year? A coordi-nated and effective message must be generated, or hisprediction will indeed come true.

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Although the appropriations for higher education werebleak, there were some bright spots that came out of theIllinois General Assembly. Some of the bills that have be-come Public Acts were as follows:

HB 521 Group InsuranceAllows state employees and annuitants to purchase

supplemental life insurance under the age of 60 up to 8times the basis life insurance benefits.

HB 715 Elections – College AddressRequires each public university and college, at the be-

ginning of each academic year, to provide the opportunityto change his or her voter registration address. This Actalso requires public colleges and universities to providemechanisms for voter registration.

HB 908 Fair ShareProvides that if a collective bargaining agreement that

includes a fair share clause expires the employer will con-tinue to abide by the fair share clause until a successoragreement is reached.

HB 1384 MedicareAllows employees continually employed by the same

employer since March 31, 1986 to irrevocably elect to par-ticipate in the federal Medicare program.

HB 2515 Transferable CoursesRequires colleges and universities to post on the World

Wide Web information regarding transfer courses and theirapplicability towards degree requirements.

HB Health Education GrantsProvides that the Illinois Board of Higher Education will

distribute funds to non-profit health service educationalinstitutions a priority basis.

SB 445 Social Security NumberProhibits the use of social security numbers by entities

except for specific uses.SB 2112 ICCB Faculty Member

Provides that one of the 11 members appointed to theIllinois Community College Board by the Governor must bea faculty member at an Illinois public community college.

Note: Bill Naegele of South Suburban College of CookCounty has been appointed.

The bill descriptions are highly edited and for more de-tails consult the Illinois General Assembly web site atwww.ilga.gov.

By Leo Welch

have an appreciable effect on the value of the credential,so the rational course of action is to free-ride, to piggy-back on the hard work of others. Since all students havethis same incentive the natural tendency is to produce acohort of free riders. The unintended outcome of this indi-vidually rational action is to lower the collective value ofthe credential. Unfortunately, the lone diligent studentcannot raise the market value of the credential; unrewardeddiligence is rarely maintained.

When Marketopia U makes decisions about how toallocate revenues, the market must guide it. In any univer-sity, some majors will require more work than others. Eco-nomically rational students will avoid them, gravitatinginstead to the majors that allow them to secure their cre-dentials with the least labor. Marketopia U will rationallyrespond to student demand by shifting resources to pro-grams in the greatest demand. In consequence, rigorousprograms will become marginal to the university, while gutcourses will proliferate. The economically rational actionsof students and administrators will ineluctably transformMarketopia U into Slacker U.

There’s good news and there’s bad news. The goodnews is that market-driven universities are not necessarilythe wave of the future. Because of the incentive-compat-ibility problems sketched above, market-driven universi-ties are likely to produce degrees of lowered value in themarket. Rich private universities, those most insulated frommarket pressures, will continue to command a premium.What’s the bad news? The bad news is that any indi-vidual university can be run into the ground by an admin-istration pursuing the mantra of the market.

Why are faculty members the first and often the onlyline of defense against the encroachment of the market?Not because we’re nobler or smarter or more farsightedthan other players in the game, but because our immediateand long-term interests are different. None of us wants tospend our nights grading hastily composed student es-says. None of us wants to live in fear of bad student evalu-ations caused by a rigorous curriculum. Few of us wantour courses packed with so many students that we’re re-duced to courses built around lectures and multiple-choiceexams. All of us would like to pick up a book now and then,

to generate new ideas that may or may not show up in nextterm’s syllabus. Almost all of us have ideas for researchthat we wish we had time to carry out. And, to take the longview, none of us want to teach at the ultimate market-drivenuniversity where mass-produced courseware is deliveredto the students via learning assistants paid low piece-rateswith no job security.

What are the morals of the story? Two of them will beno surprise coming from the AAUP. Two others may be:

· Tenure is your friend. We don’t need to apolo-gize for the fact that tenure insulates us from market pres-sures. Tenure helps us maintain educational standards pre-cisely because it insulates us from the market. When theuniversity can’t get rid of us, we have greater latitude todemand more of our students. That latitude helps preservethe university from market failure.

· Faculty governance is your friend. At most of ouruniversities, the faculty still has effective power to hireand tenure, as well as power over the curriculum. Tradi-tional standards of academic rigor preserve the universityfrom market failure even as they serve our interests asfaculty members.

· External research grants are your friend, not onlybecause they buy you time for your research agenda, butbecause they diversify the university’s revenue base. Asthat revenue base diversifies, the market exerts less pres-sure on the university.

· The development office is your friend, for similarreasons. Development officers may have to spend a gooddeal of their time sucking up to people with money, buttheir holy grail is unrestricted giving, exactly the sort ofrevenue stream that insulates the university from marketpressures.

In short, AAUP’s fight is as important today as it wasin 1940. Unfortunately, we come to that fight with our ranksdepleted. National membership is down by more than halfin the past generation. Strong, active chapters are the ex-ception rather than the rule. My predecessor, PanPapacosta, has spent the past three years working tostrengthen chapters across this state. I want to carry onthat work. Contact us, and let’s talk about how the stateconference can work with your chapter to rebuild AAUP’sbase.

Consequences of ClosureBy Lesley Kordecki

The 2001 merger of Chicago’s DePaul University withLake Forest’s 100-year-old Barat College ended with theclosure of Barat College in June 2005. This is a brief ac-counting of what happened to the people of Barat.

Of the administration and staff, a few were transferred toother campuses of DePaul. The majority (around 50) receivedseverance packages from the University and left its employduring the final years.

Of the faculty, several resigned at the time of the merger.Ten were incorporated into the colleges of Theatre, Music,and Education shortly after the merger. Subsequently, fiveof these have resigned or retired.

Twenty-six remaining tenured or tenure-track faculty,those who revamped all curricula for the new Barat Collegeof DePaul, were then required to interview for faculty posi-tions in the other colleges if they wished to continue at theUniversity. Twenty were accepted into various departmentsor were brought into a newly created Academic Affairs unit,four accepted the buy-out offered, one retired, and one re-signed. The five non-tenure track faculty, nearly all with along history at the college, were not rehired by the Univer-sity.

Glenn PoshardNamed SIUPresident

SIU alum Glenn Poshard, aformer state senator, member ofCongress, and Democratic can-didate for governor in 1998, wasnamed president of the SIU sys-tem in November. Poshard waschair of the SIU Board of Trust-ees until he resigned this summer to pursue this job. SIUattracted controversy for paying a search firm $90,000 tofind candidates and refusing to release the names of thefinalists. Poshard will be paid $292,000 per year; he holds adoctorate in educational administration from SIU.

fairs Council.In the AAUP document, “Faculty Ten-

ure and the End of Mandatory Retirement”there is a necessary revision of the “1940Statement” that had declared that tenure shallcontinue, absent financial exigency, dis-missal for cause, or retirement for age. SinceJanuary 1, 1994, however mandatory retire-ment for age is prohibited under the federalAge Discrimination in Employment Act.Thus the “1940 Statement” must be read tomean that retirement terminates tenure, butretirement cannot be “for age.” Despite thenear iconic stature of the 1940 statement, itis not the Holy Grail and needed significantmodification and updating with the 1970 In-terpretive Comments. I think the entire docu-ment could benefit from a robust revisionthat updates the AAUP’s commitment toacademic freedom and tenure.

At East-West University last May, aninstitution celebrating its twenty-fifth anni-versary with a year-long “Perspectives Lec-ture Series,” I spoke on the topic: “Resist-ing Conformity: The Threat to AcademicFreedom.” Naturally, I cast this presentationin the context of war. Randolph Bourne wasa pacifist intellectual who wrote for SevenArts magazine before it was suppressed forantiwar advocacy during World War I. Hewrote in “War is the Health of the State,” amajor uncompleted antiwar essay before hedied at age 32 from Spanish influenza, a pan-demic during the Great War: “The pursuit ofenemies within outweighs in psychic attrac-tiveness the assault on the enemy without .The whole terrific force of the State isbrought to bear against the heretics …A…terrorism is carried on by the Governmentagainst pacifists, socialists, enemy aliens,and a milder unofficial persecution againstall persons or movements that can be imag-ined as connected with the enemy.”

Socialist, antiwar historian HowardZinn, who was my adviser and frequent pro-fessor at Boston University, wrote: “Onecertain effect of war is to diminish freedomof expression. Patriotism becomes the orderof the day, and those who question the warare seen as traitors to be silenced and im-prisoned.” I then summarized many of theMcCarthy Era witch-hunts that were directedagainst university professors that led to thedirect dismissal of about 100 and hundredsmore being eased out through FBI pressure.

I then compared the 1950s with severalcontemporary cases that raised questionsas to the vitality of academic freedom sinceSeptember 11. Professors Ward Churchill,Nicholas De Genova, Richard Berthold, SamiAl-Arian and my own experiences were pre-sented in comparative perspective. Consid-erable time was also spent in the questionand answer session on the parameters of

academic freedom in the classroom. The“AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure” affirms thatprofessors may express their opinions in theclassroom: “Teachers are entitled to freedomin the classroom in discussing their subject.”Professors can be radical, left-wing,Trotskyite, anarchist, conservative, pacifist,right wing and even controversial! The au-dience, which included the university’s chan-cellor who had kindly introduced me,laughed at the word “controversial.” AAUPguidelines expressly indicate that, “Contro-versy is at the heart of the free academicinquiry which the [1940 statement] is de-signed to foster.” Professors can use books,lectures, and exams that advance theinstructor’s commitment to critical thinkingand pursuing pedagogy as a moral act. Pro-fessors are, however, proscribed from “per-sistently intruding material which has norelation to their subject.” A course on as-tronomy, for example, cannot be used by aninstructor to condemn gay marriage or abor-tion with a frequency that intrudes on thestated objectives of the course. Professorsmay stray from their course topic as long asthey are not “persistently intruding” unre-lated material. As a professor said to me onceat an out-of-state university, “Yes, we areallowed here to say, “Good morning.” or“Have a nice weekend!”

I think the enemies of academic freedom,some of whom are quite liberal by the way,would do well to consider PresidentKennedy’s extraordinary humility in hisAmerican University address in 1963: “If wecannot end now our differences, at least wecan help make the world safe for diversity.”While the president was attempting to bridgethe Manichaean divide between the SovietUnion and the United States, it certainly hascontemporaneous applicability to academia.

Diversity for ideological differences, di-versity in courageously rejecting the silenc-ing of those with whom we disagree underthe guise of public manners or goofball callsfor self-deprecatory disclaimers, diversity inchallenging the canon of educational rigid-ity and bureaucracy and recognizing with-out intellectual or ethnic diversity in aca-deme, the capacity of higher education toelevate and liberate the consciousness andfolkways of a society is suppressed and at-tenuated.

Peter N. Kirstein is professor of historyat St Xavier University in Chicago. He is amember of the Illinois-AAUP council and amember of its Speakers Bureau. He hasserved on the AAUP national Committeeon Membership and as president of his chap-ter.

By Peter KirsteinI have had the opportunity to speak on

a variety of campuses since my suspensionfor an anti-military e-mail on Veterans Day in2002. This past Spring I had the opportunityto speak at McKendree College, a venerableinstitution with a bucolic, lovely campus inLebanon, Illinois and at East-West Univer-sity, a wonderfully progressive, dynamic in-stitution of diversity in the Loop in down-town Chicago. The event at McKendree wassponsored by their AAUP chapter, whosepresident is Brian Frederking (who was re-cently elected to the IL-AAUP state coun-cil). I spoke on the topic: “Shared Gover-nance and Academic Freedom: ResistingMarginalization and the Persecution of theLeft.” Most of my remarks dealt with AAUPdocumentation on Shared Governance. Thiswas a somewhat different topic for me and Iperused the “Redbook” and other sourcesto familiarize myself with the nuances of thisvital concept. I also read thoroughly theMcKendree College Handbook, and sum-marized AAUP guidelines concerningShared Governance that could apply to thedecision of McKendree to embark upongraduate-level programs.

Indeed, one of the issues at the collegewas a concern that the faculty would be al-lowed to participate fully in the implementa-tion, staffing and assessment—my favoriteword—of graduate-level programming. Itwas emphasized that faculty, administrationand governing boards must participate instrategic-decision making. Institutions ofhigher learning, despite the current fetish ofemulating the latest Fortune 500 businessmodel, are not corporations with a board ofdirectors that alone determines and imple-ments strategic planning. A university may“sell” education but it cannot do so effec-tively unless the faculty plays a seminal rolein its formulation. It is simply poor manage-ment and inefficient use of university re-sources for an administration not to recog-nize or solicit the expertise that faculty havein curriculum development, utilization of fi-nite resources, mission statements and asoverseers of the intellectual life of an insti-tution.

Examples of faculty being marginalizedand underrepresented in determining stra-tegic-decision making within an institutionof higher learning clearly exceed those raremoments when the professoriate attemptsto usurp control that unfairly intrudes uponthe rights of an administration or governingboard. AAUP does not construe governanceas a Hobbesian, or if I may add, aneoconservative “war of all against all,” butas a collaborative enterprise. Yes there arecompeting interests. Yes there will be con-flicts. Yes there are politics. Yet shared gov-

ernance, if done correctly, leads to collabo-ration not confrontation; cooperation notcompetition; collegiality and not conflict thatemanates from a mutual respect of differingroles but common objectives to pursue aca-demic excellence.

Of course without academic freedom andtenure, shared governance would be impos-sible as faculty rights would be evisceratedunder a fear of dismissal and loss of liveli-hood. Shared Governance can only flourishwhen the faculty, who are described as “of-ficers” of an institution in the “1940 State-ment on Academic Freedom and Tenure,”has the capacity to assert that role withoutarbitrary sanctions through the granting ofcontinuous tenure. AAUP is explicit on theimportance of academic freedom as a meansfor preserving and exercising shared gover-nance. Although I am an academic freedomspecialist, I sought to empower the mostlyfaculty-member audience that academic free-dom for faculty members encompasses theunfettered right to express their views “onmatters having to do with their institutionand its policies.”(“On the Relationship ofFaculty Governance to Academic Freedom,”1994) This Redbook document states “in thecase of institutional matters, grounds forthinking an institutional policy desirable orundesirable must be heard and assessed ifthe community is to have confidence thatits policies are appropriate.”(Emphasisadded)

It reaffirms the professoriate’s primaryrole in curricular matters which obviouslywould include establishing graduateprogrammes among the assorted disciplinesof the faculty. “Moreover, scholars in a dis-cipline are acquainted with the disciplinefrom within; their views on what studentsshould learn in it, and on which faculty mem-bers should be appointed and promoted, aretherefore more likely to produce better teach-ing and research in the discipline than arethe views of trustees or administrators.”

In reading the McKendree Manual, I wasastonished to see a mandatory retirementage of seventy. Yet this appears in theMcKendree Manual: 2.9.2 “Retirement.” “ AtMcKendree College, normally retirementoccurs at the end of the academic year inwhich the faculty member attains the age of70. Continuous tenure expires simulta-neously with retirement….” Even if not en-forced, it is illegal and should be excisedbecause McKendree could be vulnerable tolitigation and AAUP censure if it were imple-mented. This is an example of how an AAUPchapter can assist a college or university indeveloping policies and practices that, ifnothing else, are compliant with federal law.I was told the AAUP chapter had referredthis matter to the McKendree Faculty Af-

Shared Governance and Academic Freedom

2006 AAUP National ElectionsThe following individuals have been approved by the AAUP nominating committee

for elections next March. Nominations by petition are due by December 15, 2005. Candi-date statements for President can be found on page 6. See www.aaup.org for moreinformation.President

Thomas E. Guild, Legal Studies, University of Central OklahomaCary Nelson, English, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

First Vice PresidentLarry G. Gerber, History, Auburn University (Alabama)Daniel P. Murphy, History, Hanover College (Indiana)

Second Vice PresidentEstelle Gellman, Educational Psychology, Hofstra University (New York)Gerald M. Turkel, Sociology, University of Delaware

Secretary-TreasurerJeffrey A. Butts, Biology, Appalachian State University (North Carolina)George C. Wharton, Communication, Curry College (Massachusetts)

Council NomineesDistrict IV - Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, MissouriPatricia Simpson, Sociology, Loyola University ChicagoJesse Swan, English, University of Northern Iowa

I LLINOIS AAUP ANNUAL MEETINGSATURDAY , APRIL 22, 2006

ST. AUGUSTINE COLLEGE , CHICAGO

7th Circuit Rules Against Student PressBy John K. Wilson

On June 20, the 7th Circuit Court of Ap-peals ruled against college student rights toa free press in the case of Hosty v. Carter.On November 1, 2000, Patricia A. Carter, deanof student affairs at Governors State Uni-versity in Chicago’s south suburbs, calledthe printer of the student newspaper, theInnovator, and demanded prior approval ofeverything in the paper, which had annoyedadministrators with its criticism of the uni-versity. Prior restraint is a classic violationof freedom of the press, and the editors JeniPorche and Margaret Hosty soon sued theuniversity.

Student press groups were alarmed whenthe Illinois Attorney General’s office arguedthat the 1988 Supreme Court case HazelwoodSchool District v. Kuhlmeier should applyto college newspapers.

The Hosty decision could also affect fac-ulty academic freedom. If college studentshave no more Constitutional protectionsthan first graders do, then college profes-sors may have no more rights than elemen-

tary school teachers. Decades of cases es-tablishing the unique legal status of collegesand academic freedom, based on the matu-rity and rights of college students, might bewiped away if Hosty is upheld.

In his opinion, Judge Frank Easterbrookalso hauled out the dubious idea of institu-tional academic freedom: “Let us not forgetthat academic freedom includes the author-ity of the university to manage an academiccommunity and evaluate teaching and schol-arship free from interference by other unitsof government, including the courts.” If “aca-demic freedom” means only the power ofadministrators to “manage an academic com-munity,” then students and professors alikewill be subject to censorship by the admin-istration.

The student editors of the Innovator areappealing Hosty v. Carter to the U.S. Su-preme Court, and if the case is accepted, itcould represent one of the most importantcases regarding college student rights andacademic freedom.

AAUP Supports Graduate Student Union Rights

By Jane BuckAs the voice of the higher education pro-

fession and leading advocate for the highestacademic standards for almost a century, theAmerican Association of University Profes-sors deplores the decision of the NYU ad-ministration to sever bargaining relationswith its graduate student union. In responseto the legally permissible but ethically ques-tionable choice made by the NYU adminis-tration, the graduate student employees havevoted overwhelmingly to strike as a meansto regain their right to bargain.

Instead of averting a strike by bargain-ing in good faith with the democraticallyelected union, the NYU administration haschosen to intensify the crisis, using confron-tational language to mischaracterize the con-cerns of graduate student unionists. We con-demn such inflammatory tactics. Colleges anduniversities should be held to a higher stan-

dard than profit-seeking corporations andshould serve as models for our society. It ismorally incumbent upon the NYU adminis-tration to honor the democratically deter-mined wishes of its most vulnerable employ-ees, the graduate teaching assistants whohave expressed their desire to be unionized.Despite a recent ruling by the National La-bor Relations Board, there is no legal bar totheir doing so.

The NYU administration claims that thedecision to break ties with the union, a UnitedAuto Workers local, was based in part onthe premise that allowing graduate studentsserving as teaching assistants to have bar-gaining rights jeopardizes the traditionalroles of professor and student. The argu-ment essentially claims that teaching assis-tants represented by a union are inevitablyplaced in an adversarial relationship withtheir faculty mentors. That position is ren-dered tenuous and indefensible by the factthat a clear majority of NYU faculty sup-ports the teaching assistants in their effortsto obtain a new contract. The NYU chapterof AAUP has reinforced that position by

The following op-ed by AAUP presidentJane Buck appeared in New YorkUniversity’s student newspaper, theWashington Square News.

organizing an initiative called Faculty De-mocracy to oppose the administration’s ac-tion and to clarify the nature of decision-making at NYU. More than 200 faculty mem-bers are active participants in that effort andhave declared their support for the action. Itis both disingenuous and risible to assertthat the mentoring relationship is harmedby good faith negotiations about salaries,benefits and access to fair grievance proce-dures.

It would appear that the decision to severties with the union was motivated by a de-sire to continue to exploit the graduate teach-ing assistants, who are part of an increas-ingly impotent and exploited cadre of theacademy that includes part-time faculty.They spend a major portion of their time andeffort in lecturing, grading papers and moni-toring examinations — in other words, per-forming the teaching duties of a professor.Too frequently, graduate assistants areforced to perform these duties with minimaladministrative support, for minimal pay, withinadequate office space and with little or noaccess to health benefits. Additionally, there

have been allegations of electronic surveil-lance of GAs and faculty by NYU adminis-trators. If these charges are true, the admin-istration is guilty of an egregious violationof academic freedom. Without the backingof a strong union, graduate teaching assis-tants are virtually powerless.

Graduate students have, for many years,been able to join AAUP as nonvoting mem-bers. This year, we granted our graduate stu-dent members full voting rights and the rightto hold office at every level of the organiza-tion. This action reinforces our 2000 “State-ment on Graduate Students,” which says, inpart, that graduate student assistants, likeother campus employees, should have theright to organize to bargain collectively. Weview the decision by NYU graduate studentassistants to strike, taken in a democraticvote, as a legitimate attempt to regain thatwell-earned right, and we will continue tosupport them in their efforts.

Jane Buck is the president of the Ameri-can Association of University Professors.

By John K. WilsonOne academic freedom controversy this

spring involved history professor JonathanBean at Southern Illinois University atCarbondale. Conservative columnist CathyYoung called it “a witch-hunt that would dothe late Joe McCarthy proud.” According toYoung, “if this case is any indication, con-servatives on many campuses are not just arare breed but an endangeredspecies.”(Cathy Young, “SIU Persecutes ItsLone Conservative ,” Boston Globe, May 3,2005)

The controversy began in Bean’s 20thCentury America class. After some classesabout the civil rights movement, Beanhanded out an article about the Zebra Kill-ings, a dozen or more murders around SanFrancisco in 1973 and 1974, carried out by agang of black thugs who apparently targetedwhites. Bean used an article from DavidHorowitz’s website, frontpagemag.com. Theoriginal article included a link to the Euro-pean American Issues Forum (EAIF), a whitesupremacist group “dedicated to the eradi-cation of discrimination and defamation ofEuropean Americans” which had a petitionon its website calling for congressional in-vestigation of excessive Jewish influence onAmerica. (Horowitz’s website calls it “a civilrights organization.”)

In an April 6, 2005 email to his teachingassistants, Bean indicated the questionsthey should raise in discussing the article:“Did the civil rights movement lend an auraof innocence (or moral immunity) to all blackactions, however heinous? If we study theugliness of the KKK, should we look at otherforms of racism? Someone once wrote thatthe oldest story known to man is that of theformer oppressed becoming the oppressor.”Soon afterwards, Bean wrote an email apol-ogy and described the reading as “supple-mentary.”

Whatever the legitimacy of counteringarticles with civil rights by teaching about agang of serial killers from the 1970s who tar-geted whites, the fundamental fact is thatBean was never punished in any way (andobviously should not be punished) for as-signing an essay, even though it had linksto a white supremacist group and he bizarrelysuggested that African-Americans had be-come “oppressors” of white people. In fact,there are no reports of anyone filing chargesagainst Bean or formally investigating Beanor ordering him to withdraw an assignment.The worst that happened to Bean was thatthe dean cancelled discussion sections oneweek during the turmoil, and allowed twoteaching assistants who were offended byBean to leave the course. While this was aquestionable decision, deans have the au-thority to shift teaching assistants who havea conflict with professors. And it is under-

standable that African-American teachingassistants would be leery of continuing towork with a professor after being told thatblack serial killers might have been a cre-ation of the civil rights movement, and thenpublicly exposing the professor’s allegedlyracist assignment.

Jane Adams, an anthropology professorwho defended Bean, denounced his facultycritics for a “serious breach of collegiality”because his “reputation has been publiclysmeared.” However, this is a misunderstand-ing of collegiality, which is often used as anexcuse to silence dissenting faculty. Colle-giality does not mean faculty get togetherto hug each other. In fact, one important jobfor faculty colleagues is to criticize one an-other.

Bean wrote shortly after his apology,“They want a pound of my flesh!...They’vebeen waiting to lynch me. I made the mis-take using this particular source (sort of).”The administration, far from attacking Bean,came to his defense. Dean Shirley Clay Scottreassured Bean that the issue was over andhe faced no danger of disciplinary action.Scott was much more harsh toward Bean’scritics, chastising the eight professors whohad publicly criticized Bean. Scott sent anemail to the history department, orderingfaculty critics of Bean to “be more careful”and “curb rhetorical flourish.” Scott de-clared, “we should try to act with great civil-ity toward one another.” A professor whopublicly criticized Bean, Rachel Stocking,noted: “What we did was to exercise ourfree speech by basically criticizing his teach-ing methods. It’s significant that people whospoke against racism on a college campushave been subjected to this kind of attack.”

Professor Bean and the Zebras

SIU Minority GraduateFellowships Under Attack

The U.S. Department of Justice in No-vember threatened to sue Southern IllinoisUniversity for three graduate fellowship pro-grams aimed at helping underrepresented mi-norities, including one financed by the Na-tional Science Foundation. Two of the pro-grams are limited to minority students, whilethe Graduate Dean’s Fellowship is “forwomen and traditionally underrepresentedstudents who have overcome social, culturalor economic conditions.’’ According to theJustice Department, “The University has en-gaged in a pattern or practice of intentionaldiscrimination against whites, non-preferredminorities and males.’’ U.S. Senator BarackObama, an expert on civil rights law, told theChicago Sun-Times: “One of my concernshas been with all the problems the Bush ad-ministration is having, that they’ll start re-sorting to what they consider to be wedgeissues as a way of helping themselves po-litically.”

By John K. WilsonThis fall, DePaul University has faced

two academic freedom controversies, withmixed results. When the case involved a ten-ure-track professor, DePaul University has(so far) stood up for his rights, albeit qui-etly. When the case involved an adjunct in-structor who insulted students outside ofclass, DePaul quickly got rid of the teacher.

When the University of California an-nounced plans to publish DePaul professorNorman Finkelstein’s book Beyond Chutz-pah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism andthe Abuse of History, Harvard law professorAlan Dershowitz struck back even beforethe book was published. Dershowitz had hisattorney, Rory Millson, threaten legal actionagainst the University of California regents,the provost, plus the 17 directors of theUniversity of California Press and its 19 mem-bers of the faculty editorial committee.Dershowitz accused the Press of being “partof a conspiracy to defame” him, and his at-torney threatened, “The only way to extri-cate yourself is immediately to terminate allprofessional contact with this full-time mali-cious defamer.”

Dershowitz warned the University ofCalifornia press that he would “own the com-pany” if Finkelstein’s book accused him ofplagiarism. Finkelstein argues thatDershowitz lifted quotations from anotherauthor’s book, but cited the original cita-tions for the quotes rather than the bookwhere he apparently got them. This is lazyscholarship by Dershowitz, but not what iscommonly regarded as plagiarism. However,plagiarism is a disputed term, and everyoneshould be free to promote their own defini-tion of it without legal penalty. According toDershowitz, “the First Amendment gives noauthor the right to make up defamatory liesand publish them.”

Finkelstein’s book was originally goingto be published by the New Press, butFinkelstein changed publishers afterDershowitz’s legal threats delayed the book(Dershowitz proudly takes credit for gettingNew Press to drop the book, a claim deniedby New Press and Finkelstein). The Univer-sity of California Press hired four lawyers toscreen the book and forced Finkelstein tomake changes to his manuscript and tonedown some of his accusations.

Dershowitz declared, “Any person hasa right to make an honest mistake, but noone has the right to defame another mali-ciously and knowingly.” Actually, everyoneshould have the right to defame anotherperson, as Dershowitz does when he de-clares about Finkelstein, “he’s a Jew and ananti-Semite— and a neo-Nazi supporter, and

a Holocaust trivializer, and a liar, and a falsi-fier of quotations and documents.”

Dershowitz wasn’t satisfied with his le-gal threats against the University of Califor-nia Press. He apparently wrote CaliforniaGovernor Arnold Schwarzenegger asking tohave the book banned. “You have asked forthe Governor’s assistance in preventing thepublication of this book,” Schwarzenegger’soffice responded to Dershowitz in a Feb. 8,2005 letter, but “he is not inclined to other-wise exert influence in this case because ofthe clear, academic freedom issue it pre-sents.”

Now that Finkelstein’s book has beenpublished, Dershowitz is promising not tosue Finkelstein or his publishers (“If Iwanted to sue him, I’d own him”), but isinstead declaring that he will come to DePaulUniversity at his own expense in 2006 whenFinkelstein is up for tenure in order to gethim fired: “I will document the case againstFinkelstein. I’ll demonstrate that he doesn’tmeet the academic standards of the Asso-ciation of American Universities.” It’s notclear what academic standards Dershowitzis talking about, but open lobbying for fir-ing a professor as an act of personal revengeprobably doesn’t meet them.

The attack on Finkelstein is not the onlyacademic freedom controversy at DePaul.Thomas Klocek, an adjunct instructor, gotin a heated argument with DePaul Palestin-ian students at an information table on Sept.15, 2004. After the students complained, hewas suspended on Sept. 24 and then fired.Dean Suzanne Dumbleton explained, “Thestudents’ perspective was dishonored andtheir freedom demeaned. Individuals weredeeply insulted…. Our college acted imme-diately by removing the instructor from theclassroom.”

The DePaul administration accusesKlocek of “threatening and unprofessionalbehavior,” although it has never specifiedany threats made by Klocek. AAUP guide-lines protect the extramural speech of all aca-demics, including adjunct instructors. Re-moving an instructor for an argument out-side of class is a violation of due process,and firing him is even worse. Extramural com-ments are only subject to punishment if theyindicate professional misconduct, and hos-tile arguments may be unpleasant but cer-tainly do not rise to that standard.

Although some critics point to Klocek’sfiring as an example of political correctness,it primarily reflects the powerlessness ofadjunct faculty and the corporatization ofcolleges where students are seen as cus-tomers and those who offend them will beremoved.

A Tale of Two ProfessorsUnder Attack at DePaul

————————————————————————— Illinois Academe · Fall 2005 · Page 6 ——————————————————————————

AAUP 2006 Presidential Candidates

Candidate Statement forThomas E. Guild

AAUP will need strong, positive leader-ship - at every level - during the next twoyears. Dynamic and constructive leadershipis imperative, since academic institutions willconfront inadequate financial support, largeclassroom sizes, threats to academic free-dom and tenure, and attacks on shared gov-ernance. Professors will be asked to do morewith fewer resources. Therefore, the AAUPmust stand ready to respond quickly andeffectively to requests for assistance.

Accurate membership lists must be avail-able upon request, and applications for mem-bership and membership renewals must beprocessed in a timely manner. We must con-tinue to develop meaningful programs, bet-ter inform our membership on crucial issues,and mobilize to defeat harmful legislativeproposals. We must encourage significantmembership growth by limiting increases inAssociation dues, and by providing qualityservices to our members.

Our challenge is especially great today.Since administrations tend to be relativelyconservative and since only a limited num-ber of institutions enjoy the benefits of col-lective bargaining, the Association mustdevelop and implement policies that con-vince faculty of AAUP’s continuing rel-evance and importance. We need to promotecollective action in both union and in tradi-tional advocacy environments. Membershipgrowth and effectiveness depend upon thecredibility of strong local chapters and stateconferences, effective communication, andthe implementation of relevant programs.

It is vitally important to have strong anddedicated professionals serving as AAUPchapter and state conference leaders. It isimperative that strong local chapters andeffective state conferences serve as the firsttwo lines of defense against violations ofour cherished principles.

My involvement in the Association be-gan as chapter treasurer. During my threeterms as chapter president, we derailed sev-eral attempts to abolish tenure in Oklahoma,worked successfully to end a 26-year AAUPcensure of my university, fought post-ten-ure review (PTR), and subsequently helpedwrite a faculty-friendly version of PTR. Wealso successfully fought to adopt a pro-fac-ulty intellectual property policy.

During my four terms as Oklahoma Con-ference President, we twice passed facultydue process legislation in the Oklahoma Sen-ate, and defeated two proposals to end fac-ulty tenure in Oklahoma. We also coordi-nated efforts leading to the four largesthigher education funding increases in statehistory. We successfully increased our mem-bership and became and remain an effectivevoice for college faculty.

As the only candidate for national presi-dent who has served as a chapter presidentor a state conference president, I am pre-pared to assist and serve local and state lead-ers across the country in starting, revitaliz-ing and developing their chapters and stateconferences.

If elected AAUP President, I will visit asmany chapters and state conferences aspossible. During my years as Chair and ViceChair of the Assembly of State Conferences,I promoted our Association’s principles invisits to more than 30 states. This work re-sulted in two new state conferences anddozens of new chapters. These effortsstrengthen the tie between our grassrootsmembership and our elected leadership, arelationship essential to our success.

I would be honored to serve as yourpresident.

Tom Guild Cary Nelson

Education: B.A., 1967, Antioch College;PhD, 1970, University of Rochester. Appoint-ments: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Assistant Professor of Englishto Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sci-ences, 1970-present; Campus TenureCommitee 1987-88; College Executive Com-mittee 1989-91.

Professional Service: SUNY Buffalo: Vis-iting Professor; Vice-Chair, Abraham LincolnBrigade Archives 1995-2005; Modern Lan-guage Association: Delegate Assembly1997-2002, Executive Council 1999-2002;Midwest MLA, President, 1998; PMLA Ad-visory Committee 1982-86.

Editorial Boards: Literature and Psychol-ogy 1985-present, Works and Days 1995-present, College Literature 1995-present,Workplace 1997-present, Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies 2001-present, Kalei-doscope 2003-present, American LiteraryHistory 2004-present.

Selected Publications: Author, Repres-sion and Recovery: Modern American Po-etry and the Politics of Cultural Memory(1989); Manifesto of a Tenured Radical(1997); Revolutionary Memory: Recoveringthe Poetry of the American Left (2001); Co-Author, Academic Keywords: A Devil’s Dic-tionary for Higher Education (1999), OfficeHours: Activism and Change in the Acad-emy (2004); editor, Will Teach for Food: Aca-demic Labor in Crisis (1997); coeditor, HigherEducation Under Fire: Politics, Economicsand the Crisis of the Humanities (1994). Au-thor of 150 articles. Contributor to Academe,The Chronicle of Higher Education, and In-side Higher Education. Regularly interviewedby national media on higher education.

Chapter: Planning Committee, 2000-present. National: Council, 1995-2006; Execu-tive Committee, 2000-2006; Academe Advi-sory Board, 1996-2005; Ad Hoc Committeeon Graduate Students, 1997-99; Chair, Spe-cial Committee on Academic Professionals,2000-2002; Chair, Committee on AcademicProfessionals, 2002-2004; Annual MeetingGrievance Committee, 2004; NominatingCommittee, 2004; Restructuring Task Force,2004-present; Development Committee,2004-present; Task Force on the Future ofthe AAUP, 2005; Graduate Student Commit-tee, 2005-present; Annual Meeting AgendaCommittee, 2005; Search Committees: StaffAttorney, 1997-98, Academe editor, 1998,2002, 2004; Second Vice President, 2000-2006; Guest editor, “Future of Higher Edu-cation,” Academe, November-December2000.

Election email: cary@cary-nelson.org.Web site with vita, biography, essays

on academic freedom and corporatization;endorsements: www.cary-nelson.org

Every faculty member—even the mostvulnerable part-time teacher—benefits eachday from the work the AAUP has done fordecades. Imagine a world without the 1940statement on academic freedom and tenure,without decades of censuring rogue insti-tutions, without thousands of violations forwhich the organization has quietly gainedreversal or redress. Academic freedom atbest would be defined randomly and incon-sistently at the whim of sympathetic andunsympathetic administrators alike.

Yet each new generation needs to beeducated about our values, and we mustconstantly apply these values to a chang-ing world. Many administrators are far fromconvinced that academic freedom applies towhat people say on college or universityemail or on university web sites. Few ad-ministrators acknowledge faculty rights tocontrol the content of online courses. Ourpolicy statements on such emerging is-sues—contingent labor, intellectual prop-erty rights, the impact of 9/11 on the acad-emy—are detailed, well reasoned, and with-out equal.

Yet most faculty across the countryhave little idea of what the organization hasaccomplished. It is likely that only a smallpercentage of the professoriate has ever readone of our major policy statements, let alonea full committee A report or the Redbook.Although our work is of the highest quality,we do a very poor job of communicatingabout it.

Part of the problem is a certain stodginessabout technology. We need to communicateregularly and concisely about our work toour members by email. We need to educatethe professoriate as a whole about our his-tory and our current projects. Informing fac-ulty and graduate students about what wedo is the first step in rebuilding our member-ship, which must be a top priority for thenext president.

Thousands of faculty have spent the lasttwo decades hiding from the changing reali-ties of higher education—ignoring the in-creased reliance on contingent labor, ignor-ing the gradual shift of power to central ad-ministrations. Yet AAUP members are wellinformed about these trends and the seri-ous threat they constitute. We may differabout what strategies to use in dealing withthem, but we are in consensus about thenature of the problem. Our members are thusa wonderful resource; we must involve moreof them in our activities. We must organizenational email and letter campaigns to sup-port helpful legislation and challenge admin-istrations violating academic freedom.

As president, I would continue writingand speaking passionately about highereducation on AAUP’s behalf. Working withour talented and devoted staff, I would dedi-cate myself to membership development andto the public phase of our endowment cam-paign.

Despite decades of careerism in the acad-emy, there remains a vital core of idealism inthe professoriate. It is evident in city-wideliving wage campaigns, in renewed and moresocially conscious collective bargainingdrives among both faculty and graduate stu-dents. Such actions demonstrate that newfaculty identities can embody both disciplin-ary loyalty and community responsibility.This idealism can be tapped to make theAAUP stronger, larger, and more influential.

Candidate Statement forCary Nelson

Education: B.A.1976, University of Okla-homa; J.D. 1979, Southern Methodist Uni-versity. University of Central Oklahoma:Assistant Professor to Professor, 1979-present. Faculty Senate Executive Commit-tee, 1991-2; Regents Presidential SearchCommittee, 1992; Chair, Curriculum Commit-tee, Academic Affairs Council, 1992-3; ViceChair, Curriculum Committee, Academic Af-fairs Council, 1999-2001; Chair, Faculty Griev-ance Board, 2000-2003; Outstanding TeacherAward, College of Liberal Arts, 1987; Dis-tinguished Researcher Award, College ofBusiness, 1993; and AAUP-UCO Distin-guished Service Award, 1994 and 2001.

Member: American Civil Liberties Union;Society for the Study of Social Problems;Oklahoma Division American Association ofUniversity Women Executive Committee2000-2. AAUP Chapter: Executive Commit-tee 1991-2006; Treasurer, 1991-2; President-elect, 1992-3 and 2001-2; President 1993-5and 2002-3; Chair, Distinguished ServiceAward Committee, 1997-2000 and 2002-3;Editor Priority Press, Chapter Newsletter1993-5 and 2002-4; Chair, Evaluation of Ad-ministrators Committee 1995-7 and 2001-5.Conference: Executive Committee 1993-2006;President-elect, 1994-5, 1996-7, 1998-9, 2000-1; President, 1995-6, 1997-8, 1999-2000, 2001-2; Chair, Committee on Government Rela-tions, 1996-2003; Chair, Committee on Mem-bership 2000-6; Member, Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, 1998-2001;Executive Secretary 1998-9 and 2000-6. Tes-tified Regarding Due Process for HigherEducation Faculty, before Oklahoma SenateEducation Committee, House Higher Edu-cation Subcommittee and House EducationCommittee, 1998-2002.

National: Al Sumberg Award, Outstand-ing Service in Furthering the Interests ofHigher Education in Oklahoma, 1999; Mem-ber, Council, 1998-2006; Chair, Assembly ofState Conferences, 2002-5; Vice Chair, As-sembly of State Conferences, 1999-2002;Member, Collective Bargaining CongressExecutive Committee, ex officio as ASC Chair2002-5; Member, Membership Committee, exofficio as ASC Chair 2002-5; Member, Con-tingent Faculty Fund Governing Board, 2002-5; Faculty, Summer Institute, 1999, 2002,2003, 2004; Delegate, Assembly of StateConferences and Annual Meeting, 1994-5,1997-2005; Member, Committee on Govern-ment Relations, 1996-2005; Member, SpecialCommittee on Membership, 2000-2005; Pan-elist, Annual Meeting, 1997-9; Testified be-fore Texas House Education Committee onPost-Tenure Review, 1997. AAUP Member1991-2006.

WWW.ILAAUP. ORG

————————————————————————— Illinois Academe · Fall 2005 · Page 7 ——————————————————————————

Report from 2005 AAUP Summer Institute in New HampshireBy Lee Maltby, St. Augustine College

“Live free or die. We don’t use air condi-tioning. Those are moral statements and theyare not debatable.” With these and otherwelcoming (and humorous) remarks, approxi-mately 150 members of the AAUP began theirweekend of July 21-24, at the Summer Insti-tute in Durham, New Hampshire, home ofthe University of New Hampshire. Thurs-day night’s banquet was the kick-off for twodays of conferences on how to support andpromote the professoriate for the benefit ofsociety, which in today’s hyper-connected/communicated/conflicted world can not belimited by geography anymore.

Around eighty percent of the attendeesat the Institute were first-timers. From Illi-nois, our delegation consisted of John Wil-son (editor of Illinois Academe), PatriciaSimpson of Loyola University of Chicago,and Lee Maltby of St. Augustine College.Workshops began Thursday afternoon, andran until Saturday afternoon. Topics weretypically focused on issues more relevantto new members and new chapters, such ashow to start a chapter, recruiting new mem-bers, faculty handbook, collective bargain-ing, etc.

As a first-time attendee, I was impressedwith the depth of knowledge and experienceof the workshop leaders. They presented adynamic view of the academy and the AAUPthat was thoughtful, intelligent, and deeplyconcerned about higher education today.Beginning with the first workshop, attend-ees were reminded that it is by their prepara-tion, scholarship, peer review, and continualstudy of their area(s) of expertise, that fac-ulty possess their competence and exper-tise, and by virtue of those qualities, are theones best suited to attend to matters of cur-riculum, teaching and scholarship. Accord-ing to the AAUP and as stated in the work-shop, attendees were told that faculty arenot employees in the general meaning of theword, and that the primary obligation of fac-ulty is to the public, not the employing insti-tution. Therefore faculty should not be sub-ject to a board of trustees, just as judges arenot subject to politicians. This point is cru-cial for understanding the principle of aca-demic freedom. At the same time, the pre-senters had no patience for faculty who lackcompetence, integrity, or ‘moral rectitude’,and they were supportive of processes thatallow for the correction and for ejection offaculty from the academy when necessary.

The central theme throughout the con-ferences was the importance of academicfreedom and the right and responsibilitiesof faculty to exercise their competence intheir area of expertise for the benefit of (glo-bal) society. There are, of course, manypeople, including some academics, who mini-mize the importance of academic freedom.However, at the institute, it was possible tohear stories of fellow professors whoserights, income, and professionalism weresullied and degraded by college presidents,deans, or governing boards who believethey can ignore the rights of professors, theirfreedom to teach and speak, and the pro-cesses that uphold those rights. There havebeen occasions when even the simplest actof protest regarding a decision or a processof decision making within an institution canlead to dismissal, eviction from one’s office,a lawsuit, loss of income, and a loss of pro-fessional respect. One attendee reported thatafter she had spoken in public about a re-cent event, her name began appearing in chatrooms and on websites, denouncing herviews and her position in the university. Shestated that she felt very threatened by theseattacks.

It may be true in many institutions, es-pecially those better protected by federaland state laws, and bargaining rights, thatthe opportunities for the abuse of one’s aca-demic rights may be less. Nevertheless, chal-lenges to those protections are ongoing bylobbyists and conservative ideologues who

wield inappropriate influence over politicians,donors, and alumni, unqualified (e.g., politi-cally or church appointed) presidents, andutilitarian for-profit educational institutions(see the IBHE meeting agenda for 8/23/2005),calling for the approval of dozens of programoffered by independent for-profit institu-tions).

Sadly, even institutions involved inacademia have little to nothing to say aboutacademic freedom. A search in the 2003 Hand-book of Accreditation of the North CentralAssociation of the Higher Learning Commis-sion contains two lines asking for evidenceof how the board has disseminated state-ments supporting freedom of inquiry in theinstitution. A third line addresses “creatingand maintaining a climate of intellectual free-dom.” This is from a manual almost two hun-dred pages in its entirety. Similarly, the mis-sion of the Illinois Board of Higher Educa-tion is not focused on academic freedom. Anemail inquiry seeking information on docu-ments from the IBHE on academic freedomresulted in quick response by a kindly stafferthat no “IBHE documents refer to the issue.”How did it come to pass that such importantbodies that are deeply involved in authoriz-ing and accrediting programs, have nothingto say about academic freedom? It was nosurprise then when one presenter at the sum-mer institute stated the profession may be onits last legs due to the ongoing assaults ontenure and academic freedom. And, we mightadd, the lack of support from other bodieswhose missions are to promote and protectthe quality of education.

In conversations and conferences, sev-eral references were made to the so-called“Academic Bill of Rights” that has been wend-ing its way in and around various states’ leg-islatures. This bill would dilute the influenceof faculty in their area of expertise, increasethe influence of non-academics in curricu-lum, teaching, and research; and posits, es-pecially in social sciences and humanities,that theories, knowledge, and values can bedoled out to students in neat little packagesfor easy consumption. Should this bill evermake its way into public law in Illinois, mostlikely as a “stealth attachment” to anotherbill, the professoriate in Illinois would haveno one to blame but itself. While this pro-posal, which “borrows” language from theAAUP, has not been passed in any state leg-islature, in the current political climate, any-thing is possible.

In addition to the “academic bill of rights,”politics and economic pressures are used tojustify the reduction in the numbers of ten-ure track faculty and to increase the numbersof non-tenure track faculty and contingentfaculty. There was general acknowledgementand empathy for non-tenure track and part-time faculty, who are now the workhorses forinstitutional economic well-being. Faculty atthe institute agreed that the growing pres-ence of non-tenure track and contingent fac-ulty represents a danger for everyone con-cerned about academic life, not to mentionacademic freedom. Yet even “throw-away”faculty have a need to eat.

Of central importance to academic free-dom, is the issue of shared governance. Pre-senters Kreiser, Scholtz, and Shaw stated thatfaculty, in addition to their traditional roles inteaching, curriculum and research, shouldhave an important role in matters of salary,budget, the selection and evaluation of ad-ministrators, and yes, athletics.

It is here that private institutions can bethe most dangerous for faculty and academicfreedom when matters of decision-makingand influence are at stake. Due to differencesof law governing public and private institu-tions, faculty at smaller and lesser known pri-vate institutions can have great difficultymaking inroads into the decision making pro-cess. Unfortunately, it seems to require thepresence of an enlightened administrator towelcome faculty into the higher realms ofdecision making. It is very easy for faculty as

smaller private schools to become discour-aged and thereby unmotivated to work forpositive changes in decision making. And,of course, if one’s employment depends onbeing a ‘company man’, then speaking outagainst the status quo can be very danger-ous.

At the conference on governance, fac-ulty were reminded that “a sound systemof institutional governance is a necessarycondition for the protection of faculty rightsand thereby for the most productive exer-cise of essential faculty freedoms. Corre-spondingly, the protection of the academicfreedom of faculty members in addressingissues of institutional governance is a pre-requisite for the practice of governanceunhampered by fear of retribution.” (On theRelationship of Faculty Governance toAcademic Freedom, AAUP Redbook.)

At the conference faculty were told thatit is possible for academic freedom to col-lide with governance issues. This type ofsituation can occur in conflicts with admin-istrators, such as their appointment andevaluation, or calls for votes of no confi-dence. Last, “In sum, sound governancepractice and the exercise of academic free-dom are closely connected, arguably inex-tricably linked.” Presenters stated, however,that faculty cannot depend on the good-will of administrators and governing boardsto simply give faculty a role in governance.By implication, then, faculty must demanda role in governance, and exercise that roleresponsibly. (For a quick, intelligent sum-mary on governance and academic freedom,see the interview with historian JoanWallach Scott in Academe, September-Oc-tober 2005.)

The workshop on governance also in-cluded an interesting tool that can be usedfor evaluating the state of shared gover-nance at an institution. This tool was takenfrom a shorter work by Keetjie Ramo titledAssessing Faculty’s Role in Shared Gover-nance: Implications of AAUP Standards(1998). Faculty seeking to initiate a con-versation at their institution may find thistool very helpful and interesting.

Closely linked to governance and animportant topic at the Summer Institute, isthe issue of faculty manuals or handbooks.This discussion was led by Kreiser, Shaw,and Levy. In addition to handing out anoverwhelming outline of possible topics fora faculty handbook, the presenters made anumber of very important recommendationsin order to strengthen a faculty handbook.First, a handbook should describe the fullbenefit of rights available to faculty. Two, afaculty manual provides a common bondacross programs and colleges. Three, themanual helps to explain standards and prin-ciples that are being used with faculty.

Faculty were warned against being putunder EMPLOYEE manuals, where a singlepolicy applies to all. It is the position of theAAUP that faculty have the competenceand experience to judge (from hiring to fir-ing) their peers. A policy that is written for“all” will likely not apply to faculty.

The presenters recommended that afaculty manual should refer to the AAUPRedbook as the source of its principles andvalues. Second, a faculty manual shouldincorporate AAUP language as much aspossible. The benefit of including refer-ences and quotes from the Redbook is thatpolicies not explicitly found in the hand-book can then be referred to the Redbook.Third, faculty contracts should explicitlyrefer to the faculty manual as the source offaculty rights and responsibilities. That lan-guage then links the contract with theRedbook and AAUP policies. Last, thehandbook should include a provision thatthe faculty manual CANNOT be amendedunilaterally. (For an outrageous example ofthis problem, see the report on AcademicFreedom and Tenure: University of theCumberlands (Ky) in Academe, March-

April 2005.)The Summer Institute also included pre-

sentations on a wide variety of topics, in-cluding an introduction to AAUP, Rebuild-ing Your Chapter, Contract Negotiations,Grievance Administration, Newsletters, Ar-bitration, Faculty Compensation, GenderEquity, Issues in bargaining, InstitutionalFinance, Rights of Contingent Faculty,Trends in Faculty Status, Communications,Recruitment and Development, Diversity,Student Organizing, Legal Representation,Benefits, and Public Hearings.

While many faculty may see little ben-efit in attending the Summer Institute, or anyAAUP meeting for that matter, it is impor-tant to understand that higher education isbeing attacked from many sides, even as itsimportance continues to grow. In his bookThe Lexus and the Olive Tree (2000), Tho-mas Friedman describes how globalizationis having an impact on almost every aspectof people’s lives today. No person can es-cape the consequences of this process, andwhether we like it or not, globalization willcontinue to develop. This “one big thing”as Friedman calls it, can leave a nation fight-ing over barren land or developing new tech-nologies to improve the life of a nation andthe world. New knowledge, creativity, andan environment that supports those pro-cesses are essential for the success of a na-tion that is globalizing (and we are number1!). Even as academic freedom takes on dif-ferent shades and colors in different disci-plines and institutions of higher learning,the need for new knowledge and skills isessential for the well-being of all people. TheAAUP has a very important role in ensuringthat the academy, in service to all people(i.e., the common good), continues to be atthe forefront of all development and con-versations about where our society andworld are going.

AAUP members who are interested inattending the Summer Institute next yearshould visit the AAUP website atwww.aaup.org. Readers interested in join-ing the AAUP can likewise visit the nationaloffice electronically, and become a memberwith a few quick clicks.

Illinois Academe Wins AgainAt the AAUP Annual Meeting, the Illi-

nois AAUP newspaper won its secondstraight award for the best tabloid confer-ence newspaper in the country.Shimer to Chicago?

Shimer College in Waukegan is currentlyin talks with the Illinois Institute of Technol-ogy (IIT) to lease space in Chicago and movemost of its operations there. IIT made theoffer in order to strengthen the liberal artson campus and allow its students to takeShimer’s Great Books courses.

Write to IllinoisAcademe

Write us a letter, express youropinion, or submit an article or a

book review.Email editor John K. Wilson atcollegefreedom@yahoo.com.

Join the AAUPTheAmerican Association of University Professors (AAUP) is the only facultyorganization devoted solely to higher education. We address the issues that concernyou as a teacher and as a scholar. Our policies ensure that faculty members areafforded academic due process.TheAAUP protects and defends your rights.If you are a member of the faculty, you need to be a member of the AAUP.

2005 Illinois AAUP DuesFull-Time Active Faculty MembershipEntrant Active Faculty (new to the AAUP, non-tenured, first four years)Part-Time Faculty MembershipGraduate Student MembershipAssociate Membership (administrators)Public Membership (others)

$160$80$40$10

$120$120

Payment OptionsMy check payable to the AAUP is enclosed for $ _______Please send me information about the bank debit planPlease charge $ _________ to Visa MastercardCard No. _________________ Exp. Date _______ Signature _______________

Yes, I would like to join the AAUP

WWW.ILAAUP.ORG

Please complete this form and mail it to the AAUP, P.O. Box 96132,Washington, DC 20077-7020.For details, go to www.aaup.org or call our membership department at 1-800-424-2973, ext. 3033.

Name _______________________________________________________(Please Print) Last First MiddleMailingAddress Home Work____________________________________________________________City: _______________________________ State: ___ Zip: ______________Daytime tel.: ___________________________ Fax No.: ________________Email: _________________________________________ Tenured: Yes NoInstitution: ___________________________________________________Academic Field: ________________________________________________

————————————————————————— Illinois Academe · Fall 2005 · Page 8 ——————————————————————————

AAUP of IllinoisP.O. Box 477Chicago, IL 60614(773) 510-5923mmcintyr@depaul.edu

Illinois AA

UP

Please do notinclude my nameon non-AAUPmailing lists.

Executive Committee:PresidentMichael McIntyreInternational Studies ProgramDe Paul Universitye-mail: mmcintyr@depaul.eduVice PresidentLeo WelchBiology DepartmentSouthwestern Illinois Collegee-mail: lkwelch@compu-type.netSecretaryLee MaltbyChair, Dept. of Social WorkSt. Augustine Collegee-mail: Lmaltby@staugustine.eduTreasurerLisa TownsleyMathematics DepartmentBenedictine Universitye-mail: ltownsley@ben.eduPast PresidentPangratios PapacostaScience/Math DepartmentColumbia College(312) 344-7443email: ppapacosta@colum.edu

Other State Council Members:Walter J. Kendall, The John Marshall Law School;

Frederic W. Widlak, College of Management & Business,National-Louis University; John K. Wilson, Graduate student,Illinois State University & Illinois Academe editor; Peter N.Kirstein, Dept. of History & Political Science, St. Xavier Uni-versity; Kurt Field, Bradley University; Brian Frederking,McKendree University.

The IllinoisAAUP is a5 0 1 ( c ) 4organization.

John K. Wilson, editor of Illinois Academe, and the coordinator of the IndependentPress Association’s Campus Journalism Project, will publish his newest book, PatrioticCorrectness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Paradigm Publishers) in Spring 2006.All Illinois AAUP members are invited to bring him to your campus as part of his booktour. For more information, email collegefreedom@yahoo.com.

Ken Andersen, Speech Communication, Uni-versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, past presi-dent, IL AAUP:

1) Shared Governance and Due Process; 2)Academic Freedom & Tenure.

Joe Berry, Roosevelt University. Author, Re-claiming the Ivory Tower (Monthly Review Press,2005). Visit his website atwww.reclaimingtheivorytower.org.

Joseph Felder, Economics Bradley University,Secretary, IL AAUP (member of AAUP NationalCouncil):

1) Academic challenges of the national AAUPoffice; 2) Types of services and assistance fromthe national AAUP office.

Peter Kirstein, History, St. Xavier University.

Jack Leahy, Religious Studies, DePaul Univer-sity, and past president, IL AAUP:

1) Academic issues in religious affiliated insti-tutions; 2.) Contingent faculty.

Pan Papacosta, Columbia College in Chicago, andpresident, IL AAUP:

1) Academic Freedom & Tenure; 2) The significanceof the Faculty Handbook.

Lawrence Poston, English, University of Illinois atChicago:

1) Academic freedom and tenure; 2) Academicgovernance.

Leo Welch, Biology, Southwestern Illinois Col-lege, and past president, IL AAUP:

1) Legislation and academia; 2) Collective bar-gaining issues in academia.

IL AAUP speakers are generally available free ofcharge to AAUP chapters, and the Illinois AAUP cancover most expenses. We invite all our chapters andmembers to make use of this Speakers Bureau.

Contact IL AAUP President Michael McIntyre at(773) 510-5923, mmcintyr@depaul.edu. We are ac-cepting nominations and proposals from experiencedAAUP members who wish to serve on this bureau.IL

AAUPSp

eakers

Bur

eau

ILAAUPSp

eakers

Bur

eau

ILAAUPSp

eakers

Bur

eau

ILAAUPSp

eakers

Bur

eau

ILAAUPSp

eakers

Bur

eau St. Xavier AAUP Letter of

Support for Academic FreedomMay 10, 2005Dear President Dwyer:The Saint Xavier University chapter of the American

Association of University Professors (AAUP) strongly af-firms the principles of academic freedom and institutionalautonomy in the selection of commencement speakers. TheSXU chapter strongly opposes efforts of the CardinalNewman Society to challenge the selection of Sr. MargaretFarley, a distinguished Yale theologian and Sister of Mercy,as spring commencement speaker. The AAUP chapter mem-bership has urged its Executive Committee to communicateits support of the decision of the president and the Board ofTrustees to select Sr. Margaret Farley for this honor. Com-mencement is both a celebration of our students’ academicaccomplishments and a challenge for future service and en-gagement in the world around them. Clearly Sr. Margaret is awonderful selection to pose that challenge.

Saint Xavier University-AAUP Chapter Executive Com-mittee of the American Association of University Professors

Jacqueline Battalora, PresidentNorman Boyer, TreasurerOlga Vilella, SecretaryJan Bickel, At-Large RepresentativeSandra Burkhardt, At-Large RepresentativeMargaret Carroll, At-Large RepresentativePeter N. Kirstein, Ex Officio

Arbitrator Sides with CityColleges Administration

City Colleges of Chicago won a Novem-ber ruling by an arbitrator supporting thefiring of 55 adjunct emeritus professors whohad honored a picket line of striking full-time professors in fall 2004. The arbitratorruled that the retired professors did not havea valid complaint because they were notpart of the bargaining unit, even thoughthe new contract prohibits reprisals againstanyone for strike. City Colleges chancellorWayne Watson received a vote of no confi-dence from faculty because of the City Col-leges’ retaliation.

Judy Erwin New IBHE HeadFormer state legislator Judy Erwin was

named in October as Executive Director ofthe Illinois Board of Higher Education(IBHE). Erwin chaired the House Higher Edu-cation Committee during her legislative ca-reer, and also taught political science as agraduate assistant at UIC. Erwin said, “Welive in a time when postsecondary educa-tion is increasingly an essential experiencefor the modern workplace.”

Future State Pensions ReviewedIn a November 2005 report, the Advisory

Commission on Pension Benefits refused torecommend any specific reductions in ben-efits for new state hires, rejecting the two-

tier system of higher retirement ages and lowercost-of-living increases proposed by Gov. RodBlagojevich to help resolve the state’sunderfunded pension system.

Campus Equity WeekCampus Equity Week was held nationally

on October 30-November 5. Sponsored jointlyby the AAUP, the American Federation ofTeachers, and the National Education Asso-ciation, Campus Equity Week raises aware-ness about the status of adjunct faculty atcolleges. At Green River Community Collegein Washington, organizers held a bake salewith “full time” and “part time” cookies of iden-tical quality, except that the part-time cookiescost half as much. At Triton College, Adrian

Fisher reported, “Triton College AdjunctFaculty Association (IEA-NEA), RiverGrove, IL, ran its first CEW informationtable. We distributed CEW/FEW buttons,which were very popular. The top admin-istration got some, too! We spent most ofour time educating students, I hope togood effect. We are in the midst of negoti-ating our first contract, and CEW/FEWwas a low-key way to get our message tothe campus at large. Next year we plan todo more.” Joe Berry, author of Reclaimingthe Ivory Tower, spoke during CampusEquity Week at his home institution ofRoosevelt University along with a speechat St. Xavier University sponsored by theAAUP chapter there.

Illinois AAUP News