Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
UA Little Rock law professors decry loss of academic freedom in UA system
n June, a handful of University of Arkansas System professors filed a class-action federal lawsuit challenging recent revisions to the university system’s tenure policy, which faculty critics believe will curb free speech.
UA Little Rock Bowen School of Law Professors Joshua Silverstein and Robert Steinbuch have a new article about how the new rules undermine academic freedom for The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
The new rules both quantitatively and qualitatively alter the definition of “cause.” The original policy set forth a list of four examples of conduct that constitute cause for dismissal. The revised policy has sixteen. And the four examples in the original policy all aptly reflected serious problems—for example, “incompetence” and “moral turpitude.” By contrast, several of the examples in the revised version are far from serious—for example, a lack of collegiality.
The “collegiality” standard is particularly troubling. It provides that a professor may be terminated for the following: “A pattern of conduct that is detrimental to the productive and efficient operation of the instructional or work environment.” This language is so expansive that it could be used to fire a tenured faculty member for almost anything that administrators do not like.
To illustrate, being a gadfly, whistleblower, or dissenter within a college or department can be “detrimental to the productive and efficient operation” of the school. In fact, any time a faculty member disagrees with an administrator, that reduces productivity and efficiency; so would the filing a public records request. It thus takes little imagination to see how the new collegiality standard will be used to deem professors “detrimental” if they express unpopular views in their teaching, research, and service.
Collegiality requirements have a long and documented history of abuse in academic settings. That helps to explain why the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has long rejected such requirements.
In addition, under the prior rules, free speech rights for faculty were comprehensive; they extended to all subjects. Under the revised rules, however, such rights have explicitly been limited to teaching, research, and internal service. Speech related to external service is no longer shielded.
Thus, interviews with the press, commentary on social media, and whistleblowing regarding university misconduct are no longer protected. As a result, the new rules will stifle public speech on a whole host of important subjects.
The “collegiality” standard is particularly troubling. It provides that a professor may be terminated for the following: “A pattern of conduct that is detrimental to the productive and efficient operation of the instructional or work environment.” This language is so expansive that it could be used to fire a tenured faculty member for almost anything that administrators do not like.
To illustrate, being a gadfly, whistleblower, or dissenter within a college or department can be “detrimental to the productive and efficient operation” of the school. In fact, any time a faculty member disagrees with an administrator, that reduces productivity and efficiency; so would the filing a public records request. It thus takes little imagination to see how the new collegiality standard will be used to deem professors “detrimental” if they express unpopular views in their teaching, research, and service.
Collegiality requirements have a long and documented history of abuse in academic settings. That helps to explain why the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has long rejected such requirements.
In addition, under the prior rules, free speech rights for faculty were comprehensive; they extended to all subjects. Under the revised rules, however, such rights have explicitly been limited to teaching, research, and internal service. Speech related to external service is no longer shielded.
Thus, interviews with the press, commentary on social media, and whistleblowing regarding university misconduct are no longer protected. As a result, the new rules will stifle public speech on a whole host of important subjects.
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2019/07/12/ua-little-rock-law-professors-decry-loss-of-academic-freedom-in-ua-system
(no more at link)