UNHLU-AAUP Public Statement regarding the COLA Policies Committee Report on CCLEAR Franchise
November 18, 2019
On October 31st, 2019, UNH College of Liberal Arts (COLA) Faculty received the results of a COLA Policy Committee Report regarding an inquiry into college voting rights for Clinical, Contract, Lecturer, Extension, Alternative Security, and Research (CCLEAR) Faculty. A transparent, open, and frank discussion of how to include CCLEAR faculty in the workings of the College is long overdue and needs to be continued. We write in the spirit of promoting this dialog. In doing this, however, we are compelled to call attention to several problematic aspects of this report. We reject its findings as methodologically weak and advocate for continued study on the matter. We assert that this report, accepted by the Dean of COLA as “rigorous and thoughtful,” further contributes to the marginalized status of CCLEAR Faculty at UNH. We are concerned that the report inadvertently contributes to the deprofessionalization of the enterprise of teaching, and ultimately, we maintain that not extending the franchise constitutes a serious threat to academic freedom.
About a third of COLA faculty are not on the tenure track, and they teach approximately half of the credit hours offered. Discussions about the historical rise in the reliance on contingent faculty and the potential ramifications of this development are important, but they should not obscure the fact that CCLEAR are here and relied on as dedicated members of the academic community. The Bylaws of the College of Liberal Arts predate many types of CCLEAR Faculty, and as such, do not contain language to fully contemplate the role of ongoing contingent faculty of all stripes. We advocate that this be changed.
The COLA Policies Committee was charged by the Dean with exploring this issue, and it was from this effort that the COLA report eventuated. The methods of data collection used by the committee are seriously flawed. A straw poll was unevenly distributed to a small sample of tenure-track faculty. An attempt to reach contingent faculty evidently was made, but the appeal to department chairs to circulate the survey link to their departments provided a built-in gatekeeping mechanism. Even though the report acknowledges the flawed methodology and was allowed a full year for researching and writing the report, the committee did not rectify the sampling bias issue that resulted in low faculty participation and the absence of CCLEAR faculty voices represented in the data. Further, because the report references no summary data, there is a lack of context about how representative the opinions are. There is no clear identification of minority opinions and widely held beliefs. The report makes reference to the challenges of obtaining information on voting faculty definitions and bylaws from comparator institutions; this effort was abandoned. While no comparator models were considered, neither were the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) principles and practices on the inclusion of contingent faculty. (The AAUP recommendations are listed at the bottom of this letter.) Importantly, it has been the position of the AAUP for over 25 years now that non-tenure-track faculty should be included in departmental and institutional structures of faculty governance.
AAUP reports acknowledge a large gap in experiences of contingent faculty and those on the tenure track. Among these differences a clear trend emerges: “Contingent faculty, both part and full time, are constantly confronted with reminders of their lack of status in the academic community. The isolation of contingent faculty from opportunities to interact with their tenured or tenure-track colleagues and to participate in faculty governance, professional development, and scholarly pursuits promotes divisions and distinctions that undermine the collegial nature of the academic community. Taken together, these inequities weaken the whole profession and diminish its capacity to serve the public good” (https://www.aaup.org/report/contingent-appointments-and-academic-profession). Sentiments expressed in the COLA Policy Committee’s Report serve to act as a reminder of the lack of status afforded to CCLEAR Faculty within the community of the College. This needs to be addressed.
The sentiments expressed by some faculty in response to the issue of whether CCLEAR faculty should be extended voting rights at the college level is, unfortunately, indicative of internal deprofessionalization of the work of the teaching faculty. While this may not be intentional, it nevertheless has this chilling effect. Further, this report can be seen as an erosion of solidarity among faculty as concerns our shared mission of education. The majority of the work in the College revolves around the setting of the curriculum – a curriculum that CCLEAR faculty are instrumental in delivering. To exclude CCLEAR faculty from this is to waste important human capital and valuable perspectives that we gain in working closely with students.
The UNHLU-AAUP is in agreement with elements of the Policy Committee Report that urge longer-term appointments and job security for all faculty, however, the Policy Committee report is dismissive of time served in a teaching position and quality of that work, privileging scholarship as the only path to tenure. The AAUP has long held that academic freedom is best guaranteed by tenure and academic due process. There is a long-standing Association policy that, with only a few exceptions, all full-time appointments should be either probationary appointments or continuous and tenured. According to the joint 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure “[a]fter the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their services should be terminated only for adequate cause . . . or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies” (https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure). This recommendation recognizes that scholars engaged in teaching as a significant portion of their job description may not have equal scholarly publishing responsibilities, but are no less dedicated to their field. The Policy Committee Report fails to acknowledge the rigorous hiring practices and continuous evaluation of CCLEAR faculty, nor does it recognize that heavier teaching loads may impact other areas of scholarly activities. This report contains very little evidence that any research was done concerning the CCLEAR practices, responsibilities, and policies.
It is the position of the UNHLU-AAUP that COLA attacks academic freedom when it continues to freeze out CCLEAR faculty from mechanisms of governance. The AAUP definition of academic freedom includes the right to comment on the running of the University. The inclusion of non-tenure-track faculty as voting members of the college means taking a stand FOR academic freedom. To not enfranchise CCLEAR faculty is an issue of academic freedom. Exclusion weakens the entire system of shared governance in that it takes authority away from some classes of faculty — in the long run, attenuating the power of shared governance and academic freedom for all. Routine exclusion of a third of the faculty from the issues addressed at the level of the college fosters hostility, a negative climate, and gross inequity. These are pernicious threats to our shared mission.
The University leadership must make the necessary adjustments for its disparate faculty bodies to co-exist or preferably create one faculty that understands, respects, and equally values its distinct responsibilities. COLA could take a strong lead position on this. The AAUP upholds that “academic freedom, due process, and shared governance are indispensable to the mission of colleges and universities to serve the common good“ (https://www.aaup.org/report/inclusion-governance-faculty-members-holding-contingent-appointments). For Lecturer Faculty, academic freedom and due process are protected by our collective bargaining agreement. Other groups of contingent faculty not represented by such agreements are more reliant on the “herd immunity” provided by other faculty groups; this protects their academic freedom and expectation of due process. The piece that is missing for all contingent faculty is involvement in shared governance inclusion. Excluding CCLEAR Faculty from full participation in faculty governance for, whatever reason, is simply unconscionable.
UNH Lecturers United - AAUP
The AAUP recommendations are the following (https://www.aaup.org/report/inclusion-governance-faculty-members-holding-contingent-appointments):
November 18, 2019
On October 31st, 2019, UNH College of Liberal Arts (COLA) Faculty received the results of a COLA Policy Committee Report regarding an inquiry into college voting rights for Clinical, Contract, Lecturer, Extension, Alternative Security, and Research (CCLEAR) Faculty. A transparent, open, and frank discussion of how to include CCLEAR faculty in the workings of the College is long overdue and needs to be continued. We write in the spirit of promoting this dialog. In doing this, however, we are compelled to call attention to several problematic aspects of this report. We reject its findings as methodologically weak and advocate for continued study on the matter. We assert that this report, accepted by the Dean of COLA as “rigorous and thoughtful,” further contributes to the marginalized status of CCLEAR Faculty at UNH. We are concerned that the report inadvertently contributes to the deprofessionalization of the enterprise of teaching, and ultimately, we maintain that not extending the franchise constitutes a serious threat to academic freedom.
About a third of COLA faculty are not on the tenure track, and they teach approximately half of the credit hours offered. Discussions about the historical rise in the reliance on contingent faculty and the potential ramifications of this development are important, but they should not obscure the fact that CCLEAR are here and relied on as dedicated members of the academic community. The Bylaws of the College of Liberal Arts predate many types of CCLEAR Faculty, and as such, do not contain language to fully contemplate the role of ongoing contingent faculty of all stripes. We advocate that this be changed.
The COLA Policies Committee was charged by the Dean with exploring this issue, and it was from this effort that the COLA report eventuated. The methods of data collection used by the committee are seriously flawed. A straw poll was unevenly distributed to a small sample of tenure-track faculty. An attempt to reach contingent faculty evidently was made, but the appeal to department chairs to circulate the survey link to their departments provided a built-in gatekeeping mechanism. Even though the report acknowledges the flawed methodology and was allowed a full year for researching and writing the report, the committee did not rectify the sampling bias issue that resulted in low faculty participation and the absence of CCLEAR faculty voices represented in the data. Further, because the report references no summary data, there is a lack of context about how representative the opinions are. There is no clear identification of minority opinions and widely held beliefs. The report makes reference to the challenges of obtaining information on voting faculty definitions and bylaws from comparator institutions; this effort was abandoned. While no comparator models were considered, neither were the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) principles and practices on the inclusion of contingent faculty. (The AAUP recommendations are listed at the bottom of this letter.) Importantly, it has been the position of the AAUP for over 25 years now that non-tenure-track faculty should be included in departmental and institutional structures of faculty governance.
AAUP reports acknowledge a large gap in experiences of contingent faculty and those on the tenure track. Among these differences a clear trend emerges: “Contingent faculty, both part and full time, are constantly confronted with reminders of their lack of status in the academic community. The isolation of contingent faculty from opportunities to interact with their tenured or tenure-track colleagues and to participate in faculty governance, professional development, and scholarly pursuits promotes divisions and distinctions that undermine the collegial nature of the academic community. Taken together, these inequities weaken the whole profession and diminish its capacity to serve the public good” (https://www.aaup.org/report/contingent-appointments-and-academic-profession). Sentiments expressed in the COLA Policy Committee’s Report serve to act as a reminder of the lack of status afforded to CCLEAR Faculty within the community of the College. This needs to be addressed.
The sentiments expressed by some faculty in response to the issue of whether CCLEAR faculty should be extended voting rights at the college level is, unfortunately, indicative of internal deprofessionalization of the work of the teaching faculty. While this may not be intentional, it nevertheless has this chilling effect. Further, this report can be seen as an erosion of solidarity among faculty as concerns our shared mission of education. The majority of the work in the College revolves around the setting of the curriculum – a curriculum that CCLEAR faculty are instrumental in delivering. To exclude CCLEAR faculty from this is to waste important human capital and valuable perspectives that we gain in working closely with students.
The UNHLU-AAUP is in agreement with elements of the Policy Committee Report that urge longer-term appointments and job security for all faculty, however, the Policy Committee report is dismissive of time served in a teaching position and quality of that work, privileging scholarship as the only path to tenure. The AAUP has long held that academic freedom is best guaranteed by tenure and academic due process. There is a long-standing Association policy that, with only a few exceptions, all full-time appointments should be either probationary appointments or continuous and tenured. According to the joint 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure “[a]fter the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their services should be terminated only for adequate cause . . . or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies” (https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure). This recommendation recognizes that scholars engaged in teaching as a significant portion of their job description may not have equal scholarly publishing responsibilities, but are no less dedicated to their field. The Policy Committee Report fails to acknowledge the rigorous hiring practices and continuous evaluation of CCLEAR faculty, nor does it recognize that heavier teaching loads may impact other areas of scholarly activities. This report contains very little evidence that any research was done concerning the CCLEAR practices, responsibilities, and policies.
It is the position of the UNHLU-AAUP that COLA attacks academic freedom when it continues to freeze out CCLEAR faculty from mechanisms of governance. The AAUP definition of academic freedom includes the right to comment on the running of the University. The inclusion of non-tenure-track faculty as voting members of the college means taking a stand FOR academic freedom. To not enfranchise CCLEAR faculty is an issue of academic freedom. Exclusion weakens the entire system of shared governance in that it takes authority away from some classes of faculty — in the long run, attenuating the power of shared governance and academic freedom for all. Routine exclusion of a third of the faculty from the issues addressed at the level of the college fosters hostility, a negative climate, and gross inequity. These are pernicious threats to our shared mission.
The University leadership must make the necessary adjustments for its disparate faculty bodies to co-exist or preferably create one faculty that understands, respects, and equally values its distinct responsibilities. COLA could take a strong lead position on this. The AAUP upholds that “academic freedom, due process, and shared governance are indispensable to the mission of colleges and universities to serve the common good“ (https://www.aaup.org/report/inclusion-governance-faculty-members-holding-contingent-appointments). For Lecturer Faculty, academic freedom and due process are protected by our collective bargaining agreement. Other groups of contingent faculty not represented by such agreements are more reliant on the “herd immunity” provided by other faculty groups; this protects their academic freedom and expectation of due process. The piece that is missing for all contingent faculty is involvement in shared governance inclusion. Excluding CCLEAR Faculty from full participation in faculty governance for, whatever reason, is simply unconscionable.
UNH Lecturers United - AAUP
The AAUP recommendations are the following (https://www.aaup.org/report/inclusion-governance-faculty-members-holding-contingent-appointments):
- “”Faculty” should be defined inclusively rather than exclusively; faculty status should not be limited to those holding tenured or tenure-track appointments.
- Faculty members who hold contingent appointments should be afforded responsibilities and opportunities in governance similar to those of their tenured and tenure- track colleagues.
- Faculty governance must be exercised to be real.
- Academic freedom and governance reinforce each other. While governance work helps to support faculty status, a secure faculty is a prerequisite for free participation in governance.
- All faculty members should be afforded academic freedom and due-process protections, whether they hold tenured, tenure- track, or contingent appointments.”