September 10, 1996


Professor V. Rama Murthy President, Twin Cities AAUP Chapter
Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota   55455

Dear Professor Murthy:

     I am writing in response to your request for comment on a
series of further revisions to the University of Minnesota's
Tenure Code that the Board of Trustees recently proposed for
considera- tion by the Faculty Senate.  Several of the suggested
amendments appear to diverge--in some cases significantly--from
Association-supported standards as set forth in the joint 1940
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and AAUP's
derivative Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic
Freedom and Tenure.  In what follows I shall focus on those
provisions of the board's proposal that are of particular
Association concern.  For ease of reference, I shall track the
document.

     Sections 4.4, 7A.5, 10.22. (2), 11, and 14 appear to allow
for temporary or permanent reductions in a faculty member's "base
salary" by unilateral administration action ("absent reasons found
to be compelling by the Board of Regents or its delegate"),
without affordance of academic due process.

     The 1940 Statement of Principles, in defining academic
tenure, recognizes that assurance of continued salary is basic to
tenure and thus to the academic freedom that tenure protects:

     Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically:  (1) freedom
     of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and
     (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the
     profession attractive to men and women of ability.  Free- dom
     and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to
     the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligation to
     its students and to society.

     Loss of salary, or the threat of being deprived of salary by
unilateral administrative action, certainly can be a loss of
economic security.  Action to reduce a faculty member's salary, if taken
because of displeasure with the faculty member's performance or
activities and designed to punish the individual and perhaps force
a resignation, would in our judgment be tantamount to a severe
sanction, subject to imposition only after the administration has
demonstrated adequate cause through a duly constituted hearing and
other requisites of academic due process.  The Association's
recommended procedures in such a case are set forth in Regulation
7(a) of our Recommended Institutional Regulations.  Should the
administration, contrary to the above, have the ability to act
selectively to reduce a faculty member's salary, without needing
to establish cause under safeguards of academic due process, a
significant underpinning for principles of academic freedom and
tenure at that institution would be lacking.

                                * * * * *

     Section 7A.3 requires that a "Policy on Intensive Peer
Reviews" be developed by "each collegiate unit," to "establish
standards to be used to evaluate whether faculty members meet
expectations of the unit."  Section 7A.4 requires that such a
policy "set forth performance standards that bears [sic] a
reasonable relationship to the departmental tenure expectations .
. . The peer review may . . . recommend disciplinary action under
Sections 10 and 14 of these regulations" (including suspension or
dismissal "for cause").  Under Section 7A.5, where the performance
of a faculty member under such review has been judged
"substandard," the administration may, without affording a
hearing, permanently or temporarily reduce the faculty member's
salary; the affected individual's only recourse is to file a
grievance.  (Regarding the latter provision, see the objections
set forth above.)

     AAUP has advised against formal institution-wide procedures
for post-tenure review.  We examined the issue in some detail in
1983, at a Wingspread Conference that we sponsored jointly with
the American Council on Education.  A copy of the published
proceedings is enclosed; on the final page you will see the
statement adopted by the conference together with a statement that
was subsequently approved by our Committee A on Academic Freedom
and Tenure and adopted by our Council in November 1983.  AAUP's
position on a system of periodic evaluation of tenured faculty can
be summarized in three points:

     1.  Where they are properly implemented, our traditional
procedures for evaluating academic performance are quite
satisfactory.  Rather than come up with additional procedures in
an attempt to mollify critics of higher education who believe that
very little evaluation takes place, we need to do a better job of
explaining the existing procedures and in improving their
implementation.

     2.  An overlay of a formal system of periodic evaluation on
     existing procedures can in certain cases dampen creativity
and collegial relationships.  In most cases, any benefit is likely
to be far outweighed by the cost of implementing the system in
money and time.

     3.  The results of any system of evaluation must not be
allowed to be used as grounds for
dismissal or for other disciplinary sanctions.  The imposition of
such sanctions is governed by other, well-established procedures
that require demonstration of adequacy of cause in a full
adjudicative hearing with attendant safeguards of academic due
process.  An evaluation system is being profoundly misused if
its major purpose is to evaluate everyone in order to ferret out a
few undesirables.   Our official position on this latter point,
approved by Committee A and adopted by our Council, reads as
follows:

       The Association emphasizes that no procedure for evaluation
       of faculty should be used to weaken or undermine the
       principles of academic freedom and tenure.  The Association
       cautions particularly against allowing any general system
       of evaluation to be used as grounds for dismissal or other
       disciplinary sanctions.  The imposition of such sanctions
       is governed by other established procedures, enunciated in
       the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
       Tenure and the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in
       Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, that provide the necessary
       safeguards of academic due process.

                                * * * * *

     Sections 10.22.(3), 10.3, and 14.6 all refer in various ways
to the suspension (under certain circumstances without pay) of a
faculty member from his or her academic duties without affordance
of requisite protections of academic due process.  See, by
contrast, Regulations 5(c)(3) and 7(a) of our Recommended
Institutional Regulations.  According to the former (in the
context of a dismissal proceeding),

     Pending a final decision by the hearing committee, the
     faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other
     duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm to the
     faculty member or others is threatened by continuance.
     Before suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate
     determination of the faculty member's status through the
     institution's hearing procedures, the administration will
     consult with the Faculty Committee on Academic Freedom and
     Tenure [or whatever other title it may have] concerning the
     propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the
     suspension.  A suspension which is intended to be final is a
     dismissal, and will be treated as such.  Salary will continue
     during the period of suspension.

Under Regulation 7(a), "If the administration believes that the
conduct of a faculty member, although not constituting adequate
cause for dismissal, is sufficiently grave to justify imposition
of a severe sanction, such as suspension from service for a stated
period, the administration may institute a proceeding to impose
such a severe sanction; the procedures outlined in Regulation 5
[on dismissal] will govern such a proceeding."  (I might note that
the provision in Section 10.3 of the board's proposed revisions,
that "advance notice and opportunity to respond with respect to
disciplinary actions other than termination or suspension of an
appointment need not involve formal proceedings of any kind,"
seems contrary to Regulation 7[a].)

                                * * * * *

     Section 12.1 provides for termination of appointments on
grounds of "programmatic change," which includes "the
discontinuation or restructuring of a progam."  The Recommended
Institutional Regulations provide, in Regulation 4(d), that the
appointment of a tenured faculty member can be terminated on
grounds of "bona fide discontinuance of a program or department of
instruction" not mandated by financial exigency.  In such
circumstances, the Association does not recognize program
reduction or program "restructuring," in contrast to program
discontinuance, as a basis for terminating tenured faculty
appointments.  (For example, the elimination of a major within a
program or department of instruction usually does not entail the
elimination of all course offerings in that program or department
but only a reduction in those offerings and thus would not pass
muster under the foregoing standards.)  "Discontinuance" is to be
"based essentially upon educational considerations," which "do not
include cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment.  They must
reflect long-range judgments that the educational mission of the
institution as a whole will be enhanced by the discontinuance."

     Section 12.1 calls upon the president, "at least 60 days
before the university discontinues or restructures any program in
a way that may lead to the termination of regular faculty
appointments before their ordinary expiration," to provide the
Board of Regents with a report on the proposed action, with
reasons and other particulars stated.  In addition, "a copy of the
report shall be provided to the University Senate and the
Faculty Senate for comment."  No provision appears to be made for
faculty participation in the preparation of the report.  Indeed,
the faculty's role seems to be limited to reacting to a document
that has been produced by the administration.  See, by contrast,
Regulation 4(d)(1), which states that "The decision to discontinue
formally a program or department of instruction will be based
essentially upon educational considerations, as determined
primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee
thereof."

     Section 12.2 provides for reassignment and retraining in the
case of a faculty member whose position is being eliminated on
grounds of "discontinuance or restructuring of a program." It
further provides that, "if in the university's judgment
reassignment or retraining within a reasonable period is not
practicable, [or] not successful . . . , then the university may
terminate the faculty member's  appointment."  No provision is
made for the affected faculty member to appeal the
administration's decision.  See, again by contrast, Regulation
4(d)(3), which states (inter alia) that "A faculty member may
appeal a proposed relocation or termination resulting from a
discontinuance and has a right to a full hearing before a
faculty committee."

                                * * * * *

     Section 13.5 provides for the Judicial Committee, a key
faculty body at the university, to have a "legal officer" (and a
"deputy legal officer") to "preside at all hearings of . . .
committee panels," to "regulate the procedure in . . . committee
cases," and to "assist panels in the preparation of their
reports."  "The legal officer may be present and participate in
the deliberation of a panel, but shall have no vote."  The
individual who serves in this capacity and his/her deputy "shall
not be employees of the university and shall be persons who hold
qualifications for appointment as a judge in the state of
Minnesota."  In other words, they may not be members of the
University of Minnesota faculty.  Under the standards generally
accepted in the academic community the hearing panel must be a
body of elected faculty peers, with no administrative officers
(let alone non-university employees) serving, with or without a
vote.  (Section 13.1--"Membership"--appears to comport with this
standard; Section 13.5 does not.)

     Several provisions in Sections 14.4 through 14.6, which deal
with the disposition of the report resulting from a Judicial
Committee hearing, raise concerns.  The original text of the
second paragraph in Section 14.4, which is essentially consistent
with Regulation 5(c)(16) of our Recommended Institutional
Regulations, states that "The president shall not take action
materially different from that recommended by the panel unless,
prior to the action, the president has consulted with the
committee."  The proposed revision states only that the president
"may meet or otherwise consult with the Judicial Committee before
taking action on the committee's recommendation" (emphasis added).
The original text of the fourth paragraph of that section,
likewise consistent with Association-supported standards, states
that "The president may impose action less favorable to the
faculty member only for compelling reasons, which must be stated
in writing, with specific detailed reference to the report of the
Judicial Committee, the evidence presented, and the policy
involved."  The proposed revision again leaves the president with
virtually unfettered discretion as to the disposition of the
committee's report:  "If the president imposes action less
favorable to the faculty member than that recommended by the
committee, the president will state the reasons for the action in
writing."

     The original text of Section 14.5 granted the faculty member
who faces a severe sanction the right to appeal the president's
decision to the board, as called for under Regulation 6 of our
Recommended Institutional Regulations.  Contrary to that standard,
the proposed revision appears to contemplate the possibility that
the board would not hear such an appeal.

     Our concerns about proposed changes to Section 14.6
("Temporary Suspension During Proceedings") are set forth above.

                                * * * * *

     As I was concluding this letter, I was given a copy of
President Hasselmo's September 3 letter to Thomas R. Reagan, chair
of the university's Board of Regents.  We agree with the presi-
dent that the proposed revisions, if adopted, "will harm the
university."  We urge, along with him,
that they not be considered by the board in their current form.

     With good wishes.

                              Sincerely,


                              B. Robert Kreiser Associate
                              Secretary