{"title":"The effective college president","authors":"J. L. Fisher, M. W. Tack","doi":"10.2307/1981954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1981954","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83018,"journal":{"name":"The Educational record","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1981954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68655158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
THE purpose of this paper is to identify the emerging main directions of innovation in international educa tion and the momentum and process dynamics behind those trends. Two years ago the international education field had a strong thrust and bright prospects. Unprecedented uni ty in perception encompassed area studies and foreign language components, diverse institutions, and various levels of education. Moreover, the stable support of the national security agencies was joined by fresh interest within the business community. The President's Com mission on Foreign Language and International Studies issued its widely heralded report, and the Council on Learning completed its Education and the World View project. A private National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies was established and began its work in New York. Congress authorized a new Title vi International Programs, which provided an in ternational dimension to the Higher Education Act. In creased appropriations seemed sure. Suddenly, however, the prospective blossoming seemed nipped in the bud. Federal budgets were cut, while most campus finances became pinched.
{"title":"BEACHHEADS IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION","authors":"S. Groennings","doi":"10.1632/adfl.14.3.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1632/adfl.14.3.1","url":null,"abstract":"THE purpose of this paper is to identify the emerging main directions of innovation in international educa tion and the momentum and process dynamics behind those trends. Two years ago the international education field had a strong thrust and bright prospects. Unprecedented uni ty in perception encompassed area studies and foreign language components, diverse institutions, and various levels of education. Moreover, the stable support of the national security agencies was joined by fresh interest within the business community. The President's Com mission on Foreign Language and International Studies issued its widely heralded report, and the Council on Learning completed its Education and the World View project. A private National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies was established and began its work in New York. Congress authorized a new Title vi International Programs, which provided an in ternational dimension to the Higher Education Act. In creased appropriations seemed sure. Suddenly, however, the prospective blossoming seemed nipped in the bud. Federal budgets were cut, while most campus finances became pinched.","PeriodicalId":83018,"journal":{"name":"The Educational record","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1983-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67537103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Editor s Note: In October, 1977, the Commission on Academic Affairs of the American Council on Education considered and recommended for publication a comment by Dr. W. Todd Furniss of the ACE staff, entitled" The Status of " AAUP Policy.* " That article is being published in the Winter, 1978, issue of the Educational Record, and the AA UP was invited to contribute a rejoinder. Committee A member Ralph S. Brown, Jr., and General Counsel Matthew W. Finkin were asked to prepare that comment. Because it clarifies a number of matters relating to AAUP procedure which are of potential interest to our own members, the Bulletin is reprinting the article. Dr. Furniss s article was prompted by the increasing reference in the courts to one or another AA UP policy statement, notably in the citation by Judge Wright in Browzin v. Catholic University of America (a financial exigency case) of three documents the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Dr. Furniss raises a number of considerations and apparent ambiguities arising from the differing status of various documents: 1. What statement is to be taken as the true expression of policy, especially when further interpretations have been advanced (as in the case of the 1970 Interpretive Comments on the 1940 Statement of Principles) and when policy appears to be in a state of steady evolution? How are apparent discrepancies and contradictions to be reconciled? 2. What are the effect and meaning of endorsement? The Association of American Colleges collaborated on some statements but not on others; many institutions of differing types have at one time or another formally endorsed the 1940 Statement. Are they in some way bound by subsequent AAUP interpretations? How far are they to be assumed to be committed to every aspect of the original Statement? 3. When colleges or universities have endorsed the 1940 Statement or other AAUP documents or have alluded to them or, indeed, incorporated them into their regulations, how far are they bound, in a contractual sense, either to the original document or to subsequent AAUP interpretations? 4. As the hope of securing agreement on an academic common law recedes in the present climate of financial and legal difficulties, what must be done to escape from the legal hazards possibly concealed in AAUP statements, with their varying status and questionable implications? On this point, Dr. Furniss suggests a number of paths a college or university administration might take: (a) noting similarities in college policies and procedures to those recommended by the AAUP and other organizations but insisting that the institution s policies are independent of any outside organization whose interpretations are in no way binding; (b) disclaiming any binding effect of endorsement of AA UP statements by organizations to which the inst
编者注:1977年10月，美国教育委员会学术事务委员会考虑并建议出版一篇由美国教育协会工作人员W. Todd Furniss博士撰写的评论，题为“美国教育协会政策的现状”。*“那篇文章发表在1978年冬季的《教育记录》上，AA UP被邀请发表一篇反驳文章。委员会A成员小拉尔夫·s·布朗和总法律顾问马修·w·芬金被要求准备这一评论。因为它澄清了一些与AAUP程序有关的问题，这些问题可能会引起我们自己会员的兴趣，所以公报将转载这篇文章。弗尼斯博士的文章是由于越来越多地在法庭上引用一个或另一个大学政策声明，特别是在布朗津诉美国天主教大学(一个财政紧急案件)中，赖特法官引用了三份文件:1925年学术自由和终身教职会议声明，1940年学术自由和终身教职原则声明，以及学术自由和终身教职推荐制度条例。Furniss博士提出了一些考虑因素和由于各种文件的不同地位而产生的明显的模糊性:什么陈述可以被视为政策的真实表达，特别是当进一步的解释已经提出(如1970年对1940年原则声明的解释性评论)，当政策似乎处于稳定演变的状态时?如何调和明显的差异和矛盾?2. 背书的效果和意义是什么?美国大学协会(Association of American Colleges)在一些声明上有合作，但在另一些声明上没有合作;许多不同类型的机构都曾在某个时候正式赞同《1940年声明》。他们是否在某种程度上受到美国律师协会后续解释的约束?在多大程度上可以假定他们忠于原始声明的每一个方面?3.当学院或大学认可1940年声明或其他AAUP文件，或暗示它们，或确实将它们纳入其规章制度时，在合同意义上，它们对原始文件或随后的AAUP解释有多大的约束力?4. 在目前财政和法律困难的环境下，就学术普通法达成协议的希望正在消退，必须做些什么来避免AAUP声明中可能隐藏的法律风险，这些声明具有不同的地位和可疑的含义?在这一点上，弗尼斯博士提出了学院或大学管理层可以采取的一些途径:(a)注意到学院政策和程序与美国大学协会和其他组织推荐的政策和程序的相似性，但坚持该机构的政策独立于任何外部组织，其解释不具有任何约束力;(b)拒绝承认该机构或其组成部分所属的组织认可AA UP声明的任何约束力;(c)审查所有人事政策和程序，以确保它们是清晰和独立的，完全不依赖于AAUP文件，并使这些政策和程序成为唯一的机构承诺。
{"title":"The Usefulness of AAUP Policy Statements.","authors":"R. S. Brown, M. Finkin","doi":"10.2307/40225065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40225065","url":null,"abstract":"Editor s Note: In October, 1977, the Commission on Academic Affairs of the American Council on Education considered and recommended for publication a comment by Dr. W. Todd Furniss of the ACE staff, entitled\" The Status of \" AAUP Policy.* \" That article is being published in the Winter, 1978, issue of the Educational Record, and the AA UP was invited to contribute a rejoinder. Committee A member Ralph S. Brown, Jr., and General Counsel Matthew W. Finkin were asked to prepare that comment. Because it clarifies a number of matters relating to AAUP procedure which are of potential interest to our own members, the Bulletin is reprinting the article. Dr. Furniss s article was prompted by the increasing reference in the courts to one or another AA UP policy statement, notably in the citation by Judge Wright in Browzin v. Catholic University of America (a financial exigency case) of three documents the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Dr. Furniss raises a number of considerations and apparent ambiguities arising from the differing status of various documents: 1. What statement is to be taken as the true expression of policy, especially when further interpretations have been advanced (as in the case of the 1970 Interpretive Comments on the 1940 Statement of Principles) and when policy appears to be in a state of steady evolution? How are apparent discrepancies and contradictions to be reconciled? 2. What are the effect and meaning of endorsement? The Association of American Colleges collaborated on some statements but not on others; many institutions of differing types have at one time or another formally endorsed the 1940 Statement. Are they in some way bound by subsequent AAUP interpretations? How far are they to be assumed to be committed to every aspect of the original Statement? 3. When colleges or universities have endorsed the 1940 Statement or other AAUP documents or have alluded to them or, indeed, incorporated them into their regulations, how far are they bound, in a contractual sense, either to the original document or to subsequent AAUP interpretations? 4. As the hope of securing agreement on an academic common law recedes in the present climate of financial and legal difficulties, what must be done to escape from the legal hazards possibly concealed in AAUP statements, with their varying status and questionable implications? On this point, Dr. Furniss suggests a number of paths a college or university administration might take: (a) noting similarities in college policies and procedures to those recommended by the AAUP and other organizations but insisting that the institution s policies are independent of any outside organization whose interpretations are in no way binding; (b) disclaiming any binding effect of endorsement of AA UP statements by organizations to which the inst","PeriodicalId":83018,"journal":{"name":"The Educational record","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40225065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69762683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：