The Usefulness of AAUP Policy Statements.

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 institution or one of its components belongs; and (c) reviewing all personnel policies and procedures to assure that they are clear and self-contained, quite apart from any reliance on AAUP documents, and making those policies and procedures the exclusive institutional commitment.