Following a suggestion from a friend that some of what’s come to light about the roles of the administration and the board in the Salaita affair might not be consistent with accrediting principles regarding shared governance, I decided to check out the specific rules that UIUC is supposed to be operating under.
The upshot of my survey, which I'll explain in detail below, is that UIUC is at least generally bound to respect principles of academic freedom and shared governance by their accreditation regime, and more specifically, that 1) the Board of Trustees is bound to remain free of undue influence by donors and other exteranl parties where this is contrary to the interests of the university, and 2) that the Board and the Administration are bound to let the faculty oversee academic matters. These last two considerations seem to create a real problem given what we now know about the role of external donor pressure on the board and about the way in which the Trustees and the Chancellor seem to have avoided any consultation with the faculty in making the decision to 'dehire' Salaita. (For those who need an update, your best bet is to read Corey Robin's blog, especially this post.)
Below, I'll explain in a little more detail.
The university’s accrediting body is the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the Higher Learning Commission (NCAHLC). Their ‘Criteria for Accreditation’ can be found here. Also of use is this AAUP document, which compares and contrasts accreditation standards across the country with regard to academic freedom and faculty governance.
Commenting on the NCAHLC policies, the AAUP document calls our attention to three parts of the Criteria: 1d, 2a, and 4a. The AAUP's gloss is as follows:
The current version of this commission’s Handbook of Accreditation includes shared governance under the first of its five “Criteria for Accreditation,” specifically, under core component 1d, which states that “the organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission.” The explanatory paragraphs that follow describe shared governance (without defining it) as “a long-standing attribute of most colleges and universities in the United States,” adding the qualification, “whatever the governance and administrative structures, they need to enhance the organization’s capacity to fulfill its mission.” Among the “examples of evidence” that might indicate compliance with this core component is this: “Faculty and other academic leaders share responsibility for the coherence of the curriculum and the integrity of academic processes.” Under criterion 2a (“The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends”) explanatory paragraphs describe shared governance as serving “as a check and balance to ensure academic integrity.”While the North Central commission’s handbook does not employ the phrase “academic freedom” under criterion 4a (“The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning”), it does include the following “example of evidence” relevant to this bedrock concept: “The board has approved and disseminated statements supporting freedom of inquiry for the organization’s students, faculty, and staff, and honors those statements in its practices.”
Helpful, certainly. But as regards how things have gone in Salaita's case, it seems to me that a couple of other sections might be even more relevant. In particular, criterion 2c, which details the role of the institutions governing board and its relationship to the faculty and administration reads. The criterion reads: "The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.” And this autonomy is further defined on four grounds, the last two of which are as follows:
3. The governing board preserves its independence from undue influence on the part of donors, elected officials, ownership interests, or other external parties when such influence would not be in the best interest of the institution.4. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the administration and expects the faculty to oversee academic matters.
Given what we know about the role of donors in influencing this decision, it seems arguable that 2c3 has been violated. And given the apparent collusion between Wise and the board, with the express purpose of cutting the faculty out of the academic decision re: hiring him, it seems arguable that 2c4 has been violated.
Recent Comments