Statement on Administrative Overreach, Shared Governance, and Faculty Rights in the Time of COVID-19
The following statement was drafted by the MLA Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Rights and Responsibilities. The Executive Council approved it as an MLA statement in March 2021.
Since the start of the pandemic, faculty rights across higher education have been radically diminished under the claim of COVID-19 necessity. Responding to the attendant financial crisis, many college and university administrations have resorted to multiple forms of unilateral action, justifying them as necessary to ensure continuous instruction and institutional stability and, in some instances, to prevent insolvency. Many quickly made unilateral decisions, such as the shift to remote instruction, were justified on the grounds of public health. Other similarly made decisions, such as the suspension and elimination of departments, programs, majors, and minors—as well as the termination of faculty members across all types and ranks—are clearly cases of administrative overreach.*
We call on all institutions of higher education to recommit to broad faculty participation according to the norms of shared governance in all such decisions, as detailed in the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement on the Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure.** This statement declares that financial exigency must be “demonstrably bona fide” if it is used to justify the termination of tenured faculty members and the elimination of departments and must be considered by a faculty committee as well as the governing board. Moreover, it is of upmost importance to refrain from firing or exploiting the most vulnerable faculty members: contingent faculty members and others who contractually teach on a per-course basis.
We urge all such institutions to resume traditional and vital mechanisms of faculty participation in shared governance across a broad array of decision-making. Such decisions include but are not limited to
- any further or permanent shift to remote and hybrid instruction (as a matter of practical necessity rather than sound pedagogical choice);
- any further or permanent shift to increased instruction by per-course faculty members in order to promulgate “nimble” staffing; and
- increased teaching loads, course enrollments, and advising responsibilities across all faculty types and ranks.
We also urge all institutions to commit clearly to faculty rights that have become obscured during the pandemic. These rights include but are not limited to
- faculty intellectual property rights for online courses and materials developed under crisis conditions;
- decisions addressing the pressing needs of their students exacerbated by the pandemic that include mental and physical health conditions; adequate learning environments and access to necessary technology; and monitoring of online materials by external bodies, including politically motivated groups and both foreign and domestic officials;
- primary responsibility for evaluating programs and procedures introduced for hybrid and remote learning, especially platforms recently purchased by institutions; and
- primary responsibility for proposed systems for evaluating faculty members in relation to hybrid and online education, particularly in relation to reappointment, promotion, and tenure.
Although the humanities have been at the core of a liberal arts education throughout Western history, preliminary indications are that humanities departments, programs, and faculty members have been especially targeted for cost-cutting during this most recent crisis. Departments of and faculty members in language, literature, culture, history, philosophy, humanistically oriented interdisciplinary programs, as well as the arts, have been downsized and eliminated. At a time when an informed and critical citizenry is especially important, we must not diminish the university’s role in encouraging engaged and responsible citizens by reducing the scope and quality of their education. Because a central purpose of higher education is informed deliberation, policies that excessively empower campus administrators undermine their own institutions.
Institutions, fields, and subfields differ in their needs and assumptions; even institutions of the same scope and size may differ. It is important to avoid binary assessments and generalizations for all institutions regarding actions that were taken under extraordinary circumstances. However, given that many changes made in response to the pandemic may not be in the best interests of higher education in the long run—indeed, may threaten those best interests—we will benefit from rigorous assessments of the decisions and changes made. Every institution should engage in those reassessments and make future decisions through robust faculty participation and by means of the official mechanisms of shared governance.
* The AAUP is currently investigating the actions of Canisius College (NY), Illinois Wesleyan University, Keuka College (NY), Marian University (WI), Medaille College (NY), National University (CA), Wittenberg University (OH), and the University of Akron (OH).
** The AAUP statement on shared governance defines those areas for which the faculty has primary responsibility as “such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated to it by the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board.” Source: “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” AAUP Redbook, 11th ed., pp. 120–21.