jump to navigation

UCOP’s Latest Threat to Faculty Freedom

Subject: UCOP’s Latest Threat to Faculty Freedom
By Rei Terada (UCI) and Robert Meister (UCSC)UCOP has proposed changes to the Academic Personnel Manual concerning faculty rights and discipline of faculty conduct. They are posted for comment athttp://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/apm/review.html, and they need attention. A close reading of the proposed changes suggests that they enlarge in an unlimited manner the zone in which faculty are exposed to “administrative actions” without the due process specified by the Faculty Code of Conduct. Recently, three UC faculty have been charged with criminal offenses related to protesting UC policies: Celeste Langan of UC Berkeley, whose charges have since been dropped; Ken Ehrlich of UC Riverside; and Joshua Clover of UC Davis. None of them have yet been subjected to university discipline under the Faculty Code of Conduct. Could these events be related? Yes, indeed. By the logic of one of the changes proposed, in the future the university could discipline faculty in their position outside the guidelines of the Faculty Code of Conduct and without any peer review whatsoever.
UCOP here proposes changes to three sections of the APM: APM-010 on Academic Freedom; APM-015, Part I of the Faculty Code of Conduct, on Professional Rights of Faculty; and APM-016, University Policy on Faculty Conduct and Administration of Discipline. The proposed changes begin promisingly. To a sentence in APM-010 naming the freedoms that faculty currently enjoy–“freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of teaching, and freedom of expression and publication”—is added a new “freedom,” “freedom to address any matter of institutional policy or action when acting as a member of the faculty whether or not as a member of an agency of institutional governance.” It’s true that APM-015 already states that professors “maintain their right to criticize and seek revision” of University regulations” (APM-015, Part II C). But this statement has turned out not to be enough to protect faculty in all cases. In a recent federal lawsuit (Hong v. Grant), the Regents zealously and successfully defended UC Irvine for denying a merit increase to a Professor on the grounds that he publicly criticized his department for relying on adjuncts to teach required courses. The Ninth Circuit upheld UC’s position on the narrow grounds that “[i]t is far from clearly established …that university professors have a First Amendment right to comment on faculty administrative matters without retaliation.” Thus, in the new 015 UC seems to back down on its claimed right to retaliate against faculty who criticize it. The next proposed change, to APM-015, adds the new “freedom” a second time, in exactly the same language, to the list of Professional Rights in the Code of Conduct (“the right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction” and so forth). This “freedom” protects UC professors from being formally disciplined under the Faculty Code of Conduct for mere criticism of UC policy.
It is unclear, however, whether UC still claims the power to retaliate against its critics outside the Code. The proposed revision to APM-016, which deals with The Administration of Discipline, expands exactly such an area external to the Code of Conduct. To a sentence on the kinds of trivial sanctions to which faculty can be subject “like all other members of the University community,” it simply adds the word “policies”: “faculty members are subject to the general rules and regulations and policies of the University; such as these include, but are not limited to, those pertaining to parking, library privileges, health and safety, and use of University facilities. Faculty are subject to appropriate administrative actions for failure to comply with such rules and regulations and policies” (strikeout indicates deleted language; italics indicate new language). This passage of APM-016 involves those kinds of violations for which “faculty members may be subject to certain administrative actions which are outside the scope of faculty discipline” (our italics). These are “administrative actions” that don’t have to abide by the procedures specified by the Faculty Code of Conduct. The campus doesn’t have to meet the standards of the Code of Conduct to issue a parking ticket or a library fine. In this category, UCOP claims that it just wants to cover “failure to comply” with “policies” as well, since we’ve now acquired a new freedom to express disagreements with these “policies.”

But things are much more complicated. We must understand that the University already has two channels of disciplinary action available: the Faculty Code of Conduct, which under APM-015 requires “significant faculty involvement,” and “other forms of reproval or administrative actions” (APM-015, Part II) “in addition” (016), which do not require significant faculty involvement. The passage of the current 016 we cited above reads in full:

With respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Faculty Code of Conduct deals only with the professional responsibilities, ethical principles, and standards of conduct that pertain to the professional obligations of faculty members. No disciplinary sanctions described in this policy may be imposed on faculty members other than through the procedures pursuant to this policy and the Faculty Code of Conduct. In addition, faculty members may be subject to certain administrative actions which are outside the scope of faculty discipline.

The sentence about library fines and parking tickets follows. Placing failure to comply with “policies” here in APM-016, instead of among the types of acts subject to Code of Conduct procedures, then, is to place them outside the area of “significant faculty involvement”and the Code of Conduct’s formal consistency (including full recourse to the Academic Senate’s Committee on Privilege and Tenure).

Now, it is not clear how a “policy” differs from a rule or regulation. “Policies” could, potentially, be narrowly defined so as not to intrude on faculty rights or go beyond existing rules. But the current language does not do so, and faculty requests for clarification to the chairs of the Academic Senates at UCI and UCLA have received no response to the question of what “policies” means since April 6. The Irvine Faculty Association has been told that its Committee on Faculty Welfare, charged with considering the changes, has received no enlightenment and can give none on how a policy differs from a rule.

As a matter of jurisprudence, “policy” is often used to designate a general goal that is implemented by “rules.” So, UC may have policies such as privatization or increasing out-of-state enrollment or borrowing against tuition funds to construct buildings. UC can adopt and write up these policies at a high level—they are best understood as reflecting the administration’s priorities, and are frequently implemented by means of the budget. Implementing these policies by means of rules with which individual faculty members are expected to “comply” would require much more intensive Academic Senate review and could raise issues of conflict with principle, such as that of academic freedom.

The current changes imply, however, that “policies” in this broad sense can be treated as rules at UC’s discretion, without any of the normal safeguards that would accompany implementing policies by means of rules. A further source of ambiguity is that, while failure to comply with a rule means violating it, non-compliance with a policy frequently takes the form of resisting or undermining it. Such resistance can remain within the rules, but not if faculty can be sanctioned for “failure to comply” with an underlying policy whether or not it takes the form of a rule.

With respect to sanctions that, unlike library fines, must follow the Code’s procedures, the current APM-015 sets forth “a clear distinction” between “(1) ethical principles and (2) types of unacceptable behavior.” The APM’s positive ethical principles draw on other professional documents that go back a long way. “They are aspirational in character, and represent objectives toward which faculty members should strive”:

University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly impairs the University’s central functions as set forth in the Preamble. To the extent that violations of University policies mentioned in the examples below are not also inconsistent with the ethical principles, these policy violations may not be independent grounds for imposing discipline as defined herein. (APM-015, Part II)

APM-015 also notes that “professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom” (our italics; Part II, C). APM-016, in contrast, superficially seems to treat events that have no political significance. Are “policies,” however, especially policies with which one might want to exercise one’s freedom to disagree publicly as APM 015 now allows, ever without such significance? Assuming, according to the APM’s proposed new invitation to disagree verbally in 015, that we are talking about such policies throughout the proposed changes, UCOP wants the ability to disregard the ethical significance of resisting such policies by placing them under 016 instead of 015. According to 015, it’s impossible to penalize through the given process conduct that is justified by the Code’s own Ethical Principles. But in the new 016, even these would be susceptible to “other forms of reproval or administrative actions.” As though taking a cue from the Department of Homeland Security, the “policies” that fall into the no-man’s land of administrative exception from the Code are completely unlimited in the proposed language. Taken together, the positive and punitive proposals are saying: disagree verbally with the policies if you like, but comply with (don’t resist) them or else. In other words: talk all you like, because that’s not going to matter.

Now, the Faculty Code of Conduct is already quite restrictive with regard to protest at the University. The faculty who have recently received criminal charges may already be sanctionable under the Code through its provisions ruling out the “disruption” of University business (APM-015, Part II C). On the other hand, the APM is peskily ambiguous in its acknowledgment of areas where the principles it sets forth may collide—most of all in the phrase we quoted above, which recognizes the existence ofregulations that do contravene academic freedom. The proposed changes would extend beyond disciplining disruption and would no longer recognize a place for either active or passive nonverbal resistance to policies. Despite the new language’s proximity to trivial and distracting examples of parking tickets and the like, there is every reason not to enlarge in an unlimited manner the zone in which faculty are exposed to “administrative actions” without the oversight of their peers; without what due process is provided by the Code; and even if their resistance takes the form of mobilizing against policies that “contravene academic freedom.”

The proposed amendment to APM 016 should not be modified, but scrapped. We urge UC faculty to contact the chairs of their Academic Senates before the comment period ends on June 12.

CUCFA response to Gov. Brown and UCOP Yudof

UC President Mark Yudof and Governor Jerry Brown are working out a deal behind closed doors that will loosen the most important ties between the university and the state.

Although they will both praise the deal by saying that it “stabilizes” funding while granting greater “flexibility” for students answering LSAT Questions, its essence is that each will let the other off the hook: UC will mute complaints that it does not get enough money from the state and the state will stop holding UC accountable for the money it still gets.

The likely result is that UC will dump a larger number of eligible Californians onto the CSU and Community Colleges, which will in turn pass on their overflow to for-profit schools, where students take on inordinate amounts of debt with a very high likelihood of default.

Here are some key elements of the deal:

* UC will continue to raise tuition-at least 6% based on the Governor’s January budget proposal, likely more now that the Governor’s May revise reduces UC funding by $38 million, and much more if the Governor’s fall tax initiative fails to pass. (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/may12/f8.pdf, pg. 2)

* UC will no longer promise the state that it will admit a fixed number of California students in return for the enrollment funding that the state provides. For next year, and presumably from now on, UC will be allowed to use taxpayer funding as it pleases, without being accountable for the number of in-state students it educates (http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/highered/higher-ed-020812.pdf, pg. 19). This means that UC is likely to enroll fewer California students, and to replace them with out-of-state and international students who pay more. The likely result is that UC will be able make more on average from its enrollments, that the state is likely to pay less, and that middle-income Californians will get less access to UC.

* UC will henceforward be allowed to commingle the state funds it uses for operations, such as teaching, with the funds it uses to pay debt service on new construction (http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/2012-13_May_Revision.pdf, pg 43). UC has said that this added “flexibility” in its use of both state and non-state funds will allow it to squeeze out more for operations by delaying or stopping unnecessary construction projects. But since 2004 it has been doing the opposite, squeezing operational budgets that could be funded by higher tuition to leverage more construction. The state should have held UC accountable for its use of higher tuition on California students to gain greater access to the Airborne School construction bond markets, which were impressed by its ability to increase enrollments while raising prices. Instead, the state will give UC carte blanche in its use of both state and non-state funds. It might use this greater flexibility to spend more on construction. But from now on no one will ask, and no one will know.

Finally, UC will be able to say that how much it spends to educate Californians and how many of them it enrolls is its own business, and not the state’s. If UC thinks its traditional mission is a money-loser, it can now use its continuing, but declining, revenues from the state to diversify into fields where it sees a brighter future. It will not be expected to draw on its other, more entrepreneurial, activities to subsidize public higher education, but instead will be allowed to use state educational funds to subsidize these other activities — and especially the capital projects necessary to get them off the ground.

The core of the agreement between the Governor and UC is that UC will no longer be held accountable for its priorities in the use of any of its resources (public or private) — and especially for making it a priority to educate Californians.

Under Governor Schwarzenegger, UC got the state to agree that it should provide only as much public higher education for Californians as the state is willing to pay for. Under Governor Brown it will be free to provide even less than the state is willing to pay for. Unless this agreement is reversed, state funding for UC will continue to fall as UC separates itself from the rest of California’s Master Plan. We are reaching the point of no return.

Davis Dozen update

update: new court date in June (As someone who studies social movements, the delay tactics here are fairly familiar. constant delays make it hard for everyone, even passive supporters, to keep track of what is happening, especially as the end of the quarter approaches).

here’s the update on the UCD countersuit against US Bank for Breach of Contract

UC Security culture

today’s guest post is from Susan Kaiser in Women and Gender Studies
Dear colleagues,
When I read the fascinating article Suad Joseph shared about the May Day “warning,” I was trying to figure out why I didn’t remember receiving that message from UCOP, so I started searching… The Aljazeera article cites an earlier article in The Nation:
Then I found this article in The Daily Californian indicating it wasn’t Yudof or UC, but rather iJet (the private risk management and intelligencecompany—known as “the CIA for businesses”):

UCOP says that Yudof warning travelers to avoid May Day protests was false

So, if we book travel with Connexxus, we’re automatically linked to iJet, who gets our itinerary. Or if we get travel insurance, it’s coordinated with iJet, apparently since 2009:
UC travelers will also receive warnings about “travel conditions,” including anticipated protests and other “threats,” as well as earthquakes, etc. The goal seems to be to reduce liability for the university, as the following blurbs from the iJet website indicate:
Duty to Disclose: This concept focuses on an organization’s responsibility to monitor and disclose potential risks. For example, if there is ongoing civil unrest in a city, an organization has an obligation to disclose this to travelers so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to take the trip. An organization could claim that it did not have knowledge of this risk, but then a court would likely ask, “Should the organization have known?” Given the number of available sources of information, including free sources such as government travel warnings and cable news as well as relatively low-cost services such as those offered by iJET and others, a claim of ignorance may not hold up in court.
iJET supports clients across a broad range of industries, including:

Universities aren’t mentioned on this list, but in an interview, one of iJet’s directors does mention them:
As a client of iJet, UC (presumably UCOP and UC Chancellors and VC, such as Meyer) receive daily “briefings” regarding hot spots around the world–including our campuses and cities presumably. This may well set the stage for, and contribute to, a culture/mentality of (in)security, fear, anxiety in the UC administration…
Oh, and iJet is in Annapolis, Maryland, and its employees include ex-spis. The company does some of the kinds of things that the CIA used to do but is now outsourcing.
Anyway, yet another example of privatization–and a rather creepy one that seems to explain something about UC’s culture of (in)security… On the surface it may be about “travel risk management,” but if there are daily briefings/alerts, etc. that include warnings about potential civil disobedience, it can’t be that good…