I. Rights of Faculty Members

A. Academic Freedom and Tenure – AAUP Statement of Principles (1940)1

The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.² The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies both to teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights. [1]³

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (l) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

¹(AAUP, 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.)

²The word “teacher” as used in this document is understood to include the investigator who is attached to an academic institution without teaching duties.

³The AAUP’s 1940 Statement, while continuing to be a landmark document, has been interpreted in light of changes in higher education and the nation since that time. A 1970 interpretation issued by the AAUP is particularly important. Boldface numbers in brackets in this section refer to Interpretive Comments that appeared in the 1970 document; that document is reprinted here immediately following documents from 1940.

1. Academic Freedom
   1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
   2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.[2] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.[3]
   3. College and University teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.[4]
2. Academic Tenure

   After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies.

   In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents acceptable academic practice:

   1. The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.
   2. Beginning with appointment to the rank of full‐time instructor or a higher rank,[5] the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full‐time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another institution, it may be agreed in writing that the new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person's total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years.[6] Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the expiration of that period.[7]
   3. During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the Faculty have.[8]
   4. Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from the teacher’s own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties at the institution.[9]
   5. Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

B. 1940 Interpretations

At the conference of representatives of the AAUP and of the Association of American Colleges on November 7‐8, 1940, the following interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure were agreed upon:

1. That its operation should not be retroactive.
2. That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the endorsement should be determined in accordance with the principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
3. If the administration of a college or University feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher’s fitness for his or her position, it may proceed to file charges under paragraph 4 of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges, the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility, and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation.

C. 1970 Interpretive Comments

Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with leading educational associations and with individual faculty members and administrators, a joint committee of the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the basis of the comments received, and the discussions that ensued, the joint committee felt the preferable approach was to formulate interpretations of the Statement in terms of the experience gained in implementing and applying the Statement for over thirty years and of adapting it to current needs.

The committee submitted to the two associations for their consideration the following “Interpretive Comments.” These interpretations were adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Professors in April 1970 and endorsed by the Fifty‐sixth Annual Meeting as Association policy.

In the thirty years since their promulgation, the principles of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have undergone a substantial amount of refinement. This has evolved through a variety of processes, including customary acceptance, understandings mutually arrived at between institutions and professors or their representatives, investigations and reports by the American Association of University Professors, and formulations of statements by that association either alone or in conjunction with the Association of American Colleges. These comments represent the attempt of the two associations, as the original sponsors of the 1940 Statement, to formulate the most important of these refinements. Their incorporation here as Interpretive Comments is based upon the premise that the 1940 Statement is not a static code but a fundamental document designed to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing times and circumstances.

Also, there have been relevant developments in the law itself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts on due process within the academic community which parallels the essential concepts of the 1940 Statement; particularly relevant is the identification by the Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967), “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”

The numbers refer to the designated portion of the 1940 Statement on which interpretive comment is made.

1. The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors have long recognized that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. Both associations either separately or jointly have consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy statements, providing guidance to professors in their utterances as citizens, in the exercise of their responsibilities to the institution and to students, and in their conduct when resigning from their institution or when undertaking government‐sponsored research. Of particular relevance is the Statement on Professional Ethics, adopted in 1966 as Association policy. [A revision, adopted in 1987, may be found in AAUP, Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2006), 171‐72.]
2. The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.
3. Most church‐related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure.
4. This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation adopted by the sponsors of the 1940 Statement immediately following its endorsement which reads as follows:

   “If the administration of a college or University feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher’s fitness for his or her position, it may proceed to file charges under paragraph 4 of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges, the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility, and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation.”

   Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom in the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances which states inter alia: “The controlling principle is that a faculty member's expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member's fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member's entire record as a teacher and scholar.”

   Paragraph 5 of the Statement on Professional Ethics also deals with the nature of the "special obligations" of the teacher. The paragraph reads as follows:

   As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of other obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or University. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

   Both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of academic responsibility apply not only to the full‐time probationary and the tenured teacher but also to all others, such as part‐time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilities.

5. The concept of "rank of full‐time instructor or a higher rank" is intended to include any person who teaches a full‐time load regardless of the teacher’s specific title.⁴
6. In calling for an agreement "in writing" on the amount of credit given for a faculty member's prior service at other institutions, the Statement furthers the general policy of full understanding by the professor of the terms and conditions of the appointment. It does not necessarily follow that a professor's tenure rights have been violated because of the absence of a written agreement on this matter. Nonetheless, especially because of the variation in permissible institutional practices, a written understanding concerning these matters at the time of appointment is particularly appropriate and advantageous to both the individual and the institution.⁵
7. The effect of this subparagraph is that a decision on tenure, favorable or unfavorable, must be made at least twelve months prior to the completion of the probationary period. If the decision is negative, the appointment for the following year becomes a terminal one. If the decision is affirmative, the provisions in the 1940 Statement with respect to the termination of service of teachers or investigators after the expiration of a probationary period should apply from the date when the favorable decision is made.

   The general principle of notice contained in this paragraph is developed with greater specificity in the Standards for Notice of Non‐reappointment, endorsed by the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors (1964). These standards are:

   Notice of non‐reappointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointment to the governing board, should be given in writing in accordance with the following standards:

   Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one‐year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination.

   Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two‐year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.

   At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years in the institution.

8. The freedom of probationary teachers is enhanced by the establishment of a regular procedure for the periodic evaluation and assessment of the teacher's academic performance during probationary status. Provision should be made for regularized procedures for the consideration of complaints by probationary teachers that their academic freedom has been violated. One suggested procedure to serve these purposes is contained in the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, prepared by the American Association of University Professors. Other obligations, both of institutions and of individuals, are described in the Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members, as endorsed by the Association of American College and American Association of University Professors in 1961.
9. A further specification of the academic due process to which the teacher is entitled under this paragraph is contained in the Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, jointly approved by the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges in 1958. This interpretive document deals with the issue of suspension, about which the 1940 Statement is silent.

   The 1958 Statement provides: "Suspension of the faculty member during the proceedings is justified only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by the faculty member’s continuance. Unless legal considerations forbid, any such suspension should be with pay." A suspension, which is not followed by either reinstatement or the opportunity for a hearing is in effect a summary dismissal in violation of academic due process.

   The concept of "moral turpitude" identifies the exceptional case in which the professor may be denied a year's teaching or pay in whole or in part. The statement applies to that kind of behavior which goes beyond simply warranting discharge and is so utterly blameworthy as to make it inappropriate to require the offerings of a year's teaching or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities of persons in the particular community have been affronted. The standard is behavior that would evoke condemnation by the academic community generally

⁴For a discussion of this question, see the “Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure” Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2001), 88-91.

⁵For more detailed statement on this question, see “On Crediting Prior Service Elsewhere as Part of the Probationary Period”, Policy Documents and Reports, 10th

D. Intellectual Property Ownership

(See Chapter Six, Intellectual Property Ownership Agreement, for details on this subject)

E. Due Process

As with all members of The University of Tampa community, faculty members have the right of due process in all judicial proceedings. Faculty members, as with other members of the University community, have the responsibility to cooperate fully with the judicial process.

F. Faculty Grievance Procedure

Whenever possible, efforts should be made to resolve problems before the filing of a grievance. Open communication is encouraged so that the resort to this formal grievance procedure will seldom be necessary.

The purpose of this grievance procedure is to promote prompt and efficient investigation and resolution of the few grievances that will arise. The procedure outlined below will be the method for resolving all grievances, with the exception of any matters stemming from tenure denial, promotion denial, tenure revocation, or action stemming from alleged harassment, for which other processes are specified in the Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook.

1. Resort to Other Procedures for Matters Which May be Adjudicated under this Grievance Procedure

   In recognition of the fact that the commitment of the University and the grievant to this process is necessary in order to achieve its objectives, if the grievant seeks resolution of the subject matter of a pending grievance in any forum or by any set of procedures other than those established in this procedure, whether administrative or judicial, the University will be under no obligation to proceed any further with this procedure. However, the act of filing an action in another forum in order to avoid violating a time limitation imposed by that forum will not be considered a violation of the grievance procedure outlined here.

2. Confidentiality

   Grievance proceedings will be kept as confidential as possible, subject only to the need of the grievant and the University to comply with the processes specified herein or to present evidence concerning the grievance in other administrative or judicial proceedings. All hearings will be held in private.

3. Definitions

   For the purposes of this procedure:

   1. The term “grievance” will mean an allegation that the grievant’s employment interests have been adversely affected due to a violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of University policies, regulations, or procedures.
   2. The term “grievant” will mean an identified person (or group of persons) who was/were at the time that the action which gave rise to the grievance arose, a faculty member/faculty members of The University of Tampa.
   3. The term “working days” will mean those days when the business offices of the University are open.
4. Time Limitation

   When any action required to be taken within a specified period of time is not taken in time, the following will apply:

   1. If the grievant fails to act within the time limits provided herein, the University will have no responsibility to process the grievance and it will be deemed withdrawn.
   2. In the case where the University fails to act in time, the grievant may proceed to the next review level and any decision on the matter subsequently issued at the level that has been bypassed will be void.
5. Steps in the Grievance Process
   1. Step 1: A grievance must first be presented informally to the grievant’s department chair. The grievance must be filed within twenty‐five (25) working days of the date on which the grievant knew or should have known of the action or condition which occasioned the grievance. The chair, upon learning of the grievance, will notify the college dean of the initiation of the grievance, will investigate the matter as deemed appropriate, will attempt to resolve the grievance, and will respond to the grievant in writing within fifteen (15) working days of the date the grievance was filed with the department chair.
   2. Step 2: If the grievance is not resolved at Step 1 and the grievant desires to pursue the matter, the grievant will formalize the grievance and file it with the dean of his/her college within fifteen (15) working days of the Step 1 decision. The formalized grievance will be presented in writing. The written submission will state the specific policy, regulation, or procedure alleged to have been misinterpreted, misapplied or violated, the effect on the grievant, and the relief requested.

      The dean of the college will notify the provost of the continuation of the grievance, will appropriately investigate the grievance, will attempt to resolve it, and will respond to the grievant in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date on which the written grievance statement was filed with the dean.

   3. Step 3: If the grievance has not been resolved in Step 2, the grievant may file a written request for review with the provost within fifteen (15) working days following the date of delivery to the residence of the grievant of the Step 2 decision.

      The provost, within fifteen (15) working days of the date of the receipt of the request for review by the dean of the college, will set the time, date, and place for a hearing. Notice of the hearing will be provided to the grievant as well as to all parties to the grievance, including the dean of the college who conducted the Step 2 hearing and the chair who conducted the Step 1 hearing.

      Parties to the grievance have the right to obtain witnesses and present evidence. The provost or his/her designee will act as hearing officer and will convene the Hearing Committee to hear the grievance. The hearing officer or his/her designee will not vote.

      The University of Tampa will cooperate with the grievant in securing witnesses and in making available specifically identified and relevant documentary and other evidence requested by the grievant, to the extent not limited by law or by the rights of others to confidentiality. Faculty and staff members of the University will respond to requests to give testimony, subject to any legally recognized privilege. The parties to the grievance have the right to cross‐examine witnesses.

      Where a witness cannot or will not appear but the hearing officer determines that the interest of justice requires admission of his/her statement, then the officer will present a written list of questions to the witness and ask for a written statement in reply. The hearing officer may grant continuances when requested by either party to the grievance in order to enable either party to investigate evidence, or for any other reason he/she deems it appropriate.

      The hearing officer will keep an audiotape of the proceedings as a record. The hearings will not be conducted under strict rules of legal evidence, and attorneys have no role in the process. However, every effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence.

      The disposition of the grievance by the Hearing Committee will take the form of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommended disposition presented to the president within fifteen (15) working days after completion of the hearing. The recommended disposition must be based solely on the record, and pertinent institutional policies, regulations, and procedures.

   4. Step 4: The president will render a decision based upon a review of the record and the recommendations, findings, and conclusion of the Hearing Committee. Such decision will be made within ten (10) working days after the receipt of the Hearing Committee’s recommendations. The decision of the president will be final.