American Association of University Professors

Radford University Chapter

16 April 2009

To:  The Members of the Radford University Board of Visitors

I first want to apologize to you for the fact that the list of your addresses, given to me only for the specific purpose of this letter, got posted elsewhere, apparently by one of the AAUP members who had access to the letter while it was being drafted. I have also apologized personally to President Kyle for letting this happen.

The Radford University AAUP Chapter is very concerned that the intense controversy arising from the past two years of university governance and coming to a head in recent weeks will damage the reputation of Radford University and its ability to recruit quality students.

You may know that the American Association of University Professors is the premier organization dealing with issues of quality higher education within the United States since 1915. It has chapters in nearly every American college and university. The national organization monitors the educational health of these institutions largely through input from its local chapters, and, in turn, supports the local chapters by disseminating information, educational advice, legal advice, and the promotion of uniform standards of quality higher education.

We are pleased to present you with a copy of the “Mini-Redbook.” It contains some key documents selected from the complete set found in the Redbook. The Redbook contains AAUP documents on such issues as academic freedom, tenure, and university governance have been endorsed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the American Library Association, the American Association for Higher Education, the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, and dozens of other organizations.

The AAUP “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” has become the widely endorsed national guideline for good governance.  It argues (on the basis of nearly 100 years experience) that quality education is best served through close communication and collaboration between governing boards, administrators, faculty, and students, all of whom share an “inescapable interdependence.” It affirms that all these constituencies, plus reflection on the historical mission of their specific university, must participate in the framing of its educational mission and long range plans.  It states that quality education can only happen when there is a “joint effort” to move the university into the future in a spirit of collaboration, mutual trust, and shared vision.

Of course, the various constituencies have very different roles within this joint effort.   The “Statement on Government” clearly asserts that “the faculty has primary responsibility for 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.” Please also note that SACS documents also state that curriculum is the primary responsibility of the faculty at any institution of higher learning.

We are writing to you out of concern that Radford University has been moving away from these national guidelines for more than two years.  Programs and academic reforms appear to originate incorrectly with the Administration and the Board and then are imposed on the university, its faculty and students.  The proper procedure, according to nationwide standards, is for academic reform and innovation to originate with the faculty, involve active collaboration with the administration, and finally seek approval of the Board.

A recent example of this on-going incorrect process of governance was the “Expedited Program Review.” President Kyle and Provost Stanton have stated publicly that it was not a result of the budget crisis (which might have served as some justification).  Even so, that very review process involved major violations of AAUP principles of collaborative governance as well as proper internal governance.

1.  Very little notice was given. Busy faculty had to drop everything to meet the two week deadline to justify the existence of their programs.

2.  There appears to have been no clear rationale as to why these particular programs were flagged. Contrary to administration claims, SCHEV criteria were not clearly followed nor were the vague national labor statistics data they cited relevant. Indeed, the Faculty was not consulted about either these criteria or the process of review.

3.  Amazingly, several programs requiring expedited review had just completed legitimate program reviews involving serious faculty participation and extensive, thoughtful documentation. To make matters worse, only a five page document was allowed for each program’s defense.

4.  Document authors theoretically could attend review committee meetings, although not allowed to speak, but they often were not told the specific time when their particular program would be reviewed. That the review committee expedited its hearings made document author and general faculty observation of the process difficult.

5.   Review committee hearings allowed only twenty minutes discussion per program.  This, in itself, is a serious violation of the way quality programs are developed in higher education.

6.    Some of the programs reviewed were interdisciplinary minors that do not fall under SCHEV criteria at all.  Besides, a number had just completed extensive program reviews, did not need further review.

7. The instructions for responding to Expedited Program Review failed to follow Radford University’s criteria for regularly scheduled reviews. The entire expedited process, therefore, appeared arbitrary, irrational, and in serious violation of collaboration with faculty regarding academic programs.

Over its nearly 100 years of existence, the AAUP has found that educational excellence in institutions of higher education is significantly enhanced when there is a collaborative relationship between the board, the administration, the faculty, and students. Institutions that violate collaborative governance invariably weaken themselves because they fail to draw on the collective wisdom of the faculty who understand educational criteria, excellence, and processes best precisely because they are professional educators.

The Radford Chapter of the AAUP, in consultation with the Virginia State Chapter and national headquarters, is seriously concerned for the educational future of our institution due to the serious erosion of collaborative governance at Radford. Since you are in a position of exceptional and unique responsibility for Radford University’s future, we urge you to reflect on the great importance of collaborative governance for the future and quality of this institution that we all care so much about.

Sincerely,

Dr. Glen T. Martin

President

cc. President Kyle, Provost Stanton