St. Lawrence University: President

Remarks of Welcome—Associated Colleges of the St. Lawrence Valley Conference on “Why is Academic Freedom Controversial?”

As a trustee of the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), I note with satisfaction that one of your sessions this morning will focus on our new and seminal statement, “Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility,” designed to clarify how the principle of academic freedom should work to create an effective and appropriate learning environment for students. Michael Berube’s opening chapter, “Reasonable Disagreements,” describes just the kind of classroom case study for which it was written. I suspect that, for many of you, Michael’s case is an all-too-familiar one from last week or last semester. I can assure you that you can continue to look to AAC&U for inspiring writing on these and other matters equally critical to liberal education, in its journal Liberal Education and elsewhere.

But what I want to call your attention to this morning is that all of us have left the task of socializing new faculty into the profession with regard to matters of academic freedom and responsibility to chance. In the latest issue of AAC&U’s Liberal Education Neil Hamilton is right on target when he says:

The reality is that the vast majority of the professoriate receives virtually no formal education on the ethics of the profession. We assume that an osmosis-like diffusion in the apprenticeship model will transmit the principles of the social contract, academic freedom, and faculty professionalism from one generation to the next.

Socialization of us all with regard to these matters is, of course, the purpose of this meeting today, and I applaud all of you for recognizing its critical importance and organizing and attending these sessions.

But if the professoriate lacks a systematic approach to socializing its members in matters of academic freedom and responsibility, this is doubly, triply true for private and public college and university boards of trustees. I can think of no cornerstone principles now embedded in the culture and patterns of behavior of American colleges and universities more significant for trustees to engage than those of academic freedom and responsibility. Just as certain duties and responsibilities are delegated by the Board of Trustees to St. Lawrence’s chief executive officer—its president—subject ultimately to board review, in the same way, after defining who is a faculty member, the bylaws of St. Lawrence University say the following in Article VI, devoted to the faculty:
2. The Faculty shall establish the mechanisms for its own governance.
3. The Faculty shall have the power and it shall be its duty:
a. To set the curriculum, to fix requirements for courses of study and graduation, and to establish standards for grading and for assigning honors.
b. To pass upon the probation, separation and readmission of students, for reasons of scholarship.
c. To define the criteria under which and the methods by which its members are hired, tenured, promoted, disciplined, and terminated.
d. To share in the governance and administration of the University.
4. Except on recommendation of the Faculty, no degree, diploma, or honorary degree shall be granted by the University.
The mission of the university, of course, is set by the board—we are a liberal arts college—but within that mission faculty have significant autonomy with regard to the academic program.

It is always a shock when new trustees encounter Article VI of our board bylaws. We call it a “bottleneck concept”: something that is absolutely essential to learn to go to the next level in understanding but which is hard to learn or counterintuitive for a particular audience. We spend a great deal of time in new trustee orientation helping them understand how such an article might find its way into a liberal arts college board’s bylaws, why it is so important, and how trustees can appropriately exercise their fiduciary responsibilities while respecting the principles in Article VI.

Today, because of a large number of trustee retirements from having reached our mandatory age 70 retirement age, over 60% of St. Lawrence trustees are in their first six-year term. It has been clearer and clearer in the last year or two that we can’t rely alone on our trustees with many years of service to do the necessary socialization of newer trustees in these critical matters. Accordingly, at last June’s trustee retreat at our Canaras conference center on Saranac Lake, the Board spent several hours with a group of our faculty discussing the new AAC&U statement on which some of you will focus this morning and working through case studies, all to help trustees understand better how academic freedom issues arise for us, what form they typically take, and what their appropriate role is as trustees in ensuring that St. Lawrence engages in best practices with regard to matters of academic freedom and responsibility.

The academic freedom and responsibility principles to which our profession and our colleges and universities subscribe are not just the principles we happen to have; they are good principles, essential principles, for achieving excellence in education and research. We have to think hard about how we’re going to assure their continuance in American higher education into the future. This meeting today is an important piece of what needs to happen. I am absolutely delighted that you are here to engage that task.

AAC&U, “Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility,” Liberal Education (Washington, D. C., AAC&U, 2005).

Michael Berube, What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts? (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006).

Neil Hamilton, “Failures of Socialization and the Road to Loss of Professional Autonomy,” Liberal Education (Washington, D.C., AAC&U, Fall, 2006), 16.