Search
    Site Map
    Contact Us
    National Office News
    Letters to the Executive
     Director

Meetings & Divisions
    Secretary-Treasurers
    Central
    Eastern
    Pacific
    Annual Meetings
    Paper Submissions
    Travel Stipends & Grants

Governance
    By-Laws
    Board of Officers
    Board Meeting Minutes
    Committees
    National Office
    History of the APA
    Reprinting Policies &
      Permission Fees

Profession
    Data
    APA Statements
    Average Faculty Salaries

Advertising
    Advertising
    Advertising in JFP
    Schedules & Deadlines

Resources
    Conferences, Seminars
      & Calls for Papers
    JobSeeker Database
    Teaching Committee's
      Online Resource Center
    Streaming Video
    Philosophy in the News
    Prizes & Awards
    Web Resources
    Department Web Sites
    Other Organizations of
      Related Interest

Publications & Merchandise
    Publications &
    Merchandise list
    APA Newsletters
    Other Publications
    Schedules & Deadlines

Member Services
    Membership Info
    Becoming a Member

Members Only Section
    Login
    Member Section Index
  Services:
    Membership Directory
  Resources:
    Jobs for Philosophers
    APA Newsletters
    Member Home Pages
    Proceedings & Addresses
    Grants, Fellowships and Prizes
    Sabbatical Housing

APA Committee for Defense of
Professional Rights of Philosophers

2003 Report

2002-2003 Annual Report, Committee for the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers

Submitted by Debra Nails, Chair

The defense committee replied informally to a number of requests for advice and infor-mation about professional rights and academic practices, intervened formally in two cases (a-b), and kept a close watch on several others (c-f). Meanwhile, it examined its own policies and practices in detail. Working with the national staff of the AAUP's Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, the committee also arranged sessions on professional rights for each of the divisional meetings of 2003-2004, and began the reorganization of the commit-tee's files to make available general information about complaints received by the committee since the mid 1980s, and to enable the data to be searched without compromising confidentiality.
Formal action on two cases was completed this year: (a) Non-reappointment of a tenure-track philosopher. A philosopher in his third year of a tenure-track position complained that the university president, overruling the recommendation of the philosophy department, had declined to reappoint him. Procedural irregularities and evidence that the administration might be using collegiality as an independent criterion moved the committee to write to the president, adding its objections to those already being made by the AAUP in related cases on the campus; the presi-dent reversed his decision and reappointed the philosopher. (b) Preferential treatment of an in-ternal job candidate. A senior philosopher who had chaired the search for a junior philosopher in a multidisciplinary department complained that an external candidate had not been evaluated impartially, that she had been unfairly deprived of information about her candidacy, and that the views of the philosophers on the search committee had been disregarded - charges involving policy statements of the APA, the AAUP, and other bodies concerned with standards in higher education. This was a complex case, the investigation of which required several months and several iterations of correspondence with the complainant and the administration. Both the com-plainant and the philosopher whose rights were at issue focused on preventing future similar oc-currences, noting that the university intended to expand its offerings in philosophy. Although some changes to university procedures were introduced, the committee found them inadequate to protect future philosophy candidates and offered to work further with the administration infor-mally, meanwhile monitoring future searches. The investigation also resulted in a recommenda-tion of amendment to the APA Statement Concerning Clarification of Qualifications for Posi-tions Advertised in Jobs for Philosophers, which has been submitted to the Board.
Several other cases are in various stages of inquiry: (c) Applications from non-immigrants. A Canadian citizen applied for positions in the U.S. and received, from institutions in California and Florida, documents to sign implying that he could be considered for employ-ment only if he were already a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Upon consultation with gov-ernment offices, the defense committee ascertained that, despite increased delays since 11 Sep-tember 2001, U.S. law continues to permit universities to hire nonimmigrants. Preference to citi-zens or permanent residents, unless stated in the job ad, constitutes a hidden criterion for em-ployment which the APA Statement Concerning Clarification of Qualifications disallows. De-partments should make themselves aware of any forms being sent routinely by their universities to applicants. (d) Institutional review boards (IRBs) and class assignments. The defense com-mittee and the AAUP are following with interest the case of a philosopher who was required to develop informed-consent forms and to submit to the university's IRB her essay assignment that asks students to conduct one-hour interviews with persons who have had near-death experiences, then to reflect on that in relation to their reading of Heidegger's being-toward-death. While complying with the university's requirement, the philosopher argues that her assignments should not be subject to such review because they are not intended to produce generalizable knowledge and hence are not research as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations "Protection of Human Subjects" (Title 45, part 46). IRBs vary widely in their interpretation of this regulation, and philosophers giving similar assignments should inform themselves about local practices. There are two cases pending local appeal, (e) Denial of tenure and (f) Denial of promotion.
Two requests from the Board of Officers occupied the defense committee. In response to the first, the committee revisited the question of Board censure both as policy and as currently applied to two institutions, making recommendations for the Board's consideration. The com-mittee used the opportunity to set down the procedures by which it normally operates for the in-formation of the Board and for its own continuity. Second, the Board had requested the previous year that the defense committee formulate a statement of "clear policy for dealing with [certain sorts of academic freedom] cases, which seem to arise primarily in the setting of schools with religious affiliations." A draft is nearing completion on which comments from interested persons outside the committee will be solicited.
Members of the defense committee 2002-2003 were George Allen, Ed Byrne, Jack Kult-gen, and Beth Singer; William Stephens was appointed in October; representatives of the divi-sions serving ex officio were Karen Hanson, Calvin Normore, and Susan Wolf; Leslie Francis served as Non-Discrimination Ombudsperson and ex officio on the committee. In conformity with earlier recommendations and decisions of the Board of Officers, the Non-Discrimination Ombudsperson will in the future be a regular member of the defense committee. The committee is grateful for the ongoing advice of those members of the AAUP national staff who are directly involved in the work of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure.