Category: Minutes

A ‘To Be Continued’ Open Letter to TTU’s Administrators

Deep concerns have arisen among TTU faculty and staff regarding the style and substance that mark the manner by which TTU’s top administrators govern the university.  Relative to the past, the governing style of the current administration is that of a top-down, authoritarian nature that diminishes the morale of faculty and staff.  At the same time, the substance of the current administration’s policies is likely to threaten the quality of education.  TTU, a public university, is increasingly governed as if it were a private, for-profit corporation.  The problems with administrative ‘style and substance’ recently came to a head over Governor Haslam’s proposal known as the Focus on College and University Success (FOCUS) Act which would separate the six non-UT public universities from the Tennessee Board of Regents and, instead, create new governing boards for each of those institutions.

The secrecy to which the TBR university presidents pledged themselves in prior discussions of the FOCUS Act and the suddenness of its announcement—as a kind of fait accompli—highlighted the generalized, unilateral governing style that was already apparent at TTU.  Of particular concern for faculty is the fact that the Oldham administration has shown that it is prepared to run roughshod over the traditional practice of ‘shared governance’ whereby administration and faculty have jointly consulted and collaborated on matters related to the university’s educational and fiscal affairs.  Examples of this non-collaborative, unilateral, and even self-enriching administrative behavior at TTU proliferate.

Criminal Justice/Sociology & Political Science

In the Fall of 2015, a member of the Department of Sociology and Political Science faculty heard only by chance that upper level administrators were developing a new online Criminal Justice (CJ) degree that would be offered by the School of Professional Studies.   A conversation subsequently ensued between the department chairperson and the School of Professional Studies.  The Sociology and Political Science faculty not only learned there were plans for an online CJ program, but that the curriculum had already been developed; that the adjunct faculty had already been selected (even though there are Tech faculty who then currently taught CJ courses in Sociology); and that the program had been readied to launch in the Spring of 2016 under a now rebranded ‘Public Safety’ program.  When questioned why the department had not been involved in this process, the administration provided no acceptable answer.  Earlier and at a meeting of the TTU chapter of the AAUP, President Oldham had explained that the administration needed to act quickly and flexibly to take advantage of what he perceived as a kind of business opportunity to acquire a new student clientele.

The faculty of the Department of Sociology and Political Science attempted in various meeting and forums to involve themselves in this process and thereby deter the administration’s efforts to launch the program unilaterally. Unfortunately, this program was recently passed by (as one voting member described it) an “unenthusiastic” GSEC and Academic Council despite a significant concern raised that the university was not prepared to launch the courses in such an accelerated manner.  Adjunct teachers—with backgrounds in fire safety and counseling, not CJ—have been hired to teach the courses in the recast ‘Public Safety’ program.  This process of program development established a dangerous precedent whereby upper level administration can take unilateral action to create a low-cost curriculum of questionable quality despite clear and loud objections from the faculty.

TTU’s Water Center [now the renamed Center for Management, Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources]

In the case of the Water Center, a hiring decision to replace the retiring Director was made without following the usual process of establishing a search committee that would involve faculty and Water Center staff.  The person who was ultimately hired came from the auto industry and has no academic background in water-related issues.  By way of explanation—and again in a meeting of the TTU Chapter of the AAUP–President Oldham stated that the administration needed to move quickly and that it was an ‘interim’ hire.  The President offered no timeline regarding the establishment of a search committee to fill the position on a permanent basis.

Confusing the matter is the fact that the position held by this person is listed not as Interim Director but as Managing Director and Associate Vice-President for Workforce Outreach.  In fact, the Interim Director for the Water Center is listed as the person who also is the Vice-President for Research and Economic Development.

Center for Healthcare Informatics

Another instance of unilateral hiring also highlighted the move toward a private sector business model at a public university. TTU’s recently established Center for Healthcare Informatics (CHI) advertises that it is a ‘business incubator’ that ‘analyzes data to find ways to improve the quality of healthcare while reducing healthcare costs.’  Again, and with no search committee, a psychologist, who has been described as a ‘serial entrepreneur,’ was hired as CHI’s Director.   The CHI ‘targets’ solutions and ‘partners’ with organizations to ‘implement’ the solutions, all presumably for a fee.  One of the Center’s corporate ‘partners’ is Cumberland Health Associates and its Executive Vice President is the self-same director of the CHI.  Apart from questions about why a public university should be involved in such a business venture, the inter-locking nature of this relationship raises serious conflict of interest questions as well.  In none of these instances of educational and corporate program development and hiring were faculty consulted.

As of April 2016, the CHI was summarily shut down, its director dismissed, and all with no explanation from the administration.

The Campus Parking Expansion Project

Led by TTU’s Vice President of Finance and Planning, the administration has decided with no prior consultation of faculty, staff, or students to greatly expand the number of parking spaces on campus.  The plan foresees 1,600 new parking slots.  In Phase One, a perimeter lot of approximately 1,000 spaces will be constructed and in Phase Two a parking garage with around 600 spaces; and all this to replace only 650 parking slots that will disappear due to another building project. Moreover, this effort is being undertaken in spite of falling enrollment which is likely to persist given the Tennessee Promise program that funds two years of community college education and that diverts freshman and sophomore students from four year schools.  Of great concern for TTU faculty and students is the fact that parking fees will rise considerably and in some cases by many orders of magnitude for those who would choose—or be required—to park in the proposed parking garage.  A system of shuttle buses that will ferry riders from the perimeter parking to the university will represent considerable time lost in the commute.

The higher fees would be used initially to pay for the parking expansion which comes with an overall [Phases One and Two] estimated cost of almost $26 million.  With the administration suggesting an estimated cost of $4,000 per parking slot in the perimeter lot, it should be possible to more than replace the lost parking at a cost of around $4 million.  Apart from the lack of consultation with the university community, projects such as this come with the prospect of considerable fiscal irresponsibility and will impose a large burden on students, in particular.

Administrative Positions and Administrative Salaries.

In an era of otherwise tight fiscal budgets and diminished public support for public universities, university administrations have greatly increased the costs of administering universities by expanding the numbers of administrators, doling out new job titles, and granting themselves lavish raises in salary.  Not only is TTU not an exception to this pattern, but TTU’s administrators and managers now earn an average salary of $139,105; a value that is 37% higher than the U.S. national average of $101,500 for this category.

President Oldham currently earns over $280,000, after having received cumulative raises of around $27,000 since 2013.  TTU’s Provost currently earns over $227,000 and has received no significant raises.  The Vice President for Research and Economic Development is TTU’s highest paid administrator, earning over $305,000 annually. The Vice-President for Planning and Finance—the same person responsible for the costly new parking project noted above—currently earns around $200,000; a figure that represents a 55% increase over that individual’s 2013 salary of about $127,000.  The Director of the Center for Healthcare Informatics—discussed above—earns over $151,000 with his TTU salary plus whatever he presumably earns as Executive Vice-President of Cumberland Health Associates, a client of the Center he directs.  The once Director, now Associate Vice-President of University Development earns $122,000, up from $56,000 in 2013.  The Managing Director and Associate Vice-President for Workforce Outreach—the individual who supposedly heads what was the Water Center (see above) earns $160,000 up from $125,000 in one year.  The Assistant to the President for Strategic Projects earns almost $175,000, up from $160,000 in two years.

The point to be emphasized, again, is not simply that these are large salaries or that administrators frequently give themselves lavish raises, rather the point is that at TTU administrative incomes now significantly exceed the U.S. average for such positions.  The relative standing of TTU administrative pay levels raises eyebrows and invites skepticism for an administration that is ostensibly concerned with its ‘bottom line’.

The Focus Act

The Focus Act, noted at the outset of this letter, exemplifies the further  abandonment of ‘shared governance’ and will likely speed the drift toward the effective privatization of public universities that operate increasingly on a ‘pay-their-way’ and even ‘for profit’ basis.   President Oldham has positioned himself as one of the main boosters of the Focus Act.  In this capacity, he has spoken in unconditionally glowing terms of what the Focus Act will mean for TTU: it will offer the ‘autonomy to move freely and respond quickly to the changing dynamics and demands now placed on higher education…we need speed and agility… The ability to become the best university possible is ultimately what the FOCUS Act promises.’  If recent past experience serves as a guide to the future, the new ‘speed and agility’ celebrated by President Oldham promises to open the door to even more unilateral decision-making.

Under the Focus Act and following amendments, the Boards that will govern the respective universities will be composed of ten voting members, many of whom will likely come from the business sector as they do in other universities that have followed this model.  There will be one voting student and one non-voting student permitted on the Board.  Of the ten voting members, eight will be individuals chosen by the state’s governor and will serve six year terms.  The sole, voting faculty member will serve a two year term. The autonomous Board format contrasts notably from the current TBR structure which has a faculty sub-council that offers a substantially broader voice to faculty.

Given the new governance structure, the traditional practice of shared governance all but becomes a dead letter by design.  And the abandonment of shared governance is all the more assured given the broad powers that are granted to the board.  The new Boards are given the right to:

“confirm the appointment of administrative personnel, teachers, and other employees of each state institution and to fix their salaries and terms of office” (Section 21, (a), 1.A)

“prescribe curricula and requirements for diplomas and degrees.” (Section 21, (a), 1.B)

“approve the operating budgets and set the fiscal policies for the schools and programs under its control.” (Section 21, (a) 1.C)

The new structure grants apparently sweeping powers to the Board that will now make hiring—and firing—determinations affecting faculty and staff; tenure determinations affecting faculty; and even curriculum determinations.

The issue of the working relationship between the respective administrations and their Board emerges as very opaque.  Boards will be dependent on their administrations for much data and even policy recommendations as would affect courses, curriculum, hiring, and budgets.  In all likelihood, that relationship will be a cozy one that provides the university administrations with a kind of ‘firewall’ of protection against unpopular policies and decisions which the administrations propose yet are formally determined by the Boards.  It remains unclear just how transparent communications between the university administrations, their Boards, and the wider university communities will be.  So much remains unclear about the process that extreme skepticism, rather than a banal booster-ism, is warranted.

At the limit, the Focus Act is part of the larger trajectory and project that would transform Tennessee’s formally public universities into what are effectively private, for profit corporations.  In an editorial in The Tennessean from February, 25, 2016, President Oldham noted that state funding for the TBR universities had dropped from 70% or 80% of total costs in the early 1970s to no more than 20% or 30% today.  The difference is accounted for largely by higher tuitions, adjunct hiring, and outsourcing of university services.  Far from lamenting or resisting the decline in state funding–or making a case as to why more public funding is needed if Tennessee is to supply the optimal amount of quality, higher education–President Oldham uses those numbers to facilitate a course of action that will maintain the status quo: historically low–or even lower–state funding for higher education.  President Oldham’s position all but guarantees both higher tuition costs for Tennessee’s students and more low-cost programs of questionable quality.  His actions present us, finally, with a self-fulfilling prophecy and throw into question his suitability to lead a public university.

We of the Tennessee Technological University Chapter of the AAUP along with many other faculty on this campus, find the issues outlined above to be deeply disturbing and of a nature that threaten the principles of academic freedom and shared governance that AAUP was formed to defend.  We resist the move toward making higher education conform to a business model rather than being funded and administered as the public good that it is.  Therefore we, the Tennessee Tech chapter of AAUP, have voted to release and distribute an open letter documenting our concerns. [See attached].  Moreover, we see the current document as a more detailed account of the problems and plan to update it over time.

TTU-AAUP

As issues arise and as more information becomes available, we hope to update this ‘to be continued’ open letter.

We encourage your comments, and any additional concerns you wish to express.

The Tech Chapter of the AAUP held recent elections in which the following slate of officers were elected.

President – Julia Gruber

Vice-President – Troy Smith

Secretary – Josephine McQuail

Treasurer – Wali Kharif

Assistant Treasurer – Jordana Navarro

An Open Letter to the (Tennessee Tech University) Community

A lack of transparency and a pattern of unilateral decision-making at Tennessee Tech University (TTU) have created concern over the execution of fiduciary responsibility by current administrative leaders.  The perception of many faculty, staff, and students is that the net effect of most initiatives has been a reduction in the quality of education, an increase in the cost of degree programs, a bypassing of the tradition of shared governance, and an unsustainable fiscal situation for the university.

Examples that illustrate these concerns are as follows:

• A risk assessment conducted by faculty in the College of Engineering suggests that the integrity and sustainability of the University’s signature college are being compromised.
• A plan to replace 650 parking spaces displaced by a new science building with 1,600 new spaces for a cost of $26 million is presented as a fait accompli without involving faculty, staff, or students.
• Dramatic pay increases for existing administrative positions and the creation of a multitude of associate vice-president positions has resulted in a more than 75 % increase in recurring administrative costs.
• In addition, administrative pay contrasts with TTU faculty, staff, and adjunct pay. Such gross disparity in pay diminishes workplace morale and undermines the morality of our common mission.
• The application of a corporate, business model requiring ‘speed, flexibility and agility’ has served as a justification by the President to ignore the practice of shared governance and established university procedures in order to make questionable hires and program development decisions.
• The appointment of a Vice-President of Research and Economic Development with an exorbitant salary (305k) that has produced few substantive results.
• The appointment of a Director of the Center for Healthcare Informatics (CHI), an apparently for-profit enterprise which seeks local corporate partners, one of whom is Cumberland Health Associates, the Executive Vice President of which is the CHI director himself.
• The appointment of an individual to head what was TTU’s Water Center who has no background in water-related issues. Staffing decisions such as at the Water Center possibly involve patronage-like practices.
• The development of an on-line Criminal Justice program—renamed “Public Safety”—that circumvented standard program development procedure and the Sociology Department where a similar degree was already offered. Those hired were adjuncts with no background in Criminal Justice. A major player in the establishing of this program is the President’s own preacher.

There are numerous other incidents of ignoring shared governance and the institutional, domain knowledge of the faculty. With the passage of the Focus Act—of which The President is a vocal supporter—the unity of the Tennessee Board of Regents is abolished and university governance is handed over to an independent board with little faculty, staff, or student representation.  President Oldham has proclaimed that TTU does not want to resemble the ‘Walmart of Higher Education’.  Sharp wage inequality and a lack of workplace democracy, however, indicate just such a climate.  TTU should choose a culture of inclusion where all members collaborate.  Otherwise we continue on the trajectory toward a corporate culture that undermines the goals of public, higher education. On behalf of concerned faculty, staff, and students at TTU, the members of TTU-AAUP have voted to release and distribute this open letter documenting these concerns.  Based on our recent confidence survey and recurring items at AAUP membership meetings, we believe there is widespread campus sentiment that indicates a lack of confidence in the TTU administration, and their engagement of the faculty in decision making. We feel that there is an opportunity to re-engage the faculty and staff in the future of TTU, and the decisions that will take us there.

The spring meeting of the Tennessee State Conference of AAUP will be hosted at Tech on Saturday, April 2, beginning at 10 a.m. at 205 Henderson Hall.

The AAUP chapter at TTU invites all faculty to attend a meeting to discuss the concept of fiduciary responsibility in higher education in general, and TTU in particular.
We want to hear from you, TTU faculty, whether you think that the three propositions of fiduciary responsibility – fidelity to mission, integrity of operations, and conservation of core values are currently adequately and satisfactorily fulfilled at TTU.
Fiduciary behavior includes, prominently, holding to the institution’s mission and ensuring that the institution is financially and operationally sound and stable. Mission-compliance addresses whether students receive a quality education.

Is reading this making you tense? We will give away a gift certificate for a one hour massage (at Fringe Salon) to release the tension of one faculty member. Light refreshments for all.

Two interesting pieces about trustees and fiduciary responsibilities…

“Fiduciary Behavior: What Is the Responsible Trustee to Do (and Not Do)?”

“More Than Fiduciary Duties” (Inside Higher Ed)

Note:  These concerns are being raised with Legislators, including Speaker of the House of Representatives Beth Harwell, who is very troubled regarding these proposed changes. Chancellor John Morgan was very outspoken regarding his skepticism over Governor Haslam’s proposal.  Please write and call your legislators regarding these proposed changes and express your opposition to HB2578 mentioning some of these talking points.  Rephrasing in your own words will make your statements more effective.  Also, be sure to give your street address and phone #.

Sen.Paul.Bailey@capitol.tn.gov 304 War Memorial Building/Nashville TN 37243(615) 741-3978
Senate District 15

Rep.Ryan.Williams@capitol.tn.gov 114 War Memorial Building/Nashville TN 37243 (615) 741-1875
House District 42

I Lack of Faculty Participation in Formulating Plan; Lack of Shared Governance in New Board Structure as Outlined; Marginalization of Faculty Role in Curricula Matters; Expediting of Termination Procedures for Faculty and Lack of Appeal Process Will Hurt Faculty

• Absolutely no Input was sought from faculty in Gov. Haslam’s initiative to restructure Higher Ed and replace the Board of Regents. Thus, there are errors of terminology and the Bill betrays a gross misunderstanding of aspects of Curriculum and Academic Freedom.
• The Bill refers to the power of the governing boards to “confirm the appointment of administrative personnel, teachers, and other employees of each state institution….” (p. 17). Teachers makes no sense here. The word is not used in higher education to designate any members of the faculty, and it captures only one aspect of a faculty member’s duties.
• Also, many institutions have to hire both full-time and adjunct members literally the week before a semester begins based on increased enrollments, dual-enrollment classes, etc. How would an individual board do this kind of last minute hiring of faculty?  Shouldn’t the hiring of faculty remain a decision made by the institution itself, not its governing board?
• House Bill 2578 does not include a representative faculty body like the TBR Faculty Sub-Council. The only representation for faculty members at the six four-year institutions will be the faculty representative on the governing board. This is not acceptable. It undermines the faculty’s ability to speak as a unified group at the state level. Given that the bill includes numerous references to the importance of the collaboration between two- and four-year schools, perhaps the TBR Faculty Sub-Council could be retained in its current form. At any rate, the equivalent of a system-wide representative faculty body is needed.
• Page 13, which deals with the composition of the individual governing boards, indicates that one board member will be “an active faculty member [what is an “active” faculty member?] of the institution selected by the board.” Should members of the board be involved in the day-to-day operations of an institution to the point where they could make an informed choice in this matter? Probably not. That means that board members are likely to defer to the institution’s president in this matter. That, too, is unacceptable. The faculty should elect the faculty representative. Principles of shared governance require that the faculty be represented by a person they accept as their representative.
• Page 14 tells us that the faculty member on the board “shall serve a term of one (1) year.” Perhaps a longer term would be preferable. One year, as we’ve seen with the TBR Faculty Regent, is not enough. That position has never accomplished anything meaningful for the faculty.
• Page 17 informs us that the boards have “the power” to “[p]rescribe curricula and requirements for diplomas and degrees.” This could be read as suggesting that the boards will take over the faculty’s role of (largely) determining curricula. Faculty members, not board members, are the subject experts. This passage goes along with the following one on page 31: “Determination of specific courses or course content, however, shall continue to be the exclusive function of the governing boards of the various institutions.” Is that meant to suggest that the boards could determine the content of specific courses? This appears to me to be a SACSCOC violation. SACSCOC (Principles of Accreditation), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.10 reads: “The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty.”
• Page 21 has this to say about tenure policies: “The board of regents and each state university board shall promulgate a tenure policy or policies for faculty at their respective institutions, which policy or policies shall ensure academic freedom and provide sufficient professional security to attract the best faculty available for the institutions.” This language is taken from TCA 49-8-301, which governs TBR tenure policies. However, this language merely provides a framework for the work of the board. In other words, governing boards could develop tenure policies from scratch, policies that could undermine tenure. (Another outcome could be that the six “independent” universities could have radically different tenure policies.) Governing boards, made up (mostly) of people with little or no knowledge of faculty work would be responsible for developing tenure policies. Even if there is currently no interest to attack tenure, the language of the bill makes clear that the new boards are under no obligation to either adopt the current tenure policies or develop similar ones.
• Page 22, which deals with “termination of faculty with tenure for adequate cause,” There is no mention an appeals process. (It refers to the possibility of a “review,” but that’s not specific enough.)

II Administrative Costs:

• THEC would have significant additional responsibilities for coordination, which would also require more staff even as TBR will need to retain staff to carry its ongoing responsibility for oversight of the CCs and TCs.

If universities are independent, then what happens to operating systems like Banner and D2L, since we have bought into these systems as TBR?

-Will the universities be forced into negotiating their own contracts for systems like                  this?  Individually, this could be very, very expensive.

• The potential for increased administrative costs are very real, since the universities will probably have to hire more administrators and support staff to deal with the development of new policies, as well as the potentially expensive costs of gaining access to Banner, D2L, etc.
• All of this will only increase the decades long trend of a greater proportion of funding for higher ed going to administration and less to instruction.

III MIsc. – Chaotic effect of repeal of ALL TBR policies, including CCTA and TTP

• Essentially all policies, including academic policies like academic freedom and promotion and tenure, will be at ground zero for the universities, if the act passes

-TBR policies will no longer be in effect

-Potential of corporate influence in the creation of new polices, especially faculty                      policies

• Even though maintaining the Community College of Tennessee Act (CCTA) and Tennessee Transfer Pathways (TTPs) are in the language of the HB 2578, being part of a system like TRB ensured compliance, but without the pressure of being in a system, universities could decide not to follow these mandates

-Community college students have expressed concerns about the future of TTPs

-There is also certainly concern about the future of the TN Promise if FOCUS passes

On October 2, 2014, the TTU chapter of AAUP passed this resolution in support of Steven Salaita, who was fired by the University of Illinois after being offered and accepting a tenured position. The following June, the University of Illinois was censured by AAUP at the national conference. It seems relevant again in light of the recent actions of Mount St. Mary’s University. Here is the text of our chapter’s resolution:

On August 1, 2014, University of Illinois Chancellor Phyllis Wise informed Dr. Steven Salaita that the American Indian Studies faculty position he had been offered and had accepted the previous October would not be sent to the board of trustees for approval, stating, “we believe that an affirmative Board vote approving your appointment is unlikely.” No further explanation was initially given to Salaita, to the AIS department chair, or the dean. This action was taken despite the facts that Salaita had returned the signed acceptance letter, quit his tenured job at Virginia Tech, initiated the purchase of a new home in Urbana-Champaign, received his teaching assignments and submitted his book orders, received an invitation to the new faculty welcoming reception on August 19, and had attended a welcoming reception in his honor hosted by American Indian Studies.

On August 22, Chancellor Wise released an open letter explaining her decision, referencing the alleged incivility of his recent tweets about the Israeli bombing of Gaza, speculating that some students might feel unsafe and unvalued in his classroom. The Board of Trustees released a supporting letter affirming the chancellor’s views, stating that the University of Illinois “is a university community that values civility as much as scholarship.” The board met on September 11 and voted 8 – 1 not to reinstate Dr. Salaita. Documents obtained by the Champaign News-Gazette under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act indicate that a large number of donors had contacted Wise and the board beginning in July, demanding that Salaita not be hired; Dr. Wise has stated this was not a factor in her decision.

Many academic professionals view the University of Illinois administration’s unilateral decision, which did not involve faculty at any level, as a violation of the principles of academic freedom and shared governance. Sixteen academic departments at the university have passed resolutions of no confidence in the administration; two conferences scheduled at the campus have been canceled by their organizers; over six thousand professors have signed a petition for an academic boycott of the university; AAUP, MLA, the American Historical Association, and other professional organizations have issued statements condemning the actions of the University of Illinois and demanding the reinstatement of Dr. Salaita with pay.

The letter from Dr. Anita Levy, Associate Secretary of AAUP, which was sent to Chancellor Wise on August 29, makes the following points:

“…Aborting an appointment in this manner without having demonstrated cause has consistently been seen by the AAUP as tantamount to summary dismissal, an action categorically inimical to academic freedom and due process and one aggravated in his case by the apparent failure to provide him with any written or even oral explanation… We see that a very serious issue of academic freedom has been raised by the actions against him, an issue that will not be resolved as long as the actions remain in effect and their soundness has not been demonstrated by the University of Illinois administration under requisite safeguards of academic due process.”

Levy points out that the University of South Florida received AAUP censure under very similar circumstances in 1964, and acknowledges that a University of Illinois Committee on Academic Freedom of Tenure has been charged with determining Salaita’s tenure status.

In a follow-up letter on Sept. 9, Levy added: “The issues raised in this case are so critically important, and seen as such nationally, that an investigation by the Association would have commenced by now were it not for the role being assumed by the university’s committee.

We are informed that the subcommittee expects to produce a report promptly. We will continue to monitor developments closely and respond accordingly.”

The Tennessee Technological University chapter of AAUP has resolved to follow the example of several university chapters and state conferences nationwide in issuing a statement in support of the national AAUP’s position on this issue.

Academic freedom is the bedrock of the university system, which cannot effectively function in its mission without the free exchange of ideas, even –and perhaps especially –on controversial subjects. Tenure, with its emphasis on due process, and shared governance are not ends in themselves, but tools to protect academic freedom and ultimately the integrity of the university. Administrations and governing bodies making unilateral decisions about faculty and education issues without due process and procedural rigor, and without due participation from faculty representatives, sets a dangerous precedent which must not be countenanced. We urge the University of Illinois to reverse this disastrous course, and urge the academic community to continue expressing their disapproval if the university does not do so. We resolve to firmly oppose the efforts of any university to disregard the principles of academic freedom and shared governance, and invite both faculties and administrations of other institutions, and of our own, to stand with us in declaring unqualified support for those principles.

Tennessee Technological University chapter of AAUP

October 2, 2014

The document at the link below is worth reviewing. As a start, look at look at page 9 & 10 on the report listed as 13 & 14 on the pdf. Among other things, it is an interesting glimpse at the magnitude of increased tuition and E&G revenues coupled with the increase in administrative salaries. In this fiscal environment for higher education (which has been quite good since the 2008-2011 crisis ended) how could we suddenly have e a budget shortfall?

TBR Audit Report