There has been considerable misunderstanding in news articles on the denial of tenure to two Brigham Young University professors. As a retired university administrator and college accreditation examiner, let me help clarify some of the issues being mixed together in the personnel decisions concerning Professors David Knowlton and Cecilia Konchar Farr.
The first issue is the professor's right to speak on controversial issues outside the classroom, issues that may run counter to university position. Of course, faculty have the right to express their opinion.However, many private universities have clauses in their contracts or addenda to those contracts that bind the signee to abide by the principles of the mission of that university or the body or group that sponsors that university.
Such clauses are typical in denominational colleges and in some state-assisted colleges and have been declared by courts as valid and enforceable by those respective colleges.
Universities, particularly denominational ones, have the privilege of interpreting the clauses as they deem appropriate. The courts typically decline to involve themselves with interpreting religious principles.
It is almost universally recognized among American colleges and universities that faculty are evaluated by the following criteria: performance in teaching, research, publication, professional relations or activities, and community or peer relations.
Another issue is academic freedom. This is the most misunderstood concept but probably the most frequently invoked.
In every legal action in which I was involved over a 25-year period, the courts or other adjudicating body defined the term "academic freedom" to mean individual faculty have the right to determine how they will teach and evaluate a subject.
Academic freedom does not give a faculty member unlimited grounds to forward their own agendas. It is the faculty member's prerogative to challenge or present sides on a given topic, but usually that topic has been designated as appropriate for a given course of study or class.
In professional schools such as medicine, law, business, education, engineering and nursing, the curriculum is usually fairly discreetly prescribed.
Faculty have the opportunity to add their own content and scope beyond that which has been prescribed as long as it is consistent with the course of study.
The classroom is seldom a "bully pulpit" to further one's personal agenda. A faculty member who is given guidelines approved by peers and validated by state or national regulations, statutes or principles may be terminated if he doesn't adhere to those guidelines. Counseling faculty in writing as to their responsibilities is key when interpreting this principle.
The last issue is the role of accrediting bodies. I have served on state, regional and national accrediting teams. There are evaluation standards that deal with faculty performance and rights. Teams review the issues I have just described.
Accrediting teams look for problem trends, consistency in the treatment of all faculty and knowledge of sound management policies.
Individual cases in adjudication will probably not be grounds for denial of accreditation. But universities that fail to provide written counsel and evaluation of faculty performance to the individual faculty member, who fail to have a clearly defined appeal process or who exhibit racial or sexual bias would, in all likelihood, fail one or more of the accreditation standards, thereby putting the program or school under review and in jeopardy of losing accreditation.
It takes the failure of several standards in a variety of evaluation areas to cause a school to lose accreditation. Most universities have problems with some standards. Racial bias is one example. Schools are given a set period of time to correct the problems.
In the case of professors Knowlton and Farr, any breach of standards would be limited, at best, to only part of one of the faculty standards.
Faculty represent their employer, be it a state or private institution. Faculty have a variety of responsibilities to their university, their students, their peers and themselves. It is often a difficult path.
Not being privy to all the inner workings of BYU, although I was on an accrediting team that visited the campus several years ago, I can only speculate as to the outcome of the Farr/Knowlton cases. I would think BYU is on solid ground.
As an accreditor, I was impressed with the present leadership at Brigham Young, its management style and its excellent programs. The university is in no way a narrow bastion of denominational beliefs.
In the area of my expertise, I would say BYU can take its place alongside the universities of Washington, Oregon, George Washington, Fordham or Notre Dame - all of which I have either been employed by, worked with or evaluated.
As unfortunate as it may be for the respective parties, I suspect the dismissals will be upheld by the reviewing bodies, though the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) may find fault with the counseling procedures.