STATEMENT

BY USF-UFF CHAPTER PRESIDENT ROY WEATHERFORD

ABOUT THE RECENT AAUP ANNUAL MEETING

First, let me again make it explicitly clear that UFF

has no organizational affiliation with the American

Association of University Professors (AAUP). Further-

more, while I am personally Vice President of the

Florida Conference of AAUP, I have assiduously refused

to speak for the conference or for AAUP on the Al-Arian

controversy, took no part in the investigation and

committee deliberations except as a witness to the

investigating committee, and recused myself from

speaking or voting at the annual meeting. In short, I

do not speak for AAUP on this matter.

Nevertheless, I believe UFF's members and the

bargaining unit we represent deserve some report on

what I perceive to have happened, so here it is:

1. The tenor of the debate was that it was clear

that the USF administration had violated the

standards of academic freedom, the only question

was what to do about it.

a. To me, the most impressive fact about the extended

open debate was that not one of the speakers

argued for reducing or opposing the recommended

condemnation.

(1) Not one speaker said the administration had

performed satisfactorily and should be

exonerated.

(2) Not one speaker said that Al-Arian deserved

whatever punishment he received because of...

(3) Not one speaker said that AAUP should dodge the

issue because it would be politically unwise to

take a stand, and the one speaker who suggested

that someone else might hold such a view was

chastised for heresy.

b. Procedural issues and AAUP's own rules dominated

the discussion:

(1) The question was not whether some action should

be taken against the USF administration, but what

kind of action would be appropriate and consis-

tent with AAUP guidelines.

(2) To editorialize slightly: Much of the substance

of AAUP's criticism of USF's administration

concerned the issue of procedural justice, hence

most members felt strongly that AAUP itself had

a strong obligation to observe procedural justice.

2. The substance of the debate involved long-established

guidelines for imposing censure and the relative

novelty of condemnation.

a. The censure process has two important elements that

were important in the discussion.

(1) Censure is not normally imposed until all of an

institution's internal procedures and appeals have

been completed.

(a) Administrations are not normally considered to

have "done" something so long as it might yet be

reversed in the normal course of events.

(b) Professor Al-Arian chose to appeal his case

through the grievance procedure established by

the emergency rules rather than through the pro-

cedure established by the collective bargaining

agreement.

(i) It is UFF's position that the contract is still

in effect.

(ii) It is the administration's position that the

contract is not still in effect, and so they

refuse to process any grievances under the

contract.

(iii) Perhaps understandably, Dr. Al-Arian and his

attorney chose not to get caught in the middle

of this fight.

(iv) To editorialize again: This may not be a coin-

cidental problem as the administration waited

for over a year and then terminated Dr. Al-

Arian immediately after the date on which they

claim to have broken the union contract.

(c) Dr. Al-Arian has requested, and the administra-

tion has agreed, that his final hearing be

delayed until after the court disposes of his

indictment.

(d) Therefore, internal appeals have not been

exhausted and may, in fact, never be exhausted.

(2) Imposition of censure normally includes specific

recommended actions an administration must take to

have the censure lifted.

(a) But the university cannot give Dr. Al-Arian his

job back while he is in jail.

(b) And it cannot "retry" him under AAUP procedural

guidelines while he is in jail.

(c) And it would be inappropriate to force an adminis-

tration to remain on the censure list for not

doing something it is powerless to do (to invoke

Kant again, "'Ought' implies 'Can'").

(d) Furthermore, President Genshaft had convinced

Committee A that USF is already implementing a

policy that such disciplinary actions will in the

future require a preliminary hearing before a

faculty peer committee so there is no need to make

such a recommendation.

(To editorialize yet again: those of us in

attendance from USF were amazed to hear this, as

none of us knew of any such policy decision. In

fact, the only time that I know when it was

seriously discussed occurred more than a year ago,

when President Genshaft told the Board of Trustees

that she was considering such a policy, the Faculty

Senate formed an ad hoc committee to recommend such

a policy, the committee held a hearing at which I

agreed to such a policy on behalf of UFF and the

administration's representatives rejected it --

nothing more was done, so far as I know; certainly

the union has never been consulted on such a

policy.)

(3) Because these normal elements of censure were not

present, Committee A recommended that censure not

be imposed.

b. So far as anyone could recall, AAUP has never before

voted to "condemn" an academic administration.

(1) Censure is the normal instrument for indicating to

academia and the general public that an administra-

tion has violated AAUP guidelines.

(2) But AAUP had "condemned" other individuals and

institutions, such as the government of China.

(3) Committee A and the Executive Committee of AAUP

recommended condemnation in this case because:

(a) Censure seemed inappropriate under the circum-

stances.

(b) It would also be inappropriate to allow the

perception that AAUP had found the USF administra-

tion's actions to be justified under AAUP guide-

lines.

3. The conflict in the debate was whether or not the

recommended actions were sufficiently strong.

a. The plenary session clearly believed that it was

important to take some strong action proclaiming that

the USF administration had seriously violated AAUP

standards for academic freedom.

b. The plenary session rejected Committee A's recommen-

dation that censure not be imposed and recommitted

the question to the committee (note the beautiful

etymological symmetry) for further consideration.

c. The plenary session made it clear that they did not

wish condemnation to be viewed as an exoneration or

even a lesser reduced sentence for the USF adminis-

tration.

d. The plenary session voted almost unanimously (the

President called it unanimous and then withdrew the

appellation after three or four people indicated they

had softly said 'No') for the final motion to

recommit censure and impose condemnation on the USF

administration.

e. At the next plenary session a motion was briefly

entertained, but rejected, that would have recon-

sidered the final vote for the purpose of substitut-

ing a motion of immediate censure.

4. The consequences of the AAUP actions were these:

a. The most respected voice of academic freedom in the

United States has solemnly declared, in the strongest

language available, that the USF administration vio-

lated AAUP's generally recognized guidelines for

academic freedom.

b. USF has not "escaped" or "dodged" censure -- the

option is still open for action at next year's annual

meeting.

c. The administration has proclaimed itself exonerated

and "can't fathom" what the fuss was all about.

5. More subjective remarks:

a. In fairness to both the administration and the AAUP,

it is important to remember that the university's

actions that lie at the heart of the AAUP investiga-

tion and discussion are those involving the original

charges and actions against Dr. Al-Arian, not

primarily the more recent dismissal after his indict-

ment.

b. Unlike one case back when I was state president of

UFF, AAUP made no finding that the union was at fault

in this case, although it did express the opinion

that the collectively bargained contract is

insufficiently aligned with AAUP guidelines (there

are historical and systematic reasons for this, if

anyone is interested).

c. Neither our students nor our faculty should feel in

any way criticized by the AAUP's actions -- all

criticisms were directed at the university adminis-

tration, or at President Genshaft personally, or at

the Board of Trustees institutionally. In fact, the

censure list is explicitly a list of censured admin-

istrations, not institutions.

d. On the other hand, to the extent that students and

faculty are still at risk from the consequences of

any possible future imposition of censure, we need

to be vigilant and firm in our insistence that the

administration change its attitudes and behaviors.

e. Now that we have resolved the question of union.

recognition, the next important interaction will be

the negotiation of the first ever university-level

contract. I urge the administration to be forth-

coming rather than hostile and the faculty to be

engaged and supportive rather than apathetic.

f. We have a (somewhat) new Board of Trustees and a

(somewhat) new Provost -- as a confirmed optimist I

hope and expect that things will get better in the

future and we can all get past these conflicts and

get back to doing what we love to do: our jobs.