A Statement on Academic Freedom

While the attack on Sept. 11 brought out the best in America, from the heroism of New York's finest to the charity of people across the nation, it also brought fear and frustration. Freedom of thought and speech has come under pressure.

Responding to an episode here, the Executive Board of the primary guardian of Academic Freedom at USF - the USF chapter of UFF - and some members and friends composed and published a Statement on Academic Freedom.

The University of South Florida serves the public interest by educating students and giving honest counsel to the community. Our calling as faculty is to study the world, to seek to understand it, and to present our discoveries and conclusions, without fear or favor.

Our academic freedom to speak to the community arises from the public's right of access to current knowledge. Especially in a democracy, the public has the right --- and often the need --- to know. When faculty speak of the dangers of asbestos and cholesterol, the consequences of pollution and racism, the effects of law enforcement and urban planning, and the uses of robot technology and music education, these faculty are serving the community.

As with judges and journalists, the independence of scholars is crucial to the health and safety of the Nation. A university must be a place where honest debate is not suppressed in fear and anger, or stifled by parochial interests. Academic freedom is essential in good times, when holding to high principles is popular. But it is imperative in a crisis, when principles might be sacrificed out of false necessity or momentary expedience.

When the public itself suppresses academic speech, it commits a folly as great as slapping a band-aid on a lump and hoping it is benign. When parochial interests stifle academic speech, they deprive the people of public knowledge. When academic colleagues or administrators censor academic speech, they betray the trust that the community places in them. And when principles are abandoned out of fear or fury, the damage done so quickly takes decades to heal.

Professor Sami Al-Arian says unpopular things in public, and he and USF now face demands for his resignation or dismissal, and even threats of violence. Yet it is honest counsel, not dishonest comfort, that the public needs most. And threats of violence are themselves acts of terrorism, to which USF can not and should not submit. History shows that the silencing of one leads to the subservience of all.

By the principles upon which this Nation was founded, each person has the right to speak --- indeed, is encouraged to speak --- as an individual. And a scholar has a greater obligation to be honest than to be agreeable. Therefore, while we have varied opinions on what Professor Al-Arian says, we defend his right to speak. We believe that only out of a debate that includes all voices will the truth come forth.

This statement appeared as a full-page advertisement in the Nov. 1 Oracle, on p. 6.

In the last issue of Uncommon Sense, we reminded readers that the primary guardian of academic freedom at USF was the UFF, and the primary tool was Section 5.2 of the Contract. Once again, here it is: not a pious sentiment or a hopeful doctrine, but enforceable in law.

Consistent with the exercise of academic

responsibility [described in Section 5.3], employees

shall have the freedom to present and discuss their

own academic subjects ... and to select instructional

materials and determine grades in accordance with

university ... policies. Objective ... exposition ...,

including the acknowledgement of a variety of

scholarly opinions, is the duty of every such

employee. Employees shall also be free to engage

in scholarly and creative activity and publish the

results ... .

Bargaining Update

Every year, before the Legislature appropriates funds, we negotiate the distribution of funds for raises.

This year, the State is in a financial crisis, the State's old bargaining team has disappeared with the Board of Regents, and we are negotiating with the Board of Education (BOE). Here's what happened.

The BOE team made a proposal. UFF made a proposal. The BOE team withdrew their proposal, said that they couldn't make a proposal, and asked to meet later. Sigh, okay. But then the BOE team can-celled the later meeting, and negotiations are in limbo.

While the BOE may merely be bonked out, UFF has taken ... steps ... to make sure that the BOE unbonks itself - or face legal consequences.

Meanwhile, the Legislature is trying to get out of its mess. Right now, the universities are not scheduled to be cut by much, but the Legislature is back in session, so keep fingers crossed.

Here's a fable of legal consequences. The Legislature has capped pay raises of state employees whose salaries were over $ 90,000 and are not represented by a union. Why the second criterion? Back in 1992, the Legislature tried a similar game - with university professors. UFF took the State to court and won. That's what unions are good for.

Salaries: Against the Wind

by Greg McColm

In an old Peanuts strip, Linus told Lucy that Miss Othmar taught school for love, and wasn't getting paid. Lucy just looked at him. ``Oh no,'' said the shocked innocent.

In academia, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for. This applies to universities that want to build reputable programs. This applies to faculty who want someone to protect their contractual rights. We can see both aspects in our salaries.

As mentioned in the Bargaining Update article, just having a union protects faculty against certain abuses ... like arbitrary pay cuts. But there's more to it than that: there's also getting equitable raises.

In principle, the Board of Regents was always in favor of handing out equitable raises. But there was a technical reason (see the Fall, 1998 newsletter on our web-page for the technical reason) why they just couldn't - or said they couldn't. In reality, fixing the technical problem would have costed about $ 6 million in recurring funding, and they had other priorities.

Which means that the union had to get what it could at the bargaining table.

In UFF, the community college and graduate student unions report gains in membership while the university professors ... would like someone else to bargain and enforce the contract. For free. (That's what not being in the union and thus not paying dues means. For free.) In UFF, the universities have the lowest membership rates.

This year, the community colleges - and graduate students - have bargained raises higher than those the university faculty have gotten historically. This is not because the community college boards are more wise or generous; it is because a greater percentage of community college faculty are members of UFF.

Greater membership produces greater political clout for the union, and greater bench strength at the negotiating table. Power, not logic, is what decides what the union can win.

What could the union win? Better salaries and benefits, for one. Every year, the American Association of University Professors estimates the average pay increase of USA professors. During the last five years, that pay increase has averaged 3.4 %. If we had had, say, 90 % membership, enabling us to win such raises, the extra raises over just five years would be for several times union dues.

We can do it - if we do it together.