December, 2002                                     Editor: Patricia Brodsky                                  Vol. 3, No. 2


New Format

News of the Chapter

AAUP Holiday Party December 14

UM Crises Reported in Academe

Update on Recruitment Campaign

AAUP Symposium on Shared Governance

Faculty Governance and Shared Governance, by Stuart McAninch

Hiring: a Faculty Responsibility, by Pat Brodsky

AAUP Executive Committee Welcomes President Floyd

President Floyd Replies

Contingent Faculty at Western Michigan now Eligible for Tenure, by Richard Moser

National AAUP Office Questions Chancellor's policy on SBS, by Ed Gogol

The Corporatization of Academic Science, by Ray Pierotti

Food for Thought, by Pat Brodsky

School of Education Faculty Change Dean's Title, by Stuart McAninch

AAUP Missouri Conference Mobilizes to Increase State Funding, by Ed Gogol

Latest Right-wing Assaults on Academia

Tulane University, Testing Ground for the UMKC Blueprint, by David Brodsky

CMSU Faculty Unionizing

Copyright Notice


Back Issues

New Format

In response to requests by some members, this issue includes a table of contents and puts announcements and chapter news on the front page.  Other members, who don't mind reading through a small quarterly newsletter representing their interests, say the old format is OK with them.  Since The Faculty Advocate is one of the very few independent voices on campus, the editor appreciates not only your suggestions, but even more your submitting articles for publication.--Ed.

News of the Chapter

        This academic year has seen some changes in the AAUP campus community.  We have lost some members due to retirement, but on the other hand, our recruitment campaign is paying off, as colleagues from all over campus continue to join us.

        And on Friday, October 11, chapter member Amy Zeh added to our future ranks with the birth of Olivia Jeanne Zeh Rommel.  Congratulations, Amy!

        AAUP representation on the Faculty Senate increased, as members Joan Dean, Steve Dilks, and Dick Murphy were elected to posts in the latest Senate elections.  In addition, the Chapter is now represented on all major Senate committees: Administrative Affairs, Academic Issues, Budget, and Faculty Welfare.  We strongly support the idea of a vigorous and active faculty, and urge our members to get involved in faculty governance at all levels--department, school, and campus.

        In other news, Chapter Vice President Ed Gogol attended a meeting of the Missouri State Conference, where representatives of the state's chapters met to bring one another up to date on local issues, and discuss items of common interest (see below).

        On October 11 the chapter held its first social get together at the house of executive committee member, Bibie Chronwall. Toward the end of the evening an impromptu meeting grew out of a five minute report by the executive committee to the members.  About thirty members attended this first potluck/meeting, and the combination of relaxing cameraderie and lively and productive discussion made for a highly successful evening.  There was general agreement to continue the event as a series of potluck social gatherings, during which membership meetings would also take place.  Meeting times were shifted to evenings and locations to off campus to enable more people to attend in a less stressful environment.

        Don't forget: our Holiday Party, which is also our next potluck/meeting will be Saturday, Dec. 14, 7:30-10:30 at 5601 Locust (Drew Bergerson's house)!

AAUP Holiday Party December 14!

        It's time for another AAUP get-together!  The chapter invites members, spouses, partners, and friends who might enjoy meeting and celebrating with us to our Holiday Party.

        Saturday, December 14, 7:30-10:30 PM.  5601 Locust (Drew Bergerson's).  Locust is one block east of Oak St.  5601 is on the corner of Locust and 56th.

        As always, the party will be a potluck.  PLEASE bring food, drinks, snacks, desserts to contribute to the festivities.

        It's been a long, hard semester--so join us at Drew's on the 14th for some good talk and relaxation!

        For further information contact chapter secretary Pat Brodsky at 235-2826 or by email at

UM Crises Reported in Academe

        Mark F. Smith, AAUP director of government relations, devotes half of his column in Academe (Nov-Dec 2002, p. 85), to crises in the UM system and at UMKC.  Entitled "Improper Activities," it states: "In addition to the problems posed by drastic [budget] cuts, some state legislatures have chosen to use the budget process to interfere directly and inappropriately in basic curriculum decisions."  Smith's column then discusses the legislature's punitive actions aimed at Harris Mirkin and the UMC TV station, as well as drastic slashing of the overall UM budget.

        The UMKC AAUP chapter would like to thank Smith and Academe for departing from current media practice (print media in Kansas City, The Chronicle of Higher Education , etc.) by actually mentioning the existence and activity of the chapter, such as its statement supporting Harris Mirkin's academic freedom.

        Local media in particular take note.

P.S.  The AAUP chapter appeal for support for Harris Mirkin has been published in the current issue of Workplace, 5.1 (October 2002) .

Update on Recruitment Campaign

        Early in the fall semester Dr. Richard Moser, Associate Secretary and National Field Representative of the AAUP, was on campus to conduct workshops on recruitment.  Since then participating chapter members have been calling their colleagues and making office visits to persuade them to join the AAUP.

        The recruitment campaign is on-going.  We are eager to talk with faculty about their concerns, and to explain how AAUP principles relate to their day-to-day experiences at UMKC.  So far this semester we have gained twenty-two new members, sixteen of those since the campaign began.  In addition several national members who had previously not paid local dues have joined the local chapter.

        A broad involvement across schools and disciplines is vital for a strong and representative chapter.  We are encouraged that as of now we have members in nine schools--A&S, the Conservatory, Dentistry, Education, Law, Nursing, Pharmacy, SBS and SICE--as well as the PACE program.  In A&S our members belong to fourteen departments plus Religious Studies and American Studies.  Please let us know if there are colleagues in your department or school who share our goals but aren't yet members, or ask them to contact one of the executive committee officers for information.

        A reminder: to be a member of the AAUP, it is necessary to join both the local chapter (dues: $10/year) and the national organization.  Please pay your dues today!

AAUP Symposium on Shared Governance

        On October 25 the symposium, "Putting the Faculty Back into Shared Governance," sponsored by the AAUP chapter, attracted about 50 people and initiated a prolonged and lively discussion.  Presentations were given by Muriel Poston, an organizer of advocacy chapters on the national AAUP staff, and chapter members Stuart McAninch (Education), Phil Olson (Sociology), Pat Brodsky (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Gerry Carlson (School of Biological Sciences), and Gary Ebersole (History and Religious Studies).  McAninch and Brodsky prepared written versions of their talks, which are reproduced below.  Further selected presentations will be published later.

        Two terms which came up repeatedly during the symposium were "faculty governance" and "shared governance".  Faculty governance concerns areas of primary responsibility of the faculty, such as teaching, research, and faculty affairs.  "Shared governance" entails decisions made in cooperation with other elements of the institution, i.e. the administration, governing board (Curators), and sometimes students and staff as well. While both types of governance are closely linked, the main function of shared governance is to support the chief responsibilities of faculty governance, which oversees the core of the university, teaching and research.

        Perhaps the most important lesson learned at the symposium was that faculty, as one speaker said, "do have power.  It comes with responsibility."  Or, as an audience member put it, "we're in charge.  That's mind boggling."

Faculty Governance and Shared Governance

by Stuart McAninch

        As we approach the end of our third year as a reconstituted chapter, it is useful to ask what members of our growing chapter have in common.  Based on conversations with members and participation in chapter meetings, I think that there are at least three important beliefs which we hold in common.  First, we all believe in a strong role for faculty in university system, university, and unit governance.  Second, we all believe that it will take a great deal of work in order to firmly establish meaningful faculty participation in governance at those three levels.  Third, we believe that policies and actions by the university administration and curators and by the state government have impeded faculty involvement in governance--and that those policies and actions which violate AAUP principles of faculty and shared governance need to be vigorously opposed.

        While the chapter is committed to a vigorous oppositional stance when opposition to policy and actions is warranted, the chapter also clearly believes that opposition in itself is not sufficient.  Through our words and actions, we have committed ourselves to developing a positive vision of faculty participation in shared governance and to developing strong mechanisms for that participation in cases where such mechanisms either are non-existent or ineffective.  The following discussion of areas needing concrete action is not exhaustive.  Rather, it is meant to illustrate the kinds of work which we as a chapter need to focus on in order to strengthen faculty participation in shared governance.

The Faculty Senate

        In A Professional Professoriate (Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), Philo Hutcheson emphasized that the AAUP played a central role in the historical development of the faculty senate as an institutional means for faculty participation in shared governance.  Keeping that in mind, we need to establish a strong enough representation in the Senate to effectively promote in action AAUP principles of shared governance.

        This entails work to establish for the Senate a direct role in budget-making for the University.  Without meaningful faculty participation in budget-making, the ability of faculty to participate in other areas of shared governance is undermined.  Without full knowledge of how money is allocated and without the ability to directly influence that allocation, faculty ability to influence policy decisions at the university and the unit levels is severely constricted.  Such work will largely occur within the Senate's budget committee.  We have chapter members on that committee, and supporting its work needs to be a very high chapter priority.

        Work also needs to be done to establish clear procedures for fact-finding and deliberation on a course of action when there is a significant conflict between the University administration and a body of faculty.  The recent debate in the Senate over a resolution calling for mediation in the conflict between the chancellor and provost, on the one hand, and the faculty of the School of Biological Sciences, on the other, provided a glaring illustration of the lack of Senate policy in this area.  The Senate's discussion and the subsequent vote to reject the resolution were ad hoc; they were not informed by policy.  While the Senate did establish a fact-finding committee in the earlier case of the conflict between faculty in the School of Education and the School's dean and did play an important role in supporting meaningful faculty participation in the selection of division chairs, that decision was also ad hoc--and it did not lead to the establishment of policy.

        There needs to be a clear set of criteria for initiating Senate involvement in the case of significant conflict involving principles of shared and faculty governance--and there need to be equally clear procedures for dialogue and action.  The Senate has important responsibilities for identifying and making available to faculty the important facts in such matters and for supporting faculty in conflict with administration when such support is warranted by those facts and principles.

        Ad hoc discussions and decision-making leave the Senate unable to consistently perform these essential functions.  As long as the Senate does not perform these functions with consistent effectiveness when such conflict arises, it will remain a weak instrument for protecting faculty participation in university and unit governance.  Given the central importance of principles of faculty and shared governance to us as AAUP members, we have a particular responsibility to work to strengthen the Senate in this area.

The Intercampus Faculty Council

        The Council serves as the elected representatives of faculty on the four university campuses in discussions with the UM system administration and with the curators.  The need for a strong Council was dramatically illustrated by the curators' change in their bylaws last summer which threatens both due process and tenure provisions in the Collected Rules and Regulations.  We need to work with AAUP members on the other campuses in the UM system to ensure that the AAUP has strong representation on the Council and that the Council works to protect AAUP principles.

Unit and Department/Division Governance

        Much of the work of shared and faculty governance occurs at these levels: development, revision, and administration of academic programs, searches for deans, faculty members, and chairs, allocation of funds, etc.  At these levels, the chapter has a great deal of work to do.  The chapter especially needs to support the development or preservation of strong budget committees (or faculty executive committees which perform the functions of budget committees) so that faculty play an active role in allocating funds.  It is at these levels that we need to work toward appointment of deans and chairs who support active faculty participation in governance.  It is also at these levels that, as chapter members, we need to play key roles in the planning of academic programs and in facilitating dialogues on the ends which those programs should serve.

        However, it is essential to note that grass-roots chapter dialogue and activism at these levels play another role: they energize the chapter as a whole.  If the chapter is to continue to grow, and if it is to avoid coming to be dominated by an entrenched and unresponsive (or coopted) leadership in the chapter executive committee, it will need to develop strong and effective cadres of members in as many units and departments as possible.  While the chapter executive committee can plan and coordinate chapter activities, it is ultimately dependent on the ideas and energy from the base of the organization.

Hiring: a Faculty Responsibility

by Pat Brodsky

        The Chancellor continually tells us not dwell on the past, but the only way to protect shared governance is to examine and correct bad practices and ongoing violations.  One area in which faculty governance has been gravely eroded at UMKC is that of searches and hiring.  According to AAUP Policy Documents and Reports ("Redbook"), a primary area of faculty responsibility is "faculty status," including "appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal" (221).  "Appointments" means hiring.  Even though upper administrators must give final approval to faculty hires, the faculty has primary responsibility for screening, interviewing, and selecting their colleagues.  Let me cite some examples of how this principle is violated at UMKC.

        Search and hiring procedures for faculty vary from one department and unit to another, as does the extent of faculty involvement in the process.  In my 29 years in A&S, there have been numerous occasions when faculty wishes and the urgent needs of departments were simply ignored or overridden.  Deans have offered jobs to candidates with little or no input from the affected department, or over the express objections of faculty hiring committees.  Deans claimed expertise in disciplines totally outside their ken, or based their decisions on corporate evaluations of institutions such as US News and World Report 's list of top schools--despite copious evidence to the contrary provided by faculty committees.  Departments have lost good candidates and been saddled with mediocre ones or worse.

        Faculty know their own disciplines from the inside.  They are familiar with the PhD granting departments, important trends in their fields, and short- and long-term needs of their own programs.  Certainly it is our responsibility to choose wisely and make a good case for our choices.  But administrative responses that treat faculty as biased, arbitrary, or obstructionist destroy the very concept of shared governance.

        According to the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University of Missouri, departmental chairs serve at the pleasure of the Dean, who officially makes the appointment.  But the choice of a chair should be principally in the hands of the department, for the same reasons that faculty should select their own colleagues.  In addition, faculty want a chair who will provide leadership for the entire department, and will protect faculty interests in any conflicts with the administration or outside entities.

        There have been cases where departmental choices for chair have been disallowed at the Dean's or Provost's level.  No reasons were given, though such decisions were seen to be the result of a power struggle or personal antipathy.  Faculty were simply told to go back and vote again till they got it right.  Technically a Dean has the right to reject faculty choices.  But wisdom and common sense should tell him that a department burdened with a chair not of its choosing is not going to be a productive or cooperative unit, and that proceding in this fashion is a recipe for dissension down the road.

        A recent case is in the School of Education.  In a 2001 search for three division chairs, problems ranged from a disagreement as to the nature of the positions (administrative with some teaching duties, or teaching with some administrative duties), to the then-Dean's appointment of herself as chair of all three search committees, to serious concerns about the ethics of the search firm hired by the University.  In one division the Dean overrode a unanimous vote of the faculty in order to appoint a candidate.  A UMKC Senate resolution recommended suspension of the search process "until meaningful faculty input and consent is achieved."  Responses from the administration continued to be condescending and destructive, as the interim Provost repeatedly characterized "faculty concerns about the search process and about violations of legitimate faculty governance roles as 'quibbling' about procedures" (Stuart McAninch, Faculty Advocate, February 2001).

        A Senate Fact Finding Committee report "called for involvement of the School's promotion and tenure committee in deliberations where tenure is to be offered ... and involvement of faculty in amending the bylaws to clarify the faculty role in searches" (Stuart McAninch, Faculty Advocate, April 2001).  But many unresolved issues remain.  The blatant conflict of interest on the part of the Dean, and the closing of ranks on the part of the administration to defend its own regardless of violations of shared governance, should be a warning to faculty in other units that aggressive interference in their unit's governance is a distinct possibility.

        In the matter of dean searches , conditions also vary greatly from one unit to another.  The most recent search for an A&S Dean was, according to faculty members on the search committee, a satisfactory experience in terms of openness and faculty participation.  The committee reviewed all applications from the very beginning of the process.  Input on the final decision was invited from the faculty at large, and there is a general perception that it was listened to, at least in this case.

        On the other hand, constituents did not elect their representatives to the search committee.  And at the time of the campus visits many faculty noted that the time allotted for faculty questions was very short, and that much of the visitors' time was taken up with meetings with other "constituents," such as administrators, corporate community groups, and the UKC Trustees.  This same complaint holds true for all campus administrative candidate visits.  I don't believe it's far-fetched to see in this structure a desire to insulate candidates and faculty from one another so as to avoid too pointed an exchange of information.

        In other schools the process has been far more contentious.  We are all familiar with the highhanded imposition of an interim Dean on the School of Biological Sciencs.  Not only is this person, as an urban geographer, academically unqualified to understand, let alone give meaningful leadership to, a biology faculty, he was hired at an exorbitant salary against the unanimous and very vocal dissent of the entire unit faculty.

        Deans frequently conceive of themselves as managers and messengers for the administration, rather than as the faculty's representative.  Given this trend, it is all the more important that faculty be centrally involved in their selection, so as to protect our interests and those of our units.

        According to the Redbook , "'faculty participation in the selection of administrators' is the very epitome of the principle of shared goverance" (Dennis M. Clausen, "University Presidential Searches: Exercises in Secrecy or Shared Governance?" Academe 83.5 [Sept-Oct. 1997]: 21).  Adherence to this principle has varied in practice at UMKC.  In hiring provosts and chancellors a search firm engaged by the University provides a pool of candidates they deem appropriate to the job description.  An appointed committee, heavily weighted toward administrative personnel, reviews the dossiers, picks a list of possibles, and selects a short list of candidates for campus visits.  Questions raised by this model include the advisability of relying on headhunters, who tend to replace faculty in the selection process, and whose very presence necessarily skews the process by eliminating any number of possible candidates who are not in their stable or who do not fit their narrow idea of an acceptable profile, despite, or indeed because of, qualities that would make these candidates more attractive to the faculty.

        Here are a few more examples of violations of the principle of shared governance and corrupted procedures:

1. Before the current Chancellor was hired, three candidates came to campus.  After his visit one of them reported to a UMKC faculty member that his references had never been contacted--he felt that he had been used to fill up a fake slate on which a decision had already been made.

2. In that same search, faculty members wrote to the administration to urge that "none of the above" be chosen, and that a new search be instituted.  Clearly this attempt at shared governance fell on deaf ears.

3. Again in the same search, there were zero representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences on the search committee, despite the fact that the College, with its sixteen departments, is the largest single unit on Campus.  This pointed omission was a clear act of retaliation, because College faculty had instigated the administrative shakeup that led to the need for a new chancellor.

4. Although the University has apparently hired a promising new President of the UM system, the hiring process itself left much to be desired.  Not only was a search firm used, there was no faculty search committee.  Instead there was a faculty advisory committee, composed of two faculty members from each of the four campuses.  They played no role at the crucial early and middle stages of the procedure, when the dossiers were reviewed and the University's needs were articulated.  Rather, they were called in, on an advisory basis only, when there was already a short list of candidates.

        This truncated form of faculty participation is increasingly typical across the country, and is based on a model of secrecy promoted by many consulting firms, who seek to avoid "zealous faculty-dominated search committees" that "infect and contaminate the search process" (Clausen, 22-23).  Yet the university can only benefit by utilizing the wealth of knowledge and experience of its faculty in a presidential search.  And a president who is chosen with active faculty participation is more likely to find a consensus and a supportive atmosphere when he begins his job.

        A further problem is that faculty have a very different idea of what is needed from administrators and curators.  Based on recent national trends, the likely profile of the person a university will hire looks something like this: advanced degree but not much or recent classroom teaching experience; lengthy career in educational management; sympathetic to corporate interests; perhaps experienced in running a large corporation, government agency, nonprofit, or even military institution.  He is unlikely to be, or to consider himself, primarily an academic, or a representative of the faculty.  He will regard his job as that of a manager, with a mandate to raise funds, create an institution that is lean, mean, and efficient, and act as a liaison between the university and the corporate community.  The reduction of faculty participation in the selection to a vestigial formal gesture virtually guarantees this.

        Such are some of the problems in searches and hiring at the University of Missouri and beyond.  I hope I have made clear how they are issues of governance, and why we must reassert faculty rights in the shaping of the University.

AAUP Executive Committee Welcomes President Floyd

Dear Dr. Floyd:

        In the name of the UMKC chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the Executive Committee would like to welcome you to the University of Missouri.  Ours is a growing chapter that actively seeks to articulate faculty concerns and defend faculty rights.  We believe that straightforward communication between faculty and administration about issues of common interest is crucial for building a strong university, and hope that in the months to come we will have the opportunity to work with you often.

        One area in which the UMKC chapter has been active is in supporting contingent faculty.  We helped them form a campus organization and continue to support them in their efforts to gain fair compensation and decent conditions of employment.  We would like to commend you on your contribution to the important gains of contingent faculty at Western Michigan (see below).  We hope you will continue to make the needs of non-tenure track faculty a major focus.

        As you are no doubt aware, there are grave on-going threats to faculty governance and academic freedom at UMKC.  In the past two and a half years, the campus community has been split by the UMKC administration, individual units have been deprived of due process and self-determination, and quality faculty and staff have left the University.  The AAUP chapter has publicized and protested these destructive trends.  We sincerely hope that as President you will listen carefully to faculty and address our urgent issues expeditiously.

        A second grave concern, which is shared by faculty at all the UM campuses, is the action taken last summer by the UM Board of Curators to amend their bylaws.  The Board claims the amendment was necessary to allow them to make temporary cuts to faculty salaries in times of emergency.  However, as numerous people immediately pointed out, the wording of the amendment, combined with language already present in the Bylaws, creates a loophole effectively destroying tenure at the University of Missouri.  The amendment also violates the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University of Missouri.  Despite assurances subsequent to the May meeting that the Curators would change the offending language, there has been no action, and the latest report we have had was that the Board had decided not to make any changes.

        We ask you as President to look into this matter and urge the Board to revise the language of its Bylaws--both the amendment and the existing language about dismissal "at the pleasure of the Board of Curators."  It is crucial that the University of Missouri be brought into compliance both with its own rules and regulations and with AAUP principles concerning tenure and academic freedom.

        For extensive background material on AAUP concerns at UMKC, we refer you to our chapter newsletter, The Faculty Advocate Issue number nine contains background material on the Curators' amendment.  All issues of the newsletter are accessible through links on the chapter's website: .

        Taking over the leadership of a large multi-campus university brings immediate challenges, such as those we have described to you here.  We hope that you will also find it rewarding, and look forward to working with you.


Executive Commitee, AAUP Chapter, UMKC

Stuart McAninch, President
Edward Gogol, Vice-President/Treasurer
Patricia P. Brodsky, Secretary
Marino Martinez-Carrion, Membership Chair
Bibie Chronwall, At-Large Representative
Susan Adler, Grievance Committee Chair

President Floyd Replies

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:41:28 -0500
From: "Elson Floyd" <>
To: <>
Cc: "Gary Mathews" <>
Subject: Re: Welcome to UMKC from AAUP Chapter

Thank you for your message.  I was aware of many of these issues through a fax directed to me through the President of the AAUP here at Western Michigan University.  I strongly believe in shared governance within the University, and I remain confident we can collectively address many of the issues you have raised.

Take care and warmest regards.

Elson S. Floyd, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University
3060 Seibert Administration Building
Kalamazoo, MI  49008-5134
Office: 269 387-2351
Fax: 269 387-2355
Internet (e-mail):

Contingent Faculty at Western Michigan now Eligible for Tenure

by Richard Moser

        The Western Michigan University AAUP Chapter has made a historic breakthrough for academic freedom and contingent faculty in their recent contract negotiations.

        For what may be the first time in the United States, a class of contingent faculty has won the right to become eligible for tenure.

        According to the agreement, faculty specialists, previously ineligible for tenure, become "fully participating faculty members in the academic community" eligible for the rights and privileges of tenure. The new contract places faculty specialists on a career ladder roughly parallel to traditional faculty, but in accordance with the job for which they were hired the tenure decisions will not include a research component.

        Just as important, the new due process protections now enable the faculty specialist to participate as first class citizens in the faculty governance system.

        The new faculty career ladder will correspond in most regards to that of the traditional faculty and carry the same salary minima. Approximately 8% of the 940 faculty at Western Michigan will be covered by the new provisions.

        Statements of solidarity and congratulations can be sent to Chapter President, Gary Mathews, Chief Negotiator, Robert Ricci and Contract Administrator, Ariel Anderson.  Ariel Anderson is also the current Chair of AAUP's Collective Bargaining Congress.

National AAUP Office Questions Chancellor's Policy on SBS

by Ed Gogol

        At the request of AAUP members in SBS, supported by the executive committee of the local chapter, Robert Kreiser, Associate Secretary of the AAUP, expressed the national organization's concern about violations of academic governance principles at UMKC.  Specifically, his letter of October 22, accessible at, dealt with the interactions between the Gilliland administration and SBS over the past two years, as documented in various public communications and open meetings.  Based on a review of those documents and of discussions with participants in some of the proceedings, such as the dean's search committee, the letter repeatedly cited severe discrepancies between administration actions and AAUP Statements on Government and Faculty Participation, copies of which he enclosed for the chancellor.

        On November 13, Chancellor Gilliland responded to Dr. Kreiser's letter, assuring him of her support and adherence to AAUP principles, in the past and the future.  She claimed that (unsubstantiated) performance problems were the reason for dismissal of Dean Martinez-Carrion, and that these problems (never explained to the faculty) were not resolved over the next year.  She also claimed her reason for threatening the future of SBS was the fiscal situation of the university, a claim not made at the time of the Provost's ultimatum in May 2002.  She absolved herself of responsibility in the dean's search, since it was delegated to the Provost and Burnele Powell, chair of the committee.  She claimed to have solicited faculty input (which she ignored) in her choice of the current dean.  Finally, she asserted that her actions and policies have been "highly consistent" with AAUP guidelines.

        The faculty of SBS strongly dispute the Chancellor's revision of the history of her dealings with this academic unit.  Faculty "input" given to the Chancellor and Provost overwhelmingly urged courses of action entirely opposite to those taken, from the firing of the sitting dean to the appointment of an unqualified external consultant for the position.  The only consultation on the matter of the interim dean was with a librarian and with faculty outside SBS, who themselves did not consult with members of the affected unit.  SBS faculty are currently formulating a detailed response to the the Chancellor's letter, supported by documentation contemporaneous with the events, not assembled after the fact.  After it is sent to Dr. Kreiser and the UMKC administration, this statement will be made public on the local AAUP and websites.  SBS invites the Chancellor to likewise make public her version of the story, starting with her letter to the national AAUP office.

The Corporatization of Academic Science

by Ray Pierotti

Corporate ethic is now undermining universities too.  Adoption of money-centered business practices leaves academia open to same abuses.

        Sir--Although I applaud the overall message of your Opinion article "After the Gold Rush" (Nature 418, 111; 2002), I do not share your optimism that the scandals emerging in US businesses and the resulting distortion of scientific priorities have "not done much damage to the integrity of universities or scientific institutions."

        Many US universities have begun switching their administrative processes to follow a more coporate model, run on a 'star' system similar to companies such as Enron.  In this system individuals are promoted, not because of experience or expertise, but on perception of their so-called intelligence and charisma.  Large salaries can thus be given to mid-level administrators and a few faculty members sympathetic to 'reforms' and 'streamlining' (see for a discussion of this issue).

        One example of this practice is the use of new personnel policies based on business principles and maximizing revenue.  Such policies (including attempts to end tenure) can effectively create deregulation within an institution.  The resultant breakdown of due process leaves only the courts to resolve internal matters, a phenomenon which is also being seen in corporate scandals.

        Another issue is that of shaky accounting, in which department chairs inflate the amount of grant money brought in by their faculty.  They may list grants received by a group of faculty as if each member had received that amount, for example, or bring in badly paid temporary lecturers to replace tenured faculty members who have left.

        Attempts to raise revenue have caused some university administrators to appoint to senior positions former executives from corporations emrboiled in accusations and scandals.  Some university presidents serve on boards of directors of companies that may have competing financial interests or may be subject to investigation of their business practices.  Under circumstances such as these, the association between university professors and businesses is too close for comfort.

        Practices and philosophies that have emerged from the economic boom and subsequent bust are only now beginning to harm the integrity of scientific institutions.  Academic scandals are less well known because they do not (yet) involve the large amounts of money reported in corporate scandals.  But the basic elements of serious scandals are likely to be as common in US universities as they are in US business.

Raymond Pierotti

President, KU American Association of University Professors, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA

Ray Pierotti participated in the UMKC-AAUP organized conference, "Education for Democracy: Fighting the Corporate Takeover," March 3, 2001 at UMKC.  His essay from the conference, "The Morale of Faculty, Students, and Staff under a Corporate Model: The Case of the University of Kansas," was published in Workplace: a Journal of Academic Labor (February 2002) [alternative URL], as part of the cluster entitled "Education for Democracy."

Reprinted by permission of the author and Nature, vol. 419, October 17, 2002, p. 667, Copyright 2002 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Food for Thought

by Pat Brodsky

        One topic I have recently been chewing over is the free flow of information.  Free information flow is supposed to be one of the basic values of the Blueprint, and it certainly is a basic tenet of the AAUP.  Shared governance is necessarily based on shared information, also known as "transparency."  But several experiences I've had this semester lead me to believe that all is not well in the area of openness and cooperation.

        On September 25 I wrote to Provost Ballard, stating that the UMKC AAUP chapter was interested in seeing the University contract with Pricewaterhouse Coopers to audit SBS, as well as any other audits which have been agreed to or projected for this campus.  A public investigation and evaluation of various levels of university finances, which could well have serious repercussions for the faculty, should be made available for faculty study.  Provost Ballard responded on September 26 that "the auditing function is under the authority of the Vice Chancellor for Financial and Administrative Services [Larry Gates].  By copying him on this message, I am asking him to respond to your inquiry."  As of the end of November I am still waiting to hear from Vice Chancellor Gates about the audits.

        More recently I requested a number of pieces of information from the office of Jennifer Spielvogel, Director of Institutional Research, including the names and units of those faculty who had taken the VERIP [retirement] option.  Members of the Faculty have a right to know which of their colleagues will no longer be here come January.  After considerable delay, blamed at first on PeopleSoft, I received a copy of the following e-mail which had been sent to Ms. Spielvogel's office: "This is in response to your (and AAUP's) request.  Larry [Gates] has been advised by the General Counsel's Office that VERIP information is considered 'Personnel Related Records' and as such are closed records and not subject to the open records law.  Therefore, at this time he will not be providing the local chapter of AAUP with a list of names of faculty electing to take VERIP."

        Retirement information is no different from employment and salary information in a public institution.  The latter is public knowledge published by the State of Missouri.  In addition, VERIP information is available to the individual retiree's units.  There is nothing secret about it.  It was simply to save time that, rather than having to call each unit on campus, I applied to the Office for Institutional Research, under the mistaken assumption that they would disseminate information from a centralized public data base.

        Why the secrecy?  Vice Chancellor Gates and his office are using delaying tactics on a regular basis, apparently to prevent faculty from accessing information of legitimate interest to them.  Perhaps he hopes that the AAUP will get tired of waiting and forget about its requests.  He is mistaken: we will continue to press for information that the faculty needs in order to have a total overview of events and trends on campus.

        There are other irritants affecting the day to day performance of our jobs--things many of you have probably experienced.  The Book Store is seemingly unable to provide, on time, the correct number of the correct titles.  They routinely order fewer copies than faculty indicate they need.  Incorrect editions are sent, or books never arrive at all.  Student evaluations, too, complain about the confusion and the lack of texts.  The Book Store is under new management now, but it's not clear if anything has improved.  No call for book orders for WS 2003 was even sent out to departments.  Roopaks are now outsourced, with an office somewhere in New England handling copyright permissions.  And woe to those faculty whose texts are published abroad!

        Equally distracting is the situation at Nichols Library.  Book and journal budgets, at least in the humanities, were cut to the bone long ago and have never been restored.  Yet considerable money was spent to create a reference room as user-friendly as a bank lobby, and with the same general ambience.  And never mind trying to "integrate technology" into the classroom.  Carousel trays don't rotate, VCR's show signs of decrepitude, and TV monitors are mounted above the reach of the average middle-sized professor.  The IQ's of smart classrooms are slipping.  And all of this was true before the governor decided that the University was a money-machine.

        While the big issues can ruin my life, it's the little stuff that can ruin my day, or my class.  It's time that the faculty take on these issues and demand a free flow of information, an efficient source of texts, a library whose priority is books, and equipment that helps, not impedes, the process of education.

School of Education Faculty Change Dean's Title

by Stuart McAninch

        Faculty in the School of Education voted 22-18 to support changing the title of John Cleek from "Interim Dean" to "Dean".  The vote was in response to Cleek's announcement that he would not serve after December 31 if the title were not changed, and that he would not pursue the request for a title change with the Provost and Chancellor unless the faculty concurred.

        When he was appointed by the Chancellor, he lacked teaching experience in a school of education, research and publication in any educational field, publication in refereed journals, involvement with doctoral students and programs, and tenure.  Such lack of qualifications were cited by opponents to the title change.  Questions about lack of faculty input into his negotiations with outside foundations regarding possible funding, management of Northland campus programs, the lack of concrete information which he has presented to faculty on the School budget, and the effectiveness of his advocacy for University resources for the School were also raised.  Some faculty, however, argued that he brought a degree of stability and sound management to the School and presented a positive image of the School to the public and Chancellor.  Supporters of the title change also argued that a change in dean less than a year before an accreditation site visit to the School is not wise.

        On the one hand, the outcome of the vote should be of considerable concern to faculty in the University.  Given the Curators' undermining of tenure and due process rights of faculty through their amendment of their by-laws earlier this year, faculty may have to lobby or fight to preserve those rights as they are specified in the Collected Rules and Regulations.  Faculty concurrence with the waiving of the Collected Rules and Regulations in instances like this will undermine their ability to preserve them in the future.

        On the other hand, it is a positive sign that after the absence of a national search preceding the last appointment of a dean, and given the faculty's acceptance of the appointment of Cleek without serious input or systematic deliberation, faculty in the School engaged in serious deliberation in their divisions and in a special faculty meeting.  All members of voting faculty (including the Interim Dean) cast ballots.  While divided over the Interim Dean's condition that his title be changed if he is to remain in office, the faculty voted unanimously at the special meeting to recommend that the search for the next dean begin by the Fall 2003 Semester.

AAUP Missouri Conference Mobilizes to Increase State Funding

by Ed Gogol

        Since our chapter president had a schedule conflict, I was happy to represent the local chapter at the annual meeting of the Missouri Conference of the AAUP, November 2 at Westminster College.  Along with routine business, several topics of interest to our chapter were the major points of discussion: the future of state funding for public higher education in Missouri, the exclusion of faculty from academic governance, both at individual campuses and in the system at large (e.g. selection of the UM president), and the Curators' recent change in the By-laws that appears to be the first step in circumventing tenure in the UM system.  Though considerable discussion focussed on UMKC, particularly after publication of the Chronicle of Higher Education article, I am sorry to report that even more outrageous violations of shared governance and academic freedom can be found at Lincoln University and Maryville University.

        Given the imminent threat of continued cuts in state funding, and the belief that an alliance of faculty, students, and administrations can make a difference, the main theme of the meeting was the impact and future of state funding of higher education in Missouri.  The urgency of this issue is evident in the release of a privately-commissioned opinion piece ("Moody tape") circulated to the state campuses (PowerPoint presentation at  To maximize the opportunity for lobbying the state legislature, the location of the next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Lincoln University in Jefferson City and its date moved to Feb. 8, 2003, near the opening of the legislative session.  There is a possibility of devoting the conference's annual lobbying budget of $2500 to this effort, and the potential for alliances with larger organizations sharing these interests, such as Missouri NEA, will be explored.

        Finally, the annual search for volunteers for the offices and at-large delegates of the Conference executive committee is underway, and any members interested in the minor commitment of time required for participation at statewide level are invited to identify themselves, preferably through their local chapters.  An editor for the conference newsletter is also being sought.

The Nov. 2002 issue of Z Magazine (pp. 12-15) documents the latest right-wing assaults on academia, targeting "collective bargaining," "tenure," "academic standards and curricula," and "government funding."  E.g. Governor Jeb Bush replaced the Florida Board of Regents with handpicked Boards of Trustees.

Tulane University, Testing Ground for the UMKC Blueprint

by David Brodsky

        Sources for the first part of this article are an AAUP press release, June 12, 2001, on the Konheim award (cited as " Konheim "), and communications from Linda Carroll, past president of the Tulane AAUP chapter, in Sept. and Oct. 2002 (cited as " Carroll ").

        The Tulane University AAUP Chapter received the 2001 Beatrice G. Konheim Award, presented at the Association's 87th Annual Meeting.  The award recognizes a chapter, inter alia, for "outstanding achievement in advancing the Association's objectives in academic freedom ..." (Konheim).  The Tulane chapter was instrumental in effectively resisting a number of administrative assaults.  Linda Carroll writes: "the greatest successes in maintaining academic freedom and faculty governance came through faculty action, especially when faculty worked through the established, elected governance system, which is strong here.  AAUP chapter members were among the leaders in these actions, which included a broad range of faculty members."

First assault: on tenure and academic freedom

        The Provost at Tulane involved the university in a study of faculty rewards being conducted by Richard Chait.  As part of Tulane's participation, an ad hoc committee appointed by the Provost was charged with reviewing Tulane's system of faculty rewards and instructed to even "think the unthinkable....," which was widely interpreted as the abolition of tenure.  The appointive committee was called "Faculty Evaluation and Rewards," and it "immediately became known by its acronym, FEARS" (Carroll).  "The chapter reacted swiftly, assisted by AAUP's national office, and was successful in explaining the value of tenure and the unserviceability of post-tenure review in the context of annual faculty reports and merit-only raises.  As a result, the final committee report did not recommend post-tenure review or any other substantive change to the tenure system" (Konheim).  In the process, chapter members challenged Richard Chait, a nationally notorious tenure-buster, who as director of the study was invited to speak on campus by the Provost.

        The Provost at Tulane, who involved the university in Chait's "study," established the FEARS committee, appointed its members, and invited Chait to campus was Martha Gilliland.

        "Martha Gilliland was hired as provost of Tulane in 1997 and served slightly less than three years.  A number of the issues and approaches that are currently in evidence in her administration at UMKC were also in evidence at Tulane.  To present a balanced view, I must also say that a number of them were used before she arrived and after she left, though some of them, such as the appointive committee, have been much less utilized since her departure" (Carroll).

        Gilliland's appointing of a committee to review faculty rewards violated Tulane's "highly articulated system of elected faculty governance that was designed by Professor Henry Mason, emeritus professor of political science, expert on faculty governance, and long-time AAUP stalwart" (Carroll).  While some of the FEARS report's recommendations were welcomed by the faculty, a number generated controversy, such as recom-mendations "that workload become 'flexible' (meaning that the proportions of teaching and research could change in an individual faculty member's load), that the criteria for promotion to full professor ... become more demanding, and that there be voluntary post-tenure review for associate professors" (Carroll).  Post-tenure review would have been redundant at Tulane, since the university had already adopted all its features, such as a "system of merit-only salary increases based on a very detailed written annual report compiled by each faculty member" (Carroll).  The AAUP chapter made sure that the FEARS report, particularly its controversial proposals, was deliberated by the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) and the Senate.

        The tactic of administratively appointed committees usurping the powers of regular elected faculty bodies is, of course, a cardinal feature of the Blueprint.  That faculty service on many Blueprint committees is "voluntary" and self-selected does not negate their administrative origin and leadership, their usurpatory function, their short-term goal of replacing legitimate faculty governance bodies, or their likely long-term goal of ending legitimate faculty governance altogether.

Second assault: interference with faculty governance bodies

        The Tulane administration recommended reducing faculty representation on the University Senate.  Unlike the UMKC Faculty Senate, the University Senate at Tulane includes administration, students and staff.  Its chair is the president of the university, while its vice-chair is supposed to be a faculty member.  A body with the potential to provide fuller democratic representation of all university constituencies nevertheless became a potential administrative Trojan horse.

        The Tulane AAUP chapter pointed out that "the University Senate constitution reflects the university's Faculty Handbook statement that the Senate is the forum in which the faculty exercises its primary role in university governance.... the end result was that the study's final report recommended no changes in size or distribution of the Senate" (Konheim).

        Prior to the review of Senate organization, Provost Gilliland "named as one of her two vice provosts the faculty member who was the vice chair of the Senate, a position whose designation as a faculty member is particularly important in light of the fact that the Senate's chair is the university president" (Carroll).  Moreover, Provost Gilliland "recruited to part-time administrative duties a faculty member who was subsequently elected vice chair of the Senate."  When the AAUP chapter contacted the faculty member in question about this conflict of interest, nothing was done to resolve the problem.  Eventually "both the LAS Faculty Committee on Committees and the Senate ... adopted the position that those who hold part-time administrative positions may not serve in slots designated for full-time faculty members" (Carroll).

        Chancellor Gilliland's appointment of the Chair of the UMKC Faculty Senate to her Cabinet likewise constitutes a direct conflict of interest.  The UMKC Senate should consider emulating the wise decision of these Tulane faculty bodies.

Third assault: on academic and artistic freedom

        "An extensively revised harassment policy ... introduced into the [Tulane] Senate ... paid inadequate attention to academic and artistic freedom and to the faculty role when the accused is a faculty member.  Again, with the assistance of the national office, the chapter and its Senate members succeeded in having those values incorporated into the final policy, which is now regarded as a model" (Konheim).

        A UMKC analogy is the Missouri legislature's direct assault on the academic freedom of Professor Harris Mirkin, and the exemplary unconditional defense of academic freedom by the UMKC Faculty Senate.

Fourth assault: administrative expropriation of the faculty's intellectual property

        The Tulane administration introduced into the Senate "an intellectual property policy in which the University claimed ownership of the copyright of all works produced by faculty, staff, and students, retroactively for a number of years.  Chapter members in the Senate and the chapter executive committee, with support from the national office, brought the grave disadvantages of such a policy to the attention of the chapter and the faculty at large.  Discussion of this matter is continuing, with the heartening development that the administration has indicated its willingness to change to a faculty-ownership policy" (Konheim).  In an update Linda Carroll writes: "While faculty members were able to improve the copyright policy in the Senate, the patent policy strongly favors the institution."

        Threats of expropriating the faculty's intellectual property have not yet surfaced at UMKC or in the UM system, but since it is a national trend, UMKC faculty should be prepared to deal with it.

Fifth assault: replacing salaries with grants

        Outside the Senate the Tulane AAUP chapter helped "one group roll back a policy in their schools that required them to raise a significant portion of their salaries through grants" (Konheim).  Linda Carroll adds: "this began before [Gilliland] arrived.  The AAUP chapter objected to it, and the administrators who advanced it have since moved on.  There are still many pressures toward obtaining lucrative grants."

        The Blueprint promises to reward programs that bring in grant money, and the latest targets, published in the November 22 Kansas City Star, are to increase federal research funding to amount to two-thirds of the total.  But because almost no grant money is available for the humanities, arts, and public service oriented units (e.g. sociology, education), these disciplines would be punished.  Instead of arguing for adequate state funding to support the core missions of teaching and research in all disciplines, the Chancellor has said the university should rely less on state support.  This can only mean privatizing a public university by handing it over to the lowest private bidders.

Sixth assault: administrative interference in faculty hiring

        The hiring of faculty is a prerogative belonging to the faculty, which has the decisive voice in these matters.  But Tulane Provost Gilliland "made it known in an e-mail to some chairs in Humanities departments who had objected to hiring decisions made by her office that she expected LAS to develop 'strategic priorities.'  She was reported to have told departments what field they could hire in, even if it was quite different from the field that the department had chosen" (Carroll).

        The form that such inteference has taken so far at UMKC is administrative denial that faculty have the responsibility to participate in choosing their own administrators (e.g. chair of the History Department, deans of the School of Education and SBS, Chancellor of UMKC, President of the UM system).  In the case of the History Department, the administration violated the AAUP principle that faculty choices carry determinative weight.  This can be reversed by the administration only in rare cases and for valid reasons which must be communicated to the faculty.

Seventh assault: attempted entry into restricted listservs and interference in faculty elections

        Provost Gilliland's assistant asked for the membership list of the Tulane AAUP chapter, under the pretext of sending members an invitation.  The chapter twice declined to hand it over to her, while offering to forward the invitation to the members' listserv.  The Provost declined the chapter's offer (Carroll).  In addition, Provost Gilliland reportedly used the Tulane Senate's listserv to send targeted messages to specific people, especially on matters to be voted on and elections.

        At UMKC the Chancellor interfered in elections earlier this year for the Chair of the Faculty Senate, directly by promising to appoint the new Chair to her Cabinet and by linking this appointment to voter turnout, and indirectly, when members of the Chancellor's extended cabinet, another administrative body with some faculty, openly campaigned for the Chancellor's choice of candidates.

Working prototype of the Blueprint

        The Tulane student newspaper, The Hullaballoo, documented in an article from April 3, 1998 Provost Gilliland's establishment of projects described with the terms "transformation" and "breakthrough."  The article opens: "Implementation of Provost Martha Gilliland's University Transformation Program begins this month.  The University Transformation Program consists of five separate projects.  Entitled 'breakthrough' projects, each will focus on improving a different non-academic aspect of the university....  The five breakthrough projects are geared toward improving staff development, creating increased technology support and a technology help desk, establishing an international studies office, renovating classrooms and starting a extracurricular program for incoming freshman."

        The staff development project was based on student responses to surveys asking about satisfaction with "the enrollment process, the registrar's office, the financial aid office, the bursar's office and Howard-Tilton Memorial Library."  Sixty classrooms were scheduled to be upgraded to "minimum maintenance standards," but five others were to be "renovated as showcase classrooms to serve as models for future renovations.  'We want these showcase rooms to let faculty and students explore other ways of thinking and learning'," said an administrator on the renovation committee.  The program for freshmen was "intend[ed] to introduce freshman into the New Orleans culture."  The new centralized international study office would replace half a dozen offices scattered around campus.  And the technology help desk would provide familiar services.

        Despite the grandiose EST terminology of "transformation" and "breakthrough," the projects showcased at Tulane were ordinary garden variety administrative undertakings typical of many institutions, promising to make campus life somewhat more comfortable.  It was only when Gilliland assumed the Chancellor's office at UMKC that the grandiose verbiage was wedded to assaults on the core of the university.  Similar assaults at Tulane, documented above, were equally serious, but not clothed in fine phrases.  The relative absence of window dressing may have helped the Tulane faculty recognize the dangers of these initiatives earlier and more clearly.  Hence the Blueprint at UMKC, with its elaborate public relations campaigns and psychological warfare techniques.

        However, at UMKC "breakthrough" soon became "breakdown" and "transformation" turned out to be "deformation."  Assaults "strategically planned" under the cloak of the Blueprint or its successors have overfulfilled their quota in one major respect.  They have driven away from UMKC scores of excellent teachers and researchers and continue to damage its reputation (see Piper Fogg, "Chancellor Says Transformation, Biologists Say Mumbo-Jumbo," Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 1, 2002).  The recent revival of the Blueprint essentially places it on artificial life support.  But while its original function was to induce "voluntary" participation coupled with veiled threats for non-participation and criticism, the administration removed the velvet gloves in the case of SBS and showed the mailed fist.  The mailed fist is also what we have seen from the governor, legislature, and curators.  The faculty at Tulane, with the help of their AAUP chapter, stood up to assaults and won most of their battles, and they continue to engage the administration on currently unresolved issues.  The faculty at UMKC should do no less.

        For previous critiques of the Blueprint see The Faculty Advocate, especially Dec. 2000 and Oct. 2001 issues.

CMSU Faculty Unionizing

        As reported in the Dec. 4 Kansas City Star, about 60 faculty at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg have signed union authorization cards in the past two weeks.  Leader of the petition drive is assistant professor of English, Bill Vaughn, who noted "widespread discontent on this campus."  Vaughn also hoped that "teachers at the University of Missouri and other schools will join in."  Among faculty complaints are salaries lagging well behind the cost of living, elimination of "a decades-old salary schedule," and administrative disregard of faculty recommendations in cutting programs (26 degree programs and about 40 faculty positions and other jobs cut since July 1).  Program cuts have resulted in declining enrollments.

        Athough Missouri law does not authorize collective bargaining for teachers, police, and the state National Guard, nor require recognition as a union, nor subject disputes to state mediation, public school teachers and firefighters in Kansas City, Mo. have both formed successful unions.

        "Vaughn said he was undaunted by state law. 'I'm an educator, and that means I train citizens.  I teach ... Thomas Paine and Frederick Douglass.  How can I expect my students to take those ideas seriously if the minute I walk out of the classroom I don't have the right to express myself, to represent myself?'"

        Unreported by the Star is the fact that, as a graduate student at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Vaughn spent seven years helping organize its Graduate Employee Organization (GEO).  That effort is documented in his essay, "Learning and Labor," included in the cluster, "Education for Democracy" (Workplace Feb. 2002; ).  After nearly a decade of organizing, the UIUC GEO finally won the right five months ago to hold an election to represent grad employees (see "Rewards of Persistence," Faculty Advocate, Sept. 2002 ).

The entire contents of each issue of The Faculty Advocate (except for public domain material) is copyrighted. The Faculty Advocate, December 2002, Copyright 2002 by the UMKC Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.  All rights returned to authors upon publication.  AAUP chapters, state conferences, and the national organization have permission to reproduce and distribute.  Permission for other non-profit publishers is a formality, but UMKC AAUP asks them for the courtesy of requesting it.  Contact the Editor, Patricia Brodsky: 816-235-2826, e-mail:

AAUP Dues Information

Membership requires payment of both local and national dues

Local UMKC chapter dues

$10 per academic year.
Send payment to Treasurer, Ed Gogol, BSB 415, 816-235-2584, or
Please make checks payable to "UMKC-AAUP Chapter."
Also please send Ed your preferred mailing address(es), phone(s), and e-mail address(es).

National dues

(varies by job classification and state)

New members who sign up for automatic bank debit of their national dues receive a special discount:
half-price for first-year membership.

Go to the AAUP chapter home page-- and click on the direct link to the national dues web page; or go to the national dues page--

Please note that National dues also cover Missouri State Conference dues (but not local UMKC dues)

Back Issues

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 3 (February 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 1 (October 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 3 (February 2002)

The Faculty Advocate,Vol. 2,No. 4 (April 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 5 (June 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 1 (September 2002)

AAUP chapter home page