Academic Freedom and Tenure TALLADEGA COLLEGE ()1

his report deals with actions taken by the ad- major incident. The Faculty Steering Committee (FSC), ministration of Talladega College in late May chaired by Professor Rogers beginning in May 1984, 1985 to terminate the services of Professors initiated meetings with the president and his chief Howard L. Rogers, Belinda G. Heglar, and assistants. Committee members stated that they TLinda Hill. At the time of these actions, wished to address issues of college governance that Professor Rogers was completing his tenth year of full- were left unresolved from the previous administration time service at the college, Professor Heglar her fifth and to promote closer communication. year, and Professor Hill her first. Over the summer of 1984 and into the early fall, Talladega College, an independent, coeducational, members of the faculty began to voice criticism of the four-year liberal arts institution, is located on a fifty- administration on such matters as the curriculum, acre campus in Talladega, Alabama, fifty miles south- budgetary allocations, the lack of a faculty salary scale, east of Birmingham. The college was founded as a long-range planning activities, and plans for an off- primary school in 1867 by the Freedmen's Bureau, with campus inauguration of President Mohr. Much of the the assistance of the American Missionary Association, criticism focused on the absence of faculty involvement as a school for children of former slaves. When it was in various decisions. A meeting was held on chartered as a college by the state of Alabama in 1869, September 25, attended by President Mohr and other it became the first institution in the state charged with senior administrative officers, Professor Rogers as chair educating blacks while admitting students without of the FSC, and Professor Leonard Cole, then chair of regard to race. Its first class was graduated with the the Faculty Concerns Committee. According to a report bachelor's degree in 1895. The institution has been ac- that Professor Rogers circulated later to the faculty, credited since 1931 by the Commission on Colleges of "Dr. Mohr opened the meeting with the statement that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. the honeymoon is over and said that he had received The college, with an enrollment of approximately 500 reports that the faculty had been making critical com- students, is currently served by nearly 50 full-time ments about the inauguration in their classes and faculty members. It offers the Bachelor of Arts degree downtown, and this damages the image of the college in many traditional liberal arts fields. It is governed by in the community. He and members of his staff went a twenty-five-member board of trustees chaired by Mr. on to say that the faculty doesn't understand the com- J. Mason Davis, a Birmingham attorney. Dr. Randolph plexities of the budget and doesn't understand that our W. Bromery, Commonwealth Professor of Geophysics management has been very frugal.... The main issue at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, chairs now is [the] survival [of the college], and the faculty the board's Academic Affairs Committee. Dr. Paul B. needs to unite behind the administration and support Mohr, Sr., has been president of Talladega College its work, including the inauguration." since December 1983, having previously been vice- Faculty criticism of administration policies intensi- president for academic affairs at Norfolk State Univer- fied, however. It found its most frequent and sity in Virginia. outspoken expression in and through the Faculty Since the late 1970s Talladega College has experi- Steering Committee, whose meetings were dominated enced frequent clashes between members of the faculty by lengthy discussions of various institutional pro- and the administration, strained relations between the blems and complaints that these problems were being faculty and the board of trustees, and declines in stu- exacerbated by poor communication. Rumors had dent enrollment. In March 1983, Dr. Joseph N. Gayles, begun circulating toward the end of October that Presi- Jr., announced his resignation from the presidency of dent Mohr, in the course of a meeting with members the college after a stormy six years in office. Dr. of the student body, had invited them to report to him Bromery served as interim president for half a year un- directly, or to slip him a "secret note," about any til a search by the governing board led to its appoint- member of the faculty or staff who made public com- ment of President Mohr. A majority of the faculty ments critical of his administration or of his pending reportedly had objected to the appointment. inauguration. These rumors were the subject of a long President Mohr arrived in Talladega in December and heated exchange between the president and 1983. His first six months seem to have passed without members of the FSC during an October 31 meeting of that committee, with Dr. Mohr finally declaring this a "non-issue" and advising the committee to drop it. 'The text of this report was written in the first instance by the Particularly vocal and persistent criticism of the Mohr members of the investigating committee. In accordance with Associa- tion practice, the text was then edited by the Association's staff, and administration came from the Division of Social as revised, with the concurrence of the investigating committee, was Sciences and, within that division, from the Depart- submitted to Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. With ment of Economics and Business Administration, the approval of Committee A it was subsequently sent to the facul- chaired that year by Professor Rogers. The social ty members at whose request the investigation was conducted, to sciences faculty, after a regularly scheduled meeting the administration of Talladega College, and to other persons con- cerned in the report. In the light of the responses received and with on October 30, sent a memorandum to the Academic the editorial assistance of the Association's staff, this final report Affairs Committee of the board of trustees through the has been prepared for publication. office of the dean of academic affairs in which they

6a ACADEME May-June 1986 voiced "their concern with... the general academic en- Professor Preston B. Rowe, proposed that the commit- vironment at the college and a perceived absence of tee hold an open meeting on April 9 to discuss the mat- administrative commitment to open dialogue and com- ters raised in the report, to be followed a day later by munication with the faculty, an absence of ad- another meeting of the entire college faculty to deal ministrative concern for the integrity of the academic with the results of that discussion. At the FCC's open program.. ., and an absence of any administrative vi- meeting on April 9, Professor Rowe was instructed to sion for the future of this college beyond mere sur- move the following resolution at the next day's facul- vival." They expressed "reservations regretfully held ty meeting: "That the faculty has confidence that the about the capacity of this administration to address current administration will provide the leadership ap- these concerns." In a letter to President Mohr on propriate for the problems the college is encounter- November 9, the division chair, Professor Leon P. ing." Spencer, described the memorandum as a "serious The April 10 meeting, chaired by Dean Joseph statement of concern by a talented and thoughtful Thompson, was conducted with President Mohr and faculty, a faculty that is prepared to be supportive and other senior administrative officers present. Also in at- committed as we all face the intense challenges of the tendance were three adjunct instructors from the moment." "Rightly or wrongly," he added, "there is Federal Correctional Institution. A subsequent FCC a deeply held perception that the faculty and its role report on this meeting protested against "the il- are viewed negatively, that faculty [are] not to be en- legalities in the proceedings" and alleged that "the trusted with full information and not to be a full par- meeting was handled in an unprofessional and ticipant in deliberations." unethical manner which completely disrupted the Eleven months earlier, in January 1984, several business of the faculty." The committee contended female faculty members in the Division of Social that the dean, "during the debate of the confidence Sciences, with support from other members of the col- resolution,... encouraged a substitute motion from the lege faculty, had initiated a protest against alleged sex floor [to prevent the vote] and refused to take the vote until the fourth call for the question." Once the discrimination in teaching assignments at the nearby "resolution of confidence in the administration was Federal Correctional Institution, where the college con- moved, seconded, and debated, and secret ballots col- ducts a degree-granting program. The protest escalated lected," according to the FCC, the dean entertained in the fall and continued until the previous policy at a motion to destroy the ballots without counting them the prison, under which Talladega's female faculty and declined to recognize a point of order that this mo- members (because of alleged security problems) had tion violated rules of procedure. Finally, the FCC not been allowed to teach there, was reversed. charged the administration with "packing the Through the winter and into the spring of 1985 the meeting," since two members of the administration Faculty Steering Committee (led by Professor Rogers) "who do not have voting status must have voted," continued to press the administration on other issues, as did the three adjunct faculty members, enabling the most notably in connection with efforts going back administration to secure a vote of nineteen to eighteen several years to secure faculty participation as non- in favor of destruction of ballots. A faculty member voting observers at meetings of the board of trustees who was present described the episode as "an act of and its committees. The FSC undertook to correspond intimidation in that the faculty saw clearly the extent with the board (through the president's office) about to which Dr. Mohr would go to prevent the faculty this, prompting President Mohr to send a memoran- from expressing its will." dum, dated February 18, 1985, to Professor Rogers and The FCC's report of the April 10 meeting was pre- the FSC, charging them with attempting to "preempt sented to the board of trustees at a general meeting [his] office" and circumvent established lines of between the faculty and board members held on April communication. 12. The meeting lasted two-and-a-half hours and was In April, relations between the administration and reportedly marked by hostile exchanges between and at least some of the faculty reached a breaking point. among board members and several members of the On April 4, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the col- faculty. lege faculty, the Faculty Concerns Committee (FCC) The following day (April 13), the board of trustees presented a report that summarized sixteen com- issued a series of directives which granted President plaints, "varied with respect to importance and valida- Mohr virtually complete discretion in managing the tion," that had been brought to it by faculty members operations, academic as well as nonacademic, of during the previous year. Commenting on the Talladega College. After expressing its "full support" "unusually high incidence" of these complaints, the for the president, the board voted to rescind all bylaws committee expressed concern "that there are more per- and institutional regulations on governance then in ef- sons who don't trust, or have been frustrated by, ad- fect at the college which conflicted with the new direc- ministrative ways of resolving grievances. The FCC is tives. The board also promulgated new "employment being used not only as a means of expressing concern regulations" and announced that "all prior actions, for faculty governance but also as a grievance commit- provisions, guidelines, regulations, or resolutions in tee for individual faculty members. The latter function conflict with any of the foregoing subjects or condi- is unavailable elsewhere." The committee further tions of employment are expressly rescinded." Pre- stated that, based on its review of these complaints, vious references to the 1940 Statement of Principles on "the following patterns are well evidenced and con- Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1958 Statement on stitute immediate risks to the institution": the "cir- Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings that cumvention of customary faculty business practices"; were incorporated in the Faculty Handbook (and thus "inadequate communication between faculty and ad- should have governed existing faculty appointments, ministration"; and "abuse of power by members of at least those in effect for the 1984-85 academic year) the administration." The chair of the FCC by that time, were thereby rescinded by the board's action. The

ACADEME May-June 1986 7a necessary action so as to achieve a student-faculty ratio dent Mohr, who was present at the meeting but not of not greater [sic] than 11:1 by the end of the 1985-86 chairing it, declared the motion out of order, not- academic year" and "to prepare and present to the withstanding a contrary ruling from the faculty meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board to parliamentarian. The president declared further that be held on June 28, 1985, a plan for the reorganization the Faculty Steering Committee and the Faculty Con- of academic affairs." cerns Committee were dissolved, consistent with the On April 15 an article appeared in the Daily Home, board's action of the previous month. Shortly a local newspaper, with the headline: "Faculty thereafter the meeting was adjourned. Members Sow Discord at Talladega College." The arti- At a called faculty meeting two weeks later, on May cle, immediately posted on the college's official bulletin 22, at which attendance was reportedly required under board, quotes an unnamed source, described only as threat of dismissal, President Mohr and Dean Thomp- a "member of the school's staff," who is said to have son unveiled their "academic reorganization plan." decried '"an attempt at a repeat performance' from a Members of the faculty complained that they had been small dissident group of faculty members." The arti- denied any meaningful opportunity to participate in cle reports its source as stating further "that the group, the plan's development. Among other changes, the believed to number no more than five or six, have plan dissolved the Division of Social Sciences and resurfaced to again criticize a president and his ad- transferred its various parts to other divisions within ministration. According to the source, the group may the college; it merged the Department of Economics have even supported and played a part in the recent and Business Administration with other remnants of student protest and called for television coverage of the social sciences division and remnants of the educa- the event." (Two weeks earlier nearly half of the col- tion program into a new Division of Human Resources; lege's full-time student body had gathered outside the and it placed the honors program in the library. Ac- administration building to protest cafeteria and dor- cording to faculty members who were present at the mitory conditions and "declining academic May 22 meeting, the plan, which was presented oral- standards.") ly, was not offered for discussion or debate by the On May 9, at the next regularly scheduled meeting faculty. The faculty was informed that it was an "ad- of the faculty, Professor Rowe as chair of the Faculty ministrative matter," that it had been mandated by the Concerns Committee proposed the following resolu- board, and that it was "final." tion: "The faculty objects to the statements of rescis- Even before the May 22 meeting, however, the ad- sion concerning faculty governance policy contained ministration, invoking the "policies established by the in the Board actions of the Spring 1985 meeting, and Board of Trustees" and the "changes taking place at requests that this resolution be forwarded to the Board the college," initiated action to terminate the services prior to the next Executive Committee meeting." Facul- of Professors Howard Rogers, Belinda Heglar, and Lin- ty members who were at the meeting report that Presi- da Hill.

THE CASES OF CONCERN

Professor Howard L. Rogers ing been afforded the requisite protections of academic due process.) Professor Rogers, associate professor of social sciences, On the morning of May 24, 1985, two days after the received his master's degree in economics from faculty meeting at which the administration's Southern Illinois University in 1964. Despite his ten reorganization plan was announced to the faculty, Pro- years at Talladega College (as well as several years of fessor Rogers received a certified letter from President prior service elsewhere), Professor Rogers had never Mohr, dated May 21, informing him that, "as a result been reviewed for or granted tenure at the college. of.. . a number of changes taking place at the college" Throughout his years on the college faculty, Professor of which he had "been apprised," his services were Rogers had been a frequent and outspoken critic of ad- "no longer required." The president advised him that ministration policies and an advocate of a strong facul- "such action is consistent with the policies established ty role in academic governance. During the 1984-85 by the Board of Trustees." Attached to the president's academic year he served as acting chair of the Depart- letter was a "clearance form" requiring that Professor ment of Economics and Business Administration (the Rogers submit a timetable for vacating his office and largest department in the college) and also as elected removing all his personal property by noon on May chair of the Faculty Steering Committee, which had 23. The lock on his office door had already been the traditional charge of organizing the committees and changed on the morning of May 23, and a sign was the general business of the faculty and (according to posted on the door saying that admission could be a committee-approved statement describing its histori- gained only by permission of the security office. At 4:30 cal development) "also served as a clearinghouse for that same afternoon other faculty members were policy recommendations, making certain that timely ordered to leave the building, and the outer doors were consideration is given to all proposals within the chained shut for the night—a measure that was to con- faculty committee system." tinue for the rest of the week. Professor Rogers did not (Professor Rogers has figured previously in an fill out his clearance form or follow its instructions, and Association report on issues of academic freedom and his paycheck for May (as well as for the summer tenure [AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1973] that led to the cen- months) was withheld. He was thereafter barred from sure of the administration of McKendree College that the campus, except under escort of campus security year. The investigating committee in that case found personnel. He reports that he still has personal effects that Professor Rogers had been dismissed without hav- which remain at the college.

8a ACADEME May-June 1986 Professor Belinda G. Heglar that his doing so was "not indicative of an agreement Professor Heglar received her Ph.D. degree from Kan- with the allegations by Dr. Heglar nor abdication of sas State University in 1980 and then joined the the college's responsibility in the proper management Talladega College faculty as an assistant professor of of its affairs." The matter was by no means resolved French. Since February 1983 she had also served as by the tendering of a contract; indeed, Professor director of the college's honors program, established Heglar's difficulties with the administration would per- under a five-year Title III federal grant. Because of her sist in the months ahead. administrative duties for the honors program, she was On November 14, Professor Heglar's lawyer wrote given a twelve-month contract beginning in the sum- to the attorney for Talladega College, charging the ad- mer of 1983. In her last year at the college Professor ministration with "harassing conduct" and threaten- Heglar was embroiled in a dispute with the administra- ing legal action. On November 26, Professor Heglar tion over the terms of her contract for 1984-85—a dis- submitted a grievance to the Faculty Concerns Com- pute that arose over her alleged failure to carry out cer- mittee, likewise charging the administration with tain administrative responsibilities at the college dur- "harassment" and requesting relief. ing the summer of 1984, when she was at Atlanta On February 7, 1985, the Faculty Concerns Commit- University participating in an eight-week seminar tee sent a memorandum to President Mohr explain- sponsored by the National Endowment for the ing that it had been monitoring Professor Heglar's Humanities. situation and proposing that Professor Rowe, the com- According to Professor Heglar, notice of her invita- mittee's chair, meet with the president to discuss it. tion to attend the summer seminar had been published Responding the next day, President Mohr advised Pro- in the May 1984 issue of the Dega Digest, a campus fessor Rowe that, "since Dr. Heglar has retained periodical circulated to the college community. She counsel to represent her, the college feels that it would states that in early June she had informed the members be inappropriate to enter into negotiations or discus- of the Honors Committee as well as the acting dean sions on her behalf through other channels." He of the dates during which she would be in Atlanta and added that he did "not think it appropriate for the had arranged to set aside time to deal with ad- Faculty Concerns Committee to undertake to negotiate ministrative matters that happened to arise in her perceived individual grievances." Nonetheless, on absence and required her direct attention. April 4, when the FCC presented its report of sixteen complaints to a faculty meeting, Professor Heglar's In the latter part of August, however, when Pro- grievance was among them. fessor Heglar returned to Talladega, President Mohr informed her that he was considering reducing her The day after the called faculty meeting on May 22, salary for the coming year, or perhaps not issuing her Professor Heglar was summoned to the president's of- a contract at all, because of her allegedly unauthorized fice. She was accompanied by her husband, also a "leave of absence" from the campus. The president member of the college faculty. At the conclusion of also requested that Professor Heglar reimburse the col- their meeting she was given a letter of dismissal iden- lege for a $750 stipend that had been paid to her the tical to the one given to Professor Rogers and was previous spring to attend a three-week academic plan- escorted off the campus by a security guard. She ning workshop organized by the administration. Pro- reports that the president apparently ordered the lock fessor Heglar has stated that President Mohr told her on her office changed, as he did with Professor she could have an appointment for the 1984-85 Rogers's office, but it seems that the locksmith made academic year if she would pay back the $750 and ac- a mistake and changed the wrong lock. cept a nine-month contract. The next day, under escort of a security guard, Pro- In the administration's view, conveyed in a letter fessor Heglar removed her personal items from her of- subsequently written by counsel for the college, Pro- fice. Unlike Professor Rogers, Professor Heglar com- fessor Heglar was pleted the clearance form. She subsequently received her salary checks for May and for the remainder of the expected to be on duty at the college during work hours summer. (She was recalled to work for a brief period during the entire calendar year, except when on officially in June in order to complete some unfinished ad- approved vacation or leave of absence.... During the sum- ministrative tasks.) mer of 1984, the faculty contract of service of Dr. Heglar was on a 100 percent full-time effort—a twelve-month year Professor Linda Hill basis, with which the college believes she was entirely familiar, and for which she was compensated during each Professor Hill received her Ph.D. degree from Kent of the twelve months in the contract year. It appears to State University in 1983 and joined the Talladega Col- the college that neither her receipt of additional grants nor lege faculty as assistant professor of history at the her absence from the college during the summer of 1985 beginning of the 1984-85 academic year. Her primary without official leave of absence were in conformity with responsibilities at Talladega were in European history, the agreement of the parties. but she undertook additional responsibilities in American history because another faculty member who For her part, Professor Heglar maintained that her normally taught in that area was on leave for the year. term of active service ran from July 1 to June 30, and She was also engaged in designing the history segment that there was no policy requiring her to obtain a of the freshman social science course. During her year "release" or "approval" before leaving to attend a pro- on the faculty Professor Hill served as elected secretary fessional seminar. of the Faculty Concerns Committee and was also ac- After her meeting with the president Professor tive in the faculty women's caucus. She was among Heglar engaged an attorney who initiated cor- the faculty members who were most active in the con- respondence with the administration. On August 30 tinuing protest over sex discrimination in teaching the president issued her a contract, while stipulating assignments at the Federal Correctional Institution.

ACADEME May-June 1986 9a On May 22, immediately after the called faculty opposition from the faculty next year." meeting, Professor Hill received a letter, dated May 21, By letter dated May 31, Dean Thompson notified from President Mohr stating that, because "the Col- Professor Hill that, "as a result of a number of changes lege's academic division [was] undergoing reorganiza- taking place at the college," he had been instructed tion," and because the administration was "attemp- to inform her that her services were no longer required. ting to improve the faculty-student ratio and enhance He stated that "this step is taken.. .with a deep regret the College's instructional delivery system," there was and sincere appreciation of your contributions," but "concern regarding the utilization of [her] services." that "such action is consistent with policies established (Seven other faculty members received similar letters by the Board of Trustees." at the same time.) Several days later Professor Hill met Professor Hill has stated that until the action to deny with President Mohr, Dean Thompson, and the newly her reappointment, she had received no indication that appointed head of her division, Dr. William Garcia, her academic performance was viewed as inadequate to discuss her situation. According to Professor Hill, or ineffective. To the contrary, she had received praise most of the discussion focused on her credentials for from her two immediate administrative superiors (one teaching Afro-American history. (She had been of them Dean Thompson) for her professional work. engaged a year earlier in a renewable position to teach She states that she had assumed, because other faculty courses in European history.) She reports that the ad- members in their first year of service were notified in ministration also referred to her expressions of concern March of nonreappointment (the Association's recom- about not allowing women faculty to teach at the mended date for timely notice is March 1 for faculty Federal Correctional Institution and to her role as members in their first year), that reappointment in her secretary of the Faculty Concerns Committee. She case was assured. states that President Mohr told her he "will not have

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

Within a month of the administration's actions to ter- tramural remedies, and in October 1985, the county minate their services, Professors Rogers and Heglar judge who had received their suits acted to dismiss (later joined by Professor Hill) filed suit in the Circuit them. The matter is currently on appeal. Court of Talladega County, charging violations of their Professor Rogers brought his case to the attention appointment contracts and of commonly accepted of the Association within days after he had received academic standards. notice of dismissal, contending that the action taken The only avenue of appeal within the college avail- against him was based on considerations violative of able to Professors Rogers, Heglar, and Hill, pursuant his academic freedom. On June 5, 1985, the Associa- to the new regulations approved by the board, was a tion's staff wrote to President Mohr, expressing con- hearing before the board's Academic Affairs Commit- cerns over the summary manner in which the ad- tee. Such a hearing, granted to them two months after ministration appeared to have acted. The administra- their services had been terminated, and only after they tion did not respond to that letter or to a second, more had filed suit, was held on August 1, 1985, and lasted detailed, letter sent on July 31, addressed not only to for about an hour.2 The three professors, accompanied the case of Professor Rogers but also to those of Pro- by their attorneys, were each given an opportunity to fessors Heglar and Hill, who had by then sought the present a prepared statement and to answer questions Association's assistance. Another letter on August 29 put to them by committee members. In the end, they evoked a reply from President Mohr on September 9, lost their respective appeals by a vote of two to one. to the effect that the college was not in a position to One trustee who participated in the hearing, Professor respond substantively because of pending litigation. Henry N. Drewry of Princeton University, resigned The staff wrote to the administration once again on from the board after the hearing, contending that "the September 13. With the issues in the cases of concern actions of the Academic [Affairs] Committee. . .regar- to the Association remaining unresolved, the general ding the dismissal of Professors Heglar, Hill, and secretary authorized an investigation, and by letter of Rogers form[ed] the proverbial 'last straw.'" He ques- October 2, 1985, the staff so notified the Talladega Col- tioned whether the administration and governing lege administration. After initially expressing a will- board had shown "justice, fairness, and profes- ingness to meet with the investigating committee and sionalism" in their treatment of these three professors. agreeing to a set of dates, President Mohr, through col- According to Professor Drewry's letter of resignation, lege counsel, indicated that because of the litigation dated August 26 and addressed to board chair J. Mason he would not do so.3 Davis, the committee had already prepared to cast a The undersigned investigating committee, after ex- vote in favor of overturning the dismissals, but Mr. amining available documentation, visited Talladega Davis prevailed upon one trustee to reverse his vote College on November 21. The members of the commit- because of "the embarrassment the president would tee attempted unsuccessfully to meet with President feel if his decision was overturned." With the rejec- Mohr. The committee did meet with Professor Heglar tion of their appeal by the trustees' panel, Professors as well as with half a dozen current members of the Rogers, Heglar, and Hill were left with no further in- Talladega College faculty. Professors Rogers and Hill, responding to a draft text of this report sent to him prior to publica- who were no longer in Talladega, were interviewed tion, Trustee Randolph W. Bromery, writing on behalf of the board by the committee through conference telephone calls. and the administration, stated that an appeal to the Academic Af- fairs Committee was available to these professors from the outset 'Trustee Bromery, in his response to the draft text of this report, and that they did not have to initiate litigation to gain a hearing from stated that the college cannot comment with respect to the facts on that body. which the cases of the three faculty members are based because the cases remain under litigation.

10a ACADEME May-June 1986 ISSUES

The Cases of Professors Rogers and Heglar: Procedural According to the new regulations, "any faculty Standards member [whose appointment] is terminated by the president shall have the right to reasonable notice of The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and such termination, and in the case of tenured faculty Tenure calls for the following safeguards of academic members, they shall have a right to a statement of due process in cases involving dismissal for cause: cause for such termination and an opportunity to re- spond in writing." The regulations further provide that Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the "any terminated faculty member shall have a right to dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration appeal termination to the Academic Affairs Committee of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered of the Board of Trustees by the filing with the presi- by both a faculty committee and the governing board of dent of such appeal in writing. The action of said com- the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, mittee with respect to each such appeal shall be final." the accused teacher should be informed before the hear- No provision is made in these regulations for access ing in writing of the charges against him and should have to a hearing before a faculty committee in which the the opportunity to be heard in his own defense by all administration would demonstrate cause for its action. bodies that pass judgment upon his case. He should be The new faculty contracts stipulate that "the appeals permitted to have with him an adviser of his own choos- procedure... provided [in the board-adopted regula- ing who may act as counsel. There should be a full tions] shall be the sole remedy in the event of any ter- stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties mination." concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the The investigating committee finds that the actions testimony should include that of teachers and other taken against Professors Heglar and Rogers are scholars, either from his own or from other institutions. properly to be characterized as dismissals for cause, Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed not, as the administration apparently would have it, for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive simple notices of nonrenewal of a contract. Their ap- their salaries for at least a year from the date of notifica- pointments for the 1984-85 academic year were not due tion of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their to expire until August 26, 1985. In late May, however, duties at the institution. without any advance warning or any demonstration These provisions for academic due process are that "immediate harm" was threatened by their con- elaborated in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards tinuance, they were both summarily removed from in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, like the 1940 Statementtheir academic responsibilities and banished from the of Principles a joint document of AAUP and the Associa- campus. In these actions to dismiss them within the tion of American Colleges. Of special relevance are the term of their appointments, they were entitled to the requirements of (a) a statement of charges, framed with safeguards of academic due process set forth in the reasonable particularity, of the grounds proposed for 1940 and 1958 Statements. Professor Rogers, in his the dismissal; (b) an adjudicatory hearing of record tenth year of service on the Talladega College faculty, before a duly constituted faculty committee; and (c) was in any event entitled to these protections under suspension of the faculty member pending the hear- the 1940 Statement of Principles, with its provision for ing "only if immediate harm to himself or others is the attainment of the rights of tenure after a maximum threatened by his continuance." period of probation not to exceed seven years. The 1971 The 1940 and 1958 Statements were incorporated by Faculty Handbook, which was officially in force until reference, though with qualifications, in the regula- six weeks before the administration acted to terminate tions that governed appointments at Talladega College the services of Professors Rogers and Heglar, and until the board of trustees adopted new regulations on should have continued to govern faculty appointments April 13, 1985. The 1971 edition of the Faculty Hand- at least through the end of the 1984-85 contract year book, still in effect as of the spring of 1985, states that (i.e., until August 26, 1985), provided assurance of "The College has approved the Procedural Standards in Association-supported procedural safeguards "for the Faculty Dismissal Proceedings of the AAUP for the dismissal of faculty members who are under contract." dismissal of faculty members who are under contract." At the time of their dismissal Professors Rogers and The new regulations, however, state that nontenured Heglar were still "under contract" and would accor- faculty members "serve at the pleasure of the presi- dingly have been entitled to these protections had the dent and their contracts are renewable at the discre- existing regulations not been abrogated by the gover- tion of the president." (A similar provision has been ning board. incorporated in faculty contracts issued at Talladega Neither Professor Rogers nor Professor Heglar was College for the 1985-86 academic year: "The faculty notified in any particularity of the grounds for the ac- member shall be employed, assigned and subject to tions taken against them, nor were they afforded op- termination, at the pleasure of the president.") As for portunity for a hearing before a faculty committee. tenured faculty members, under the new regulations Their hearing involving the board of trustees, granted they are now subject to termination of their appoint- to them later, consisted of a brief joint appearance ments on such grounds as "reorganization of the Col- before the board's Academic Affairs Committee. The lege program," "misconduct that reflects adversely on three-member panel sustained the dismissals under cir- the College," "insubordination [and] failure to follow cumstances and procedures that led the one dissenting directions or to implement policies of the College," "disruptive activity," and "failure to discharge respon- "Trustee Bromery takes the position that Professors Heglar and sibilities in a manner compatible with the standards Rogers were not dismissed prior to the expiration of their term of the College." appointments.

ACADEME May-June 1986 lla member to submit his resignation from the board. Ac- only one avenue of appeal, namely, to the board's cording to this member, the panel's initial vote of two Academic Affairs Committee. to one against dismissal was reversed to a two-to-one Professor Hill was notified only at the end of May vote for dismissal following the intervention of the that her appointment would not be renewed for the chair of the board of trustees, who was not a member 1985-86 academic year. Since other first-year faculty of the committee. The investigating committee finds members had been given notice of nonreappointment these procedures to have been grossly inadequate in March, the college's traditional date for providing when measured against generally accepted academic such notice, Professor Hill understandably had reason standards. The committee finds that Professors Rogers to believe that she was being reappointed for the and Heglar were thus denied the protections of 1985-86 academic year, and thus she had not applied academic due process to which they were entitled for other academic positions. The decision to deny her under these standards. reappointment was made by the administration in the Although Professor Heglar was paid her regular face of a recommendation by her department chair and salary through August 1985, she did not receive the division head that she be retained. She was afforded full year of notice or severance salary to which she was the same opportunity for appeal as Professors Rogers entitled under the 1940 Statement of Principles. As for and Heglar, with the same results. Professor Rogers, when he failed to complete the facul- The investigating committee finds that the nonreap- ty clearance sheet that was sent with his notice of pointment of Professor Hill was effected in disregard dismissal, the administration withheld his salary for of the Association's procedural standards for faculty the month of May and paid him nothing thereafter, members in their probationary years. The notice she thus denying him any of the year of notice or severance received was late under both generally accepted stan- salary to which he, too, was entitled. Even under the dards and common practice at the college. She was not ambiguous standard of "reasonable notice" of ter- afforded a hearing before a faculty body which would mination set forth in the new regulations, the in- have considered her claim that the adverse decision vestigating committee finds that Professors Heglar and on reappointment was based on considerations Rogers did not receive notice that can remotely be con- violative of her academic freedom. strued as reasonable. Academic Freedom The Case of Professor Hill: Procedural Standards The 1940 Statement of Principles provides that: The Association's recommended procedural standards The college or university teacher is a citizen, a member for faculty members in their probationary years of ser- of a learned profession, and an officer of an educational vice who face nonrenewal of their appointments are institution. When he speaks or writes as a citizen, he set forth in the Statement on Procedural Standards in the should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments and, in but his special position in the community imposes special summary form, in AAUP's Recommended Institutional obligations. As a man of learning and an educational of- Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. ficer, he should remember that the public may judge his Regulation 2(c) of the Recommended Institutional profession and his institution by his utterances. Hence he Regulations provides for notice "not later than March should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate 1 of the first academic year of service if the appoint- restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, ment expires at the end of that year." and should make every effort to indicate that he is not an Regulation 10 makes provision for a hearing before institutional spokesman. a faculty body in the case of a faculty member who alleges that he or she was denied reappointment Regulation 5 of the Association's Recommended In- because of considerations violative of academic stitutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure freedom. further provides that: Talladega College's institutional regulations are largely silent with respect to the procedural standards adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and in a nonreappointment of a probationary faculty mem- substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their pro- ber. The regulations in place until April 1985 provid- fessional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal ed only that "first appointments in whatever academic will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exer- rank are for a definite period of time, with no expecta- cise of academic freedom or other rights of American tion of continuance of the relationship beyond the citizens. period of the contract. Appointments may be renewed The 1971 Talladega College Faculty Handbook con- upon proper recommendation, either for an additional tained a "Statement on Academic Freedom" that term or for permanent tenure." According to the new quotes extensively from the 1940 Statement of Principles, regulations promulgated by the board, "nontenured including virtually all of the paragraph cited above. The faculty members serve at the pleasure of the president, regulations adopted in April 1985 make no reference and their contracts are renewable at the discretion of to academic freedom. the president." The actions to terminate the services of Professors With regard to standards of notice, the previous Rogers, Heglar, and Hill were stated by President regulations were silent, while the new regulations pro- Mohr as having been taken pursuant to directives vide only for "reasonable notice." The investigating adopted by the board to raise the student-faculty ratio committee was informed, however, that the common by the end of the 1985-86 academic year and to imple- practice at the college was to give notice of nonreap- ment a plan for academic reorganization. In addition, pointment in March to probationary faculty members President Mohr was quoted in the local press as hav- in their first year of service. Probationary faculty ing stated that the administration's actions against members facing nonreappointment currently have these professors were prompted by efforts to cut costs

12a ACADEME May-June 1986 at the college. None of the three professors was afford- her involvement in the controversy was cited by col- ed an explicit statement of the administration's reasons lege administrative officers during her interview with for singling him or her out for termination of services, them preceding the action to deny her reappointment. but they have questioned the general reasons that were As for Professor Heglar, she had been embroiled in advanced by President Mohr. Several faculty members a litigious contract dispute with the administration still at Talladega College who met with the investi- throughout the 1984-85 academic year. In a complaint gating committee stated that, notwithstanding the ad- she presented to the Faculty Concerns Committee in ministration's assertions to the contrary, the November 1984, she charged President Mohr with con- "reorganization" did not affect the courses that Pro- ducting a campaign of harassment against her. fessors Rogers, Heglar, and Hill had taught and that Although that committee found merit in her charges, replacements for Professors Rogers and Heglar were the dispute was still far from resolved when the ad- engaged within a few months after their departure. ministration acted to dismiss her. The investigating committee, in assessing the allega- In commenting on the results of the appeal that the tions of these three professors that the administration's three professors had made to the governing board's actions against them were based in significant measure Academic Affairs Committee, in which their dismissals on considerations violative of their academic freedom, were ultimately upheld, Trustee Henry Drewry necessarily does so without having had the observed: "That the committee would allow this to opportunity to discuss the reasons for the actions with happen when the root cause for dismissal of at least those who effected them. In each of these cases, two of the three seems to be their expressed disagree- however, the committee finds that the administration's ment with certain administrative policies, raises ques- actions were prompted by considerations violative of tions of academic freedom." According to one faculty the professors' academic freedom. member with whom the investigating committee It is evident to the investigating committee that Pro- spoke, the "absence of [due] process simply confirms fessors Rogers, Heglar, and Hill had all in various ways to me that Dr. Mohr's aspirations are to 'get even' with incurred the administration's displeasure for their 'difficult' faculty, to try to intimidate those that remain, criticism of various administration policies and prac- and together with the 'reorganization' of academic af- tices. As was discussed earlier in this report, over the fairs [including the dissolution of the Division of Social years, and particularly during the 1984-85 academic Sciences and the demotion of its head], to begin next year, when he was acting department head and chair year with a compliant faculty." of a major faculty committee, Professor Rogers had The general academic community recognizes the spoken out frequently and critically on matters of right of a faculty member, as an officer of an educa- academic governance at the college and on other issues tional institution, to participate actively in, and speak of academic concern. All of the faculty members in- forth freely—without fear of reprisal or retaliation— terviewed by the investigating committee on campus on matters of concern to the institution's educational spoke of Professor Rogers as having been a thoughtful enterprise. The investigating committee has found that as well as a forceful advocate of faculty rights and in- Professors Rogers, Heglar, and Hill engaged in con- stitutional reform. They expressed the belief that his duct that should have been protected under generally constant public criticism of the administration was accepted principles of academic freedom but was not viewed by President Mohr as disloyalty and insubor- protected by the Talladega College administration. The dination. Referring to Professor Rogers's dismissal in abrupt summary actions taken by the administration an address he delivered to the college's Birmingham against these professors bespeak a gross insensitivity alumni club, an administrative officer at the college is to the principles of academic freedom. It is strikingly reported to have said, "We can't have two presidents; clear to the investigating committee, from all available one had to go." evidence, that the actions of President Mohr, sup- In the case of Professor Hill, she had been active and ported by the board of trustees, have dampened open outspoken on the issue of sex discrimination in not and critical debate at Talladega College. The ad- ministration's actions in these cases suggest strongly allowing female faculty members to teach at the Federal 5 Correctional Institution. According to Professor Hill, that academic freedom at the college is insecure.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The administration of Talladega College, in sum- 3. The administration's actions against Professors marily dismissing Professors Howard L. Rogers and Rogers, Heglar, and Hill, based significantly on its Belinda G. Heglar and banishing them from the col- displeasure with conduct by them that should have lege campus, acted in violation of the 1940 Statement been protected under commonly accepted principles of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and in of academic freedom, violated the academic freedom disregard of the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards of the three profesors. in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings. 4. The administration's actions in these cases, coupled 2. The administration, in notifying Professor Linda Hill with revised institutional regulations that restrict facul- late in May that her appointment would not be ty prerogatives and remove safeguards of academic renewed and in failing to provide her with an oppor- tunity for appeal to an appropriate faculty committee, acted in disregard of the Association's Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment and its Statement on Procedural 'Commenting on this section, Trustee Bromery has stated: "no issues Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty of fact concerning the abrogation of academic freedom for these three Appointments. professors are presented in the draft text."

ACADEME May-June 1986 13a due process, have left academic freedom in jeopardy University; JACK L. NELSON (Education), Rutgers at Talladega College. University; JOEL R. PRIMACK (Physics), University of California, Santa Cruz; CAROL SIMPSON STERN (Perfor- NEIL C. MORAN (Pharmacology) mance Studies), Northwestern University; JUDITH J. Emory University, chair THOMSON (Philosophy), Massachusetts Institute of TOMMY L. FREDERICK (Health and Technology; SAUL TOUSTER (Legal Studies), Brandeis Physical Education) University; WILLIAM W. VAN ALSTYNE (Law), Duke University; NANCY J. WEISS (History), Princeton University; ERNST BENJAMIN (Political Science), Investigating Committee Washington Office, ex officio; JORDAN E. KURLAND Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has (History and Russian), Washington Office, ex officio; by vote authorized publication of this report in PAUL H. L. WALTER (Chemistry), Skidmore College, ex Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP. officio; RALPH S. BROWN (Law), Yale University, consul- tant; CLARK BYSE (Law), Harvard University, consultant; MATTHEW W. FINKIN (Law), Southern Methodist BERTRAM H. DAVIS (English), Florida State University, University, chair. consultant; WALTER P. METZGER (History), Columbia MEMBERS: MARY W. GRAY (Mathematics), American University, senior consultant.

14a ACADEME May-June 1986