Community College of Aurora (Colorado)1

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)1

(MARCH 2017)

This report concerns actions taken by the administra- The college operates under the authority of the State tion of the Community College of Aurora, during the Board for Community Colleges and Occupational fourth week of the fall 2016 semester, to terminate Education, which governs all thirteen institutions in the appointment of part-time instructor of philosophy the community college system. The system’s president Nathanial Bork without affordance of academic is Dr. Nancy J. McCallin. due process. CCA has been accredited since 1988 by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC; formerly the North I. The Institution Central Association of Colleges and Schools). In The Community College of Aurora, with campuses October 2013, the commission acted to continue in the Denver suburb from which it gets its name as the college’s accreditation until 2022–23, “with well as in Denver itself, was established in 1983 as Interim Monitoring.” part of the Colorado Community College System (CCCS). The college enrolls a diverse population II. The Case of Nathanial Bork of about 10,500 students annually, approximately Mr. Nathanial Bork accepted his first appointment as 80 percent of whom are part time. According to an adjunct instructor of philosophy at CCA in January the most recent figures available from the National 2010, shortly after completing an MA in philosophy Center for Education Statistics, these students are at Colorado State University. By fall 2016 Mr. Bork served by fifty-seven full-time and 310 part-time had served at the college for more than six years, (adjunct) faculty members. The college’s president is teaching an array of courses in philosophy, ethics, Dr. Elizabeth (Betsy) Oudenhoven, who took office and comparative religion but typically no more than in December 2013 after having served briefly as one or two classes per semester. Mr. Bork also held an interim president and, prior to that, vice president appointment as an adjunct instructor of philosophy for student services and enrollment management. at Arapahoe Community College in Littleton (another Denver suburb), where he continues to teach at least four courses a semester. An advocate for adjunct faculty members, Mr. 1. The initial text of this report was produced by the members of Bork was twice elected adjunct faculty representative the investigating committee. In accordance with Association practice, to the CCA faculty senate, founded an adjunct the staff then edited the text and submitted it, as revised with the faculty organization at the college, and worked to concurrence of the investigating committee, to Committee A on advance the rights of adjunct faculty members at Academic Freedom and Tenure. With that committee’s approval, the staff sent the report to the subject faculty member, to the his own institution and throughout the CCCS. Both administration of the Community College of Aurora, and to other faculty members and administrators interviewed persons directly concerned. The final report, which has been prepared by the undersigned investigating committee readily for publication with the editorial assistance of the staff, takes into attested to Mr. Bork’s largely positive recognition account the responses received from these parties. on the CCA campus for these efforts. Along with

other leaders in Colorado’s AAUP conference Mr. Bork immediately sought the advice and (Mr. Bork helped to found the AAUP chapter at assistance of his AAUP colleagues in the Colorado CCA and served as its first president), he actively conference. In a September 14 e-mail message to them, supported failed Colorado Senate Bill 15–094, he claimed that his appointment had been terminated which would have classified adjunct instructors as not for the stated reason but, as he put it in the subject faculty members in the CCCS and given them the line of his message, “for writing a report to the HLC “same responsibilities, benefits, and freedoms of about CCA’s efforts to increase student success via regular faculty.” Mr. Bork was featured, along with lowering standards.” Colorado conference secretary-treasurer Suzanne The report in question was addressed to the Higher Hudson and national AAUP second vice president Learning Commission and conveyed Mr. Bork’s “deep Caprice Lawless, in several media accounts of the concerns” about the college’s Gateway to Success situation of adjunct faculty members in Colorado. initiative, which modified certain entry-level liberal Rocky Mountain PBS broadcast one such account, arts courses (so-called “gatekeeper courses”) in an titled “Colorado Community Colleges Rely on effort to improve their pass rates. In his report Mr. Poverty-Level Instructor Workforce,” in March Bork specifically identified changes that he said he 2015. It shows, among other things, how some was required to make to Philosophy 111: a 20 percent undercompensated adjunct instructors have come decrease in overall course content; a reduction in to depend on food banks to feed their families. The writing assignments to an eight-page maximum for print version of the broadcast includes a picture of the semester; small group activities every other class Mr. Bork with his seven-year-old daughter, captioned session; and the inclusion of a larger percentage of as follows: “Adjunct college instructor Nate Bork material (the reported goal was 30 percent) produced reads with his daughter. . . . Bork said he and his by women and minorities. “We have to continue wife are ‘good at being poor.’ Bork said the couple implementing new strategies,” Mr. Bork wrote, until has forgone a plumber to fix their broken kitchen they produce a “success rate” of 80 percent “for sink and expensive genetic testing to diagnose their all student groups, as defined by race and gender.” daughter’s developmental disability.” While Mr. Bork did not challenge what he said was In fall 2016 Mr. Bork was teaching one section his department chair’s claim that these required of Philosophy 111, Introduction to Philosophy, at changes were consistent with Colorado Department CCA. On September 13, during the fourth week of of Higher Education (CDHE) policies, he stated that the semester, he received a phone call from Dr. Bobby they nevertheless violated the “spirit of the law” Pace, chair of the Department of Social Sciences, and with respect to guaranteed transfer courses (general Dr. Ted Snow, dean of the School of Liberal Arts, education courses taken in a Colorado community notifying him that his appointment as an adjunct college that are transferable to the state’s four-year instructor of philosophy was to be terminated, institutions). “Simply put,” he wrote, “this class is effective the next day. (The philosophy program now much, much easier to get an A in or pass than it had been moved into the social sciences department was previously. It’s now so much easier that currently and thus under the direction of Dr. Pace, effective every single student on my roster has an A+, and to my July 1, 2016, as part of a program and administrative recollection the last time I was involved in a course set reorganization.) A letter from the director of human to this difficulty level, either as a teacher or a student, resources dated September 13 served as formal was early high school.” He continued, “If the people notification of his dismissal. The letter also informed we’re giving A+s to in the [guaranteed transfer] courses him that, despite his severance from service, the are only doing the equivalent of high school work at college would pay him the total contracted amount other colleges, I believe that sets up our students for of $2,559 for the course, $320 of which he had harm later on. Our student success rates will spike already received. As an explanation for the decision through the roof, but we’ll be graduating people who to terminate his appointment, the letter cited a “lack think they’ve received a college education, but in of effectiveness in implementing the philosophy reality have only done high school level work. . . . curriculum redesign.” Mr. Bork would not receive And the harm from what I see as lack of rigor will a copy of the classroom observation reports upon become evident after they’ve left CCA and are forced which this determination was made until three to compete with their peers from other schools.” In his weeks later. final paragraph, he asked the accrediting commission

2 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

to “review some of the new inclusive excellence explanation for declining to do so. Nor did it initially policies at CCA.”2 elaborate on Mr. Bork’s stated “lack of effectiveness To demonstrate that he was not alone in holding in implementing the philosophy curriculum rede- these views, Mr. Bork attached to his report a July sign.” On October 4, however, the administration 25 letter, addressed “to whom it may concern,” from did provide Mr. Bork with a copy of his person- fellow adjunct instructor of philosophy Dr. William nel file. It included two reports of observations of Honsberger. Dr. Honsberger wrote that he had “taught Mr. Bork’s September 9 Introduction to Philosophy in the field of philosophy for over thirty years,” the class, one by Dr. Pace and the other by Mr. H. Ray last eight of them at CCA, but had resigned from his Keith, an achievement coach in the College of Liberal teaching post at the college because he had come to Arts.4 Both reports, on forms specifically designed to believe that the mandated changes to Introduction to evaluate instructors’ success in implementing the new Philosophy were shortchanging students. curriculum in gatekeeper courses, gave low marks Mr. Bork advised the AAUP’s staff that he had to Mr. Bork’s performance. Dr. Pace’s report, which shared his report with President Oudenhoven and was the most critical, noted, “There was no content with the vice president of academic affairs, Dr. Janet being presented during the observation period,” “the Brandau, on September 7.3 Mr. Bork further advised students did not appear to be properly instructed in the staff that he had not forwarded it to the HLC, the specific step[s] of the process,” “the students had which had sent a visiting team to campus at the end of not been given enough instruction, help, or guidance October “to review the institution’s ongoing ability to to effectively utilize the intervention,” and “students meet the HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation.” Mr. Bork were woefully unprepared for the assignment.” Mr. also informed the staff that, months before he shared Bork acknowledged to the AAUP’s staff that his the report with the president and vice president, he students were frustrated, but, he stated, their frustra- had sent an e-mail message to them and ten other tion “was with the program and not” with him. “My recipients, including Chair Pace and Dean Snow, cri- students were aware,” he wrote, “of how I’d tradition- tiquing the Gateway initiative, inviting their response, ally taught the class and the changes I was required to and suggesting that he would be sending his final make, and they were frustrated with that.” critique to the HLC. The CCA administration did not afford Mr. Bork III. The Association’s Involvement an opportunity to contest the dismissal or provide an On September 20, the AAUP’s staff wrote President Oudenhoven to convey the Association’s concerns about the case of Mr. Bork, citing Regulation 13, 2. In response to the staff’s invitation for comment on the draft “Part-Time Faculty Appointments,” of the AAUP’s report, the Colorado AAUP conference noted as follows: “Mr. Bork’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic instructional approach quite arguably prepares students for a better Freedom and Tenure, which provides that, “in a case shot at success when they transfer to Colorado’s four-year institutions. of dismissal before the end of the term of appoint- The CCA Gateway to Success protocol, a derivative of the state and national Pathways agenda, over-emphasizes completion and access ment, the administration will set forth cause for the at the expense of preparation and opportunity to succeed once CCA action, and the faculty member will have the right students arrive at Metropolitan State University of Denver, Colorado to a hearing before a faculty committee.” The letter State University, the University of Colorado, and other four-year public stated that the AAUP “was concerned about the issues higher-education institutions in Colorado. In essence, it prepares of academic freedom” raised by Mr. Bork’s allega- students for failure in the important transfer function the Gateway to tion that he was dismissed because he had resisted Success program is meant (in part) to promote. . . . We would like to changes to Philosophy 111 and had informed the emphasize that Nate’s decision to opt for a more rigorous pedagogy is both responsible and beneficial from the perspective of four-year institutions that receive Gateway students.” 4. According to a position description listed on the college’s 3. In the CCA administration’s response to the draft report, Presi- website in January 2017, an achievement coach will “assist students dent Oudenhoven wrote, “I never received a report or letter from Mr. in college readiness and academic success in specific schools, Bork to the HLC. . . . The academic vice president received an email departments and programs within the Academic Affairs Division” from him on September 7, 2016, but I was not copied on that email. and “execute all elements of a proactive student outreach strategy As far as we know there is no report. We were not concerned about for students and staff.” “A bachelor’s degree in a field related to the him sharing his issues with the HLC in whatever way he chose to do position’s responsibilities” is a required qualification, along with a so and dispute the charge of retaliation throughout the report.” “[d]emonstrated commitment to student academic success.”

3 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

administration that he intended to share his criticisms The undersigned investigating committee visited of those changes with the institution’s accreditor. In Aurora December 2–3. The administration agreed closing, the staff’s letter urged the president to reinstate to be interviewed as a group. The committee met for Mr. Bork immediately and to comply with Regulation ninety minutes with approximately twenty attendees, 13 in taking any further action against him. including President Oudenhoven; Dr. Janet Brandau, The previous day, the state AAUP conference had vice president for academic affairs; Dean Snow; Dr. independently sent a four-page letter to President Victor Vialpando, dean of the School of Professional Oudenhoven conveying the same concerns. That letter, Studies and Sciences; Dr. Chris Tombari, associate sent over the signatures of conference copresidents dean of academic affairs in the School of Liberal Stephen P. Mumme and Jonathan Rees, urged Mr. Arts; Dr. Pace; Mr. James Gray, chair of the math- Bork’s reinstatement and recommended that CCA ematics department; Mr. Scott Reichel, chair of the develop processes through which adjunct faculty English and communication department; and several members could participate in curriculum development additional academic staff and faculty members. The and that “it move expeditiously to develop or extend committee conducted its remaining interviews with due process protection to its substantial corps of Mr. Bork, six other current and former CCA faculty adjunct faculty, in the absence of which any pretense members, and one current CCA student at an off- to the general exercise of academic freedom at CCA is campus location. simply a mockery.” On September 20, President Oudenhoven IV. Issues of Concern responded to both the national AAUP and the Colo- In the committee’s view, the following were the most rado conference in a two-sentence e-mail message prominent issues of AAUP concern posed by Mr. acknowledging receipt of their letters and stating, Bork’s case. “While I appreciate your concern, it is not our practice to discuss internal personnel matters.” A. Academic Due Process In replying to President Oudenhoven by e-mail the Under Regulation 13b of the AAUP’s Recommended next day, the AAUP’s staff noted that most administra- Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and tions, upon receiving a formal conveyance of concern Tenure, when an administration dismisses a part-time from the AAUP, provided a “substantive response,” faculty member before the end of the term of appoint- even in cases that ultimately led to investigation and ment, it must provide that faculty member with a censure. In some instances, the staff wrote, “presi- statement of cause for the action and opportunity for a dents are eager to cooperate in achieving a resolution hearing before a faculty body. This regulation is further that comports with normative academic standards.” qualified by the following footnote (quoting Regulation The staff closed by urging President Oudenhoven 5a): “Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, “to address the issues of academic freedom and due directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty process that Mr. Bork’s case raises,” adding that it was members in their professional capacities as teachers likely that Mr. Bork would not object to the adminis- or researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain tration’s sharing his “relevant personnel information” faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom with the AAUP. or other rights of American citizens.” Regulation 13b Mr. Bork, who was copied on this message, imme- lacks the complexity of AAUP-recommended proce- diately e-mailed President Oudenhoven requesting to dural standards that govern dismissals of full-time be sent “any and all materials” in his personnel file, faculty members—as set forth in the 1958 Statement which resulted in his being provided these materi- on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Pro- als on October 4, as previously noted. President ceedings, a joint formulation of the AAUP and the Oudenhoven, however, did not respond to the staff’s Association of American Colleges (now the Associa- message. On October 17, the staff wrote again to tion of American Colleges and Universities), and, more inform her that the Association’s executive direc- elaborately, in Regulations 5 and 6 of the Recom- tor had authorized this investigation, concluding by mended Institutional Regulations. It nevertheless emphasizing “the Association’s receptivity in this incorporates the two most basic elements of a state- case, as in all others, to resolutions of our concerns ment of cause and a hearing before a body of peers. that would preclude the necessity of the investigation No one disputes the fact that the CCA adminis- now authorized.” tration did not afford Mr. Bork such a procedure. In

4 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

conversation with the investigating committee, the according to his professional judgment. Under the administration cited system-level policy in defending joint 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic the lack of a hearing. CCCS Board Policy (BP) 3–50, Freedom and Tenure, “[i]nstitutions of higher “Employee Grievances,” lists “dismissals, nonrenewals, education are conducted for the common good and reductions-in-force, suspensions, disciplinary actions” not to further the interest of either the individual among the many “nongrievable matters” and points teacher or the institution as a whole. The common the reader to BP 3–20, “Due Process for Faculty.” BP good depends upon the free search for truth and 3–20 lays out a limited set of due-process protections its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential for employees on a “regular faculty contract” of “at to these purposes and applies to both teaching least 50% of full-time service.” Mr. Bork, classified as and research. . . . Teachers are entitled to freedom an adjunct instructor per BP 3–10, “Administration of in the classroom in discussing their subject.” The Personnel,” was among the many CCA faculty mem- Freedom to Teach, a statement of Committee A on bers not covered by the limited due-process protections Academic Freedom and Tenure, elaborates: “The of BP 3–20. (Although the grievance policy, BP 3–50, freedom to teach includes the right of the faculty to does apply to adjunct instructors, it stipulates that select the materials, determine the approach to the dismissals are not grievable.) subject, make the assignments, and assess student For those who do fall within the scope of BP performance in teaching activities for which faculty 3–20, the policy lists among the grounds for dis- members are individually responsible, without having missal “incompetence after notice and opportunity their decisions subject to the veto of a department to improve.” Although Mr. Bork’s classification as an chair, dean, or other administrative officer.” adjunct instructor left him outside the scope of this As Committee A also noted in this statement, policy, the administration cited something very much academic freedom in teaching is not absolute. When like instructional incompetence as its justification for several faculty members are teaching a multisection Mr. Bork’s summary dismissal (a point discussed in course, for example, more detail below); and as documented above, the responsibility is often shared among the instruc- administration did not afford him any opportunity to tors for identifying the texts to be assigned to improve prior to dismissing him. This was despite his students. Common course syllabi and examina- six years of service at the institution with—by his own tions are also typical but should not be imposed account and that of his colleague and lead philoso- by departmental or administrative fiat. The shared phy faculty member Mr. David Spiegel—consistently responsibility bespeaks a shared freedom, which strong evaluations of his teaching. trumps the freedom of an individual faculty A review of system-level policies thus reveals a member to assign a textbook that he or she alone total lack of due-process protections (in matters falling considers satisfactory. The individual’s freedom outside the scope of federal or state civil-rights laws) in other respects, however, remains undiluted. for adjunct faculty members such as Mr. Bork. It bears Individuals should be able to assign supplemen- emphasizing that adjunct instructors constitute, by the tary materials to deal with subjects that they administration’s reckoning, at least 80 percent of the believe are inadequately treated in the required CCA faculty. Mr. Bork’s case highlights the very clear textbook. Instructors also have the right to discuss threat that a lack of due process poses for the exer- in the classroom what they see as deficiencies in cise of academic freedom and underscores the general the textbook. unacceptability of such policies, at CCA and elsewhere. Under these conditions, the academic freedom The Philosophy 111 course taught by Mr. Bork in of adjunct faculty members is not universally guaran- fall 2016 was just such a multisection course. How- teed as a matter of institutional policy but selectively ever, the responsibility for determining the course’s bestowed as a function of administrative benevolence. content did not rest with the faculty members who That is to say, it does not exist. were to teach it. Nor did Mr. Bork seek to alter the curriculum that the administration had handed him. B. Academic Freedom in Teaching Indeed, all parties agreed that Mr. Bork was imple- The present case raises the question whether Mr. menting the new curriculum. Insofar as Mr. Bork’s Bork’s dismissal violated his right, under the dismissal may have violated his exercise of aca- principles of academic freedom, to teach his course demic freedom, therefore, it was not because he was

5 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

attempting to fashion his course curriculum in a way reports filed in connection with that classroom visit, that contravened administrative directives. the administration summarily dismissed Mr. Bork the We take up the separate question of the academic following Wednesday, September 14 (after notifying freedom of the group in our discussion of faculty gov- him over the phone and in writing the previous day), ernance later in this report. We note for now that it is exactly one week after he had circulated his draft HLC clear that the curriculum Mr. Bork implemented in fall letter to college administrators. 2016 was not one he would have chosen had he been CCA administrators acknowledged to the inves- afforded the freedom to choose, and it is very much tigating committee that the timing of the classroom open to question whether the faculty group would observation “looks bad,” but they asserted that its have chosen to implement this curriculum absent having taken place so soon after Mr. Bork said he had direction from the administration. Several current and sent them the draft letter to the HLC was coincidental. former CCA faculty members indicated to the inves- This assertion is supported by the fact that Septem- tigating committee that the administration told them, ber 9 was listed on Mr. Bork’s syllabus as one of the during summer 2016, that if they were unwilling to days on which the new curricular interventions would implement the new Gateway to Success curriculum, take place. The administration told the investigating they should seek employment elsewhere. committee that observations were being conducted in all gatekeeper classes on such days, in order to assess C. Academic Freedom in Intramural Speech instructors’ implementation of the new curriculum. A second concern related to academic freedom Instructors had been informed that observations might involves the question whether Mr. Bork was dismissed, take place during any such class session and that as he has claimed, in retaliation for expressing his con- they would not necessarily have advance notice of an cerns about the Gateway to Success curriculum. The observation. administration adamantly denied to the investigating Both Dr. Pace and Mr. Keith cited problems of committee that he had been dismissed for this reason, implementation of the Gateway to Success curricular which would have constituted a violation of his right, interventions in their written reports. The intervention under principles of academic freedom, to engage in being conducted that day was the second part of intramural speech, that is, expression related to insti- the “Paper Writing Scaffolding” sequence, with tutional governance. According to the 1940 Statement, students required to produce a thesis statement. faculty members are “citizens, members of a learned There appears to have been universal agreement profession, and officers of an educational institution.” among the observers, Mr. Bork, and the students In its 2009 report Protecting an Independent Faculty in the class that it was too early in the semester for Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos, students to know how to write a thesis statement for Committee A pointed out that the intramural aca- a philosophy paper. It is open to question whether demic freedom of a faculty member as an institutional this is properly understood as the fault of Mr. Bork’s “officer” “pertains to both (1) speech or action taken course planning—as the observers’ reports suggest—or as part of the institution’s governing and decision- of the Gateway to Success curriculum requirements making processes . . . and (2) speech or action that is themselves. It is worth noting in this connection that critical of institutional policies and of those in author- Mr. Bork’s syllabus had been approved by his chair ity and takes place outside an institution’s formal after numerous rounds of revision; Mr. Bork said governance mechanisms.” that no previous course syllabus of his at CCA had The timeline of events raises the question of retali- received such rigorous administrative scrutiny. ation. As detailed above, Mr. Bork had drafted a letter The matter of what went on in Mr. Bork’s to the Higher Learning Commission, CCA’s accredi- classroom on September 9 goes to the heart of the tor, stating his concerns about the new curriculum. administration’s stated case for Mr. Bork’s dismissal. According to his account, he circulated the draft to Dr. Pace told the investigating committee that, in the CCA administrators on Wednesday, September 7, course of observing Mr. Bork’s implementation of in the interest, he said, of soliciting their feedback the Gateway to Success curricular interventions, he regarding the accuracy of various factual claims he and Mr. Keith discovered such severe instructional had made. Dr. Pace and Mr. Keith, the achievement deficiencies that they felt that Mr. Bork should be coach, observed Mr. Bork’s Philosophy 111 class on dismissed right away, before his next class meeting. Dr. Friday, September 9. On the basis of the observation Pace emphasized that these were general instructional

6 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

problems, not simply difficulties in the implementation administration deemed immediate removal of the of the new curriculum. Indeed, Dr. Pace, Mr. Keith, instructor to be a lesser harm to the affected students and members of the administration indicated that the than the disruption that ensued as a result of bring- ordinary course of action for a faculty member having ing in a new instructor four weeks into the semester. difficulty with the new curriculum would be additional (According to the interviewed student, this disrup- training or other instructional support. Summary dis- tion included the new instructor’s missing an entire missal mid-semester, while not unprecedented at CCA, class—one week’s worth of the course—out of for- according to the administrators with whom the inves- getfulness.) These reported deficiencies were observed tigating committee spoke, was characterized as very in an instructor who had received consistently strong rare and reserved for only the most egregious cases evaluations of his teaching by students and faculty of instructional deficiency or misconduct. (Different observers in his six years at CCA leading up to fall members of the faculty and administration—those 2016 (according to Mr. Bork himself and Mr. Spiegel, who had observed Mr. Bork’s class on September 9 his former colleague in philosophy at CCA), whose and several who had not—used the word egregious teaching was praised by a student enrolled in the several times in characterizing the extraordinary course in question, and who, as of this writing, retains conditions for mid-semester dismissal.) The classroom an appointment as an adjunct faculty member at observation reports filed by Dr. Pace and Mr. Keith, Arapahoe Community College. however, primarily describe difficulties with the imple- In sum, the CCA administration’s stated rationale mentation of that day’s Gateway to Success curricular for Mr. Bork’s summary dismissal strains credulity. intervention, not general instructional incompetence Insofar as the dismissal may have been in retaliation or misconduct. for the letter Mr. Bork had addressed to the HLC, in Dr. Pace further suggested to the investigating which he criticized the content and implementation of committee that he had reason to believe that the the Gateway to Success curriculum, it would consti- instructional problems uncovered on September 9 tute a gross violation of his right to intramural speech were part of a larger pattern of problematic teaching under principles of academic freedom. The seriousness in Mr. Bork’s class. In support of this contention, Dr. of the violation is underscored by the strenuousness Pace told the investigating committee that a concerned with which the CCA administration denied the charge student approached him immediately upon his arrival of retaliation. Certainly it is not impossible that Mr. at Mr. Bork’s class (an encounter also detailed in his Bork could have exhibited general instructional defi- classroom observation report). He indicated that the ciencies of the sort described by his department chair student wanted to convey her concerns about the and the achievement coach; but it remains difficult to course and intimated that she sought him out in order understand why the sudden onset of such deficiencies to express dissatisfaction with Mr. Bork’s teaching. in an instructor with a lengthy—and, by all accounts, The student in question told the investigating commit- exemplary—teaching record would lead to mid- tee that she approached the department chair upon his semester dismissal rather than some milder and more arrival on September 9 in order to voice her displea- orthodox form of support or remediation. sure with the Gateway to Success curriculum itself, not The facts detailed above give the investigating com- with Mr. Bork’s teaching. She told the investigating mittee reason to doubt the administration’s account of committee that she had selected Mr. Bork’s section of the case and lend significant credibility to the notion Philosophy 111 specifically in order to have him as that Mr. Bork’s dismissal was based on considerations an instructor, based on his strong reputation among that violated his academic freedom. students at CCA, and that she had been happy with his teaching in the course prior to his abrupt dismissal. D. Summary of Findings on Academic Freedom This student’s account of her encounter with Dr. Pace While it is impossible to say with absolute certainty on September 9 thus contradicts his characterization that Mr. Bork’s dismissal was an act of retaliation by of its import. the CCA administration, we can say with certainty Against the appearance of retaliation, then, the that the timeline of events is suggestive, the circum- administration asserts that a routine, coincidentally stances of the dismissal are extraordinary, and the timed classroom observation uncovered evidence of administration’s stated rationale is unconvincing. instructional deficiencies so severe that they neces- Moreover, even if the administration were not engag- sitated the immediate removal of the instructor. The ing in retaliation against Mr. Bork, its actions have

7 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

convinced many faculty members that it was. The multiple lower-level humanities courses—encompass- climate of fear among CCA faculty in the wake of ing a sizable proportion of some entering students’ this event is such that, with the exception of those programs of study at CCA—yet it is unclear whether who were present at the group meeting that included anyone with professional expertise in curriculum President Oudenhoven and other administrators, the design participated in their development. The Gateway majority of those with whom we spoke—off campus, to Success curriculum never went before a campus- we hasten to note—asked to remain anonymous. wide faculty curriculum committee for approval, Mr. Bork’s case, furthermore, illustrates a lack a step that the administration characterized as not of academic freedom for part-time faculty members required by CCA policy in this case of “redesign.” It at institutions nationwide. A cannier administra- is also worth noting that among the adjunct faculty tion might have let Mr. Bork finish the semester and members interviewed, none was aware of the exis- then have declined to renew his contract. Insofar as tence of a curriculum committee at CCA, which may this could have been done for exactly the reasons indicate a problem with the status of adjunct faculty that appear to have motivated the CCA administra- members and curricular authority, or, more likely, a tion’s summary mid-semester dismissal of Mr. Bork, general problem of weak faculty curricular oversight it would have constituted just as severe a violation of at the institution. academic freedom. But the administration would have In response to questions about the degree of faculty enjoyed the plausible deniability afforded by policies involvement in developing the Gateway to Success and procedures that enshrine arbitrary nonrenewal of curriculum, Dr. Pace told the investigating committee appointments for adjunct faculty members. that meetings were held in February and May 2016 As the proportion of the faculty employed in to solicit faculty input. The administration created adjunct and other contingent positions grows, the “design teams” in English, history, and philosophy overall academic freedom of America’s faculty shrinks. in order to make specific recommendations about the The private business model of academic employment, implementation. The philosophy design team consisted in which managers exercise complete control over of Mr. Spiegel, Mr. Kyle Hirsch (an adjunct faculty the working conditions and appointment status of member), and Mr. Keith. The finalized Gateway to those they oversee, is already a reality for the major- Success curricular requirements for philosophy were ity of those who teach at US colleges and universities. presented to the philosophy faculty at a meeting on If we wish to maintain academic freedom for the July 22. It was at this meeting that one adjunct faculty ever-shrinking proportion of the faculty who enjoy member, Dr. William Honsberger, resigned his position tenure-track and tenured appointments, we must in protest of the changes (formalized in his letter dated extend the guarantee of academic freedom—through July 25, cited earlier). changes in institutional policies, professional norms, The CCA administration has consistently charac- and, ultimately, personal attitudes—to those who terized the Gateway to Success curricular changes as do not. faculty driven. All faculty members, including adjunct instructors, had the opportunity to make suggestions E. Conditions for Faculty Governance to the design teams, and the design teams themselves The present case raises concerns about the faculty role had faculty representation. The overall parameters in governance at CCA. In particular, the Gateway to of the new curriculum, however, including the heavy Success curriculum appears to have been largely (or focus on basic writing instruction, were put in place perhaps entirely) an administrative initiative. The by the administration. Several current and former AAUP’s Statement on Government of Colleges and CCA faculty members suggested that the remedial Universities assigns to the faculty “primary respon- writing focus of the Gateway to Success curriculum sibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, may be connected to the elimination of a number of subject matter, and methods of instruction.” Although remedial English courses from the CCA curriculum the faculty was involved in working out the details, in 2010, with the remedial interventions making the initial decision to redesign the curriculum, as well their way into what had previously been introductory- as decisions about the broad outlines of its imple- level courses in other humanities disciplines. While mentation, was made by the administration and the faculty was involved in determining the specifics overseen by non–faculty members such as Mr. Keith. of the implementation within the parameters set The Gateway to Success curricular changes affected forth by the administration, it does not seem to be

8 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

the case, as noted earlier, that faculty members could With the faculty’s governance role diminished, and have refused to go forward with the Gateway to with the vast majority of the faculty lacking anything Success curriculum without jeopardizing their future approaching adequate due-process protections because employment at the institution. And while administra- of their adjunct status, the academic freedom of the tors characterized the meetings in February and May CCA faculty is structurally imperiled. related to the proposed redesigns as “brainstorming sessions,” faculty members interviewed saw them V. Conclusions as “presentations” at which Dr. Pace and Mr. Keith 1. The administration of the Community College shared retention-related data and reportedly declared, of Aurora dismissed Mr. Nathanial Bork from “There aren’t enough people passing; we need to get his part-time faculty position in his sixth year more people passing.” The claim that the Gateway to of service without affordance of academic due Success curriculum was “faculty driven” thus appears process. This summary dismissal was effected to be tendentious at best. in disregard of the 1940 Statement of Principles The implementation of the Gateway to Success on Academic Freedom and Tenure and of curriculum, moreover, is part of a broader pattern in Regulation 13b of the derivative Recommended which administrative direction supersedes faculty pre- Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom rogatives in curriculum design at CCA. For example, it and Tenure. is a college-wide policy at CCA that course textbooks 2. Mr. Bork has made the credible allegation that are chosen by department chairs, not by instructors (a the CCA administration dismissed him sum- fact that Dr. Pace pointed out to Mr. Bork in a July 19 marily in retaliation for having conveyed his e-mail message). As one faculty member put it to the intention to send the institution’s accreditor a investigating committee, “the notion that the fac- letter criticizing the new Gateway to Success cur- ulty create and own the curriculum is a foreign one” riculum. In the absence of an appropriate faculty at CCA. To return to a matter raised earlier in this hearing, this allegation stands unrebutted. The report: since CCA policy does not grant instructors administration’s stated rationale for dismissal the freedom to choose their own course materials, the does little to dispel the impression that its action academic freedom of the group of instructors teach- violated basic tenets of academic freedom, as set ing Philosophy 111, which included Mr. Bork, was forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles and constrained in ways inconsistent with principles of derivative AAUP policy documents. academic freedom. 3. Mr. Bork’s case exposes the absence of adequate It should be stressed that the investigating com- procedural protections for the adjunct faculty mittee takes no position on the quality or suitability in the regulations of the Community College of of the Gateway to Success curriculum itself. While Colorado System. Lacking these protections, Mr. Bork and several others have voiced concerns adjunct faculty members possess academic free- about the new curriculum, other faculty members dom only as long as they retain the favor of their have praised it. Dr. Brandon Williams, a history administrative superiors. At CCA the administra- instructor, told the investigating committee that, tion’s summary dismissal of Mr. Bork has driven under the new curriculum, he was able to teach this fact home and produced a climate of fear historiography in his introductory classes for the among those who teach part time. first time. In response to concerns raised by Mr. Bork 4. CCA’s institutional policies and practices after his dismissal, both the HLC and the CDHE pertaining to curricular design and issued letters expressing their satisfaction with the implementation give inordinate responsibility to gatekeeper courses for purposes of accreditation and the administration and are inconsistent with the guaranteed transfer within the Colorado higher edu- principles of academic governance set forth in cation system, respectively. the Statement on Government of Colleges and The investigating committee’s concerns regarding Universities. By severely limiting the faculty’s the Gateway to Success curriculum are procedural ability to exercise its primary responsibility rather than substantive. The outsize role of the admin- for the curriculum, these policies and practices istration in curriculum development and curricular also constrain the faculty’s collective academic matters more generally reflects a lack of an appropri- freedom in teaching. n ate faculty role in the governance of the institution.

9 Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

NICHOLAS FLEISHER (Linguistics) University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, chair

JAMES KLEIN (History) Del Mar College

NICOLE MONNIER (Russian) University of Missouri

Investigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has by vote authorized publication of this report on the AAUP website and in the Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors.

Chair: HENRY REICHMAN (History), California State University, East Bay

Members: MICHAEL BÉRUBÉ (English), Pennsylvania State University; DON M. ERON (Writing and Rhetoric), University of Colorado; JEFFREY A. HALPERN (Sociology), Rider University; MARJORIE HEINS (Law), New York, NY; MICHAEL E. MANN (Meteorology), Pennsylvania State University; WALTER BENN MICHAELS (English), University of Illinois at Chicago; DEBRA NAILS (Philosophy), Michigan State University; JOAN WALLACH SCOTT (History), Institute for Advanced Study; DONNA YOUNG (Law), Albany Law School; RUDY H. FICHTENBAUM (Economics), Wright State University, ex officio; RISA L. LIEBERWITZ (Law), Cornell University, ex officio; JOAN E. BERTIN (Public Health), Columbia University, consultant; JAMES TURK (Sociology), Ryerson University, consultant; IRENE T. MULVEY (Mathematics), Fairfield University,liaison from the Assembly of State Conferences