1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure | AAUP Skip to main content Alert Top Message Due to concerns about COVID-19, the AAUP office has transitioned to telework. Please contact staff by email.   Visit the AAUP Foundation Secondary menu Contact Events Career Center Search form Search Submit Join Login About Mission Constitution Biennial Meeting Find a Chapter Elected Leaders Staff Committees Organizational Restructuring History Programs Academic Freedom Shared Governance Chapter Organizing Collective Bargaining Summer Institute Webinars Research Legal Program Government Relations Membership Join/Renew My Account Benefits of Membership Start a Chapter Support Your Union AAUP Shirts and Gear Issues Academic Freedom Shared Governance COVID-19 Pandemic Responding to Financial Crisis Racial Justice Contingent Faculty Positions Tenure Workplace Issues Privatization in Online Education Gender and Sexuality in Higher Education Targeted Harassment Faculty Speech after the 2016 Election Border Searches Intellectual Property & Copyright Civility Sanctuary Campuses Reports/Pubs AAUP Policies & Reports Academe Faculty Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom Guidebooks News AAUP in the News Read AAUP Updates Join Our Email List Chapter Resources For All Chapters For Union Chapters Chapter Websites Chapter Profiles Start a Chapter Forming a Union Chapter Chapter Responsibilities State Conferences State Conference Directory State Conference Committee A Resources Good Practices for Chapters & Conferences Election Guidance for State Conferences Support for State Conferences   You are here Home 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure Download:  1940 Statement.pdf In 1915 the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American Association of University Professors formulated a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles, which was officially endorsed by the Association at its Second Annual Meeting held in Washington, D.C., December 31, 1915, and January 1, 1916. In 1925 the American Council on Education called a conference of representatives of a number of its constituent members, among them the American Association of University Professors, for the purpose of formulating a shorter statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. The statement formulated at this conference, known as the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, was endorsed by the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities) in 1925 and by the American Association of University Professors in 1926. In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 1934, representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities) agreed upon a restatement of principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This restatement is known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with leading educational associations and with individual faculty members and administrators, a joint committee of the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the basis of the comments received, and the discussions that ensued, the joint committee felt the preferable approach was to formulate interpretations of the 1940 Statement from the experience gained in implementing and applying it for over thirty years and of adapting it to current needs.  The committee submitted to the two associations for their consideration Interpretive Comments that are included below as footnotes to the 1940 Statement.1 These interpretations were adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Professors in April 1970 and endorsed by the Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting as Association Policy. The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to ensure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.2 The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.3 Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. Academic Freedom Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.4 Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.5 College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.6 Academic Tenure After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies. In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents acceptable academic practice: The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated. Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank,7 the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another institution, it may be agreed in writing that the new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person’s total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years.8 Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the expiration of that period.9 During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have.10 Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from the teacher’s own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they  are continued in their duties at the institution.11 Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide. Endorsers The 1940 Statement of Principles has been endorsed by more than 250 scholarly and education groups. Endnotes: 1. The Introduction to the Interpretive Comments notes: In the thirty years since their promulgation, the principles of the 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” have undergone a substantial amount of refinement. This has evolved through a variety of processes, including customary acceptance, understandings mutually arrived at between institutions and professors or their representatives, investigations and reports by the American Association of University Professors, and formulations of statements by that association either alone or in conjunction with the Association of American Colleges. These comments represent the attempt of the two associations, as the original sponsors of the 1940 “Statement,” to formulate the most important of these refinements. Their incorporation here as Interpretive Comments is based upon the premise that the 1940 “Statement” is not a static code but a fundamental document designed to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing times and circumstances.  Also, there have been relevant developments in the law itself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts on due process within the academic community which parallels the essential concepts of the 1940 “Statement”; particularly relevant is the identification by the Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 US 589 (1967), “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” Back to text. 2. The word “teacher” as used in this document is understood to include the investigator who is attached to an academic institution without teaching duties. Back to text. 3. First 1970 comment: The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors have long recognized that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. Both associations either separately or jointly have consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy statements, providing guidance to professors in their utterances as citizens, in the exercise of their responsibilities to the institution and to students, and in their conduct when resigning from their institution or when undertaking government-sponsored research. Of particular relevance is the “Statement on Professional Ethics” adopted in 1966 as Association policy (AAUP, Policy Documents and Reports, 11th ed. [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015], 145– 46). Back to text. 4. Second 1970 comment: The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is “controversial.” Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject. Back to text. 5. Third 1970 comment: Most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 “Statement,” and we do not now endorse such a departure. Back to text. 6. Fourth 1970 comment: This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation adopted by the sponsors of the 1940 “Statement” immediately following its endorsement: If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher’s fitness for his or her position, it may proceed to file charges under paragraph 4 of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges, the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility, and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation. Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom in the 1940 “Statement” should also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 “Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances,” Policy Documents and Reports, 31, which states inter alia: “The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.” Paragraph 5 of the “Statement on Professional Ethics,” Policy Documents and Reports, 146, also addresses the nature of the “special obligations” of the teacher: As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom. Both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of academic responsibility apply not only to the full-time probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as part- time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilities. Back to text. 7. Fifth 1970 comment: The concept of “rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank” is intended to include any person who teaches a full- time load regardless of the teacher’s specific title. [For a discussion of this question, see the “Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure,” AAUP Bulletin 52 (September 1966): 280– 82.] Back to text. 8. Sixth 1970 comment: In calling for an agreement “in writing” on the amount of credit given for a faculty member’s prior service at other institutions, the “Statement” furthers the general policy of full understanding by the professor of the terms and conditions of the appointment. It does not necessarily follow that a professor’s tenure rights have been violated because of the absence of a written agreement on this matter. Nonetheless, especially because of the variation in permissible institutional practices, a written understanding concerning these matters at the time of appointment is particularly appropriate and advantageous to both the individual and the institution. [For a more detailed statement on this question, see “On Crediting Prior Service Elsewhere as Part of the Probationary Period,” Policy Documents and Reports, 167– 68.] Back to text. 9. Seventh 1970 comment: The effect of this subparagraph is that a decision on tenure, favorable or unfavorable, must be made at least twelve months prior to the completion of the probationary period. If the decision is negative, the appointment for the following year becomes a terminal one. If the decision is affirmative, the provisions in the 1940 “Statement” with respect to the termination of service of teachers or investigators after the expiration of a probationary period should apply from the date when the favorable decision is made. The general principle of notice contained in this paragraph is developed with greater specificity in the “Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment,” endorsed by the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors (1964) (Policy Documents and Reports, 99). These standards are: Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointment to the governing board, should be given in writing in accordance with the following standards: 1. Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. 2. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. 3. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years in the institution. Other obligations, both of institutions and of individuals, are described in the “Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members,” Policy Documents and Reports, 153– 54, as endorsed by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors in 1961. Back to text. 10. Eighth 1970 comment: The freedom of probationary teachers is enhanced by the establishment of a regular procedure for the periodic evaluation and assessment of the teacher’s academic performance during probationary status. Provision should be made for regularized procedures for the consideration of complaints by probationary teachers that their academic freedom has been violated. One suggested procedure to serve these purposes is contained in the “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” Policy Documents and Reports, 79– 90, prepared by the American Association of University Professors. Back to text. 11. Ninth 1970 comment: A further specification of the academic due process to which the teacher is entitled under this paragraph is contained in the “Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings,” Policy Documents and Reports, 91– 93, jointly approved by the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges in 1958. This interpretive document deals with the issue of suspension, about which the 1940 “Statement” is silent. The “Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings” provides: “Suspension of the faculty member during the proceedings is justified only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by the faculty member’s continuance. Unless legal considerations forbid, any such suspension should be with pay.” A suspension which is not followed by either reinstatement or the opportunity for a hearing is in effect a summary dismissal in violation of academic due process. The concept of “moral turpitude” identifies the exceptional case in which the professor may be denied a year’s teaching or pay in whole or in part. The statement applies to that kind of behavior which goes beyond simply warranting discharge and is so utterly blameworthy as to make it inappropriate to require the offering of a year’s teaching or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities of persons in the particular community have been affronted. The standard is behavior that would evoke condemnation by the academic community generally. Back to text. Report Category: Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Due Process Tags: Academic Freedom Tenure Association of American Colleges and Universities AAUP Policies & Reports Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigative Reports College and University Governance Reports Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports Audit Reports View All Reports Back to Reports and Publications American Association of University Professors 1133 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-737-5900 aaup@aaup.org   Visit the AAUP Foundation Secondary menu Contact Events Career Center Privacy Policy & Terms of Use About Mission Constitution Biennial Meeting Awards Sternberg Award Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom Georgina M. Smith Award Outstanding Achievement Award Ralph S. Brown Award for Shared Governance Past Awards Resolutions & Proposals 2018 Resolution 2017 Resolutions 2016 Resolution and Proposal 2015 Resolutions & Proposal 2014 Resolutions 2013 Resolutions 2012 Resolutions 2011 Resolutions 2010 Resolutions 2009 Resolutions 2008 Resolutions 2007 Resolutions 2006 Resolutions How to Submit a Resolution or Proposal Find a Chapter Elected Leaders Officers & Council Records of the Council Council Resolutions Elections Election Guidance for Chapters AAUP At-Large Chapter Election Rules 2020 Election Information 2020 Delegate Forms 2020 Election Speeches FAQs on Changes to Chapter Elections Information about Sections What is a Section? Forming a Section for Delegate Representation 2018 Rerun Election 2018 Election Staff Employment Opportunities Committees AAUP Advisory Committees Association Business Committees Rules Governing Committee Appointments Organizational Restructuring History Timeline AAUP Presidents General Secretaries and Directors Selected Readings AAUP Archives Past Awards Programs Academic Freedom Resources on Academic Freedom Committee A Procedures Censure List Shared Governance Resources on Governance Protect the Faculty Voice Legal Cases Affecting Academic Speech Action Items How-to and Success Stories and Policies Sanctioned Institutions Chapter Organizing Tips for Office Visits AAUP Unionism Collective Bargaining Resources on Collective Bargaining Summer Institute Webinars Past Webinars Research Faculty Compensation Survey Legal Program AAUP Amicus Briefs Amicus Brief Application Process Academic Freedom and Employee Speech Academic Freedom and Institutional Matters Academic Freedom and National Security Academic Freedom and Research Academic Freedom and Teaching Affirmative Action Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Faculty Collective Bargaining Rights Intellectual Property Tenure Faculty Handbooks Guide Legal Informational Outlines Government Relations Membership Join/Renew My Account Benefits of Membership Start a Chapter Support Your Union AAUP Shirts and Gear Issues Academic Freedom Shared Governance COVID-19 Pandemic Guidance for Campus Operation During the Pandemic Responding to Financial Crisis Policies and Best Practices Faculty Handbook Policies, Budget Committees, and Budget Principles Legal Considerations Understanding Institutional Finances Organizing the Faculty Response Accounting Guidelines for Analysis of Financial Exigency Racial Justice Contingent Faculty Positions Resources on Contingent Positions Tenure Resources on Tenure Workplace Issues Beginning a Faculty Appointment Evaluations and Reviews Leaving the Institution—or Staying Contours of Academic Freedom Privatization in Online Education Gender and Sexuality in Higher Education Targeted Harassment Faculty Speech after the 2016 Election Border Searches Intellectual Property & Copyright AAUP IP Policy Resources on Copyright, Distance Education, and Intellectual Property CAUT IP Policies IP Legislation IP Fact Sheets IP Amicus Brief IP Essays Civility Sanctuary Campuses Reports/Pubs AAUP Policies & Reports Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigations Governance Investigations Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Due Process College and University Government Professional Ethics Research and Teaching Distance Education and Intellectual Property Work and Family Discrimination Retirement and Leaves of Absence Collective Bargaining Economic Status of the Profession College and University Accreditation Student Rights and Freedoms Audit Reports View All Reports Academe Current Academe Issue Previous Issues Submissions Subscriptions Advertising in Academe Contact Faculty Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP Volume 106 (2020) Volume 105 (2019) Volume 104 (2018) Volume 103 (2017) Volume 102 (2016) Volume 101 (2015) Volume 100 (2014) Volume 99 (2013) Volume 98 (2012) Volume 97 (2011) Volume 96 (2010) The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom About/Contact Call for Papers Volume 1 (2010) Editor's Introduction Professionalization as the Basis for Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance The AAUP, Academic Freedom, and the Cold War The Eroding Foundations of Academic Freedom and Professional Integrity Ward Churchill at the Dalton Trumbo Fountain The Last Indian Standing The Demise of Shared Governance at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Paranoia and Professionalization Towards an Autonomous Antioch College Hidden (and Not-So-Hidden) New Threats to Faculty Governance Academic Freedom and the Digital Revolution Rethinking Academic Traditions for Twenty-First-Century Faculty Institutionalized Attacks on Academic Freedom The Corporatization of American Higher Education “I Have No Idea What You Do Out Here” Volume 2 (2011) Editor's Introduction Teaching in the Corporate University Outcomes Assessment The Disemboweled University John Ervin Kirkpatrick and the Rulers of American Colleges A Tale of Two Conferences Invigorating the Classroom Fundamental Freedom or Fringe Benefit? Butler University v. John Doe Biology, Theology, and Academic Freedom The View from 2020 Campus Clout, Statewide Strength What Do Graduate Employee Unions Have to Do with Academic Freedom? Graduate Student Academic Freedom and the Apprenticeship Myth Volume 3 (2012) Editor's Introduction Assessment as a Subversive Activity In Response to Ellen Schrecker’s “Ward Churchill at the Dalton Trumbo Fountain” Report on the Termination of Ward Churchill The Dismissal of Ralph Turner The US Air Force Academy Negotiating Academic Freedom Cooking the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs Academic Freedom in a State-Sponsored African University Academic Freedom in Principle and Practice Volume 4 (2013) Editor's Introduction Rethinking Academic Boycotts Palestine, Boycott, and Academic Freedom Boycott, Academic Freedom, and the Moral Responsibility to Uphold Human Rights The Israeli State of Exception and the Case for Academic Boycott Boycotts against Israel and the Question of Academic Freedom in American Universities in the Arab World Changing My Mind about the Boycott Academic Freedom Encompasses the Right to Boycott Market Forces and the College Classroom: Losing Sovereignty Academic Freedom from Below Readers Respond: Cary Nelson Readers Respond: Ernst Benjamin Readers Respond: Emily Budick Readers Respond: Joshua A. Fogel Readers Respond: Kenneth Waltzer Readers Respond: Gerald M. Steinberg Readers Respond: Kenneth L. Marcus and Sitara Kedilaya Readers Respond: Samuel M. Edelman Readers Respond: Peter Haas Readers Respond: USACBI Organizing Collective Readers Respond: Chad Alan Goldberg Readers Respond: Roderick A. Ferguson and Jodi Melamed Authors Respond: David Lloyd Authors Respond: Bill V. Mullen Authors Respond: Malini Johar Schueller Readers Respond: Rima Kapitan Volume 5 (2014) Editor's Introduction ‘To Make Collective Action Possible’ Religion, Sectarianism, and the Pursuit of Truth Tenure Matters: An Historian's Perspective The Two Cultures of Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century The Case of the Student Racist Facebook Message Emergencies and Due Process Opportunities of Our Own Making Open Access to Technology On the Pros and Cons of Being a Faculty Member at E-Text University On the Ground in Kansas Volume 6 (2015) Editor's Introduction Professionalism and Unionism Catholicism and Unions A New Hope? The “Textbook Controversy” Title IX, Sexual Harassment, and Academic Freedom Institutional Review Boards Risking Responsibility The Personal Ethics of Academic Freedom Academic Freedom and Extramural Utterances Civility and Academic Freedom after Salaita Professor Salaita's Intramural Speech Garcetti and Salaita Everything Old Is New Again Social Media & the Politics of Collegiality Steven Salaita’s Scholarly Record and the Problem of His Appointment Response to Cary Nelson Volume 7 (2016) Editor's Introduction Academic Freedom, Political Interference, and Public Accountability Debating Academic Freedom in India A Review of Academic Freedom in African Universities Lost in Post-Cold War Transitions Academic Freedom and the Common Good The AAUP's 1915 Declaration of Principles Championing Academic Freedom at Rutgers Free Space in the Academy Volume 8 (2017) Editor's Introduction - Volume 8 Oppenheimer’s House Repressive Tolerance Revamped? Collective Bargaining, Shared Governance, and Academic Freedom An Evolution of Principled Futility Complying with Title IX while Protecting Shared Governance, Academic Freedom, and Due Process Intellectual Freedom, Academic Freedom, and the Academic Librarian Academic Freedom as the Freedom to do Academic Work On Free Speech and Academic Freedom Volume 9 (2018) Editor's Introduction “Affirming Our Values” The Academic Freedom Double Standard When Free Speech Disrupts Diversity Initiatives At the Margins of University Work Diversity Work The Ironic Interplay of Free Speech and Silencing Free Speech, Safe Spaces, and Teaching Stopping the Presses Academic Freedom under the Gun Not Chilly Enough? Managing the Academic Racehorse Illuminating the Dark History Volume 10 (2019) Editor's Introduction Compulsory Civility and the Necessity of (Un)Civil Disobedience A Vision for Scholar-Activists of Color The Danger of Campus Bans on Bullying The Weaponization of Student Evaluations of Teaching Endangered and Vulnerable The Tale of Professor X Postwar Recovery and Student Academic Freedom in Côte d’Ivoire "Book Burning" in Japan Dear Administrators No Sanctuary Speech, Academic Freedom, and Privilege Volume 11 (2020) Editor's Introduction Trickle-Down Managerialism On Borders and Academic Freedom Gentrifying the University and Disempowering the Professoriate What I Learned in the Faculty Senate The Rollins College Inquiry of 1933 Leadership during a Budget Crisis Leadership Threats to Shared Governance How Ego, Greed, and Hubris (Almost) Destroyed a University Why Revenue Generation Can’t Solve the Crisis in Higher Education Afterword: Can the Managerial Technique Speak? Guidebooks News AAUP in the News 2019 AAUP in the News 2018 AAUP in the News Read AAUP Updates 2019 AAUP Updates 2018 AAUP Updates 2017 AAUP Updates 2016 AAUP Updates 2015 AAUP Updates 2014 AAUP Updates 2013 AAUP Updates 2012 AAUP Updates 2011 AAUP Updates 2010 AAUP Updates Join Our Email List Chapter Resources For All Chapters AAUP Terms and Abbreviations Building Campus Coalitions Chapter Leader Digests For Union Chapters How-Tos Tips for Successful Office Visits List Building Media Relations Government Relations Toolkit Institutional Financial Analysis Chapter Websites Chapter Profiles Start a Chapter Starting an AAUP Chapter, Step By Step Sample Chapter Bylaws Establishing Advocacy-Chapter Dues Forming a Union Chapter Organizing in Challenging Contexts Chapter Responsibilities Guidelines for Good Practices Resolving Complaints against Chapters Good Practices for Chapters & Conferences State Conferences State Conference Directory State Conference Committee A Resources Good Practices for Chapters & Conferences Election Guidance for State Conferences Support for State Conferences