Antioch University is deeply committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning. This is demonstrated in both policy and practice. It is significant that the very first policy reviewed and recommended to the Chancellor and Board of Governors by the Red Book Commission, after a highly inclusive development process, was the Academic Freedom Policy (5.101). It was unanimously approved by the Board of Governors in Fall 2011. The policy states,
Antioch University adheres to the principles of academic freedom and intellectual pluralism as both a declaration of rights and responsibilities. As articulated and endorsed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), academic freedom “is the essential characteristic of an institution of higher education. It encompasses the right of faculty to full freedom in research and in the publication of results, freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, and the right of faculty to be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens. [The policy further indicates,] academic freedom and intellectual pluralism are aligned with and in support of Antioch University’s mission. These principles contribute to a climate in which debate about complex
and challenging subjects and issues about which reasonable people will disagree is encouraged and engaged within a spirit of openness, tolerance and civility.
The policy protects full academic freedom in the engagement of student learning extending this to classroom teaching, program development, and any other student learning setting, stating “faculty should be guided by the principle that the material presented in class serves the primary purpose of advancing student learning in the context of the course . . . .” Faculty members also are entitled to full academic freedom in research and creativity. And, the policy articulates that in the areas of service and University citizenship,
faculty members have the right to express their thoughts freely and openly, unrestrained by threat of censorship or discipline, while making every effort to indicate that they do not speak for Antioch University. As persons of learning, members of a learned profession, and officials of the university, faculty members have a special obligation to at all times strive to be accurate, demonstrating respect for the opinions of others.
Of course, actions speak louder than words. The 2011 Full-time and Part-time Faculty Surveys provide insight into faculty members’ perceptions of their freedom of expression. When full-time faculty were asked if they “can voice . . . opinions openly in faculty meetings,” (Figure 4.10) nearly 84% agreed (Strongly Agree 34.8%, Agree 29.6%,
Somewhat Agree 19.1%). Full-time faculty indicated that the University “encourages . . . [them] to try new things in . . . [their] teaching and scholarship.” (Figure 4.11). Over 79% of full-time faculty agreed (Strongly Agree 22.4%, Agree 33.6%, Somewhat Agree 22.4%). Over 95% of full-time faculty indicated in turn that they “encourage students to pursue individual learning interests” (Figure 4.12) (Strongly Agree 56.2%, Agree 31.4%, Somewhat Agree 7.6%) and that they “encourage student opinions and ideas that differ from . . . [their] own (Figure 4.13) (99% – Strongly Agree 41.9% Agree 47.6%, Somewhat Agree 9.5%).
Similarly, 74% of the part-time faculty positively rate the information and guidance that they are provided about academic freedom during orientation (Figure 4.14) as being Good (22%), Very Good (32%) or Exceptional (20%). In general, the sentiment expressed is very positive, indicating an environment in which opinions may be voiced and experimental teaching strategies are encouraged.
Clearly, the predominant opinion of University faculty indicates that open and free expression of ideas is possible and freedom in the classroom is the institutional norm. No formal legal actions involving academic freedom have been taken by faculty against Antioch University over the past decade.
A commitment to freedom of expression in teaching and learning also extends beyond the rights and responsibilities of faculty to
students. Here, too, Antioch University has demonstrated its commitment in policy and practice. After an extensive policy development process that included student input from all campuses, a new Student Academic Rights and Freedom (6.102) was approved by the Chancellor in June 2012.
Figure 4.10: Full-time Faculty Voice Opinions at Meetings Figure 4.11: Full-time Faculty Encouraged to Try New Things
Are You Able to Voice Opinions Openly in Faculty Meetings? Strongly Agree 34.8% Agree 18.2% Somewhat Agree 19.1%
Are You Encouraged to Try New Things in Teaching and Scholarship? Strongly Agree 22.4% Agree 33.6% Somewhat Agree 22.4% Disagree 27.9% Disagree 21.6% 2011 Full-time Faculty Survey
This policy states:
Antioch University adheres to the principles of academic freedom and intellectual pluralism as both rights and responsibilities. Academic freedom and intellectual are aligned with, and in support of, Antioch University’s commitment to nurture in students the knowledge, skills, and habits of reflection to excel as lifelong learners,
democratic leaders, and global citizens who live lives with meaning and purpose. Adherence to these principles contributes to a climate in which debate about complex and challenging subjects and issues, about which reasonable people will disagree, is encouraged and engaged within a spirit of openness, tolerance, and civility. To vigorously assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in discourse and debate, which is at the very heart of academic freedom. The policy articulates the rights and responsibilities of students as learners and indicates they should be free “to develop and express reasoned interpretations of the data or points of view that may differ from those offered in any course of study.” As scholars, “students are entitled to full academic freedom in research and creative activity and in the publication, exhibition, or performance of the results, subject to the requirements of research ethics and responsibilities as well as the standards of academic performance established by the faculty.” As members of the community, ”students have the right to express their thoughts freely and openly, unrestrained by threat of censorship or discipline. Equally, students have the responsibility to respect the free and open expression of the thoughts of others.”
Two other policies that were developed with broad student involvement and approved by the Board of Governors in June 2012 also exemplify the University’s commitment
Figure 4.12: Full-time Faculty Encourage Students to Pursue Individualized Learning
Figure 4.13: Full-time Faculty Encourage Diversity of Student Opinion Figure 4.14: Part-time Faculty on Orientation to Academic Freedom
Do You Encourage Student Opinions and Ideas That Differ from Your Own? Strongly Agree 41.9% Agree 47.6% Somewhat Agree – 9.5% Do You Encourage Students to Pursue Individual Learning Interests? Strongly Agree 56.2% Agree 31.4% Somewhat Agree – 7.6% Is Orientation Information on Academic Freedom During Helpful? Exceptional 20% Very Good 32% Good 22% Inadequate 26%
to freedom of student exploration and expression. The Student Academic Integrity Policy (6.105) articulates Antioch University’s commitment to “building a vibrant and inclusive educational environment that promotes learning and the free exchange of ideas” and identifies the standards of academic integrity that support these rights and responsibilities. The Student Organizations, Speech, and Publications Policy (6.127) guarantees that “students of Antioch University are free to establish, join and participate in organizations that support and advance their common interests consistent with University policy.”
The 2011 Adult Student Priorities Survey provides Antioch learners’ views on freedom of expression. In general, the sentiment expressed is very positive, indicating an inclusive and open environment in which students can learn and express themselves in an unfettered manner. For example, the 2011 Adult Student Priorities Survey asked if “it is important that . . . [students] can pursue individual learning interests in . . . [their] program.” (Figure 4.15) The gap score is 0.48 between Importance (6.54) and Satisfaction (6.06), which is quite low. Further, students supported the notion that “my instructors respect student opinions and ideas that differ from their own.” (Figure 4.16) The gap score on this question was 0.61 between Importance (6.72) and Satisfaction (6.11). It is clear from these responses that Antioch students feel able to express ideas openly and to pursue their own intellectual paths.
due process procedures; (2) a climate of retribution exists on some Antioch campuses because of lack of protection provided by tenure; and (3) the Antioch University governance model did not meet AAUP’s expectations.
Antioch University’s Chancellor Toni Murdock responded to AAUP’s allegations charging that AAUP’s investigative report was “biased and flawed.” Chancellor Murdock’s 43- page response continues, “The Report is an inaccurate and incomplete narrative of the factual circumstances surrounding the decision to declare financial exigency at Antioch College.” It detailed the University’s perspective on the suspension of operation of Antioch College and the involvement of College faculty in the process.
Issues relative to the closing of Antioch College have been addressed in the Past Concerns chapter of this Self-Study Report and will not be further examined here. However, a few aspects of AAUP’s sanction specifically focused on faculty governance and academic freedom at the other campuses of Antioch University are germane here. While it is true that Antioch University does not have a tenure system, the institution can now offer three-year rolling contracts to core faculty, significantly increasing job security. AAUP also charged that faculty participation in University governance was low. Historically, this has been true. Yet, today, all campuses have Faculty Senates/Assemblies, Curriculum Committees, and faculty have oversight
for curriculum and the assessment of learning. As well, this was precisely one of the reasons for establishing the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and for creating the Blue Book Commission, the Red Book Commission, the Commission on Academic Voice, and as of July 2012, the University Academic Council. All of these bodies have significantly increased faculty voice in the governance of the institution. For a number of years since the sanctions were imposed, Chancellor Murdock requested removal from the list, most recently on March 15, 2012. Chancellor Murdock cited the recent years of work of faculty in University policy development and the Board of Governors’ approval of the University Academic Council founded on principles of shared governance. Five letters of support from campus Faculty Senates/Assemblies and University-wide doctoral program faculty accompanied the Chancellor’s last request. As an example, the AU Los Angeles faculty wrote:
In recent years, we have been encouraged by the progress University governors and administrators have made in their efforts to include more proactively the voice of the faculty in University decision making. We are positively expectant that this progress will continue under the leadership of our new Chancellor, who will join us in July 2012. AU Midwest faculty wrote:
The three areas outlined in Chancellor Murdock’s letter include the Blue Book Commission, which has entirely revised Here, too, no formal legal actions involving
academic freedom have been taken by students against the University during this past decade.
A Word about AAUP’s Sanction In June 2010, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) placed Antioch University on its list of sanctioned institutions relative to the suspension of Antioch College operations. AAUP alleged (1) there was a failure to include faculty in governance and
Figure 4.15: Students Express Ability to Pursue Own Interests
2011 Adult Student Priorities Survey
Importance 6.54 Satisfaction 6.06 Pursuit of Individual Learning Interests 7.0
Figure 4.16: Students Indicate Instructors Respect Students’ Diverse Opinions
2011 Adult Student Priorities Survey
Importance 6.72 Satisfaction 6.11 Instructors Respect Student Opinions and Ideas 7.0
being placed on AAUP’s sanction list. We find AAUP’s position unfortunate.
Antioch University has acted in good faith over the past years to protect the academic freedom of its faculty and students, to build a system of collaboration, and to improve faculty security with new three-year rolling contracts. On balance, those efforts have been successful and have led to a uniquely Antiochian shared governance system that is based on collaboration. It provides the platform from which future improvements may be made. It is clear that AAUP is not basing a decision on the progress made at Antioch University but rather because the organization refuses to remove from sanction any institution that does not have a tenure system.
Component 2.D. Summary
Antioch University has a strong Academic Freedom Policy (5.101), guided by the longstanding principles articulated by AAUP. Deep commitment in practice to academic freedom exists. Surveys suggest the commitment is effectively adhered to at the institution and that freedom of exploration and expression are encouraged and treasured.
faculty contracts and accountability, and has added much more security for faculty as well as opportunities for growth and mentorship. The Red Book Commission has also worked very hard to make University policies governing teaching and learning more transparent. Finally, the Chancellor’s Commission on Academic Voice in Governance has made major changes to how faculty impact academic affairs across the campuses. Thus, today our faculty assembly voted unanimously to endorse Chancellor Murdock’s letter in support of removing Antioch University from the AAUP’s list of sanctioned institutions.
AAUP rejected the request to remove Antioch University from its list of sanctioned institutions. In its reply, AAUP noted that while “appreciating the effort” in the areas of academic freedom and shared governance, AAUP felt there should be experience with these policies under the new administration [of Chancellor Nudelman]. Most significantly, AAUP asserted that it could not remove the University from the sanction list because Antioch “did not have a system of tenure.” In referencing another institution in this situation, the AAUP letter states: “I am afraid that if we could not change this position with regard to the removal of sanction in the case of that institution, which by all accounts had a number of years of good governance, we will not be able to do so now with Antioch University.” Apparently, every higher education institution in the country that does not have a tenure system warrants