In this issue:

New Feature: Graduate Student Caucus Report                          

Successful Annual Meeting held at University of Minnesota          

Roxane Gudeman Receives the 2005 Robert E. Sloan Award        

How to Apply to the State Legal Defense Fund  

Minnesota and the Academic Bill of Rights                                    

AAUP Statement on the Academic Bill of Rights                          

The Ward Churchill controversy: Minnesota AAUP Statement   

How to Contact the Minnesota AAUP   

How to Contact Minnesota Committee A  

How to Contact the National Office                                                         






New Feature: The Graduate Student Caucus Report


This semester, the U of Minnesota AAUP Graduate and Professional Student Caucus has been busy continuing its support for the U of MN on-campus TA/RA union, named GradTrac. After nearly a year of hard work, the union is finally on the verge of reality, as the week of April 11th hosts five days of on campus voting. A simple majority of qualified voters (those currently with qualifying TA/RA positions) will decided the union’s fate – and organizers are very optimistic. The AAUP GPSC has helped through its endorsement of the union, and the tireless work of its executive committee as well as strong individual efforts -primarily within various departments such as Anthropology. With the union in place, the AAUP GPSC will finally be able to restructure its semester efforts toward the recruitment of new members - for example those newly minted union members.


In other news, the efforts of the AAUP GPSC on campus and within the general AAUP body were recently reported on in the Minnesota Daily, the third largest readership paper in Minnesota. Additionally, president Jeremy Nienow has been selected to serve on the new AAUP Graduate Student Committee at the National level, along with MN State Conference President Michael Livingston as its faculty Chair. Please continue to support the hard work of our graduate student members, fostering them equates to fostering the future of the AAUP.



Visit the state conference web site at www.mnaaup.org for the eAcademe, Minnesota AAUP’s extended edition of each issue. The Spring, 2005 edition of the eAcademe includes extended feature sections about the Academic Bill of Rights and Ward Churchill controversies. Beside the feature sections, turn to the Minnesota conference website for contact information, useful links to other sites, and information on membership and events!



Successful Annual Meeting Held at the University of Minnesota


The Minnesota State Conference held its annual meeting at the University of Minnesota Campus Club on Tuesday February 1, 2005. The featured speaker was Dr. Roger Bowen, the new national General Secretary of the AAUP. Dr. Bowen spoke to an audience of 30 AAUP members from around the state on the topic of academic freedom. He addressed recent attacks on academic freedom and political intrusions into the academy. Dr. Bowen’s remarks were preceded by a short ceremony honoring Dr. Anne Pick for her service as a former president and vice-president of the state conference and also by the awarding of the Sloan Award to Dr. Roxane H. Gudeman of Macalester College. This was the 45th anniversary of the Minnesota State Conference. The first state conference meeting was held at the University of Minnesota in 1960.


Roxane Gudeman Receives the 2005 Robert E. Sloan Award


The Robert E. Sloan award for Outstanding Contributions to Academic Freedom is given annually to one or more current or former AAUP members who have made a significant personal contribution in support of academic freedom and shared governance. The contributions may have been made either recently or over a longer term. The award is named in recognition of Bob Sloan’s sustained commitment to the goals of the AAUP and his important contributions in support of academic freedom and shared governance. The 2005 award was presented at the state conference annual meeting to Roxane H. Gudeman, Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Macalester College. Conference president Michael Livingston noted in bestowing the award that Dr. Gudeman “…has long served the AAUP at the chapter, conference, and national levels. She has been on the chapter executive committee at Macalester for 15 years, and has served for 8 years as the chapter vice-president and 4 years as the chapter president. From 1993 to 2000 she served on the state conference executive committee, serving 2 years as secretary-treasurer of the conference and 2 years as treasurer. She edited the state conference newsletter, the Minnesota Academe, for 10 years. Nationally, Roxane has served on Committee L (now called the Committee on Historically Back Institutions) for six years, from 1997 to 2003. In 1998 she served on the Committee A Investigatory Team at Mount Marty College with Professor Jim Bergquist. It is a great honor for me, on behalf of the Minnesota conference, to present the Robert L. Sloan Award to Roxane H. Gudeman.” Congratulations, Roxane!



How to Apply to the State AAUP Legal Defense Fund


The State conference legal defense fund has three thousand dollars available to members or chapters needing legal counsel. The maximum grant is $1,500 per chapter and $1,000 per individual. To apply for a grant from the legal defense fund, simply contact the conference president Michael Livingston at mlivingston@csbsju.edu. During the last academic year the fund awarded a grant of $750 to the St. Olaf AAUP chapter so that they could hire legal counsel to examine their faculty handbook.


Minnesota and the Academic Bill of Rights


On March 30, Senator Michelle Bachmann and Rep. Ray Vandeveer introduced into the MN state senate and house an “academic bill of rights.” The bill (SF 1988 in the senate and HF 2164 in the house) is now in committee.

It is urgent that we each contact our state senator and state representative and voice our positions about this bill. The title of the bill is Free Speech for Faculty and Student Bill of Rights.

To find the name and address of your senator and representative, you can go to the Minnesota State Legislature web site at <http://www.leg.state.mn.us/>www.leg.state.mn.us/    If you are not familiar with this bill, please visit the AAUP web site at <http://www.aaup.org/>www.aaup.org for background and statements on this bill.


News about the Academic Bill of Rights from other States:

In Florida, Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines last week to pass the Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, 8-to-2 in the face of strong objections from the two Democrats on the committee. The bill has to be passed by two more committees before consideration by the full House.


In California, the Academic Bill of Rights was recently proposed as Senate Bill 1335, which died in Committee. California AAUP reports that it reemerged with new force in the form of SB 5, due to be considered by the legislature in the early part of this year. A comparison of these two bills is available at the CA-AAUP website, [http://www.aaup-ca.org/].


In Ohio, The Academic Bill of Rights is proposed as Senate Bill 24. The faculty senate of Ohio University passed a resolution in February calling for withdrawal of the bill. For reports on this and more concerning the Academic Bill of Rights, see the national AAUP website’s new section on Political Intrusions Into the Academy, at [http://www.aaup.org/Issues/ABOR/Political%20intrusion1.htm].



AAUP Statement on Academic Bills of Rights


The statement that follows was approved for publication by the Association's Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and is reprinted from the National AAUP website.


The past year has witnessed repeated efforts to establish what has been called an "Academic Bill of Rights." Based upon data purporting to show that Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans in faculty positions, and citing official statements and principles of the American Association of University Professors, advocates of the Academic Bill of Rights would require universities to maintain political pluralism and diversity. This requirement is said to enforce the principle that "no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy should be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process."1 Although Committee A endorses this principle, which we shall call the "principle of neutrality," it believes that the Academic Bill of Rights is an improper and dangerous method for its implementation. There are already mechanisms in place that protect this principle, and they work well. Not only is the Academic Bill of Rights redundant, but, ironically, it also infringes academic freedom in the very act of purporting to protect it.


A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards. The proposed Academic Bill of Rights directs universities to enact guidelines implementing the principle of neutrality, in particular by requiring that colleges and universities appoint faculty "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives."2 The danger of such guidelines is that they invite diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession. Measured in this way, diversity can easily become contradictory to academic ends. So, for example, no department of political theory ought to be obligated to establish "a plurality of methodologies and perspectives" by appointing a professor of Nazi political philosophy, if that philosophy is not deemed a reasonable scholarly option within the discipline of political theory. No department of chemistry ought to be obligated to pursue "a plurality of methodologies and perspectives" by appointing a professor who teaches the phlogiston theory of heat, if that theory is not deemed a reasonable perspective within the discipline of chemistry.


These examples illustrate that the appropriate diversity of a university faculty must ultimately be conceived as a question of academic judgment, to be determined by the quality and range of pluralism deemed reasonable by relevant disciplinary standards, as interpreted and applied by college and university faculty. Advocates for the Academic Bill of Rights, however, make clear that they seek to enforce a kind of diversity that is instead determined by essentially political categories, like the number of Republicans or Democrats on a faculty, or the number of conservatives or liberals. Because there is in fact little correlation between these political categories and disciplinary standing, the assessment of faculty by such explicitly political criteria, whether used by faculty, university administration, or the state, would profoundly corrupt the academic integrity of universities. Indeed, it would violate the neutrality principle itself. For this reason, recent efforts to enact the Academic Bill of Rights pose a grave threat to fundamental principles of academic freedom.


The Academic Bill of Rights also seeks to enforce the principle that "faculty members will not use their courses or their position for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination."3 Although Committee A endorses this principle, which we shall call the nonindoctrination principle, the Academic Bill of Rights is an inappropriate and dangerous means for its implementation. This is because the bill seeks to distinguish indoctrination from appropriate pedagogy by applying principles other than relevant scholarly standards, as interpreted and applied by the academic profession.


If a professor of constitutional law reads the examination of a student who contends that terrorist violence should be protected by the First Amendment because of its symbolic message, the determination of whether the examination should receive a high or a low grade must be made by reference to the scholarly standards of the law. The application of these standards properly distinguishes indoctrination from competent pedagogy. Similarly, if a professor of American literature reads the examination of a student that proposes a singular interpretation of Moby Dick, the determination of whether the examination should receive a high or a low grade must be made by reference to the scholarly standards of literary criticism. The student has no "right" to be rewarded for an opinion of Moby Dick that is independent of these scholarly standards. If students possessed such rights, all knowledge would be reduced to opinion, and education would be rendered superfluous.


The Academic Bill of Rights seeks to transfer responsibility for the evaluation of student competence to college and university administrators or to the courts, apparently on the premise that faculty ought to be stripped of the authority to make such evaluative judgments. The bill justifies this premise by reference to "the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge."4 This premise, however, is antithetical to the basic scholarly enterprise of the university, which is to establish and transmit knowledge. Although academic freedom rests on the principle that knowledge is mutable and open to revision, an Academic Bill of Rights that reduces all knowledge to uncertain and unsettled opinion, and which proclaims that all opinions are equally valid, negates an essential function of university education.


Some versions of the Academic Bill of Rights imply that faculty ought not to be trusted to exercise the pedagogical authority required to make evaluative judgments. A bill proposing an Academic Bill of Rights recently under discussion in Colorado, for example, provides:


The general assembly further declares that intellectual independence means the protection of students as well as faculty from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. To achieve the intellectual independence of students, teachers should not take unfair advantage of a student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before a student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before a student has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own, and students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.5


On the surface, this paragraph appears merely to restate important elements of AAUP policy.6 In the context of that policy, this paragraph unambiguously means that the line between indoctrination and proper pedagogical authority is to be determined by reference to scholarly and professional standards, as interpreted and applied by the faculty itself. In the context of the proposed Colorado Academic Bill of Rights, by contrast, this paragraph means that the line between indoctrination and proper pedagogical authority is to be determined by college and university administrations or by courts. This distinction is fundamental.


A basic purpose of higher education is to endow students with the knowledge and capacity to exercise responsible and independent judgment. Faculty can fulfill this objective only if they possess the authority to guide and instruct students. AAUP policies have long justified this authority by reference to the scholarly expertise and professional training of faculty. College and university professors exercise this authority every time they grade or evaluate students. Although faculty would violate the indoctrination principle were they to evaluate their students in ways not justified by the scholarly and ethical standards of the profession, faculty could not teach at all if they were utterly denied the ability to exercise this authority.


The clear implication of AAUP policy, therefore, is that the question whether it is indoctrination for teachers of biology to regard the theory of "evolution" as an opinion about which students must be allowed "to reserve judgment" can be answered only by those who are expert in biology. The whole thrust of the proposed Colorado Academic Bill of Rights, by contrast, is to express distrust of faculty capacity to make such judgments, and to transfer the supervision of such determinations to a college or university administration or to courts. The proposed Colorado bill thus transforms decisions that should be grounded in professional competence and expertise into decisions that are based upon managerial, mechanical, or, even worse, overtly political criteria. The proposed Colorado bill also facilitates the constant supervision of everyday pedagogic decision making, a supervision that threatens altogether to undercut faculty authority in the classroom. It thus portends incalculable damage to basic principles of academic freedom.


Skepticism of professional knowledge, such as that which underlies the Academic Bill of Rights, is deep and corrosive. This is well illustrated by its requirement that "academic institutions . . . maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within . . . their fields of inquiry."7 The implications of this requirement are truly breathtaking. Academic institutions, from faculty in departments to research institutes, perform their work precisely by making judgments of quality, which necessarily require them to intervene in academic controversies. Only by making such judgments of quality can academic institutions separate serious work from mere opinion, responsible scholarship from mere polemic. Because the advancement of knowledge depends upon the capacity to make judgments of quality, the Academic Bill of Rights would prevent colleges and universities from achieving their most fundamental mission.


When carefully analyzed, therefore, the Academic Bill of Rights undermines the very academic freedom it claims to support. It threatens to impose administrative and legislative oversight on the professional judgment of faculty, to deprive professors of the authority necessary for teaching, and to prohibit academic institutions from making the decisions that are necessary for the advancement of knowledge. For these reasons Committee A strongly condemns efforts to enact the Academic Bill of Rights.


The AAUP has consistently held that academic freedom can only be maintained so long as faculty remain autonomous and self-governing. We do not mean to imply, of course, that academic professionals never make mistakes or act in improper or unethical ways. But the AAUP has long stood for the proposition that violations of professional standards, like the principles of neutrality or nonindoctrination, are best remedied by the supervision of faculty peers. It is the responsibility of the professoriate, in cooperation with administrative officers, to ensure compliance with professional standards. By repudiating this basic concept, the Academic Bill of Rights alters the meaning of the principles of neutrality and nonindoctrination in ways that contradict academic freedom as it has been advanced in standards and practices which the AAUP has long endorsed.




1. This language derives from a Concurrent Resolution (H.Con.Res. 318) proposed in the House of Representatives by Jack Kingston during the 108th Congress. It also appears in a proposed amendment to Article I of Title 23 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-125.5. Both pieces of legislation grow out of a version of the Academic Bill of Rights originally drafted by columnist David Horowitz. See http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/


2. H.Con.Res. 318. We note, parenthetically, that, while this embrace of diversity may be reasonable in some circumstances, it may make little academic sense in other contexts, as, for example, when a department wishes to specialize in a particular disciplinary approach.


3. H.Con.Res. 318.


4. H.Con.Res. 318.


5. Proposed amendment to Article I of Title 23 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-125.5.


6. "Some Observations on Ideology, Competence, and Faculty Selections," Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP, (January-February 1986):1a-2a.


7. H.Con.Res. 318.




Minnesota State AAUP Conference Resolution on

Professor Ward Churchill Case



The Executive Committee of the Minnesota State Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) deplores the attacks that have been made on Professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. Professor Churchill has made what some consider provocative statements in his essay “Some People Push Back:

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.”


Statements made by educators such as Churchill are part of the essence of higher education. Students, as part of the educational community, need to be exposed to viewpoints which may be different or antithetical to ones to which they previously have heard. The assimilation and sorting out of viewpoints is an essential component of the development of critical thinking skills.


It is apparent that Churchill does not represent himself as speaking for the University of Colorado. Hence, as stated in the AAUP Policy Documents & Reports (Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances, p 32), “a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve.”


Even though some political leaders may urge that the University of Colorado and Professor Churchill part ways, the greater educational community will strongly admire a university administration which resists this sort of pressure and takes a strong stand on first amendment rights and academic freedom.


Accordingly, the Minnesota State AAUP Conference urges the Administration at the University of Colorado to continue to be supportive of Professor Churchill in his teaching, scholarship, and service.




How to contact the Minnesota AAUP



Visit us at our website <http://www.mnaaup.org or contact one of the state executive committee members listed here.


President: Michael Livingston, St. John’s University

            mlivingston@csbsju.edu or phone 320-363-3369


Vice President: Cecilia Konchar Farr, College of St. Catherine

ckfarr@stkate.edu or phone 651-690-6559


Past President: Marsha Blumenthal, University of St. Thomas

            mablumenthal@stthomas.edu or phone 651-962-5678


Treasurer: Dave Emery, St. Olaf College

            emeryd@stolaf.edu or phone 507-646-3139


Secretary: Michael Mikolajczak, University of St. Thomas

            m9mikloajcza@stthomas.edu or phone 651-962-5616


Director: Jane Carroll, College of St. Catherine

            jlcarroll@stkate.edu or phone 651-690-8813


Director: Karen Vogel, Hamline University



Director: Eric Wiertelak, Macalester College

            wiertelak@macalester.edu or phone 651-696-6111


How to contact the Minnesota Committee A


You may wish to contact the Minnesota Conference Committee A on academic freedom by getting in touch with the chair of the committee, Dr. Wayne Wolsey:

Dr. Wayne C. Wolsey

Chemistry Department

Macalester College

1600 Grand Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55105

Office: 651-696-6352

Fax: 651-696-6432

E-mail: Wolsey@macalester.edu


The conference website (www.mnaaup.org) contains more information about Committee A.



How to contact the National Office

Use the National AAUP website for information on national events, publications, services, and membership: http://www.aaup.org. You may also call the national office at 202-737-5900 or toll free at 800-424-2973.