Statement urging a vote against the “Proposal for the new Academic Program Protocol (as amended at the April 27, 2011 faculty meeting)”

The Executive Committee of the JCU chapter of the AAUP urges you to vote against approval of one of the proposals on the ballot for a Faculty-wide vote this week, “the new Academic Program Protocol.” Though amended at today’s Faculty Meeting, the proposed procedure that CAP is to use for evaluation and recommendation of academic programs remains ambiguous and vague on the need for “endorsement” or “approval” from non-academic sectors of the university. The Faculty Handbook, Part One, Section V, clearly grants primary responsibility on matters of curriculum to the Faculty. The promulgation of a list of regulations that seems to require review and endorsement of new curricula outside of the Faculty endangers this responsibility.


The AAUP Executive Committee agrees that a “checklist” of procedures for proposals of new academic programs may well be useful. Further, we do not question the motives of any individual involved in the formulation of the protocol. However, we are concerned that policies formulated with even the best intention can lead to unintended consequences as future faculty and administrators use the written, Faculty-approved document as an authoritative affirmation of practice that we believe may be inconsistent with the Handbook and principles of Faculty governance to which the AAUP subscribes. If the Faculty vote against the proposal, as we suggest, and it is defeated, we hope that CAP will revisit the issue in the fall and at that point develop a new checklist of procedures, in consultation with all interested parties, that makes clear that non-Faculty entities do not have approval or veto power over proposed new courses of study. Items on the checklist, for example, that involve budgetary matters may be submitted to the University Budget Committee for its input. But the narrative of the new proposal would make clear that not all proposals would necessarily benefit from review nor be required to be submitted to specific administrative offices.

As the proposed protocol currently stands, proposals are to be submitted for review by UBC (a University Committee composed of representatives from the Faculty along with representatives from the Business Office and Student Affairs). It (would seem) to require review and “approval” of proposals from “other university offices.” It (would seem) to require review by those offices on such matters as “likely demand for graduates by employers” (bullet point under section l, item 4), “revenue streams” and “marketing plans” (section lll).

To reiterate, we recognize that guidelines for new academic proposals can be beneficial. Further, it even might be good for some of these proposals to have some of their features benefit from review and consultation with non-Faculty university offices. However, the ambiguity in language, despite today’s amendment, turns this proposed “protocol” into a potentially deep infringement on an essential responsibility of the Faculty and, thus, makes it damaging to the academic integrity of the University. Please vote against the proposal and urge your colleagues to do likewise.
Thank you,
Dwight
Dwight Hahn, Ph.D.

President of the JCU AAUP Chapter

on behalf of the Chapter's AAUP Executive Committee