Recommendation 8.26: NCSU should ensure that all faculty have direct access to all the current Faculty Handbook and addenda; electronic access should be considered.
The Faculty Handbook still contains reference to the requirement for signing a loyalty oath (p. 44), but this requirement has not been in effect for many years. It should be removed from the handbook.
Recommendation 8.27: NCSU should remove the loyalty oath from the Faculty Handbook.
To investigate the effectiveness of the University's efforts in safeguarding academic freedom, the faculty committee of the self-study reviewed minutes of the Faculty Senate for the past ten years and consulted the Office of the University Counsel about grievances. During the past ten years, the Faculty Senate has formed mediation and hearing panels regularly (up to five formed each year). The Faculty Senate chair reports to the Senate annually on the activities of the panels. Usually the only information is the number of panels formed; the nature of the grievance is rarely described, and the recommendation of the panel to the chancellor is never revealed. The minutes of the Faculty Senate indicate that there have been no claims relating to academic freedom since 1983, and the University counsel concurs. Because the panels are apparently able to address grievances satisfactorily, the procedures appear to be adequate.
To assess general faculty opinion, the Self-Study Survey of Faculty asked for agreement or disagreement with four statements on academic freedom: item 10-N, that NCSU has a clear statement on principles of academic freedom; item 10-O, that the statement is readily available to faculty; item 10-P, that NCSU policies/procedures do protect academic freedom; and item 10-Q, that NCSU has explicit policies to protect academic freedom.
Table 8.18 gives the responses, collapsing "agree" and "strongly agree," in percentages.
Although agreement among all faculty on the four statements ranges between 64 percent and 71 percent, opinion varies by race and gender. The agreement range for nonwhites is 56 percent to 67 percent and the range for whites is 64 percent to 72 percent. The statement that policies do protect academic freedom produces the greatest difference in agreement, 56 percent for nonwhites and 68 percent for whites.
The variance in opinion between female and male faculty is greater than between nonwhite and white faculty. The agreement range for female faculty is 49 percent to 62 percent, while the range for male faculty is 65 percent to 74 percent. As between nonwhite and white faculty, the statement on actual protection of academic freedom produces the greatest difference in agreement: 49 percent for females and 72 percent for males.
Agreement with the statements also varies with rank. The range of agreement on the four statements is 80 percent for full professors to 36 percent for instructors and lecturers. Agreement declines directly with rank for all four statements, except for item 10-O, questioning the availability of the statement. On item 10-O, assistant professors have a slightly lower agreement rate than instructors. Agreement falls off most sharply at the instructor/lecturer level on items 10-P and 10-Q, which question the effectiveness and explicitness of the policies.
Race Gender
Question All Nonwhite White Female Male
-------- ---- ---------------- ----------------
10-N 70.6 66.7 71.5 61.7 73.6
10-O 63.2 55.6 63.9 58.5 64.5
10-P 66.8 55.6 68.0 48.5 71.8
10-Q 64.0 58.3 65.7 48.5 69.5
Rank
Associate Assistant Instructor/
Question All Professor professor professor lecturer
-------- ---- -------- --------- --------- ---------
10-N 70.6 79.1 68.6 65.2 58.6
10-O 63.2 73.6 57.4 52.2 58.6
10-P 66.8 80.1 68.7 55.4 36.2
10-Q 64.0 78.6 64.9 62.3 37.9
Levels of agreement by college or school fall into some patterns. For each of the four statements, either the College of Veterinary Medicine or the College of Education and Psychology have the highest agreement (80 percent to 90 percent), and the lowest agreement levels are found in the School of Design, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the College of Textiles (49 percent to 63 percent).
The Self-Study Survey of Faculty also asked for degree of agreement on statements that faculty academic freedom is protected in four specific areas: item 13-E1, teaching; item 13-E2, research; item 13-E3, extension/outreach; and item 13-E4, service.
Table 8.19 gives the responses, collapsing "agree" and "strongly agree," in percentages:
Race Gender
Question All Nonwhite White Female Male
-------- ---- ---------------- ----------------
13-E1 83.6 83.3 84.4 77.8 86.0
13-E2 86.0 80.6 86.9 79.8 88.1
13-E3 59.8 55.5 60.6 57.6 60.9
13-E4 68.9 66.7 69.3 60.6 71.3
Rank
Associate Assistant Instructor/
Question All Professor professor professor lecturer
-------- ---- -------- --------- --------- ---------
13-E1 83.6 91.5 86.5 75.0 68.9
13-E2 86.0 90.5 88.8 82.6 72.5
13-E3 59.8 64.7 64.9 47.8 53.5
13-E4 68.9 73.2 72.4 60.9 60.3
Overall the variance by race, gender, and rank seen above are repeated, except that differences are more marked between female and male faculty than between nonwhite and white faculty. For all faculty the range of agreement is 60 percent to 86 percent. When responses from the colleges and schools are viewed, the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, and Education and Psychology have the highest agreement for teaching and research and Veterinary Medicine and Forest Resources have the highest agreement for extension and outreach and service. Agreement by the College of Textiles faculty is low in all four areas and agreement by Faculty in Management, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Physical and Mathematical Sciences is low in at least some. In every breakout by variable, the relationships among the four areas of activity are the same: There is highest agreement in teaching and research, lowest agreement in extension and outreach, and service is positioned between these.
Based upon the survey results, the degree to which a clear view of the meaning of academic freedom is understood and articulated among the faculty does not appear to be sufficient. Because universities today (and NCSU is no exception) are required to explain themselves to the public served, the meaning and implications of academic freedom must be better understood.
Recommendation 8.28: NCSU should institute ongoing discussion on the meaning and implications of academic freedom to provide new faculty with a clear understanding, and to refresh the understanding of older faculty, department heads, and deans.
Recommendation 8.29 NCSU's deans and department heads in colleges or schools where concerns with academic freedom exist should review their policies and procedures.
Recommendation 8.30: NCSU should monitor the accuracy, consistency, and effectiveness of the application of its policies and procedures on academic freedom, with particular attention to the variation among colleges and schools.
A particular target of recent concern for many faculty is the recently proposed conflict-of-interest policy. Some feel that it may unfairly limit academic freedom.
Recommendation 8.31: NCSU should describe and interpret the new conflict-of-interest policy with particular reference to possible infringement on academic freedom.
The Self-Study Survey of Faculty asked respondents to agree or disagree with two statements about professional security: "I know the terms and conditions of my employment" (14-I); and "I have documentation that describes the terms and conditions of my employment" (14-J).
Table 8.20 gives the responses, collapsing "agree" and "strongly agree," in percentages:
Race Gender
Question All Nonwhite White Female Male
-------- ---- ---------------- ----------------
14-I 87.6 88.9 87.5 87.9 87.6
14-J 57.5 63.9 56.3 61.6 55.7
Rank
Associate Assistant Instructor/
Question All Professor professor professor lecturer
-------- ---- -------- --------- --------- ---------
14-I 87.6 90.6 88.1 83.7 82.8
14-J 57.5 50.2 58.2 66.3 62.1
About knowledge of appointment terms, agreement is high (89 percent) and uniform across all faculty, including by race and gender. Knowledge descends with rank (from 91 percent to 83 percent). Among the different colleges and schools, faculty in the College of Education and Psychology and the School of Design are the best informed; and faculty in the Colleges of Textiles, and Humanities and Social Sciences the least. A majority (59 percent) report having the documentation, with larger proportions of the nonwhite faculty and female faculty acknowledging possession of the documentation than of the white and male faculty. Within the ranks, assistant professors most often acknowledge possession of the documentation, while professors acknowledge possession least often. Among the colleges and schools, Veterinary Medicine, and Education and Psychology faculty have the best documentation; Forest Resources and Textiles faculty have the worst.
It may be that nonwhite, female, or junior faculty demand better documentation, or it may be that the University is more careful with these faculty. It is also possible that since these categories of faculty are the most recently hired, they have benefited from improved personnel policiesor they may just be more attuned to the importance of having the documentation because they are in a less secure condition.
Recommendation 8.32: NCSU's Faculty Handbook should include a statement of what appointment details are to be documented.
Professional security is a feature of the tenure system, and the quest for tenure can lead to distortions in the representation of what faculty accomplish. Scholarship sometimes seems to be evaluated in terms of numbers of publications rather than quality, an approach that can lead to a faculty that are good at generating quantity for quantity's sake. As the University faces pressures to explain the tenure system, the faculty should remember the need to keep the concern for quality uppermost.
Recommendation 8.33: As the criteria for evaluation, promotion and tenure imply some level of scholarly publishing, NCSU should emphasize the value of quality over quantity in scholarly publication.
