American
Association of University Professors
1012 Fourteenth Street, NW, Suite #500
Washington, DC 20005
1-800-424-2973
1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure
With 1970 Interpretive Comments
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 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.
The 1940 Statement is printed below, followed by Interpretive
Comments as developed by representatives of the American Association
of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges
during 1969. The governing bodies of the associations, meeting
respectively in November 1989 and January 1990, adopted several
changes in language in order to remove gender-specific references
from the original text.
The purpose of this statement is to promote
public understanding and support of academic freedom and
tenure and agreement upon
procedures to assure 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 (The
word “teacher” as used in this document is understood
to include the investigator who is attached to an academic
institution without teaching duties) or the institution as
a whole. 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.[1]([hyperlinked]
numbers in brackets refer to Interpretive Comments which follow.)
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.[2] 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.[3]
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.[4]
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, [5] 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. [6] 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.[7]
During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic
freedom that all other members of the faculty have.[8]
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.[9]
Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial
exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.
1940 INTERPRETATIONS
At the conference of representatives of the American Association
of University Professors and of the Association of American
Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, the following interpretations
of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure were agreed upon:
That its operation should not be retroactive.
That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the
endorsement should be determined in accordance with the principles
set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom
and Tenure.
If the administration of a college or university
feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of
paragraph (c)
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 (a)(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.
1970 INTERPRETIVE COMMENTS
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 Statement in terms
of the experience gained in implementing and applying the
Statement for over thirty years and of adapting it to current
needs.
The committee submitted to the two associations
for their consideration the following “Interpretive Comments.” 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.
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 U.S. 589 (1967), “[o]ur
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.”
The numbers refer to the designated portion of the 1940 Statement
on which interpretive comment is made.
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. (A revision, adopted
in 1987, was published in Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 73
[July-August 1987]: 49.)
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.
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.
This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation adopted
by the sponsors of the 1940 Statement immediately following
its endorsement which reads as follows:
If the administration of a college or university
feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of
paragraph (c)
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 (a)(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 (c) of the 1940 Statement should
also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 “Committee A Statement on Extramural
Utterances” (AAUP Bulletin 51 [1965]: 29), 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 V of the Statement on Professional
Ethics also deals with the nature of the “special obligations” of
the teacher. The paragraph reads as follows:
As members of their community, professors have the rights
and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency
of other 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 as well as to the tenured teacher, but also to
all others, such as part-time faculty and teaching assistants,
who exercise teaching responsibilities.
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 [1966]: 280-82.)
In calling for an agreement “in writing” on the
amount of credit 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,” AAUP Bulletin
64 [1978]: 274-75.)
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 services 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). 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:
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.
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.
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, as endorsed by the Association of American
Colleges and the American Association of University Professors
in 1961.
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, prepared
by the American Association of University Professors.
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, 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 1958 Statement provides: “Suspension of the faculty
member during he 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.
ASL HOME