ACTA in the News
A Sad Day for Academic Accountability
April 3, 2009
Anne D. Neal
A jury in Colorado has determined that Ward Churchill was wrongly fired. This comes after three major review bodies within the university, over a two-year period, found Churchill had committed serious and repeated acts of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication.
It is sad that the taxpayers in Colorado, not to mention parents and students who pay dearly for a University of Colorado education, are left holding the bag for an academic fraud. But it would be equally sad if trustees concluded from the verdict that they should remain hands-off when it comes to academic standards and accountability.
In the face of this sorry decision, it is imperative that trustees not look the other way, but take the opportunity—working with faculty and administrators—to address the important issues of academic excellence and accountability that this case starkly brings forward.
Here are a few lessons to be learned.
Clarify Academic Freedom
The jury’s findings underscore how profoundly confused the public is—let alone faculty and administrators—about what academic freedom and responsibility mean. The jury’s finding leaves the unfortunate impression that academics who commit serious academic fraud can, in the future, make inflammatory public statements and use the First Amendment as a shield from academic responsibility.
The First Amendment does not protect professors from sanctions when they fail to abide by professional standards. Indeed, it is incumbent on trustees, administrators, and faculty to clarify that academic freedom does not mean “anything goes,” to outline what academic freedom is (and what it isn’t), and to ensure that those within the academy uphold the highest standards of professional responsibility and accountability. Academic freedom is a right—but it is also a responsibility to perform according to professional standards and with academic integrity. This confusion should be openly addressed on college campuses. It is important do so in order to support those professors who do indeed believe in professional standards and to make clear to students that academic malfeasance is not acceptable.
Ensure Hiring Is Based on Excellence
Our colleges and universities must ensure that their hiring is based on merit—demonstrated excellence in teaching and research—and that faculty members are reviewed regularly to ensure that they uphold academic standards once hired.
When a university allows its hiring policies to be perverted—as CU did with Churchill—we see the sad consequences. It is important to remember, as historian KC Johnson has pointed out, that Churchill was hired through a “special opportunity” designed to help the university “recruit and hire a more diverse faculty.” Though he was underqualified, the chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies lobbied on his behalf, arguing that hiring him would contribute “to increasing the cultural diversity on campus.” Churchill’s self-proclaimed Native-American ancestry has since been called into question.
Lastly, well before the “little Eichmanns” controversy, concerns had been raised about the quality of Churchill’s scholarship, but CU did not act on them.
Never Set Aside Normal Academic Standards
Universities must not set aside normal academic standards in their zeal to achieve diversity—no matter how well-meaning their intentions are. This is the very concern raised last week by ACTA with the Board of Visitors at Virginia Tech, and it underscores the need for boards everywhere to review their hiring and diversity policies to ensure that they are consonant with their university’s mission, advance academic freedom, and abide by professional standards.
Adopt Strong Post-Tenure Review Policies
Trustees have an important and immediate obligation to ensure that they have strong post-tenure review policies in place that provide for the prompt investigation of credible complaints so that academic standards are maintained. In the September-October 2008 issue of Academe, ACTA called on trustees to “implement a rigorous policy that combines ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ and does so as a conscientious acknowledgment that academic freedom confers substantial self-regulatory responsibilities upon the professoriate.”
One Final Thought
Shock, hurt, and even anger are surely natural reactions to the recent jury determination. But, far from discouraging action, the verdict should be strong motivation for trustees to take the steps necessary to promote quality higher education deserving of the public trust. ACTA is here to help.