Council Chair's Note: The authors of the letter below requested the opportunity to respond to an editorial ("In-Residence Issues") contained in the October 1995 issue of Notice. The Academic Council subsequently agreed to print a letter of no more than 500 words from these authors on the subject of inaccuracies in this editorial. However, the letter received (which follows) has as its central purpose electioneering for the upcoming universitywide Senate vote on the In-Residence Memorial.
--A.L. Leiman
Letter in Support of the In-Residence Memorial
We support the Memorial initiated at UCSD, passed at UCSF and UCLA, that will be subject to a mail ballot of all UC Academic Senate members. The Memorial states: "The Academic Senate supports the right of Professor and Associate Professor InResidence Faculty, who are facing termination, to a full Privilege and Tenure hearing if requested." Implementation of the Memorial would provide senior InResidence (IR) faculty, all of whom are Academic Senate members, the right to a full evidentiary hearing, a right not available to them nor directly conferred, even if pending policy changes are adopted. Last month's issue of Notice contained an article opposing the Memorial based on several administrative concerns. This article presents arguments supporting the Memorial based solely on academic fairness. A Memorial is a UC senatemember faculty initiative that seeks systemwide support of a declaration directed to the President and Regents. It is the only means the Senate has to garner the views of all Senate faculty on all campuses regarding a given issue. Recently, the University Committee on Academic Personnel (UCAP) generated a report, endorsed by the Academic Council, that proposes to change IR faculty policy. The report makes an "assumption of equivalency" between the IR and ladder rank (LR) faculty. This equivalency is supported by identical requirements for appointment and promotion of IR and ladder rank (LR) faculty.
Although the proposal dealt supportively and fairly with many areas of concern to the IR faculty, it does not directly recommend the right to a full P&T hearing for senior IR faculty facing termination. The Memorial does safeguard this basic academic right to a full termination hearing (AAUP 1940; endorsed by the UC Assembly, 1968), one enjoyed by LR Senate Members. Although complementary to UCAPrecommended policy changes, this Memorial is essential because the right to such a full hearing does not currently exist. Furthermore, no Senate Legislative Ruling has confirmed that the hearing rights supported by the Memorial will be conferred under UCAP recommendations, even in the unlikely event they are all approved by the President and fully implemented.
Serious concerns among the IR faculty regarding their risk of arbitrary termination prompted the Memorial. The basis of this concern is found in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM270) that permits selfexecuting termination of senior IR faculty on their appointment's annual ending date without reason. This type of termination has recently occurred and remains a continuing concern. Passage and implementation of the Memorial will prohibit the arbitrary termination without procedural safeguard that current policies allow on all campuses and that has been permitted to occur on several campuses.
The IR Faculty are essentially alone in lacking termination rights enjoyed by virtually every other classification of employee. The Memorial does not request IR Faculty salary or financial support, which has seldom been provided by State funds. Academic fairness, equity, and due process are the only issues the Memorial addresses. We urge all Academic Senate Members to support the Memorial. It benefits the entire University.
--Professors Carol MacLeod (UCSD), Henry Hulter (UCSF) and Len Deftos (UCSD)