BY SANDIE GRAVETT AND STELLA ANDERSON

Last week, we formally launched our study Faculty Employment Rights and Hearing Procedures in Public Non-Union Universities by emailing a survey link to faculty members on the higher education campuses in the constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina. These 16 higher education campuses provide an excellent test case as they range from large research campuses to regional comprehensives to small liberal arts and an arts school as well as include six historically minority campuses.

Some people might wonder why we chose to undertake such a project. After all, the majority of faculty at colleges and universities navigate their careers without facing a significant adverse employment situation or decision. That is not to say that disputes over salary or schedules or course rotations or office space, negative professional evaluations and decisions, or even the need to handle difficult (or inappropriate) colleagues, students, and administrators do not happen. Most of the time, however, addressing these issues and working toward resolution occurs in meetings with department chairs or heads, deans, or perhaps other officials—depending on the circumstances.

What, then, do we learn from studying the composition of faculty rights and an infrequent process utilized to uphold them?

First, as the conditions of faculty life change in the 21^st century, with more positions filled apart from the tenure track, and with public institutions under increasing levels of legislative and public scrutiny, how the institution protects traditional faculty rights and privileges demands attention. The processes in place at many institutions afford far greater protection for workers with tenure, or even on the tenure track, even though tenure itself has become less and less common on our campuses.

Second, every year, and on almost every campus, a faculty member seeking redress will find that all preliminary efforts at resolution fail. At those moments, or when a faculty member faces the threat of disciplinary action or position curtailment/elimination, she or he can choose to petition for a hearing before a faculty committee. Ideally, these forums provide an opportunity for all parties to be heard, evidence to be presented, and evaluation of a case to be made on its merits. Moreover, these cases can highlight situations where the institution stands to learn. These committees, in other words, provide a forum that not only offers faculty members an opportunity to raise concerns about their case, but they also often underscore conditions of university life that deserves consideration.

As advocates for faculty for more than 20 years, we both know that most people discover the intricacies of their employment rights under duress. It is only when a decision not to reappoint comes down, when a student or colleague lodges a complaint, when a program curtailment rolls around, or when a controversial tweet goes viral, that employment rights can suddenly become all that stands between a faculty member and the possibility of ending, or significantly changing, their relationship to an institution. Mastering what can be complicated terrain in terms of law, not to mention procedure, while stressed, does not often serve anyone—the faculty or the institution—well.

For faculty, however, these processes actualize an element essential to university life—shared governance. Our project (see this link for more information) begins from the premise that a robust and functional process can offer clear evidence of institutional health by demonstrating a concern for the working conditions and essential freedoms necessary to a higher education faculty. To be successful, however, requires that faculty have a voice in creating policies and procedures and that administrators trust the hearing panels to apply them fairly. Faculty committees, then, must show due diligence as they work through the complex issues that can easily arise—including discrimination, harassment, First Amendment rights, academic freedom, and federal and/or state laws that might be applicable. Both faculty and administrators must be willing to forge solutions. And, of course, faculty must trust that administrators will accept the conclusions a hearing panel reaches by implementing recommended resolutions.

We are inviting UNC System faculty to talk to us about their perceptions of their employment rights and hearing processes via a survey, emailed earlier this week to all faculty addresses. We will also be conducting interviews with persons experienced in hearing processes—as a petitioner, a respondent, a hearing panel member, or a person receiving a committee report with the authority to implement recommendations. We welcome those persons with such experience to be in touch with us and, again, refer you to our web page for more information about those interviews.

Finally, we would appreciate contact from people in other states and university systems who can share their experiences about what works and what needs change. Our project email, facultyrights@appstate.edu, is the best point of contact.

Guest blogger Sandie Gravett is Professor of Religious Studies at Appalachian State University. Guest blogger Stella Anderson is Professor of Management at Appalachian State University.