Higher Ed Law Prof Blog

Law Primer: Post-Tenure Review

by Patrick J. Cihon

Introduction. Once faculty members are awarded tenure, there may be institutional concerns regarding how to ensure that they remain productive members of the academic community. One mechanism to address that concern has been the establishment of some form of post-tenure review system. In recent years, a number of states have instituted some form of post-tenure review, either by legislative mandate or by the state higher education system regulations or policies. This trend particularly affects public institutions, driven by increasing demands by legislators and the public for greater faculty and institutional accountability. Proponents of post-tenure review argue that it is critical to ensuring public (and state legislators’) confidence in and support for higher education when resources are constrained. Opponents of post-tenure review claim that the review undermines tenure and may pose a threat to academic freedom, as well as affecting the creativity and scope of research and scholarship.

Post-tenure Review Policies. A primary concern for any institution adopting post-tenure review is to determine what is the primary purpose of the process – is it formative, to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of faculty members, and provide assistance in helping them improve; or is it summative, to assess performance and possibly serve as the basis for dismissal or disciplinary proceedings against faculty members? Faculty members are likely to be suspicious of proposals for any form of post-tenure review, viewing it as a mechanism to increase workloads, to monitor their scholarly performance, or as a means to dismiss older faculty. That suspicion is likely to be greater if the proposed system of review is to be summative, or if the system is identified as formative but the results of the review may be used for disciplinary purposes. An approach that may minimize faculty suspicion would be to create a formative review system that provides support and resources to faculty whose performance is found to be below expectations. The system should provide for a written performance plan setting out a path for improvement, and include annual assessments of compliance with the performance plan. Several years of noncompliance with the performance plan by the faculty member could be the basis for initiating disciplinary action against that faculty member.

The post-tenure review system should be developed through a process that allows a major role for faculty. If the faculty is unionized, state and federal labor law require that the administration negotiate with the union over the development and implementation of the policy because the policy will affect the terms and conditions of employment for the faculty. The system developed must be consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. If the faculty are not unionized, the institution may still choose to adopt a policy of post-tenure review and to include the in the faculty handbook. As such, the review system would become part of the employment agreement and would be governed by the general principles of contract law.
The adoption of a policy of post-tenure review requires the institution to address a number of considerations. Given the wide varieties of academic scholarship and research, the institutional policy may set general procedures and provide a template for the review, while allowing the various academic units (schools or departments) to develop appropriate standards and criteria for the review. As noted above, a primary consideration is the purpose of the review – is it formative or summative? Formative systems are more easily accepted and divorcing the review process from any disciplinary procedures will help allay faculty resistance to the adoption of a review policy. The policy should be linked to the provision of institutional resources to support faculty development and improvement. The question of who will direct the review process is an important consideration – the policy should be developed through the institutional governance structure, ensuring faculty involvement in the development of the policy. A related concern is who actually conducts the review -- faculty are likely to resist having the dean or department chair perform the evaluation. Will the department or a unit-wide body review the faculty member? Will a separate mechanism be created, or will the policy may be implemented through the existing institutional structure for tenure and promotion. The process may involve the use of external reviewers – individuals from other institutions but in the same discipline as the faculty being reviewed.
A second consideration is determining what will trigger the review. Will the review be periodic, reviewing a portion of the tenured faculty every so many years, or will the review be selective or triggered by certain events? A periodic review process may require the expenditure of a great deal of time, effort and resources; if only a very few faculty receive negative evaluations, the process may be perceived as overkill. A targeted review process may be viewed as a better use of institutional resources by focusing on underperforming faculty. If the review is to be selective or targeted, it is imperative to spell out clearly the basis for the review or the events that will trigger a review. The criteria need to recognize that producing quality scholarship does not necessarily involve a regular or efficient process. Who can request a review – the department chair, the dean, the faculty member? Targeted or selective reviews present other potential problems -- they create a stigma associated with being targeted as a “problem faculty,” and the process may not be perceived as truly diagnostic. Targeted reviews may also damage relationships among faculty colleagues, and could result in claims of discrimination based on age or other prohibited grounds. Many institutions have provisions for both periodic and triggered reviews – examples include reviewing tenured professors and department chairs at least every five years, or reviewing faculty who receive at least two consecutive annual reviews indicating unsatisfactory performance. In addition to such formal reviews, faculty are generally subject to annual salary reviews and review for sabbaticals.
Another consideration is who will receive the results of the review, and how specific are the results. If the purpose of the review is formative, the review should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member; the results of the review should provide constructive feedback to the faculty member. Is the evaluation report to be written by committee or an individual? Is it to be approved by the department chair, the dean or provost? Does the report become part of the faculty member’s file, and will it be used for allocating sabbatical opportunities or to determine teaching loads?
Perhaps the most important consideration for a post-tenure review policy is what are the consequences of the review. If there are no significant consequences attached to the review process, it will lose credibility with the faculty. It is crucial to link the review to the allocation of resources for faculty development. If the results of the review are negative, a written, individualized performance plan should be developed, and the faculty member should be provided with resources sufficient to allow her or him to improve performance. In addition to the performance plan, the faculty member should be provided with a mentor to provide advice and assistance. The system should have a means to monitor the faculty member’s compliance with the performance plan, and the faculty member must be informed about the consequences of not complying. If there is a faculty union, the union should be involved in negotiations over the impact of a negative evaluation. Continued non-compliance may be the basis for initiating disciplinary or dismissal proceedings; at the least it should affect salary increases and opportunities for load relief or sabbaticals. The review process also should provide for some recognition of positive evaluations; high level performers may become cynical if the policy only focuses attention and resources on “problem faculty.” High performers should be eligible for special bonuses or salary increments, and other benefits such as load relief.
Lastly, the review process must incorporate some means for appealing the results; an appeals mechanism is a key component of the principles of due process. At the least, the faculty member should be provided with an opportunity to respond to the evaluation. If the evaluation report is to become part of the faculty member’s personnel file, the faculty member’s response should be included as well. Where the review process is entirely formative, an informal appeals process involving consultations with the faculty member, department chair and dean may be appropriate. For review systems that may also trigger disciplinary proceedings, a more formal appeals process should be provided. Does the existing appeals process within the institutional governance structure provide sufficient protection for the faculty member receiving a negative evaluation? What are the criteria for bringing an appeal – can the faculty member appeal on the merits of the evaluation, or is the appeal restricted to procedural issues only?
The American Association of University Professors policy has generally been critical of post-tenure review, but emphasizes that any evaluation system should be directed toward faculty development and improvement. A policy statement adopted in 1983 stated:
The Association believes that periodic formal institutional evaluation of each postprobationary faculty member would bring scant benefit, would incur unacceptable costs, not only in money and time, but also in dampening of creativity and of collegial relationships, and would threaten academic freedom.

An AAUP report prepared in 1999 declared that “post-tenure review ought to be aimed not at accountability, but at faculty development.” The report also emphasized that the post-tenure review process should be developed and carried out by the faculty, and must not be a re-evaluation of tenure. The process must be conducted according to standards that protect academic freedom and must not be used to shift the institution’s burden of proof to show adequate cause for dismissal to the individual faculty member to show cause why he or she should be retained. If recurring evaluations reveal continuing problems that have not been improved after several efforts, then the institution and the faculty member should explore some other, mutually-agreed alternative, such as separation or reassignment. If no acceptable solution can be reached, then the institution may invoke dismissal or disciplinary proceedings before an appropriately-constituted body of peers. In such proceedings, the institution has the burden of demonstrating adequate cause; evaluation records are to be admissible but are subject to being rebutted as to their accuracy.

Post-Tenure Review: Legal Issues. There have been a number of court decisions involving post-tenure review; in most cases, faculty challenges to actions pursuant to the policy have been unsuccessful. The challenges generally involve claims for breach of contract, discrimination, or claims under state labor laws.
In Wurth v. Oklahoma City University, the university dismissed a tenured professor for incompetence through the university’s “for cause” procedures. The faculty member sued the university for breach of contract; he claimed that the university had to follow the post-tenure evaluation procedures set out in the faculty handbook, rather than the “for cause” procedures in order to dismiss him for incompetence. The trial jury ruled in favor of the university, and Wurth appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court. The court noted that termination for failing to improve unsatisfactory performance was different from being discharged for cause unrelated to performance. For adverse personnel actions based on performance, evaluations and the opportunity to improve performance are legitimate safeguards given to tenured employees,. But a tenured faculty member may also be discharged for cause, such as conduct involving moral turpitude or failure to maintain the level of competence necessary for tenure. Evaluation of performance does not necessarily relate to such cause.
Barham v University of Northern Colorado, involved a tenured faculty member who was due for his triennial evaluation. While the evaluation was pending, the university charged the faculty member with unacceptable job performance and unprofessional conduct. The university did not complete the triennial evaluation, but initiated “for cause” dismissal proceedings; the faculty member was suspended with pay pending the completion of the proceedings. The faculty member sought judicial review of the Board of Trustees’ decision to dismiss him, arguing that the completion of the triennial evaluation was a prerequisite for dismissal, and failure to do so was a denial of his due process rights. The court disagreed; in affirming the discharge, the court stated that the procedures for evaluations and the procedures for dismissal for cause operate independently under the Codification of University policies, procedures and regulations [the Code]. The evaluation reviews were for the purpose of encouraging and documenting individual achievement and rewarding contribution toward the university’s goals. The Code did not mandate that the evaluation process be concluded prior to the initiation of dismissal proceedings; the dismissal proceedings could be initiated at any time.
In Wiest v. State of Kansas, a tenured associate professor had received two unsatisfactory annual evaluations and had failed to cooperate with the proscriptive plan that had been designed to help him improve his performance. His dean notified him that his faculty appointment would be terminated, and he appealed that decision to the university provost. The provost upheld the termination, and Weist then filed an appeal with the faculty senate grievance committee. After a hearing, the grievance committee recommended to the university president that the termination decision be upheld. The faculty member then sought judicial review of the termination decision, and the trial court affirmed the decision. Wiest then appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which also upheld the decision to terminate. The court stated that there was “[S]ubstantial competent evidence” supported the finding that the university followed its policies and terminated Weist based on two successive less than satisfactory evaluations.
In Wurth v. Oklahoma City University, the university dismissed a tenured faculty member for incompetence, using the “for cause” procedures outlined in the university handbook. The faculty member sued, claiming that the university was required to follow the “termination for failure to improve” evaluation procedures in the faculty handbook in order to dismiss him for incompetence. The trial court held for the university, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that the university could use the “for cause” procedures for discharging a faculty member for performance-related reasons, and was not required to use the evaluation-related procedures.
The case of Johnson v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, involved a challenge by a tenured professor to the adoption of a post-tenure review policy. The policy, adopted in 1997, required reviews of tenured faculty at five year intervals; the faculty member received unsatisfactory evaluations in 1997 and 1998. The faculty member filed suit seeking declarative and injunctive relief, on grounds that the university’s implementation of the policy retroactively changed his contract of employment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the university, and the faculty member appealed. The appeals court upheld the policy; it was a procedural change that did not take away any vested rights or impose any new obligations or duties. The fact that the policy allowed the university to consider past reviews did not make the policy retroactive.
A faculty member successfully challenged termination proceedings in State of Nevada, University and Community College System v. Sutton. The university sought to terminate a tenured professor who had received two successive unsatisfactory evaluations in 1990 and 1991. Before a termination hearing was held, the faculty member and the university reached a settlement. The faculty member subsequently filed suit against the university for breaching the settlement agreement. The court held for the faculty member, and in 1999 ordered the university to continue the faculty member’s employment “unless and until such time as his tenure is revoked by hearing held pursuant to the university code.” The university then sought to initiate a termination hearing based on the original unsatisfactory evaluations. A hearing was held, and the hearing committee recommended that the faculty member’s employment be terminated. The university president terminated the faculty member, effective December 21, 1999. The faculty member again filed suit, bringing claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of due process. The trial court held for the faculty member on the claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The university appealed, and the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the trial court decision. The court held that the faculty member’s contract incorporated the university code, which required that any hearing must be held within six months of the filing of a complaint. Under the settlement agreement, the university could not rely on the evaluations from 1990 and 1991, and had no authority to hold the hearing. The university breached the contract by proceeding with the hearing, and the result of the hearing and any decision rendered was of no effect.
The case of Lubitz v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission dealt with claims of discrimination and retaliation. A faulty member had a serious health condition. The faculty member had requested, and was granted, a series of full-time and partial leaves of absence. After several years of such leaves, the university informed the faculty member that it would oppose future leave requests because his absences affected its ability to provide instruction to students. The faculty member returned to full time employment, and was reviewed pursuant to the post-tenure review policy. The evaluation raised concerns about cancelled classes, missing department meetings and lack of participation on department committees. The faculty member was subject to a performance plan, and his merit pay “points” were reduced. The faculty member filed a complaint with the state personnel commission, alleging that his merit pay was reduced and he was given a negative evaluation in retaliation for his taking medical leave. The commission held for the university, and the faculty member sought judicial review. The trial court reversed the commission’s decision, and the university then appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court and upheld the commission’s decision; the court held that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the university actions were not taken in retaliation for the faculty member’s taking medical leave.
In Moosa v. State Personnel Board (Cal. State Univ.) , a tenured faculty member was temporarily demoted on grounds of unprofessional conduct and refusal to perform the normal and reasonable duties of his position because he refused the dean’s directive to prepare and submit an improvement plan. The state Personnel Board upheld the demotion, but reduced it to one year; the faculty member sought judicial review of that decision. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, but the court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals held that the dean’s directive was inconsistent with the collective agreement, which authorized “discussion . . . along with suggestions, if any, for improvement.” The faculty member therefore had no duty to obey the dean’s order, and the refusal to comply could not be used as grounds of unprofessional conduct.

Other Approaches to Manage Faculty Productivity. Apart from post-tenure review, there are other means available to institutions to monitor and manage the productivity of tenured faculty. These approaches may also raise various legal issues.
Merit Pay. One of the most common approaches is the use of merit pay to recognize performance or to sanction decreasing productivity of faculty; it is becoming increasingly important in academia. The effectiveness of a merit pay system depends upon the validity of the information used to determine “merit.” The merit pay system must clearly define the criteria by which performance will be assessed. The design of a merit pay system may be difficult, given the variations in the nature of academic scholarship, and the need to balance the use of quantitative measurement with subjective evaluation. The system must be transparent, and have clear objectives. A merit pay system requires a system of annual reviews in order to support annual salary decisions; the reviews are usually carried out at the department level, subject to review by a dean or associate dean. The system should involve a feedback mechanism to provide relevant information to the faculty members, and should also provide for some appeals procedure to allow faculty to address errors of procedure or substance.
It is also crucial to ensure that merit pay is not used to squelch faculty speech of academic freedoms; many legal challenges to merit pay decisions involve freedom of speech issues. The case of Hollister v. Tuttle , involved a faculty member at Portland State University who claimed that he was denied a merit pay increase because he spoke out against feminist criticism of male writers and against the increase in feminist-oriented courses in the English Department. The trial court granted summary judgment for the university and individual defendants; on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that such speech was constitutionally protected, and the denial of merit raises in retaliation for such speech would be a violation of the faculty member’s constitutional rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment in Power v. Summers. The court allowed a suit against Vincennes University by faculty members alleging they were given lower merit raises (approximately $400 when the average raise was $1000) because they were outspoken on matters of faculty salaries. The faculty members sought an injunction ordering the university to raise their base salaries to reflect the merit increases they should have been awarded. The university admitted that merit raises were used to award faculty who combated “dissension” or “divisiveness;” the court of appeals stated: “we certainly cannot say as a matter of law that denying a raise of several hundred dollars as punishment for speaking out is unlikely to deter the exercise of free speech . . . .”
Merit pay decisions may give rise to claims of discrimination by faculty who are denied raises or who receive below average raises; such claims may be combined with claims of retaliation against faculty for being outspoken. Such was the case in Harrington v. Harris ; three white faculty members at Texas Southern University, a public historically black university, received lower raises than other, African-American faculty. The white faculty members claimed that their lower merit raises were in retaliation for their involvement in criticism of the law school dean, in a no-confidence vote against the dean, and in forwarding complaints to the American Bar Association. The trial court held that the underpayment of the plaintiffs was in retaliation for their exercise of first amendment rights, was due to race discrimination, and the arbitrary and capricious nature of the merit pay decisions violated their due process rights under the fourteenth amendment ; the court awarded them compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal the U.S. Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the trial holding on the first amendment issue; the court of appeals held that the issue was simply a dispute over the quantum of pay increases, and did not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. The court did affirm the trial court decision that the differential merit raises reflected race discrimination because the white faculty did not receive equal credit and consideration for their achievements; and that the arbitrary nature of the pay decisions was violated the plaintiffs’ right to due process. In Kovacevich v. Kent State University , the court held that the university’s merit pay system reflected embedded gender discrimination. The opaque decision-making process at the administrative level did not reflect the peer assessment of faculty performance, and rewarded men disproportionately in comparison to women; the court held that the merit pay system violated both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.
Challenges to merit pay decisions based on contractual claims have generally not been successful. In the case of Meyer v. Univ. of Akron , the Ohio Court of Claims rejected a breach of contract claim by a faculty member who was denied merit increases and opportunities to teach summer school courses because of negative evaluations. The court held that the such actions, taken in response to the faculty member’s negative evaluations, did not violate any university policies. The court characterized the faculty member’s claim as essentially disputing a “judgment call” made by his academic superiors; the court noted for the proposition that “The law is well-settled that trial courts generally defer to the academic decisions of colleges and universities unless there has been such a substantial departure from the accepted academic norms so as to demonstrate that the committee or person responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment.” In Sack v. North Carolina State Univ. , a faculty member filed a grievance against his department chair for failing to give him a merit raise. The university made funds available to grant such raises to 50% of the faculty of the History Department, and the plaintiff claimed that he was overlooked because of “personal reasons.” The university grievance committee held that the denial of a raise was proper; the university president and the governing board upheld the committee’s finding. The faculty member sought judicial review of the decision, and the trial court vacated the board’s order and ordered chair to list the department faculty by publication and give the plaintiff a merit raise if he was in the top 50%. The university on appealed, and the court of appeal reversed the trial court order. The court of appeals noted that the plaintiff had not shown that any statute or university regulation entitled him to a merit award; the court held that the grievance committee had properly weighed the evidence in the case, and the denial of an award was not based on personal malice.
Another approach is the use of variable teaching loads, with an emphasis on teaching or on research; that may be coupled with a restriction on opportunities for overload teaching or other extra activities. Again, the criteria for such determinations should be clearly defined, in order to minimize claims of discrimination. In Boise v. Boufford, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a reduction in teaching load from five course to four courses was not a sufficiently adverse an employment action to give rise to a claim of age discrimination; the university had shown a legitimate reason, the decline of scholarly vigor, to justify the action. Other approaches could involve the reassignment of the faculty member for a special project or for an administrative positions, or selection for appropriate professional development activities.
Formal disciplinary action should be used only as a last resort, after all other strategies have failed to improve a faculty member’s performance or productivity. Any such action taken must be according to the formal university policies, and should involve a faculty body in the determination of whether the university has demonstrated adequate cause for disciplinary action.

Law: IRS still wants to force endowments to spend in line with resources

The Internal Revenue Service is stepping up efforts to ensure that the nation’s charities are not hoarding or wasting money, a top official of the agency said today.

Steven T. Miller, commissioner of the IRS’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, said the tax agency will be “more aggressive” in monitoring the “efficiency and effectiveness” of charitable organizations, even though such monitoring is not expressly within the agency’s jurisdiction.

One way to do that, he said, is for the IRS to use a test to “create and enforce a standard to ensure that organizations spend in line with their resources.”Read the whole story in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Event: Roundtable on new OPT rule

Colleagues:

On Wednesday, May 14, we will be hosting an F-1 Regulatory Round Table Discussion with our primary focus the New OPT Rule. This will take place 1:30-4:30 PM at the Midtown Holiday Inn in Manhattan.

The cost is FREE if you register for the morning program:  "Developing a Fun and Effective International Student Orientation Program" (See the complete program description at our web site. Cost: $250.).  If you want to just join us for the afternoon, the cost is $50.

Space is very limited, so if you are interested it's important to register as soon as possible!

Our web site has not been updated to reflect this addition to our schedule, but just complete the registration form there and fax it in!

If you wish to be removed from this email or our snail mailing list, please let us know.

Regards, June

June Sadowski-Devarez

President
International Education Training Services
42-24 158th Street
Flushing, NY 11358
718-445-9744 (Phone)
718-445-1803 (Fax)
e-mail: iets@ietstraining.com
Web: www.ietstraining.com

Publication:New edition of J. of College and University Law available

Good day NACUA members. We are pleased to send you Volume 34, No. 2 of the Journal of College and University Law. By clicking on the article titles below, you will be connected to the full text of each article as it appears in the printed edition of the Journal. All members receive this electronic edition of the Journal. In addition, attorneys designated as NACUA member institution primary representatives, and also designated attorney representatives on individual system campuses, receive a complimentary copy of each print edition of the Journal. The print edition of Volume 34, No. 2 will be mailed to these members later this week. Other NACUA members who wish to continue receiving the print edition of the Journal may do so at a discounted subscription rate, using the subscription form on the NACUA web page. Should you have any questions concerning electronic delivery of the Journal, please send them to kfb@nacua.org. Our thanks to those contributing articles to this issue of the Journal; to the Faculty Editors of the Journal, NACUA members William Hoye and John Robinson; to the members serving on the Journal of College and University Law Editorial Board; and to the University of Notre Dame law students on the Journal's Editorial Staff.

Law: Radford renews its faculty with retirement bucks

RADFORD -- It was clear from the beginning that Radford University's high-speed restructuring of its general education program would reshape about 40 percent of what goes into a Radford education. Now it's clear that it will also change who will be doing the educating.

The Radford University Board of Visitors voted Thursday to offer more than a fourth of the university's current full-time faculty an opportunity to leave. Half of the tenured faculty is eligible. Read the whole story from the Roanoke News here.

Law: Sungard deals with identity theft issue

MALVERN, Pa., April 22, 2008 — A laptop containing personally identifiable information was stolen from a SunGard Higher Education employee on March 13, 2008.  Brian Madocks, chief executive officer of SunGard Higher Education today issued the following statement:  “On behalf of SunGard Higher Education, I apologize unreservedly to the individuals and institutions affected.

“While we are not aware of any personally identifiable information having been misused, we are treating this incident as a serious matter.   We are offering a number of services to our customers and affected individuals to help protect them against identity theft.  We are offering paid credit monitoring to each individual with personally identifiable information on the stolen laptop, have established an information center to answer calls, and have established a website containing information regarding this incident and how to protect identity.  We continue to work closely with our customers to help them notify affected individuals and make them aware of the services available to them.

“Upon notification of the theft, we commenced a series of diagnostic procedures to determine whether the laptop contained personally identifiable information.  We notified impacted customers of our findings commencing April 9, 2008 and we are working with them to send notifications letters to the affected individuals.  Our investigation continues and our security specialists remain focused on analyzing the files to determine if additional individuals or institutions have been affected.  We will continue to work with our customers throughout this process and will notify them if more personally identifiable information is discovered.

“Our customers trust us to take care of their confidential information and we understand that an event like this challenges their trust in us.  We have comprehensive policies and procedures in place to safeguard sensitive customer and personal information and we have provided training to our employees on the importance of protecting this type of information.  As a result of this incident, we are reviewing our security policies and procedures and will continue to dedicate resources to the resolution of this incident as we work to regain the confidence of our customers,” stated Mr. Madocks.  “Again, on behalf of SunGard Higher Education, I apologize to each of the individuals and institutions affected by this incident.”

About SunGard Higher Education
SunGard Higher Education provides software and support, systems implementation and integration, strategic consulting, and technology management services to help colleges and universities build, unify, and manage their digital campuses.  Bringing together people, processes, and technology, SunGard Higher Education assists more than 1,600 customers worldwide to strengthen institutional performance through improved constituent services, increased accountability, and better educational experiences.  www.sungardhe.com.

About SunGard
With annual revenue of $5 billion, SunGard is a global leader in software and processing solutions for financial services, higher education and the public sector. SunGard also helps information-dependent enterprises of all types to ensure the continuity of their business. SunGard serves more than 25,000 customers in more than 50 countries, including the world’s 50 largest financial services companies. Visit SunGard at www.sungard.com.

Trademark Information: SunGard and the SunGard logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunGard Data Systems Inc. or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and other countries. All other trade names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Read more here.

Survey: Deadline for Datatel survey is April 30th

The deadline for survey submissions is April 30th! Your feedback is very important to the continued growth of Colleague. Please fill out the survey today!

Each year Datatel surveys the Student community to collect feedback concerning client satisfaction and to solicit input for future projects. The survey should take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Here is the link (no login required):

https://datatel.websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/3/2008STannual.htm

The results of this year's survey will be posted to the Enrollment Management and Student Services and Continuing Education Community pages on the Datatel web site, and to the Recruitment & Admissions, Registration, Residence Life, and Continuing Education Forums later this Spring.

Thank you for your participation.

Forward this message to a friend.

Event: Last chance at an early bird special for the Chronicle's leadership forum

Dear James Castagnera:

A quick reminder: you can save $100 off the registration fee for The Chronicle Executive Leadership Forum, but you must sign up by Monday, April 28.

In a day and a half of carefully programmed sessions, the Forum combines Chronicle expertise on the major issues, access to well-informed speakers who can help you define your strategy for the future, and great networking opportunities to tie it all together.

Here's an update on recently added events and confirmed experts you can meet at the Forum:

 

• Debate the 2008 election at a special session with CNN's Frank Sesno, then enjoy a gala networking reception at the National Press Club.
• Hear futurist and best-selling author Daniel Pink describe the skills the next generation of college graduate will need to learn from your institution.
• Discuss accountability with University of Phoenix President Bill Pepicello
• Learn from Jeffrey Zaslow, co-author of Randy Pausch's blockbuster book "The Last Lecture," about how great teaching can transform your institution.

My editors and I are putting the final touches on the program, but I still have not received your RSVP. I really hope you register now before the early-bird discount expires on April 28.

I look forward to meeting you in Washington in June.

 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Selingo
Editor
jeffrey.selingo@chronicle.com

P.S. I encourage you to pass this invitation on to other members of your senior leadership team. Past participants who attended with colleagues gave high marks to this team approach. We've even created a special discount for group registration -- find out more here.

Forward to a Friend

 

The Chronicle of Higher Education
1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
 

This is a commercial message.

Law: Congress weighs role of social scientists in war

Washington

The Pentagon must take better advantage of social scientists' insights about warfare and terrorism, several members of Congress said during a hearing on Thursday that was jointly sponsored by the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Science and Technology.

"The changes in the type of warfare we're fighting and the situations our soldiers are finding themselves in necessitate this type of research," said Rep. Brian Baird, Democrat of Washington, who is chairman of the subcommittee on research and science education.Read the full story in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Law: Senate bill would ban genetic discrimination

The legislation, which the House is expected to approve quickly and President Bush has promised to sign, would prevent information gleaned from genetic testing to be used against people.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The vast promise of an era of personalized medicine based on genetic testing long has been haunted by a disturbing possibility: The same data that could alert people to serious medical problems might be used to deny them jobs or insurance coverage.Read the rest of this story in the LA Times.

Opportunity: Canada offers a grant program

Dear Dr Castagnera

The Canadian Government, through its Embassy and Consulates in the United States, supports research, conferences, teaching, and program activity related to Canada and/or Canada-U.S. relations. Our grant program seeks to encourage comparative research and teaching, faculty exchanges, student mobility, and collaboration between American and Canadian researchers. We also seek to build stronger ties between American and Canadian universities and colleges.

We ask that you forward this notice to faculty and doctoral students who may be interested in our grant program. More information on each grant program is available below.

Research Grant Program assists individual scholars or teams of scholars in writing an article-length manuscript of publishable quality with a focus on Canada or Canada-U.S. relations. Applications due: September 30, 2008.  http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/research-en.asp

Doctoral Student Research Award offers doctoral students an opportunity to conduct part of their dissertation research in Canada. The program is intended for students whose dissertations are related in substantial part to the study of Canada. Applications due: October 31, 2008.  http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/graduate-en.asp

Faculty Enrichment (Course Development) Program provides faculty members an opportunity to develop or update a course with substantial Canadian content that will be offered as part of their regular teaching load. Applications due: October 31, 2008.
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/faculty-en.asp

Conference Grant Program supports conferences that address important and timely issues about Canada or Canada-U.S. relations. It is designed to assist an institution in holding a conference and publishing the resulting papers and proceedings in a scholarly fashion. Applications due: June 30, 2008.  http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/conference-en.asp

North American Research Linkages Program is designed to facilitate North American collaboration within the academic communities of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. It aims to foster the development of permanent exchange networks by providing assistance to teams of researchers from all three countries in order to organize seminars, workshops, or other forms of research linkages. Applications due: May 1, 2008. http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/narl-en.asp

Program Enhancement Grant encourages scholarly inquiry and multidisciplinary professional academic activities that contribute to the development or expansion of a program dedicated to the study of Canada or Canada-U.S. relations. Applications due: June 15, 2008.  http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/enhancement-en.asp

Outreach Grant Program encourages and supports training and resource development that benefit K-12 teachers who teach about Canada, Canada-U.S. relations, and/or Canada's role in the international community. Applications due: June 30, 2008.
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/studies/institution-en.asp#outreach

We are particularly interested in projects that have policy relevance for Canada and Canada-U.S. relations. Such topics include:

smart and secure borders

North American economic competitiveness

regulatory cooperation

Canada-U.S. trade and investment partnership

energy security and sustainability

environmental sustainability

emergency planning and management

Canada-U.S. security and defense cooperation

Canada in Afghanistan

global health policy

changing demographics in North America.

Also keep in mind the Library Support Program, which is designed to assist university libraries to strengthen their library holdings related to Canada in order to support teaching and research on Canada and/or Canada-U.S. relations. http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/pages/newweb/sample2/LSP_en.asp?shownav=4

 

In 2007-08, the Canadian Studies Grant Program provided support to faculty, researchers, and graduate students at 80 universities, colleges, and institutions in 31 states. More than 100 projects were funded on a wide range of topics and in many disciplines. Click here for a list of grant recipients and their projects.

Prospective applicants are encouraged to discuss their interest in the grant program with a Canadian government officer in their area.

We would like to encourage faculty and students to sign up for Canada Watch, a weekly summary of the publications and commentaries from Canadian think tanks and research centers on a wide range of Canadian and Canada-U.S. issues NewsCan, a weekly summary of news from Canada; and/or the Canada-U.S. Business and Economic Monitor.

---

We appreciate your interest in the study of Canada and the grant program. 

 

Alexander Leipziger
Research and Academic Relations | Recherche et relations académiques
Canadian Embassy | L'Ambassade du Canada
501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 682-7727 Fax: (202) 682-7791
alexander.leipziger@international.gc.ca 

www.connect2canada.com

Law: Report Sez Lawmakers SHould Focus Energies on Adult Student Population

Washington — Colleges and universities are increasingly looking for ways to lure adult students to their campuses, believing that the education of older students may well hold the ticket to bolstering local and regional economies.

But lawmakers who set state and federal higher-education policies are still largely focused on the traditional educational path of 16-to-24-year-old students from high school to a college degree, according to a new report.Read the whole story here.

Access the state-by-state data at this site.

Publication: Castagnera in the May Greentree Gazette

My article this month is  on A.V. v iParadigms.Download 0805_Castagnera.pdf
You can subscribe to the Greentree Gazette at this location.

Law: Theft of a laptop results in identity theft at 18 colleges

At least 18 colleges are scrambling to inform tens of thousands of students they are at risk of having their identities stolen after SunGard, a leading software vendor, reported that a laptop owned by one of its consultants was stolen.Read the rest of the story here.

Visit SunGard's web page on the issue here.

Law: The latest on student loans

1.  Bush administration concedes new legislation is needed

The Bush administration called off internal deliberations over a bailout plan for student-loan companies after concluding it did not have the authority to act on its own, instead endorsing a Congressional proposal that would allow the education secretary to purchase loans from private lenders.Read the rest of this story in the CHronicle of Higher Education

2.  Student loan industry people and members of Congess heard from the Bush Administration on April 22 that the Federal Financing Bank, a unit of the U.S. Treasury, has no authority to purchase student loans from capital-strapped lenders and loanholders.  At the request of at least one Senator, student loan industry lobbyists are drafting legislative language that would enable the U.S. Secretary of Education to purchase student loans through 2009. From the Greentree Gazette

Evergreen State College Suspends Its Chapter of Students for a Democratic Society

Evergreen State College has suspended its campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society after the group planned an antiwar folk-music performance there, in violation of the institution’s ban on concerts, The Olympian, a local newspaper, reported on Tuesday.

The college imposed the ban after a concert on the campus in February sparked a riot. Following a performance by the hip-hop duo Dead Prez, police officers arrested a student whom they suspected of assault, and other students reacted by confronting the officers and damaging two police cars.Read the rest of the story from the Chronicle of Higher Education here.

Evergreen's official statement following the February 14th events:

Our campus community is shocked and concerned by the violence that occurred following the Dead Prez concert at The Evergreen State College on Thursday, February 14. A large crowd had a confrontation with police after the arrest of a concert attendee who was suspected of assault. Two police cars were damaged, one severely. Some individuals, both in the crowd and among police, suffered minor injuries. The event was over by the early morning hours on Friday. Only a small proportion of students was involved in or directly affected by the incident.

We have launched a police investigation to determine the facts and hold responsible parties accountable.

This incident is not representative of the philosophy or character of The Evergreen State College. It not only runs counter to our values of respect and civility, it casts a shadow on the outstanding academic work of our students and faculty. Evergreen has earned a national reputation for academic excellence, innovative interdisciplinary education and alumni success in graduate school and careers. This event distracts from those successes.

Evergreen Police Services is leading an investigation of the incident with support from the Thurston County Sheriff’s Department. We will also be addressing the incident in a campus forum on February 19.

If you have information that would help in our investigation, please contact Police Services at 360-867-6832.

Read a history of Students for a Democratic Society here.

Event: Brokaw featured at Orlando conference

ASUG Annual Conference 

TIME IS RUNNING OUT. REGISTER NOW. 

SAPPHIRE 2008 AND ASUG ANNUAL CONFERENCE ORLANDO, 
MAY 4 - 7, 2008 

Time is running out to register for SAPPHIRE 2008 and ASUG 
Annual Conference Orlando. Register before May 2 and save 
$200 off the regular rate. Gather your entire team -- from 
project managers to senior executives -- and take a targeted, 
holistic approach to solving key business challenges.  

Register now at 
http://www.sapandasug.com/SAP/SAPPHIRE2008/index.cfm?fuseaction=email.Redirect&EID=01E9617372&CID=96A46373720301

============================================================

TOM BROKAW DELIVERS KEYNOTE AND ERIC CLAPTON PERFORMS:  

Tom Brokaw, Keynote Speaker: One of the most iconic figures 
in television news history, Brokaw will talk about issues of global 
importance. Drawing on a rich career in network news, he 
will enlighten and inform with his observations on the current 
state of America and the world.

Eric Clapton Live: On Tuesday night, May 6, SAP -- in partnership 
with Deloitte -- is thrilled to host a private concert starring 
legendary blues/rock guitarist and singer/songwriter Eric Clapton. 
Join us and unwind with friends and colleagues. 

============================================================

BENEFIT FROM A VARIETY OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN ONE LOCATION: 

- Visionary Speakers: Gain insight from top SAP executives: 
  co-CEO Henning Kagermann, co-CEO Leo Apotheker, co-founder 
  Hasso Plattner, John Schwarz, CEO, Business Objects, an SAP 
  Company. 

- SAP Experts: Learn about the newest solutions and services 
  directly from top SAP experts, senior executives, partners, 
  and solution providers. 

- Best Practices: Network with industry peers representing 
  organizations of all sizes. 

- Future Applications: Get a firsthand look at future SAP 
  applications, solutions, and services. 

PLAN AHEAD: 

- Online Agenda Builder: Create your customized itinerary now 
  to match your specific interests. Review presentations and 
  education sessions, and save your agenda. 

- Pre-Conference Seminars: Add a seminar to your schedule to 
  further your educational experience at 
http://www.sapandasug.com/ASUG/AnnualConference2008/index.cfm?fuseaction=email.Redirect&EID=64FB617373&CID=96A46373720301

Don't miss out -- call 877-REG-4SAP or Register Now at 
http://www.sapandasug.com/SAP/SAPPHIRE2008/index.cfm?fuseaction=email.Redirect&EID=01E9617372&CID=96A46373720301

Please note: Program agenda, speakers, and entertainment are 
subject to change without notice.

============================================================  

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.sap.com/mk/get/g_basic_un_subscribe

Copyright/Trademark: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/copyright/index.aspx

Privacy: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/privacy.aspx 

Impressum: 
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.aspx

SAP Americas, 3999 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073
					</pre>

Event: A webnar on recruiting students from the Middle East

Register Now for Recruiting in the Middle East Webinar

Registration deadline April 29, 2008. From media sources to international college fairs, discover country-specific ways to recruit students from the Middle East. Three presenters will raise your awareness about the context, the students, and recent lessons learned. One of the presenters who recently returned from the region will share the latest trends from the field. Participants can pose questions to presenters by phone and e-mail. Read more...

Publication: Princeton Review will rate greenest campuses

Read about it here.

Event: The Chronicle of Higher Ed's annual executive leadership program

Dear James Castagnera:

As the editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education, I'd like the chance to meet you this June at our annual Executive Leadership Forum.

If you haven't attended this event in the past, it's the one higher-education conference you can't afford to miss, particularly this year. Our focus is on the key management challenges of the near future, so you'll meet experts who will talk about the issues on your institution's agenda right now, such as:

• Demographics: You will go home with a better understanding of how the recently released analysis of the nation's future student body will affect your institution's bottom line from those who study the numbers every day -- Roger Goodman of Moody's, Dawn Geronimo Terkla of Tufts University, and Sarita Brown of Excelencia in Education.

   

• Economic development: As you know, you're more dependent on the economy of the town you're located in than ever before to attract faculty members and students. What's more, local leaders are more dependent on your institution than ever before for a stable job base. But are the expectations of both sides too high? I will be moderating a session that examines the next generation of town-gown relationships and what works.

   

• Teaching and learning: Best-selling author and futurist Daniel H. Pink will explain how colleges should be educating students for a new world. Wall Street Journal columnist Jeffrey Zaslow, co-author of Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture," will discuss what the reaction to their  best-selling book says about the future of teaching.  

   

• Sustainability: That's the buzzword on college campuses these days, but is your institution willing to make the changes needed that might inconvenience students or faculty members? Find out in a session moderated by The Chronicle's sustainability reporter, Scott Carlson.

   

Also, in the keynote speech, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller will talk about what colleges can learn from the current business crisis facing the nation's media outlets. And a special panel on the opening night of the Forum at the National Press Club, moderated by CNN's Frank Sesno, will discuss something on everyone's mind: the 2008 election.

Space at the Forum is limited and may fill up before the early-bird deadline. See the complete program and register now.

I look forward to seeing you in June. If you can't make it, I would encourage you to pass this invitation on to a member of the leadership team at your institution.

 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Selingo
Editor
jeffrey.selingo@chronicle.com

 

The Chronicle of Higher Education
1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037

Event: A free webnar on wireless technology

Dear James Castagnera:

Ranked number nine in PC Magazine's 2007 "Top 20 Wired Colleges," Quinnipiac University sets its sites on becoming an All-Wireless Campus -- an unmatched learning environment at a fraction of the costs of traditional networks.

Learn how Quinnipiac University used high-performance wireless technology to create an all-wireless campus that gives every student, faculty member, and administrator secure wireless access everywhere on campus without the costs of pulling cables or updating Ethernet infrastructure.

The session will review the risks and benefits of de-emphasizing wired access connections and will include a review of Quinnipiac's business requirements, technology evaluation criteria, selection process, and deployment plans and experiences.

This Webinar, hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education, will take place:
Thursday, April 29th at 10:00 AM Pacific, 1:00 PM Eastern

Speakers:
Quinnipiac University, Fred Tarca, Associate Vice President for Information Services
Quinnipiac University, Brian Kelly, Information Security Officer
Aruba Networks, Robert Fenstermacher, Head of Education Marketing

Register and get more information here.

Event: New Jersey Treasurer to speak at Rider University

New Jersey Treasurer David Rousseau will speak at Rider University in Lawrenceville (NJ) at 5:00 PM on Thursday, April 24th, hosted by the Rider University Institute for New jersey Politics. (Sweigert Auditorium, College of Business)

Information: 609.896.5192

Event: A best-practices workshop on on-line education at the University of Maryland

Register here.

Law: Student visa fees may double soon

Money would go to support Homeland Security's surveillance programs.  Read the proposal in the Federal Register.Download E8-8261.pdf

Trend: Move over higher ed, public schools are starting foundations

Fund raising is no longer confined to HIGHER education.  Read about this trend in the LA Times.

Event: A conference on climate change

Dear Colleague,

On behalf of the Conference Organising Committee, we would like to inform you of the:

THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS AND RESPONSES
Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research, Pune, India
9-11 January 2009
http://www.Climate-Conference.com

This conference will examine evidence of climate change, its natural and human causes, its ecosystemic impacts and its human impacts. The conference will also concern itself with technological, social, ethical and political responses to climate change.

As well as impressive line-up of international main speakers, the Conference will also include numerous paper, workshop and colloquium presentations by practitioners, teachers and researchers. We would particularly like to invite you to respond to the Conference Call-for-Papers. Presenters may choose to submit written papers for publication in the fully refereed International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses. If you are unable to attend the Conference in person, virtual registrations are also available which allow you to submit a paper for refereeing and possible publication in this fully refereed academic Journal, as well as access to the electronic version of the Conference proceedings.

The deadline for the next round in the call for papers (a title and short abstract) is 8 May 2008. Proposals are reviewed within four weeks of submission. Full details of the Conference, including an online proposal submission form, are to be found at the Conference website - http://www.Climate-Conference.com.

We look forward to receiving your proposals and hope you will be able to join us in Pune in January 2009.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Erach Bharucha
Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune, India
For: The International Advisory Board of the Conference on Climate Change: Impacts and Responses

***
If you have any inquiries about this Forum, please send them by reply to this email. All emails are answered in person by one of our Forum administrators within two working days.

Publication: Greentree Gazette's weekly e-zine

Access it here.

Law: Hiwassee College may be the the mouse that no longer roars

Eleventh Circuit rules in favor of accrediting agency.  Read the story here.

Event: Schedule of sessions at NACUA's June 22-25 Conference in NYC

Access the schedule here.

Publication: Handbook for lawyers who are new to higher ed

               

                                                                   

The NACUA Handbook for Lawyers New to Higher Education, 2nd Edition
Publication Type:	Compendia
Version:	HardCopy
Member Price:	$150.00
Non-Member Price:	$195.00
Edited by Melissa Rooker and William E. Thro A "MUST-HAVE" RESOURCE FOR ALL HIGHER EDUCATION LAWYERS Higher education law is a multi-faceted and continually evolving practice area. It is a challenge for even the most experienced attorney to stay abreast of the latest developments. For attorneys new to higher education, the challenge is even greater. The burden is not just keeping up to date on the full range of issues, but learning the fundamentals, as well. This Second Edition of The NACUA Handbook for Lawyers New to Higher Education is designed especially to meet the needs of lawyers entering the practice of higher education law, yet it also is a valuable resource for all higher education law offices. Moreover, in an effort to keep the Handbook current, the editors selected outlines from NACUA workshops and annual conferences and journal articles from The Journal of College and University Law and the Education Law Reporter that generally have been presented and⁄or written since 2003, when the first edition was published. Information ranges from Athletics to Taxation, from Computers to Student Discipline, from Discrimination to Research and Intellectual Property, and from HIPAA to FERPA. Many of the contributors are veteran NACUA members who have significant experience with and expertise on these topics. © NACUA, 2007; approx. 3,000 pages; NACUA member institutions: $150.00; Non-member institutions: $195.00. Order it here.

Publication: JMA Higher Education Stats

STRATEGIC HIGHER ED TRENDS AT A GLANCE

            
           

Summary enrollment growth tables showing 2007 indexed to 2003 and to 2006.  A publication reporting institutional trends in all sectors, Carnegie Classes, enrollment levels, gender, and race/ethnic categories is in process.Examine them here.

Policy: Should Yale abort this student project?

A Yale University student's art project that portrays her as inducing her own abortions has drawn a firestorm of criticism from all along the ideological spectrum, but it is protected by intellectual and artistic freedom, said officials of groups that defend that principle.Read the rest of this story in The Chronice of Higher Education.

Here's Yale's decision, per a press release from the dean of the college:

"Let me clarify some issues related to the controversy surrounding the unusual senior project of Aliza Shvarts.

"As the Dean of the School of Art, Robert Storr, wrote last week: “This is not an acceptable project in a community where the consequences go beyond the individual who initiates the project and may even endanger that individual.” I agree, as I stated: “This piece of performance art as reported in the press bears no relation to what I consider appropriate for an undergraduate senior project.”’

"After investigation, Dean Storr and I have determined that there were serious errors of judgment on the part of two individuals. In one case, the instructor responsible for the senior project should not have allowed it to go forward. In the other, an adviser should have interceded and consulted others when first given information about the project. Appropriate action has been taken in these two cases.

"In the normal course of events, Ms. Shvarts’s project would be installed at the School of Art for critique and discussion with a committee of faculty. In this case, we will not permit her to install the project unless she submits a clear and unambiguous written statement that her installation is a work of fiction: that she did not try to inseminate herself and induce miscarriages, and that no human blood will be physically displayed in her installation."

 

Opinion: Lack of Skilled Workers could cause fiscal crisis, say some economists

Demographers, economists and employers are advocating more investment in training and education for the immigrants needed to replace the huge outgoing crop of baby boomers.

By Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 21, 2008

With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that workers in California and the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them.Read the rest of the story here.