In the Matter of Dr.

Kenneth Howell
Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
By letter of uly !"# !"$"# Interim Chancellor and %rovost Robert A& 'aster charged the
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) as follo*s+ ,to determine *hether the
process leading to the decision follo*ed -epartmental and College policies and also if the
decision to discontinue -r& ./enneth0 1o*ell2s ad3unct appointment did indeed constitute a
violation of academic freedom&4 To*ard that end and pursuant to its rules CAFT appointed the
undersigned subcommittee to in5uire and report to the Committee& The subcommittee met *ith+
%rofessor Robert 6c/im# at the time of the events under investigation the head of the
-epartment of Religion in the School of 7iteratures# Cultures# and 7inguistics in the College of
7iberal Arts and Sciences (7AS)8 Ann 6ester# Associate -ean of 7AS8 Ruth 9at:ins# -ean of
7AS8 Steven ;ea<ie# 's5&# Campus 7egal Counsel8 and -r& 1o*ell (*ho *as accompanied by
his legal counsel and a monsignor of the Roman Catholic Church)& All those intervie*ed *ere
most cooperative and *e are indebted for their candor&
9hat follo*s *ill summari<e the events under investigation the basic facts of *hich are
not in dispute& 9e *ill then state *hat *e see as the issues these events present and *ill analy<e
them from the perspective of university policy and sound academic practice& At the close# *e
*ill offer some recommendations for future action&
$
I& The Se5uence of 'vents
A& Bac:ground+ The =e*man Foundation Connection
For many years prior to !"""# the University had a relationship *ith the =e*man
Foundation under *hich courses in Catholic thought crafted by instructors of the Foundation2s
selection and paid by the Foundation to teach them *ere taught for university credit& This
became a source of considerable controversy starting in the late $>?"s and early $>@"s
concerning %rotestant foundations as *ell *ith *hich the university had the same or a similar
arrangements&
$
By the year !"""# ho*ever# only the =e*man Foundation had retained that
relationship8 but in September of that year the terms *ere renegotiated *ith the then %rogram for
the Study of Religion& Under the terms of the ne* agreement the courses in Roman Catholic
Studies offered by the %rogram *ould be vetted through the normal course approval processes
for all 7AS courses& The agreement *ent on to provide that+
Individuals *ill be proposed for ad3unct faculty status by the =e*man
Foundation# and shall hold appropriate scholarly credentials and shall be revie*ed
and approved for ad3unct status according to the standard procedures for such
positions& The faculty members and courses shall be sub3ect to the same revie*
and supervision by the %rogram for the Study of Religion as apply to all courses
and members of the %rogram2s faculty& In turn# the ad3unct faculty affiliated *ith
the =e*man Foundation shall have the rights and privileges accorded all faculty
holding the same positions&
According to %rofessor 6c/im# at that point from the department2s perspective the glass
became ,half full4+ the department *as pleased that it and 7AS had assumed oversight of course
content but# despite the re5uirement of departmental revie* and approval of the ad3unct
instructors submitted by the =e*man Foundation# for practical purposes# in the department2s
vie*# the =e*man Foundation continued to retain control over the designation of instructional
$
The history is recounted by 9inton Solberg# The Catholic Presence at the University of Illinois# @?
CAT1A7IC 1IST& R';& @?B ($>>")&
!
staff& The department understood -r& 1o*ell# *ho had taught those courses for several years
*ithout faculty revie* of his teaching and *ithout formal consideration of his continuance# to
be# in effect# a legacy of the prior arrangement& As *ill appear in the discussion to follo*# *hile
his syllabi *ere approved the actual practice of his teaching *as never formally evaluated8 there
*as never formal departmental revie* attendant to a decision to continueCor discontinueChis
appointment& It *as simply assumed that he *ould continue from year to year# and he did&
To*ard the end of the Spring !"$" semester# i.e.# at the time of the event in 5uestion# his course#
Introduction to Catholicism $!@# *as listed for the Fall !"$" semester under his instruction&
B& The '-mail and its Aftermath
In 6ay# !"$"# a student e-mailed a message to %rofessor 6c/im relaying and enclosing a
complaint about -r& 1o*ell from a student in 1o*ell2s class on Introduction to Catholicism&
The student attached an e-mail message from -r& 1o*ell to that class# sent in preparation for the
final eDamination# *hich formed the basis for the student2s complaint& It is appended to this
report&
%rofessor 6c/im *as deeply disturbed by -r& 1o*ell2s e-mail on three grounds+ ($) that
the treatment of utilitarianism *as ,unprofessional#4 i.e.# he considered 1o*ell2s discussion of
consent to be out of place and his treatment of conse5uentialism to distort the idea that he *as
supposed to be eDplaining8 (!) that the treatment of homoseDuality in natural moral la* lac:ed
intellectual ,distance#4 i.e.# to %rofessor 6c/im it purveyed *hat the Church believes to be true
as an incontrovertable truth presented as such and# as presented# i.e.# as a matter that the students
are ill-e5uipped independently to 5uestion# to suggest that the students accept the instructor2s
assertion of *hat the truth is8 and# (E) that the treatment of homoseDuality evidenced ,poor
E
3udgment4 in that it could be eDpected to and did offend# as evidenced in the student2s protest#
especially his comments on the assumption of the seDual roles of the male and female in
homoseDual intercourse and the medical aspects of homoseDual seD based upon a single
anecdotal reference&
%rofessor 6c/im shared -r& 1o*ell2s e-mail *ith three senior colleagues *ho composed
the department2s promotion and tenure committee as *ell as *ith a fourth because of the latter2s
disciplinary eDpertise in Christianity& Ane found the e-mail to evidence professional
incompetence to such an eDtent as to *arrant termination& Ane suggested that %rof& 6c/im
eDplore *ith -r& 1o*ell *hether he# 1o*ell# did not thin: the message unacceptable and *hy&
A third said that the relationship *ith the =e*man Foundation should be terminated *hich the
Committee ta:es to intend a termination of -r& 1o*ell2s relationship to the department as *ell&
%rofessor 6c/im also discussed the e-mail *ith %rofessor -ouglas /ibbee# -irector of the
School of 7iteratures# Cultures# and 7inguistics# *ho did not address the content of the message#
and *ith Ann 6ester# Associate -ean of 7AS&
%rofessor 6c/im told the subcommittee that# as deeply disturbed as he *as by -r&
1o*ell2s e-mail# he had not yet decided on a course of action but that Associate -ean 6ester# as
advised by campus counsel# *as of the vie* that 1o*ell ought not be continued& This# he
understood# arose out of concern that the university might be sued by ,the gay community4 over
the tenor of 1o*ell2s remar:s& 6ore broadly# he told the committee# he *as concerned about
1o*ell2s ,on-going4 and ,systematic4 crossing of the ,boundary4 bet*een teaching and
indoctrination (though he ac:no*ledged that this *as mainly conversational evidence *ith
students--the department had not formally documented this)& -ean 6ester told the committee
that she *as concerned about the e-mail2s content+ primarily by its treatment of Catholic
F
thought# as embodying a truth that the students *ere ill-e5uipped to 5uestion# *hich she regarded
as a closing off of debate on *hat should be a debatable sub3ect8 but also by the possibility that
the e-mail could create a hostile atmosphere for gay and biseDual students& She consulted -ean
9at:ins *ho advised her to consult campus counsel& In 6ester2s vie*# confirmed by campus
counsel# there *as no obligation to continue -r& 1o*ell as an ad3unct8 in fact# as he *as not to be
paid by the university he *as not# in her vie*# even an employee of the University& She informed
the committee that the appointment of another ad3unct (*hose name need not be mentioned) had
been similarly discontinued summarily for ,inappropriate teaching4 *ithout incident&
-ean 6ester *as eventually able to discuss the matter *ith campus counsel Stephen
;ea<ie& According to ;ea<ie# he did not advise termination# but he sa* no problem *ith
terminating -r& 1o*ell2s relationship so long as no apology on the department or university2s
part *as made *hich might have implied institutional acceptance of responsibility for 1o*ell2s
e-mail message& 6ester told the undersigned that she informed %rof& 6c/im that he *as free to
act as he sa* best so long as he addressed counsel2s caution& In sum# -ean 6ester# as the ,point
person4 from the administration2s perspective at this time# understood that she *as transmitting a
,consensus vie*4 endorsing the course of action that %rofessor 6c/im *as advocating&
%rofessor 6c/im understood that this option# *hich he *as leaning to*ard# *as being strongly
encouraged if not actually ordered by the administration&
%rofessor 6c/im met *ith -r& 1o*ell to ascertain if the content of the e-mail *as
accurate+ if he had transmitted it and *hether it *as the teDt he had transmitted& If so# he had
decided to inform 1o*ell that his appointment *ould not be continued& 1o*ell confirmed the
accuracy of the teDt and 6c/im informed 1o*ell of his decision& According to %rof& 6c/im#
he briefly canvassed the reasons for this action+ that students *ould# rightly# be disturbed by his
B
treatment of homoseDuality# of the eDamples 1o*ell had used8 that it *as insensitive and
embarrassing& That 1o*ell2s treatment of utilitarianism *as ,completely *rong4 (to *hich
1o*ell said# ,you .meaning 6c/im in a personal sense0 *ould have caught this4)& And that his
presentation of moral natural la* ,lac:ed distance&4 Initially# 6c/im stated# 1o*ell did not
understand that he *as being terminated& 1o*ell said they2d tal: more about it upon their
respective return from foreign travels& So 6c/im had emphatically to inform 1o*ell that he
*ould not be returned to teaching in the Fall& Insofar as the department *as concerned that is
*here the matter rested&
-r& 1o*ell remembers this conversation a little differently& 1e did not recall his
treatment of utilitarianism to have been a sub3ect of discussion& %rof& 6c/im2s primary concern
*as for the ,damage4 1o*ell2s treatment of homoseDuality might cause the department and the
university& 6c/im stated that the department had an interest in not offending students to *hich
1o*ell replied that his role *as not to ma:e students ,feel good4 but to get them to thin:&
=evertheless# 6c/im asserted that on issues of special sensitivity one ,has to be very careful&4
The conversation proceeded on to the e-mail2s treatment of moral natural la*& 1o*ell believed
that 6c/im2s personal pedagogical style# as is that of others in the department# is to decline to
state his o*n conclusions& 1o*ell2s approach is different+ he is candid about his beliefs# but he
insisted that he does not re5uire students to accept his position& In other *ords# he dra*s a
distinction bet*een permissible advocacy and impermissible indoctrination& The Committee
pressed him on the ground that his e-mail message could be read to state that as the teachings of
moral natural la* on human seDuality *ere grounded in ,reality4 and not in Church doctrine# a
fair implication *as that the students *ould be eDpected to agree *ith itCfor *ho could contest
an obvious reality of the natural *orldGCand# indeed# *ere admonished that they lac:ed the
?
intellectual training to contest it& -r& 1o*ell stated that he *as presenting the Church2s vie* of
the truth as the Church2s vie*# not as truth in itself8 and that his observation about the lac: of
student research grounding *as meant to stimulate 3ust such a student effort at independent
research and thought& -r& 1o*ell *as emphatic in his statements to the Committee that his role
*as to encourage critical thought# not to instill doctrine&
-r& 1o*ell confirmed that he left the meeting *ith %rof& 6c/im thin:ing the matter an
open one& After 6c/im made it clear that 1o*ell had been terminated he sought legal counsel
from the Alliance -efense Fund&
The decision became the sub3ect of public controversy not only surrounding -r& 1o*ell2s
termination but also in regard to the relationship of the -epartment of Religion to the =e*man
Foundation& An the former# the public controversy# letters *ere received by the administration
from the Alliance -efense Fund on behalf of -r& 1o*ell and from the Foundation for Individual
Rights in 'ducation (FIR')# *hich made *hat the Committee ta:es to be a thinly veiled threat of
litigation& A meeting *as held in mid-uly involving a number of high-level administrators the
result of *hich *as a decision to offer -r& 1o*ell an appointment for the Fall semester&
%rofessor 6c/im *as informed of this decision& 1e did not agree *ith it8 but# as the matter *as
out of his hands# he *as in no position other than to state his lac: of concurrence& There is no
dispute that this decision *as influenced by the university2s concern over a possible la*suitCthe
absence of any documented record of -r& 1o*ell2s lac: of professionalism in teaching *ould
fare badly in defending that ground as a valid ground of actionCand by the procedural concern
that it *ould be better to maintain the status quo ante *hilst the academic freedom issues *ere to
be sorted out by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure& -r& 1o*ell accepted
appointment offered for the Fall !"$" semester&
@
An the latter# the relationship *ith the =e*man Foundation# negotiations commenced
*ith the Foundation and the -iocese of %eoria culminating in an agreement amicably arrived at
in late uly to terminate the arrangement *ith the Foundation& 1enceforth# ad3unct appointments
in the -epartment of Religion *ould be made by the department through its process for
appointment and rene*al and the ad3unct appointees paid by the university&
II& Analysis
In this case issues of procedure and of substance are closely intert*ined& It is necessary
to separate them for analytical purposes&
A& %rocedure
The university employs approDimately @"" people classified as ad3unctsCad3unct in the
ran:s of instructor through professor# ad3unct lecturer# ad3uncts in clinical professorial ran:sC
and others *ho do academic *or: full-time under other# most often clinical# titles as *ell as
lecturers and instructors& Ad3unct faculty as *ell as instructors and lecturers are appointed on a
semester-by-semester or on an academic-year basis& There is no university of campus restriction
on the duration of time over *hich such an appointee may be continued in that status& There is
no re5uirement of notice of reappointment or non-reappointment nor is there any re5uirement of
formal revie*# although the office of Academic 1uman Resources recommends that persons in
that status be revie*ed annually as are all other academic staff under %rovost Communication
=o& !$H!E&
!
'ach academic unit is thus at liberty to act as it *ill *ith respect to such appointees and#
not surprisingly# practice varies *idely& In the 1istory -epartment ad3uncts (and other non-
tenure trac: appointees) have their teaching sub3ect to peer evaluation# usually annually# have
!
This information *as supplied by the office of the Chancellor accompanied by the names# and periods of
services for all persons in these classifications for each semester of this academic year&
I
their IC'S scores revie*ed by the department chair and are counseled by the chair in
consultation *ith the eDecutive committee if concerns about the 5uality of teaching surface& The
College of 7a* does not re5uire in-class revie* of ad3uncts& The appointment of ad3unct faculty
is vetted by the College2s appointments committee sub3ect to oversight by the faculty as a *hole&
Revie* thereafter is done by the Associate -ean# primarily on the basis of IC'S scores and
student comment& Underperforming ad3unct faculty may be counseled in order to improve or
simply not offered teaching assignments in the future& In the -epartment of Religion the head
received the IC'S reports on -r& 1o*ell# in recent years the department2s only ad3unct teacher#
but no other revie* *as underta:en and# as -r& 1o*ell had favorable IC'S scores# his
continuance *as assumed as a matter of course re5uiring no further collegial action& As
%rofessor 6c/im noted# the relationship *ith the =e*man Center and -r& 1o*ell *as felt as a
fait accompli&
This regulatory vacuum abetted the difficulty the department encountered in the *a:e of
-r& 1o*ell2s e-mail& As the foregoing summary indicates# there *as a degree of uncertainty
about 3ust *hat his relationship to the department *as at that time& The administration# as
advised by legal counsel# too: the position that he *as either a prospective employee or# even in
his current ad3unct status# one *ho could be continued or not at the university2s discretion& It is
not obvious to the Committee that that *as so& -r& 1o*ell had held the title of Ad3unct
Associate %rofessor for many years# had taught continuously *ithout official notice of rene*al#
had eDpected to teach Introduction to Roman Catholicism# as did the department# and had been
listed as teaching that offering in the Fall& By academic rather than legal standards a persuasive
argument could be made that his summary removal from the course assigned in the Fall because
of the content of his e-mail *as a dismissal on *hich he should have been afforded academic due
>
process&
E
Thus the episode dra*s attention to a significant lacuna in the university2s regulations
and one that is li:ely to become more veDing the more this university# as do many others# comes
to rely on contingent faculty to assume a larger share of teaching& 9e *ill recommend a
corrective course at the close&
B& Substance
Inasmuch as -r& 1o*ell has been reinstated# the Committee2s observations on his
message to his students are intended for guidance in future& At the threshold# ho*ever# the
standard to be applied to that communication needs be addressed&
An the one hand# in the give-and-ta:e of classroom discussion and debate impromptu
analogies or metaphors may be uttered or ideas essayed spontaneously that may be offensive to
some but *hich may nevertheless serve a sound pedagogical purposeCto stimulate# instigate# or
prod students to thin: critically about the matter at hand or to thin: s:eptically about a
disciplinary proposition& Such remar:s are intensely conteDt-specific+ as they dra* sustenance
and immediacy from the chemistry of the class such passing remar:s# *hen laid upon a bare
page and ta:en in the abstract# may *ell be misunderstood& An the other hand# professional
publications should be eDpected to have been *ell *or:ed through8 they are laid upon a bare
page and are held up for critical assessment by professional standards of scholarly care&
-r& 1o*ell2s e-mail *as sent to students in Religion $!@Cand copied to students in a
more advanced courseCto dispel their confusion about ho* utilitarianism as an ethical system
related to moral natural la*& Though it does not bear all the earmar:s of a finely *rought
professional eDercise it is more li:e a thought-through professional eDposition than an
E
In a closely analogous instance such *as the conclusion of Committee A on Academic Freedom and
Tenure of the American Association of University %rofessors& Academic Freedom and Tenure: City University of
New or!# >" ACA-'6' FE# B@ (=ov&H-ec& !""F)& The chair of CAFT served as chair of this ad hoc committee of
investigation&
$"
impromptu classroom eDpostulation and *e shall treat it as such& And as such *e need to
consider the three problematical aspects identified by %rofessor 6c/im and the Associate -ean
of 7AS&
$& Utilitarianism& %rofessor 6c/im# in consultation *ith other senior faculty in the
department# believed %rofessor 1o*ell2s eDplanation of utilitarianism to have been *oefully
deficient to the point even of 5uestioning 1o*ell2s professional competence& Abviously# a
manifest failure to comprehend the sub3ect or to eDplain it accurately is not sheltered by
academic freedom8 and %rofessor 6c/im believed that 1o*ell2s e-mail did 3ust that& Though
1o*ell connected utilitarian analysis to the role of individual consent# utilitarianism does not8
utilitarianism ta:es a purely conse5uential approach to moral reasoning irrespective of individual
consent& Further# according to 6c/im# 1o*ell2s account of ho* a utilitarian *ould assess a
decision of *hether to engage in homoseDual activity misstates ho* a utilitarian *ould assess the
full range of interests at sta:e& The Committee need not evaluate that 3udgment at this point save
to say that the criticism cannot be said on its face to be *ithout substance&
F
%rofessor 1o*ell2s
competence in the sub3ect can and should be sub3ect to collegial revie*8 but# because of the
uni5ue history of his status# no revie* *as ever underta:en&
!& "istance& The 5uestion of ,distance#4 as %rofessor 6c/im put it to the
Committee# is a matter of some delicacy& %rofessor 6c/im opined that in la*# philosophy#
classics# and any number of other disciplines the instructor could espouse a theory and
vigorously defend it in anticipation# in due course# of student rebuttal or ,push bac:&4 1e agreed
that such espousal *ould be an eDercise of academic freedom so long as the students *ere not
held to account for agreement *ith the instructor2s vie*s& But religion# he opined# is different& It
F
#ee Roger Crisp J Tim Chapell# Utilitarianism# in RAUT7'-K' '=CLC7A%'-IA AF %1I7ASA%1L ('& Craig
ed&) (vie*ed online Aug& !# !"$")&
$$
is inherently interdisciplinary# dra*ing upon history# philosophy# archaeology# linguistics# and
more& There is no ,correct4 or dogmatic vie*# i.e.# a religion may hold such# but the academic
analysis of religion does not& Thus# he maintained# the department# reflecting the thought of the
discipline as a *hole# believed that instructors had to retain ,distance4 on the sub3ect&
%rofessor 6c/im *as given the follo*ing hypothetical+ an instructor# *ho is of a deeply
evangelical persuasion# eDplains to his class that those of that faith believe that all non-believers
are damned to burn in hell for eternity& The instructor may say that as it is *hat the faith
maintains to be true& A student as:s# ,As you are of that faith# do you believe that to be trueG4
1e ans*ers that he does# as *ell he should& The student follo*s up# ,So you thin: it a fact that I
*ill burn in hell for eternity4G 6ay the instructor say# ,yes4G 6c/im thought that he could8 but#
*ere the instructor to ta:e the initiative consistently to convey the truth of his tradition as he sa*
it such *ould be beyond the bounds of academic freedom& 6embers of the Committee as:ed if
he had any firm :no*ledge that that is *hat %rofessor 1o*ell had been doing& 1e had none# but
he understood the e-mail as stating the Catholic position on homoseDuality not as a proposition
of theology but as a proposition of fact about the real (or natural) *orld# one that should
command student agreement as such# not as a religious proposition sub3ect to scrutiny& 1e
agreed that the idea of ,distance4 is a gray area# one he had struggled *ith& Let# he insisted# his
colleagues *ere unanimous that such *as a :ey feature of the discipline and that 1o*ell2s e-mail
had departed from it&
For his part# %rofessor 1o*ell maintained that he never re5uired students to accept his
position on Catholic doctrine& 1e insisted that his intent *as to have his students thin: critically
about the sub3ect# not to accept his vie* of it&
$!
The Committee comes a*ay from its investigation on this point *ith t*o observations&
First# it is not persuaded that religion differs in any significant regard from any other discipline+
a disciplinary proposition maintained by an instructor in archeology may set flame afresh to
disputes in India or Israel8 a paleontological proposition may :indle strongly held religious
ob3ection8 an historical argument might ignite any number of ethnic passions& The profession has
long dra*n the distinction bet*een the essaying of one2s conclusions# arrived at by the eDercise
of a professional standard of care# as much before one2s students as before one2s peers# from an
insistence that one2s students concur in one2s conclusions on professionally controverted
5uestions&
Second# and closely related# is that the distinction bet*een advocacy and indoctrination
can be a delicate matter+ *hat is said and *hat is heard can sometimes be very different and may
depend on the listener more than the spea:er& 9hen faculty tread near that line must they be
cautious about transgressing itG Because one *ould tend to steer *ider the <one *hen the line is
indistinct *e fear that a painsta:ing parsing of *hat is said in hindsight can conduce to*ard a
stultifying degree of self-censorship in future& =evertheless# *here there is evidence that# *ith
due allo*ance for the ,breathing space4 academic freedom re5uires# the line has been crossed a
department cannot be indifferent to it&
In this case# %rofessor 1o*ell has insisted that his e-mail eDpounded *hat the church
maintains moral natural la* teaches to be true and he himself did not eDpound that this belief as
,truth&4 The difficulty is that elements in his message can be read in support of both& Though he
maintained that he *as attempting to stimulate critical thought and further study# the teDt# as read
by %rofessors 6c/im and others# is capable of a different interpretation&
$E
Conse5uently# all that can be said at this stage is that it is an eDercise of academic
freedom for a professor to put before her students her conclusions on professionally controverted
5uestions# even vigorously to advance them# so long as students are not held to account for
agreement *ith them8 and that this is as much so for the study of religion as for any other
discipline& -r& 1o*ell has pointed out that# save for this episode# no student of the many he has
taught over the years has complained that he2d crossed the line and that his students include
increasing numbers of non-Catholics# although Catholics still comprise a large ma3ority of the
students ta:ing his classes& 'ven so# from the teDt of this message and the reading given it by
faculty and administrators# *e believe that there is a real 5uestion of *hether# in this instance#
%rofessor 1o*ell has observed the distinction he dre*&
E& $ffensiveness& From the foregoing it should be clear that students have no right
not to be offended8 indeed# students deeply committed to some economic# political# religious# or
philosophical teachings may be profoundly offended by having to engage *ith faculty criticism
of those teachingsCthe more serious and thoughtful the criticism# the greater the li:elihood of
offense& 9e could not do our 3ob# *hich is to instill the habits of a critical mind# if *e had to be
chary of giving offense& Accordingly# %rofessor 1o*ell2s observations on homoseDuality#
relevant to the sub3ect of moral natural la* and its relationship to utilitarianism# should not be
held to account because a student too: offense& But they can be faulted on grounds having
nothing to do *ith hostile student reaction8 that is# as the Committee reads it# for being unlearned
and 3e3une&
III& Conclusions and Recommendations
$F
9e offer the follo*ing for future guidance based upon this episode&
$& The university should adopt clear policies governing the appointment and rene*al
of ad3unct faculty& 6odels eDist else*here8 the American Association of University %rofessors
has proposed one&
B
CAFT ta:es no position no* on the detailed *or:ings of *hat should be
adopted save to stress that# at a minimum# it should re5uire *ritten notice of appointment# timely
*ritten notice of reappointment or non-reappointment# and ma:e eDpress provision for
mandatory evaluation and revie*& Access to a grievance procedure and an assurance of due
process for a dismissal during a period of service ought also be provided&
!& Kiven the abrogation of the agreement bet*een the university and the =e*man
Foundation# the -epartment of Religion is free to decide *hether it *ishes to continue to offer
courses in Catholic thought& Should the -epartment decide to continue those or similar
offerings# the -epartment is free to appoint a candidate it deems best 5ualified to teach them# for
eDample# by conducting a search for a suitable candidate&
?
-r& 1o*ell has eDpressed his strong
desire to the Committee to continue to teach courses in Catholic thought in the University&
Accordingly# the -epartment should consider him for appointment or# should it *ish to conduct a
*ider search# should place him under consideration in con3unction *ith others&
E& A declination to offer an appointment is not sub3ect to challenge before the CAFT&
1o*ever# due to the uni5ue circumstances of this case# and the public controversy surrounding it#
should the department decline to continue -r& 1o*ell in ad3unct instruction and should -r&
B
AAU% Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure M $E ,%art-Time Faculty
Appointments#4 availa%le at http+NN***&aaup&orgNAAU%NpubsresNpolicydocsNcontentsNRIR&htm&
?
Academic freedom is not implicated in a department2s decision to see: candidates *ith stronger credentials
in a discipline than an incumbent ad3unct possesses&
$B
1o*ell assert that that decision *as based on considerations significantly violative of academic
freedom the Committee believes that it ought be available to allo* -r& 1o*ell to prove that that
*as so&
Subcommittee 6embers+
6atthe* 9& Fin:in# Chair# CAFT# College of 7a*
Fouad Abd-'l-/halic:# -ept& of Curriculum J Instruction
effrey A& -a*son# -epartment of %lant Biology
'li<abeth -elacru<# School of Art and -esign
6ar: -& Steinberg# -epartment of 1istory
$?