On University Governance and Academic Freedom

(1)

論大學管理與學術自由

ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

By Shuh-Kuen Chen

The nature of higher education governance is guite unique. Although the ways of higher education gpvernance vary with the country, there are some basic simi1arities among them. First of all, in contrast to primary and secondary education, which tend to be con-trolled by governmental regulations in general, higher education generally enjoys much greater autonomy. Further, in comparison with other organizations, the distribution of authority in institutions of higher education tends to be

“

bottom-dominated." The reasons for this common pattern in governance, autonomy, and authority seem to be drawn from the origin of university itself, and the functions of highereducation.

Historically, when the medieval universities emerged in Italy between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, the uhiversities were places where c1usters of scholars gathering together autonomously for mutual studies. Burton. R. Clark writes,“The early universities were themselves gui1ds and guild federation, colle~tive efforts by students and faculty to sustain self-regulation among c1usters of people with shared interest to control a small domain of activity and. defend against other groups." (1978, p. 37) Since then, the tradition of being

“

self-regulating" of Italian universities has been spread t0 universities around the world and it lasts to this date. Hence, the concept of autonomy has become an important idea about the university governance of today.

Another manifest phenomenon of university governance is so called “

bottom-dominated" authority, by which Clark (1983, p. 133) mean!\ that the distribution of acade-mic authority is heavily lOGated in the hands of academic personages一 -professors. The faculty enjoy the freedoms of teaching and research. It is they who own the right to decide how to teach and what to teach on the one hand, and what to study and how to study on. the other hand. Since the work of teaching and research in institutions of higher educatíon require a depth of knowledge and may be highly technically oriented, it is too hard for

(2)

師大學報第卅一期

someone else to supervise it. In other words, the intricacy and unpredictabi1ity of both learning and investigation are factors that require a high degree of freedom from intellec-tually 1imiting 'external inlervention and control if the work of professors is to be done effectively.

Although the ideas of academic freedom as well as professional autonomy of higher education are well recognized in most advanced countries in the world, it is evident that the degree .of autonomy afforded by governments differs from nation to nation. In order to look at how much freedom and autonomy higher education has had, it is useful to break down the problem into two levels, i.e. the relationship between institutions of higher educa-tion and government as one, and internal governance as another. In terms of the former, two types of relationships couldbe iderttified from â comparative perspective: centra1ized vs. decentralized. In countries such as the United States, Germany, and the United Kindom, the central government does IÌot regulaté high~r educatibn directly. Higher education in these countries might be characterized as decentralized. In contrast, countries 1ike France, Italy, Japan, and Sweden place all or nearly all universities and colleges under-one or more ministries of the central governmenL Higher 'education in the latter countries could :be classified as centralized. (Clark, 1983, Burn, 1971). As usual, in countries with decentralized higher education, universities enjoy higher degree of autonoiny than their counterparts in centralized cmmtries, and vice versa.

In terms of mternal governance, the distribution of authority within the institutions of higher education also varies among nations. Basically, there are three hational modes of authority distribution. First, in most of the .aèademic systems of the European contiÌlent (e.g. Italy, France, Sweden, and Germany), guildlike authority has predominated withirHhe universities, with much personaL authority at the operating level and with groups of pro-fessors exe'rcising strong 'collegial rule õvef the higher levels of fàculty and universities. In these countries, senior professors, usually the chair holders, have not bnly the extreme authority in decisions of teaching and research affairs but also in the selection of junior personnel and allocation of funds. Deans and rectors are simply elected by professors as amate

(3)

and administrators. In the United Kingdom, the lowest level of university structures is almost .universally the department, which embraces a teaching subject 'or discipline' in a manner analogous to the U.S. case. Within the department the professorial head retains formal supremacy, but the hierarchy of authority has been less strict than in Italy or Germany, and formal provisions f9f some democratization of decision making are now common (Van de Graaff and others, 1978, p. 89). Further, it is the individual ∞ lleges and ) univer:sities that have been chartered as corporations responsible for self-management, each to admit its own students, arrange itsρwn courses, and hireits own facu1ty. Thus, in vertical hierarchy, the British mode has placed strong authority at the-bottom, in gui1d forms, but has emphasized the collegial over the persona1 approach common to the continental systems (CIark, 1.983, p. 129.).

Sti11 another. type of ~uthority distribution is the American tnode. In the United States, the distribution of authority in universities, like the British, has combined facu1ty guilds with institútional血 trusteeship and administration. In contrast with the British, facu1ty rule has been weaker while the jnfluence of trustees and administrators stronger. Within the context of the established powers of .trustees and administrators, the faculty forms of personal and collegialauthority do not achieve thεinfluence they have in the European and British modes. Thus, in vertical hierarchy, the American academic structure affords institu-tional administrators and trustees relatively stronger authority than is the case in the Euro-pean and British systems (Clark, 1983, p. 130).

The Japanese. system provides a unique mixture of the continental and American modes. In the old public

“

imperial" sector, the chair holder has had a high degree of per-sonal- 'control over subordinates. In turn"as in the German model, the chair holder exercises strong collegial control 可within faculties and universities; and the superstructure, as in France, has cent~red in the bureaucratic staff of a national ministry. Institutional trustees are âbsent ~nd institutional administration has been relatively weak. But, on the. other hand‘ the large、 private sector, unlike anything in Europe, has great similarities to the American private sector: e.g. trustees, relatively strong campus administrat

(4)

çollege faculty's sovereignty in most countries. Since scholarship ca!lnot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distru哎， academic freedom is neces詞ry for scholarship 缸，

velopment (Olswang, eds., 19.84, p. 10).

The scope ofacademic freedom is not unlimited, however. The essence of academic freedom in medieval times was mainly limited to the primacy of the faculty in determining the mission, curriculum, and academic standards òf the institution and their autonomy'in selecting the institution's leadership. Then the idea has evolved to mean freedom in research and publication, freedom in the classroom, and freedom in extramural activities at present days (Olswang,.and Lee., 1.984, pp'. 5-9).

By either of these explanations, some important limitations to these freedoms have surfaced. For example, the professor is expected to maintain “adquate performance" of academie< duties, to refrain from including.in his or her teaching

“

controversial matter which has no relation to his 以lbject" ， and to “exerCÍse appropriate restraint [and]. . . .show respect for the opinions of others'-' in extramural utterances (AAUP, 1977, p. 3). In other words

,“

Academic freedom is not a 1icense fOI activity at variance with job-related pro-cedures and requirement, nor does it encompass activities which are internally destructive to the proper function of the university or disruptive to the education process" (Olswang and Lee, 1984, p. 12). Therefore, behavior characterized as inGOmpetence, insubordination, and moral turpitlJde shoVld be excluded from the scope of academic freedom.

It follows that the protection of academic freedom for higher education does not mean that the public wi1l tolerate complete laissez-fair-e within institutions. On the contrary, there are many factors which ‘require the institutions to be more responsive to external and

internal calls for accountabi1ity. For example

,.

turmoil and disruption on the camp~s;

political action by student and faculty members; severe shrinkages in governmental, cor-porate‘ and individual incomes, coupled with rising taxes; and mounting distrust of higher educaqon by the public all seem to give rise to increasing demand on çolleges and uni-versities to justify‘ what they are doing and to disclose the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations. Perhaps ，那 never before, institutions, administrators, faculty members, and even &tudent耳 findthemselves accountable to ayide rang-of both internal and external agencies. Institutions and faculties, much to their concern and distress, have dis∞ vered that their autonomy is by no means at "llute, and that, in fact, it is often highly vulnerable (McConnell, 1971, p. 446).

As a rule, an individual loses autonomy to the extent to which he is answerable to an

(5)

論大學管理與學摘自由

accountable to administrator or trustees; the ∞rporate university is. not completely in-dependent if it is answerable to donors, the legislature, or the electorate.

In recent years the most irritating problem faced by institutioIJ.s of higher education in the United States perhaps is growing federal government intrusion. Constitutionally, higher education in the United States has been reserved as a state ~nd local responsibi1ity. But, due to declines in enrollment and scarcity of resources, universities are more andmore dependent on federal support. In order to get funds from tl1e federal government; many universities are subject to lots of federal regulations. For example, those regulations dea1ing with equal employment opportunity, .affirmative action, social security taxes, unemploy-ment compensation, occupational hea1th and safety, and environmental protection all affect univer~iti白，operations indeed (Tuckman, 1980, p. 143).

Whi1.e intrusion has grown, so, t<;>o, þ'as the extent'of state government control over the fiscal administration of public institutions. Among the Jactors _which may strengthen the hand of state finance departments are a st臼dyincrease in the governor's yow~r to supervise and control all state programs; a ,tendency to tighten controls over spend

mg-

and program

duplication because of the increasing costs and complexity of higher edùcation; and the developrnent .of complex management information systems ，∞ stanalyses， and program budgeting,. all of wh(ch provicie instrumeIJ.ts of review and control for state finance officers,

and thus diminish the autonomy of public institutions (McConJ1ell, 1971, p. 449).

In order to show that the institution is accountable, colleges and universities are more inclined to establish rules on façulty time, effort, duties, and behavior, for example, institutions are now under substantial pressure to increase faculty workload一 -to do more with less: faculty are required to work in full-time effort; outside consulting work:-is re-stricted and must obtain prior approval in advance; institutions are entitled to assert rights over patentable inventions and faculty are obligated to disclose to the university all inven-tions that may be patented (Olswang and Lee, 1984, pp. 26-47). Meanwhile, institutions tend to employ periodic review of faculty performance as a means to maintain public faith in the quality of the institution.

While review of faculty performance is regarded as a reasonable way to insure faculty members' performance, those regulations mentioned above could potentially threaten autonomy and academic freedom. Thus, the overall situation of increasing regulation makes higher education a less desirable environment in which to work. Accordingly, faculty morale and job satisfaction has been negatively affected (Olswang and Lee, 1984, p. 56).

Ideally 、 academic freedom and- auto.nomy need not be sacrificed in the name of

(6)

accountabi1ity. We shc;>uld be able to figure out a‘better way of irtternal governáñce which

would satisfy the need of achjevirig faculty accountabi1ity arid without infringing the academic freedom at the same time. One way to implement the ideal is to involve faculty directly in the study and promulgation of regulatiöns foì' professiörial conduct (Olswang and Lee, 1984, p.iv). In other words, faculty should be actively involved in the creation or

modification .of institutional pòlicies or structúres designed tó address requirenient fór accountabi1ity. The more that facultý participafe in the decisions, the more likely they wi11 accept them and to äevelop policies which are effective.

In short, though the background wherein Universities develop is different, thè emphasis on autonomy and academic freedom 恤， governance is the same. Recent旬， thère are 'inàny factors, especially the scarcity of resources, which have given rise the general concern about accountabi1ity in university governal)cè. Nèverthêless, the emphasis on demartding for

accountabi1ity should 'not infringe autonomy and academic freedom. Since knowledgè can be l;>etter .flourished under a free'atmosphere; therefore, institution autonomy and academic freedom should not be interfered in the name of accoimtability. And, by the same token, those laissez-faire attitudes, incompete~臼 and misconduct should nqt be toletáted under

the name of protection of'autonomy and a:cademic freedom, eith甘.Thus, the pro blem of how to balance the two desiderata has become a critical issue. In òthër words, th忌ê:han~nge

is to develop ways to ensure accountabi1ity without seriously dampening êreativity or the attractiveness of the academic .work. The pröblem is certainJy not easy to solve, but the suggestion of joint facultyjadministrative model i

n:

university governance is worth trying.

(7)

REFERENCES

1. American Association of University Professors. 1940. “Academic Fteedom and Tenure: 1940 Statement of Principles and Interpretive Comments." AAUP Policy Documents and Reports. Washington, D.C.: AAUP.

2. Burn, Barbàra D., Altbach, Philip G., K;err, Clark., Perkins, James A. 1971. Higher Education in Nine Countries

,

McGraw-Hill Book Cornpany

,

3. Clark, Burton R. 1983. The H氾herEducation System. California.

4. McConnell 1. R.

“

Accountability .and AutonoIl).Y" in Joûrnal of Higher Education,

June, 1971.

5. 0lswang, Steven G. and 'Lee, Barbara A. 1984. Faculty Freedoms andlnstitutional Accountability: Interactions and Conflicts. ASHE-~ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 5.

6. Tuckman, Howard P. and Whalen, Edward edited, 1980. Subsidies To Higher Educa-tion: the Issues. PraegerPublishers.

7. Van de Graaff., JOhn H., Clark, Burton R., Furth, Dorotea., Goldschmidt, Dietrich., and Wheeler, Donald F. 1978. Academic Power: Pattetps of Authority in Seven National Systems of Higher Education, Praeger Publishers.

(8)

論大學管理與學術台由

教育學院教育系

l來樹坤

論大學管理與學術自由本文研究之主旨有三.在於從各國政府的教育行政制度及大學內部結構與權力分配兩方面探討先進國家大學管理之模式，藉以說明各國大學所享學術自由之情形;二丟在探討適來大眾對學校績殼的要求不斷提高的情形下，對於大學自主權及學術自由所產生的影響如何?三三在尋求如何有教管理大學而不致影響學術自由之可行途徑。就各國政府對於大學的外部管理方式而言，由於各國政府教育行敢制度互異，因而管理方式亦有不同，不過，一般說來可概括為中央集權制與地方分權制兩種類型。前者可以法、日、羲、瑞典等國為代表;後者則以美、英、西德等國屬之。比較而言，凡教育行政制度屬地方分權制之國家，其大學所享之學術自由常較中央集權制為高，反之亦然。就大學之內部結構與權力分配而言通常可分為三種類型:第一種類型可以歐洲大陸國家如義、法、瑞典、西德等國為代表，這類國家之大學內部的權力如人事、經費、教學等權多半操在資深教授，特別是講座教授手中，故此類國家之大學似可稱之為「教授治校」型;第二類可以英國為代表，英國大學之管理雖然擷取了部份教授治授的精神，但是其董事會與學校行改主管如授、院長叉具有相當的影響力，且其大學的基本結構單位是學系，自各位美國而自成一類;第三種類型可以美國為代表，其大學之管理揉合了教授治校與學授及董事會治校兩種方式，但與英國相較則教授治校之權較弱，而董事會與學校行政人員之權則較大，也就是說美國大學行政部門及董事會之權力較歐洲及英國大學為大。日本之情形則兼具歐洲大陸型及美國型兩種特色，其國立的帝國大學的管理頗似歐洲大陸型，而私立大學則與美國管理方式極為相似。近年來美國各大學由於經費困難，因而對於聯邦政府的經費仰賴程度日，益加深，聯邦政府在補助各校經費的同時，為使經費的使用具有績欽起見，往往附帶有若平條件與限制，因此，無形中加深了對各校的約束，影響所及，學術自由亦受到了相當程度的衝擊。理想的大學教育不應該在要求積殼的情形下而犧牲了學術自由，吾人應該尋求出兩全之策，其中一個較有殼的辦法即是讓教授們有充份參與按政之機會。換言之，可以採取一種教授(﹒教學人員)與行敵人員共管的方式來管理大學)以使行改工作的推動與學

(9)

師大學報第卅-一期

保障學術自由，促進學術發達是各國管理大學的最高指導原則，我留對於學術發展

一向重觀，今後大學管理應如何改進以增進學術自由，而利學術發展確實值得研究，本文之作即在藉對各國大學管理方式之探討，擷取他國之經驗，以供我國之參考。