Also missing here is analysis of the FA's proposed policy for handling financial exigency. Suffice it to say that that policy calls for still more rigorous adherence to the AAUP principles than any SIUC policy past or present. I would be very happy indeed were that proposal adopted.
Let me also say that there is considerable daylight between my analysis here and that given by the FA in its own "Fact Sheet" on tenure. For some of the reasons why, see the "Simplifying and Charitable Assumptions" I list at the end of this post. My own analysis is considerably more charitable to the administration position, but still reaches rather troubling conclusions . . .
- SIUC's current policy on financial exigency and tenure is a mess. Messy policies allow for varied interpretations and promote mutual suspicion.
- Current SIUC policy fails to meet three of the four procedural guidelines outlined by the AAUP.
- In the event of a financial exigency, these failures would seriously undermine the status of tenure and the status of faculty at SIUC.
- Absent contractual protection, SIUC's policy on financial exigency could be further changed in order to provide the administration still more flexibility to fire tenured faculty.