Steven G Olswang
Explores the concept and operation of collective bargaining in higher education: its origin; the reasons for its growing popularity as a governance mechanism; the legal framework within which it operates; the rights, powers, and duties subsumed under its operation; and its relationship to the traditional form of faculty governance mechanisms.
EDLPS 584 ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN HIGHER EDUCATION Course Syllabus and Reading List
Autumn Quarter 2009 Steven G. Olswang 430 Miller Hall 425 709 7623 email@example.com
Goals and Objectives
Collegiality among faculty, students, and administration has long characterized the governance structure of American higher education institutions. However, over the last decades, a different mechanism to regulate faculty-student-administration interaction has gained considerable momentum: collective bargaining.
This course proposes to explore college and university management and governance structures. We will explore the concepts of management roles and authority, shared governance in a collegial framework, and the reasons for and operation of collective bargaining as a method of determining faculty rights and their role in governance. We will compare and contrast these two modes of faculty participation in academic governance and examine outcomes in the different modes.
Coverage of the subject matter of the course is best achieved in a lecture-discussion format. The instructor assumes responsibility for presenting the legal and policy framework for describing academic governance systems and the structure of collective bargaining. Students are responsible for the discussion portion based upon their readings for each week and based upon their own knowledge. The mixed lecture-discussion format for this seminar should be the most productive way to examine academic governance systems.
The purpose of a graduate seminar is to foster the exchange of ideas based on existing literature, research findings, and expert viewpoints. The course is structured with this as its primary objective.
Grades, in our education system, are required. Students’ grades will be assigned on the following formula:
75% Paper and Presentation 25% Class Participation
During Session X, December 16, 2009, students will present their positions on any aspect of higher education governance or collective bargaining policy or practice they choose. Each student will prepare a paper (maximum length 10 pages, typed, double spaced) on the issue. This paper will explain and explore a current governance policy or practice and defend a position as to why it is obsolete and must change, or will defend why it remains viable. Students are encouraged to be creative and propose novel approaches to real problems. At the beginning of Session VI, on November 4, 2009, each student will provide a one page summary of the idea proposed to be explored and share the idea in class to receive feedback on approaches to the question proposed.
These papers will be prepared and available for distribution via email to fellow class participants by Monday, December 14, 2009. All class participants are expected to read, evaluate, and be prepared to discuss the propositions presented at the class discussion at Session X, on December 16, 2009.
Class Reading Assignments
There are no required texts for the course. All reading materials are on electronic reserve and can be accessed on-line.
Course Schedule and Assigned Readings
Session I – September 30, 2009
A. Course Introduction B. University Governance
Kezar and Eckel, Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges. 75(4) The Journal of Higher Education 371-399 (July/August, 2004).
Rao, Who Decides What. Trusteeship 24-28 (November/December 2007).
Scott, The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformations. 77 (1) The Journal of Higher Education 1-39 (January/February, 2007).
Session II – October 7, 2009
The Governing Board
American Association of University Professors, Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th. Ed. (2006).
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, The AGB Survey of Higher Education Governance. Executive Summary (2009)
Kezar, Rethinking Public Higher Education Governing Boards Performance: Results of a National Study of Governing Boards in the United States. 77(6) The Journal of Higher Education. 968-1008 (November/December 2006).
Leslie and MacTaggart, The New Ethics of Trusteeship: How Public College and University Trustees Can Meet Higher Public Expectations. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2008).
O’Neil, The Spellings Commission certainly got everyone’s attention, but no one in the academic community has been blind to our shortcomings. Trusteeship 8-13 (September/October, 2007)
The Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
Session III – October 14, 2009
The Administration: Presidents, Provosts, and Deans
Allan, Gordon, and Iverson, Re/thinking Practices of Power: The Discursive Framing of Leadership in The Chronicle of Higher Education. 30(1) The Review of Higher Education 41-68 (Fall 2006).
Bray, Proscriptive Norms for Academic Deans: Comparing Faculty Expectations Across Institutional and Disciplinary Boundaries. 79(6) The Journal Higher of Higher Education 692-721 (November/December 2008).
Gibson, Are University Presidents Overpaid? Business Week 2/21/2009.
Montez, Wolverton, and Gmelch, The Roles and Challenges of Deans. 26(2) The Review of Higher Education 241-266 (Winter 2002).
Trachtenberg, How Much is President Worth? Trusteeship 14-18 (September/October 2007).
Session IV – October 21, 2009
The Faculty and Shared Governance
Gilmour, Participative Governance Bodies in Higher Education: Report of a National Study; in Birnbaum (ed.), Faculty in Governance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 27-39 (1991).
Miller, McCormack, Maddox, and Seagren, Faculty Participation in Governanc3e at Small and Large Universities: Implications for Practice. 27(3/4) Planning and Changing 180-190 (1996).
Minor, Understanding Faculty Senates: Moving from Mystery to Models. 27(3) The Review of Higher Education 343-363 (Spring 2004).
Ramos, Reforming Shared Governance. Academe 38-43 (September-October 1997).
Session V – October 28, 2009
Faculty as Employees, Supervisors, and/or Managers: The Yeshiva Decision
American Association of University Professors, Statement on Collective Bargaining. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th. Ed. (2006).
Lee and Begin, Criteria for Evaluating the Managerial Status of College Faculty: Applications of Yeshiva University by the NLRB. 10 Journal of College and University Law pp. 515-539 (1983-84).
Lubbers, Guidelines for Cases Arising under NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1981).
National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980).
Session VI – November 4, 2009
The Collective Bargaining Process Readings:
American Association of University Professors, Arbitration of Faculty Grievances. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th. Ed. (2006). Bargaining with Part-Time Faculty: A Checklist. 2009 NACUA Annual Meeting Outline.
DiGiovanni and Wolf, Labor Law Primer. 2009 NACUA Annual Meeting Outline.
Gall, Kaplan, and Murphy, Labor Law Primer: An A to Z Overview of Labor Relations Issues Under the NLRA for In-House Counsel. 2007 NACUA Annual Meeting Outline.
Hustoles, Negotiating a Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement. NACUA (2005).
NOTE: Students will be prepared to describe briefly the topics for their class papers.
Session VII – November 11, 2009
Graduate Students as Employees Readings:
American Association of University Professors, Proposed Amendment to the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. (September, 2009).
The Brown University Decision, 342 N.L.R.B 483 (2004).
Julius and Gumport, Graduate Student Unionization: Catalysts and Consequences. 26:2 Review of Higher Education 187-216 (2002).
Regents of the University of California v. Student Association of Graduate Employees, UAW. State of California Public Employment Relations Board, December 11, 1998.
Rhoades and Rhoads, The Public Discourse of U.S. Graduate Employee Unions: Social Movement Identities, Ideologies, and Strategies. 26:2 Review of Higher Education 163-186 (2002).
Rhoads and Rhoades, Graduate Employee Unionization as Symbol of and Challenge to the Corporatization of U.S. Research Universities. 76(3) The Journal of Higher Education 243-275 (May/June, 2005).
Stygall, A Report from a Writing Program Director in the Trenches: TAs and Unionization. 3.1 Pedagogy 7-19 (2003).
NO CLASS NOVEMBER 18 AND NOVEMBER 25, 2009
Session VIII– December 2, 2009
Governance in a Unionized Institution Readings:
American Association of University Professors, Statement on Academic Government for Institutions Engaged in Collective Bargaining. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th. Ed. (2006).
American Association of University Professors, On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th. Ed. (2006).
Kemerer and Baldridge, Senates and Unions: Unexpected Peaceful Coexistence. 52:3 Journal of Higher Education pp. 256-264 (1981).
Olswang, Union Security Provisions, Academic Freedom and Tenure: The Implications of Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. 14:4 Journal of College and University Law pp. 539-560 (1988).
Session IX – December 9, 2009
Academic Governance in a Changing Environment
Bastedo, Convergent Institutional Logics in Public Higher Education: State Policymaking and Governing Board Activism. 32(2) The Review of Higher Education 209-234 (Winter 2009).
DiGiovanni, Campus Collective Bargaining in a Bad Economy. 2007 NACUA Annual Meeting Outline.
Mills, Stories of Politics and Policy: Florida’s Higher Education Governance Reorganization. 78(2) The Journal of Higher Education 162-187 (March/April 2007).
Hawaii State Teachers Association et. al. v. Lingle, No. 09-1-1372-06, Circuit Ct. State of Hawaii. (July 29, 2009).
Session X – December 16, 2009 Student Paper Presentations
Student learning goals
General method of instruction
Class assignments and grading