x T...
|vv :1:

 

 

 

 

. L

.:I1..7...|. ,l..t¥‘l
31.91.5311,}!!! I...
\.| 3.1.an

A h
35:25 5v}... 1
y‘... :3?!

33:1,. :. t

.
|.l..-. 311v!
ixll;> .‘ Z

r ..J.l.l.l.
F.0Hflfidau‘x

 

.y Aplt. .5.‘ .‘i‘ lily.
If... . . .A .v .

 

 

 

”2 ‘ 0“ f, 02
(/7 {LLJJ‘

illHIUIHHIIHIHHJHllllllJIIIIHIIIIIHIWIIIHHUUI

193 00793 5053

-
A
n

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Effect of Faculty Unions on
Faculty Participation in Governance
and Academic Freedom as Perceived
by Faculty Members

presented by
Marshall Giller

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D'degreein Education

 

 

/ ..
51"“ O

M or professor

 

 

Date {/7 /(7 0

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

q--__fi——_

 

 

K.

LIBRARY
menu” Cute
University

 

A _._d

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

M ll

 

 

 

l l

 

 

 

 

 

l
——l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[——

 

 

 

9

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
czmma-pn ;

THE EFFECT OF FACULTY UNIONS ON
FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE
AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

AS PERCEIVED BY FACULTY MEMBERS

BY

Marshall Giller

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1990

(‘5
"/2?

as
J

ago: '7

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF FACULTY UNIONS ON
FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE
AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
AS PERCEIVED BY FACULTY MEMBERS
BY

Marshall Giller

The last two decades have seen an increase in collective
bargaining for faculty members at four-year universities.
Aside from any effect this may have on the bread and butter
issues, salaries and working conditions, another question
arises: Do faculty unions affect the traditional
relationships and practices of the academic world? In this
study certain of these traditional practices in.specific terms
are described, and faculty perceptions of any change in these
specifics since the establishment of faculty collective
bargaining are examined.

The research was conducted at four-year institutions of
higher education in the State of Michigan which have
collective bargaining contracts for faculty. Questionnaires
were sent to a random sample of faculty at nine of the
institutions who had taught there both before and after the
establishment of the union to test two null hypothesis:

gg_;L: The faculty members perceive no change in this

item since the establishment of collective bargaining

through alfaculty union at their respective institutions.

Ho 2: There is no difference in faculty members'
perception of change in this item among the several

institutions surveyed.

Interviews were conducted with faculty at seven of the
institutions to discuss the questions that were included in
the questionnaire. The union contracts at the nine
institutions were also examined to see what provisions they
contained concerning academic freedom and faculty
participation in governance.

The conclusions are:

1. Most faculty do not perceive any effect bv the unions

on their freedom to perfopm typical teaching functions.

There is a general feeling that unions have had some

positive effect on academic freedom in general.

2. The faculty generally perceive an improvement in
faculty participation in governance since the
establishment of faculty unions.

3. There are differences in these perceptions among
different institutions.

4. There is a perception by faculty that supervision
has become more rigid and the social climate has begppg

more adversarial since the establishment of the union.

iii

Copyright 1990 by Marshall Giller

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer would like express his gratitude to a number
of people whose help was invaluable:

I am particularly indebted to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, the
chairman of the doctoral committee. In addition to his
personal assistance tO‘thiS writer, Dr. Nonnamaker was a major
force in bringing "the mountain to Mohammad" by promoting
courses in the doctoral program at Big Rapids and Grand
Rapids.

To the other members of the doctoral committee; Louis
Heckhuis, Max Raynes, and Stanley Stark, I wish to express my
appreciation for their help and encouragement.

Others who provided valuable information, suggestions,
and assistance were Dr. Wanda Smith, Dr. Marilyn Keigley, and
Dr; James Maas, all of the faculty at Ferris State University.
I wish to express my appreciation, also, to the faculty
members who responded to the questionnaires and interview
requests in the course of the research.

I also wish to acknolwedge the support and patience of
those closest to me: my wife and my car-pool companions.

And finally, I wish to dedicate this work to my parents,

who always wanted their son to be a doctor.

LIST OF TABLES.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

......OOOOOOOOOOViii

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............. ......... 1

Development of Faculty Unions.... .............. 1
The Problem....................................2
Governance................. ........ ............4
Development of Specific Items of Governance....5
Academic Freedom...............................6

Methodology............. ...... ... ....... ...
Hypotheses................. .............. ..
Importance of The Study....................
Limitations of The Study...................
Summary and Organization of The Study. .....

...8
..10
..10
..11
..12

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE... ....... . ........... 14

Overview..............................
Development of Unions.................
Unions and Faculty Participation in
Governance.......................
Social Climate and Academic Freedom
Issues...........................

METHODOLOGYOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 00...... .......

Research Procedures...................
Identification and Selection of The
Sample...........................
Questionnaire Design....... ........ ...
Academic Freedom Questions............
Governance Questions..................
other Responses.......................
Personal Interviews with Faculty......
Study of Union Contracts..............
Statistical Testing of Results........
Summary........................ ...... .

FINDINGSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ......

The Questionnaires....................
Questionnaire Comments on Academic

..14
..15

..16

..20

..24

.024

..25
..28
..30
..31
..31
..32
..33
..34
..36

..38

..38

FreedomOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000000000051

Interview Responses to Academic Freedom

Questions....... ..... .. ..... ........54

vi

Contract Provisions Concerning Academic
Freedom.............................57
Questionnaire Results, Governance
Questions...........................57
Comments on Governance Questions.........67
Interview Responses on Governance........68
Contract Provisions Concerning
Governance..........................69
Other Comments by Interviewees...........70
Summary..................................72

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................75

Background...............................75
Methodology..............................75
Results in The Area of Academic Freedom..77
Results in The Area of Governance........79
Other Comments by Faculty Members........81
Summary of the Results...................81
Conclusions..............................81
Reflections..............................84
Suggestions for Further Research.........88

APPENDICES
A. Questionnaire.................................9O
B. Consent Forms.................................93

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......0.0.0000000095

vii

10.

11.

12.

13.

Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses
Responses

Responses

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

LIST OF TABLES

Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question

Question

viii

#3. ..... ..... .....
#4.... ......... ...
#5...... .....
#6....... .........
#7.. ..............
#8.......... ..... .
#15... ..... . ......
#9....... ........ .
#10. ..........
#11. ..............
#12. ........... ...
#13... ............
#14....... ........

PAGE

.41

.43

.44

.46

.47

.49

.51

.58

.60

.61

.63

.65

.66

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The last two decades have introduced an idea from the
world of industry into the academic world: collective
bargaining for faculty'members. Aside from any effect this may
have on the bread and butter issues, salaries and working
conditions, another question arises. Do faculty unions affect
the traditional relationships and practices of the academic
world? In this study certain of these traditional practices
in specific terms are described, and faculty perceptions of
any change in these specifics since the establishment of

faculty collective bargaining are examined.

Development of Faculty Unions

Unionization of faculty members in four-year institutions
is a relatively recent development. Central Michigan
University was the first in Michigan to have a faculty union
in 1972. Since then, nine of the four-year state universities
in Michigan have collective bargaining.1 .kmong the four-year
state universities without faculty unions are two of the "big
three", Michigan and Michigan State. In addition, there is
collective bargaining for faculty at Adrian College and The

University of Detroit which are private institutions.

 

1 This information was provided by the state headquarters of
the MBA and the AAUP.

2

The two unions in Michigan which bargain collectively for
university faculty members are the Michigan Education
Association (MEA), affiliated with the National Education
Association, and the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP). Both of these organizations started out
as professional associations and took on the function of
collective bargaining in recent years. The NEA, along with
the American Federation of Teachers, previously was active in
organizing faculty unions, first at the K-12 level, and then
in junior colleges.

The growth of faculty unions nationwide has paralleled
that in Michigan. In the AAUP, by 1984, 60% of the members
belonged to chapters which were collective bargainingunits.2

Jones, in a 1986 article, estimates that "soon one out
of three higher education faculty members will belong to a
union." At the time of that article faculty union membership

had reached 120,000.3

The Problem
In view of this growth in faculty unions, this question
takes on some importance: Are faculty unions affecting the

traditional environment of the academic world? A number of

 

2 Watkins, Beverly T., "AAUP's New General Secretary Takes

Stock of Organization's Strengths and Weaknesses",

Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 17, 1984
3 Jones, Lewis L., "The Impact of Faculty Unions on Higher
Education: A Reconsideration", Public Personnel Management,
Summer 1986, p. 182

3
writings, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter II,
address this question. Several writers suggest that
collective bargaining by faculty at universities is not in
accordance with the traditional atmosphere of Academia.
Concerns about the effect of unions on the social climate are

5 These and

expressed by Schaefer‘ and Birnbaum and Inman.
other writings which will be cited below suggest that two of
the principle traditional elements of academic life which may
be affected are faculty' participation. in Igovernance and
academic freedom.

Therefore, the problem that was investigated by this
study was the effect of faculty unions on the areas of
governance and academic freedom at selected institutions of
higher learning as perceived by faculty members who were at
these institutions both before and after the establishment of
a faculty union. Although there are a number of writings,
described in more detail in chapter II, on the question of
whether are not unions cause detrimental effects in these
traditional academic areas, this researcher has not found any
study that surveyed the opinions of faculty members who have

had the experience of working at the same institution both

before and after the establishment of a union.

 

4 Schaefer, Susan Davidson, "The Senate and the Union in the

California State University System",Academe Nov-Dec 1987
5 Birnbaum, Robert, and Inman, Deborah, "The Relationship of

. Academic Bargaining to Changes in Campus
Climate", Journal of Higher Education Sept-Oct 1984

4
The study has been divided into two areas, governance
and academic freedom. This division is based on writings
which indicate that these are two of the principle traditions

of institutions of higher education.

Governance

"Collegiality" or faculty participation in many of the
decisions in the governance of institutions of higher learning
is described by several writers as an academic tradition,
including Zirkel,6 and Yellowitz.7

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the tradition
of faculty participation in governance. In the Yeshiva
decision, the court held that the faculty. at Yeshiva
University had absolute authority in academic matters,
deciding the courses to be taught, the teaching methods, and
the standards for admission. In addition, the Court found
that faculty exercised other supervisory and managerial
functions, since most faculty recommendations on hiring,
granting sabbatical leaves, and approving tenure were carried

out. 8

 

6 Zirkel, Perry A., "Faculty Bargaining and Campus Governance:
Rhetoric vs. Research", American Association of University
Administrators, Washington, D.C., 1986

7 Yellowitz, Irwin, "Academic Governance and Collective
Bargaining in the City University of New York," Academe, Nov-
DeC 1987

8 National Labor Relations Board vs. Yeshiva University, 444
U.S. 671, 1980

5
This decision curbed the right of faculty members at
Yeshiva University to organize a faculty union. Faculty were
considered to be a part of management because of their
extensive participation in governance. This decision had
implications for many other universities, because the
practices at Yeshiva were typical of faculty participation in

governance, as described by Daponte among others.9

(Faculty
at state universities in Michigan are not affected by this
ruling, despite the fact that they participate in governance,
since the state statutes in Michigan give state employees the
right to form unions.)10

Sommers describes governance as being involved with

"hiring, firing, promotion, and performance appraisals."11

Development of Specifig Items of Governance

One of the purposes of this research was to describe both
governance and academic freedom in terms of specific items
which affect the every-day work of faculty and then to survey
the faculty members' perceptions of changes in these specific
items which may have occurred as a result of the union. It

was believed that responses to specific items would be more

 

9 Daponte, Kenneth J. "Practical Implications of the Yeshiva

Decision", CUPA Journal, Jan. 1981
10 Dr. Keith Goldhammer in the course "The Law and Higher
Education", taught at Michigan State University, Spring 1983
11 Sommers, Alexis N., "Collective Bargaining: Issues and

Complexities of the Campus Environment", CUPA Journal, Smmer
1978

6

meaningful than responses to a general question on changes in
governance. Based on the sources mentioned above, the
following is a list of items which are believed by~this
researcher to be typical of faculty participation in
governanCe. They include faculty participation in decision
making in the following areas:

1. Hiring new faculty.

2. Approving promotion of faculty.

3. Granting tenure to faculty.

4. Approving requests for sabbatical leave.

5. Determining class sizes.

6. Determining faculty work load.

These items were used as the basis in development of a

questionnaire and as a guide for the faculty interviews.

Academic Freedom

The other area of academic tradition which was
investigated was academic freedom. Academic freedom has been
defined by the AAUP as the right to teach any ideas related
to a course without interference for political or other
reasons. This definition has been adopted and incorporated
in the faculty handbooks of Michigan State University and
Ferris State University. The definition is also incorporated
into some of the union contracts.

Since the definition speaks of "teaching", a list of

activities 'which comprise teaching' at college level was

7
compiled. A major source for these activities was a textbook
on teaching by Eble.12 This text covers activities that
include selection of textbooks, preparation of exams, and
grading students. It was also pointed out by Dr. Eldon
Nonnamaker in a course called "The American College Student"
at Michigan State University in the fall of 1982 that faculty
members make:a great number of decisions for themselves in the
matter of curriculum, grades, kinds of tests, and course
subject matter.

Based on these sources, the following is a list of items
which this researcher believes to be typical activities in the
course of teaching in which faculty have freedom of action.
They include the freedom to:

1. Teach any ideas related to the course without

interference due to political or other reasons.

2. Choose textbooks.

3. Determine course subject matter.

4. Determine the kinds of exams.

5. Determine grades

6. Determine curriculum requirements.

As in the case of the specific items in the area of
governance, it was believed that responses to questions about

changes in these specific areas would be more meaningful than

 

12 Eble, Kenneth E., The Craft of Teaching, San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, 1976

8
responses to a general question about changes in academic
freedom, therefore these items were also used both in the
development of the questionnaire and in the subsequent
interview guide.

In view of the freedom of action faculty members have
enjoyed in many areas of teaching, as documented above, the
question of whether the faculty perceive a change in the
strictness of supervision by the university administration
since the establishment of a union was also investigated.
Therefore, a question asking whether faculty perceive a change
in the strictness of supervision since the union was also
incorporated into the questionnaire and into the interview
guide. Furthermore, since the question of the effect of
unions on the social climate has been discussed by Schaefer
and Birnbaum and Inman (as mentioned above), among others, it
was felt that the question of whether faculty perceive any
change:in the social climate should be considered. For this
reason, a fourth choice was given in the question concerning
strictness of supervision: "Other' changes in the social
climate."

Methodology

Nine institutions of higher education in the state of
Michigan which have faculty unions have been included in the
study. The intention was to limit the study to four-year
universities and colleges in which the traditions of academic

freedom and faculty participation in governance would be

9
expected to prevail. Therefore, two schools with a recent
history as proprietary institutions were omitted, as will be
explained in Chapter III.

The study was confined to Michigan institutions due to
limitations of time and resources. There are eleven
institutions in Michigan which meet the criteria described
above. A request for the list of names of faculty who had
been at each institution both before and after the
establishment of the union was sent to the union secretaries
at each of them. In two cases, The University of Detroit and
Lake Superior State College, the union secretaries refused to
cooperate, therefore these two were not included.in the study.

The methodology consisted of:

1. Sending questionnaires to a random sample of faculty

who met the criteria described above at each of the

institutions. The questionnaires, which will be
described in more detail in Chapter III, asked if this
faculty perceived changes in any of the areas of

governance and academic freedom described above.

2. Conducting interviews with a different sample of
qualifying faculty at several of the institutions,
discussing the same questions that were on the
questionnaire and discussing other matters, as will be

described in Chapter III.

10
3. Examining the union contracts at each of the
institutions to determine to what extent these ares of

governance and academic freedom are included in them.

Hypotheses
The results of the questionnaires were used to test two
hypotheses for each of eleven questions. Stated in their null

form, the hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1. (Ho 1): The faculty members perceive no
change in this item.since the establishment of collective
bargaining through a faculty union at their respective
institutions.

Hypothesis 2 (Ho 2): There is no difference in faculty

members' perception of change in this item among the

several institutions surveyed.

The responses were examined at the 5% level of
significance using t-tests to test Hypothesis 1 and the non-
parametric Tukey-HSD test to test Hypothesis 2 to determine
which pairs of institutions indicated significantly different
perceptions among faculty at the 5% level.

Importance of the Study

If faculty unions are detrimental to long standing
academic traditions, then faculty should weigh this fact
against possible material gains that they may expect from
collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, academic
traditions are not seriously affected by unionization, then

there should be less objection to unions. As will be

documented in Chapter II, there have been a number of opinions

11
expressed on this subject. Some of the writings reflect the
personal feelings of varioqupeople in the academic world who,
in some cases, have not personally experienced faculty unions.
It is hoped that this study will determine the effect of
unions on certain academic traditions by surveying the people
who should know: faculty who have had the experience of
teaching, both before and after the establishment of a faculty

union.

Limitatiops of the Studv

1. An effort was made, as will be described in Chapter
III, to make sure that questionnaires were sent to an unbiased
random sample at each institution and that interviews were
conducted with an unbiased random sample. .About half of those
who were sent questionnaires responded and about one fourth
of those who were sent interview requests agreed to be
interviewed. It is possible that there is some bias involving
the type of person who responds to such requests. It should
be noted, however, that this researcher found the respondents
to be a representative sample of different schools or
departments of their respective institutions, andalso that
there were both pro-union and anti-union sentiments expressed
by respondents to the questionnaire and by interviewees.

2. The sample selected for questionnaires was a
stratified sample, among different institutions. The total

number of replies was 165 from all nine universities. In the

12

case of some of the smaller institutions, however, the number
of responses from the individual college was small. The
number of questionnaires sent out, which was over 350, was
limited by the time and resources of the researcher.

3. The study was confined to institutions of higher
education in Michigan. If Michigan has a social climate or
tradition that is not typical of other areas, than this is a

limitation of the study.

Summary and Organization of the Study

With the growth of faculty unions in the nation's
universities in recent years, there has been a body of opinion
that unions are detrimental to academic traditions. In this
study an attempt.is made toldescribe these academic traditions
in terms of a number of specific items. A sample of faculty
who have experienced teaching before and after unionization
at their respective campuses was surveyed to see if they
perceived changes since unionization--and if so in which
direction-~in these specific items of faculty participation
in governance and academic freedom. The study was conducted
in higher education institutions in the State of Michigan.

The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I
includes the introduction, background, importance, and
limitations of the study and a brief description of the
methodology and hypotheses to be tested. Chapter II is a

review of writings on the effect of unions on various academic

13
traditions. In Chapter III the methodology is described which
includes the population that was surveyed, the instruments
used, and the methods of statistical testing of the results.
In Chapter IV are the findings from the questionnaires, the
results of the interviews, the findings from the examination
of union contracts at the various institutions, and the
results of the statistical tests of the questionnaire results.
Chapter V contains the conclusions, reflections, and

recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ove iew

In 'view' of ‘the relatively recent extension. of
faculty unions to four-year institutions of higher education,
as described in Chapter I, the emphasis in this study has been
on the most recent literature. Comments about purely "bread
and.butter" effects of unions, such.as wage levels and.working
hours are not included in this study, which is concerned with
the effect of faculty unions on academic freedom and faculty
participation in governance.

The literature points out that the development of unions
has been from the lower level to upper levels of educational
institutions. The motives for forming unions according to
various writings have been insecurity on the part of faculty
members and dissatisfaction with the degree of faculty
participation in governance. The conflict between faculty
unions and the traditional role of academic senates in
governance is dealt with in several writings, which indicate
that frequently there has been an accommodation between the
two. There are a number of writings expressing the opinion
that unions conflict with the traditions of the academic
world, such as collegiality, and introduce an atmosphere of
rigidity and an adversarial relationship between faculty and

administration. Other writings suggest that unions have

14

15

strengthened academic freedom and traditional forms of
academic governance. Specifically, the AAUP committee for

investigating academic freedom violations is cited.

Development of Unions

The general direction of the growth of unions in the
teaching profession has been from lower level to upper level.
Schools (K-12) were organized first, then two-year colleges,
and finally four-year institutions. There is also a
progression from the less prestigious institutions upward.
In Michigan, two of the three most prestigious state
universities are not union: Michigan and Michigan State. In
addition, this researcher was informed in interviewing
faculty, that union membership at the third of the "big
three", Wayne State, comprises less than half of the faculty
there.

A similar situation prevails in other states. In writing
about the State University system of New York, Drotning and
Whalen state:13

The advantaged units of SUNY are the weakest
supporters of the collective bargaining agent...The
relatively low rate of union labor membership at, for
example, the university centers, may be partly due to
labor market factors. The faculty at the more advantaged
units may be harder to replace than faculty at less

advantaged campuses.

This suggests that one reason for increased union

 

13 Drotning, John E., and Whalen, Garry M., "Grievance

Administration.in.SUNY", The.Journal of Higher Education, May-
June 1978, p. 271

16
activity at the lower level of higher education institutions
is a greater feeling of insecurity on the part of their
faculty. This idea is also expressed in a dissertation at
Michigan State University in 1979 on the subject of why

14 The writer, William Owens,

faculty members choose unions.
is an organizer with the MEA. He covered in detail the
successful campaign to organize Ferris State College and the
unsuccessful campaigns at Michigan State University. Among
other differences between the two institutions, he points out
the fact that most MSU faculty have doctoral degrees and most
Ferris faculty do not and this gives the MSU faculty a greater

feeling of job security.

Unions and Faculty Participation in Governance

Zirkel suggests that research. has indicated that a
principle cause:of successful unionization.of faculty'has been
a lack of perceived faculty influence in decision making. He
suggests that there is a saturated body of rhetorical writing,
and a neglected body of research on the interrelationship
between faculty bargaining and campus governance. His
5

conclusions from this body of writing are:

1. Qualified support for the notion that lack of faculty

 

1" Owen, William Robt., "Why Professors Choose Collective

Bargaining: The Michigan Experience" , Unpublished dissertation
at Michigan State University, 1978

w Zirkel, Perry A., "Faculty Bargaining and.Campus Governance:
Rhetor1c vs. Research", American Association of university
Administrators, Washington D.C. 1986, p. 11

17

input is a cause of unions, but there are also other
factors.

2. There is no significant increase in faculty influence
due to collective bargaining, particularly at mature
institutions.
3. There is no "death knell" for academic senates at
union campuses. Instead, there is often cooptation,
accommodation, and coexistence.
4. The gains in decision making input by faculty are
usually matched by greater centralization of decision
making at the executive level at the expense of deans and
department heads.
The four main issues in collective bargaining at the
university level were described by Sommers, as follows:16
1. Preserving and strengthening tenure.
2. Maintaining compensation to match economic inflation.

3. Controlling the financial and manpower components of
academic productivity.

4. Partitioning institutional governance between faculty
and administration in the matter of hiring, firing,
promotion, and performance appraisals.

The second and third, compensation and productivity, are
also concerns of collective bargaining in industry, but the
first and fourth, tenure.and Sharing governance decisions, are
characteristic of the academic world. Normally, industry has
no equivalent.to academic tenure and collegialityn .These four
issues are indeed dealt with in the collective bargaining
contracts of the nine institutions which.were examined by this

researcher.

 

‘“Sommers, Alexis N., "Collective Bargaining: Issues and
Complexities of the Campus Environment", CUPA Journal, Summer
1978, p.17

18

The possible conflict between union contracts and the
traditional role of academic senates in governance is dealt
with by Yellowitz In the case of City University of New York,
he points out that the union has insisted on protecting the
traditional academic governance at that institution since its
initial contract in 1973. The union has existed side by side
with an academic senate, and usually has cooperated with it

to oppose administration. efforts to change some of the

governance traditions. He states:17

Despite the myth that unionization destroys
collegiality, the fact is that academic unions respect
traditional governance where it has been well-established
and is functional. Although union leaders believe a
contractual relationship is a more effective tool for
faculty than the consultative procedures of traditional
academic governance, they respect the academic functions
and responsibilities of senate and other bodies.
However, in the absence of’ a :meaningful system of
academic governance, unions may seek to incorporate these
missing rights and responsibilities of faculty into the
contract in some form.

Relations among the faculty senate, the union, and the
board of trustees at institutions within the California State
University system are discussed in the same issue of Academe
by Schaefer. After describing the various conflicts and
m

struggles for power among the three groups, she writes:

Collective bargaining imposes a framework in which we

 

”i Yellowitz, Irwin, "Academic Governance and Collective

Bargaining in the City University of New York", Academe, Nov.-
Dec. 1987, p.11
'm Schaefer, Susan Davidson, "The Senate and the Union in the

California State University System", Academe, Nov.-Dec. 1987.
p. 15

19
must operate, so some solutions to a given problem are
not open to use even on the most collegial campuses...
Standardization reduces our idiosyncracies.
Larry E. Glenn writes about the situation at the Southern
“Connecticut State University between the faculty senate and
the AAUP as follows:19
...the presence of a collective bargaining agreement has
resulted in significant change in the role of the senate
in university governance. The most prominent change is
that the senate has become stronger. Before the
contract, the senate was essentially a faculty forum;
faculty could air their views and pass resolutions, but
whether the administration would respond to the senate
was uncertain. With the first contract, ratified in
1977, the AAUP ensured that the administration would be
responsive to the senate by requiring that "the president
shall acknowledge and respond to that recommendation in
writing within fifteen school days of receiving the

senate's recommendation." The president can say no to
the senate, but cannot ignore a senate action.

The gist of these three articles, published in Academe,
is that despite some conflicts between the union and existing
governance institutions such as a faculty senate, the union
contracts have generally solidified traditional forms of

academic governance and given them legal standing.

Social Climate and Academic Freedom Issues
Some writers feel that unionization necessarily conflicts
with collegiality. Gemmell states that the participation in
governance by a faculty cannot be carried out in the same way

by a faculty union because "There are three characteristics

 

W’Glenn, Larry E. "The Faculty Senate and the AAUP at Southern
Connecticut State University", Academe, Nov.-Dec. 1987, p. 16

20

of unionism which get in the way: conflict of interest;
exclusive representation; and binding arbitration."20 T h e
conflict of interest is between the desire of the union to
protect its membership with tenure and to promote
egalitarianism in wages and benefits and the desire of the
university to recruit new people and to reward the deserving

with merit raises. Exclusive representation means that the
union bargains for all faculty, including non-members. The
practice of binding arbitration means that the union must make
the strongest possible case for one side, rather than seek a

reasonable compromise in the spirit of collegiality.

Walther writes, "Regardless of a background of
collegiality, once collective bargaining comes on the scene,
clear and established lines of supervision are essential."21

An example of a conflict between the union and the
administration in the area of faculty development programs in
the Minnesota State University system in 1980 is described by
McMeen and Bowman. The Chancellor had obtained a faculty-

development grant and sought to implement it on his own. The

union attempted to treat this as a collective bargaining

 

aJGemmell, James, "ImprovinguAcademicIPersonnel Administration
Under Collective Bargaining", CUPA.Journa1, Summer 1978, p.11
21 Walther, Peter D. Esq., "The NLRB in Higher Education"
CUPA Journal, Summer 1978, p. 2

21
matter in which it would have a say.22
The conflict was resolved when the association
reportedly received assurances that it would have an
effective role in the grant's general advisory committee.

In summary, wherever collective bargaining is recognized

as a legal process, faculty development may well become

a negotiated item...Conceivably, such an event could

become a harbinger of positive faculty involvement in the

improvement of teaching.

In a dissertation by Carol Hopper in 1984, the opinions
of faculty members at Wayne State (union) and Michigan State
(non-union) were solicited. The results indicated that 76%
of Michigan State faculty believed that faculty unions were
inappropriate and detrimental to professionalism. At Wayne
State only 45% of the faculty were of this opinion.23

In the area of unions and academic freedom, the AAUP has
had a committee to investigate violations of academic freedom
and tenure since its inception in 1915. According to a news
release by the AAUP, they responded to 1222 cases of such
alleged violations in 1986, a 20 percent increase over the

previous year.24

Heller points out that these activities by
the AAUP have been drawing increasing opposition from

colleges. He points out that the AAUP has no power over

 

22 Mcmeen, George R. and Bowman, Richard F. Jr., "Faculty

Development and Collective Bargaining", Improving College and
University Teaching, Winter 1984, p. 15

23 Hopper, Carol Nuremberger, "An Exploratory Study of the

Perceptions of Professors as Professionals at a Unionized and
a Non-Union State University", unpublished dissertation at
Michigan State University, 1984

F "Number of Academic Freedom Cases Increased by 20 Percent
1n 1986", News release by the AAUP, Washington, 1986

22

offending institutions except to place them on a censure list.
Some college administrators say that the AAUP is no longer a
professional organization, but just another union and claim
that they are not concerned at being on this censure list.
He also makes the point that collective bargaining and the
protection of the courts make this activity by the AAUP less
necessary today than it was in 1915, when as he quotes one of
the committee members, "it was ghastly out there."25

Jones summarizes research and common views, pro and con,

26’ancfil Birnbaum and Inman summarize research

of faculty unions,
on, and opinions of the effect of unions on campus climate and
report on their own study of this effect.y' The belief that
faculty unions are inappropriate to the teaching profession,
destroy the feeling of collegiality, and create an adversarial
relationship between faculty and administration shows up in
these reports. Birnbaum and Inman recognize the possibility
of changes in educational organizations due to the
introduction of collective bargaining but suggest that many

of these changes might have come about anyway, due to changing

conditions over the past decade: increased centralization,

 

a Heller, Scott, "AAUP's Probes of Academic Freedom.Cases Draw
Outspoken Complaints from Colleges", Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 17, 1987, p. 10

26Jones, Lewis L., "The Impact of Faculty Unions on Higher
Education: A Reconsideration", Public Personnel Management,
Summer 1986

27 Birnbaum, Robert and Inman, Deborah, "The Relationship of
Academic Bargaining to Changes in Campus Climate", Public

Personnel Management, Sept-Oct 1984

23
enrollment and budget declines, and federal and state
intrusion. Their study compares changes in campus climate
between 1970 and 1980 at two groups of institutions, one group
that are unionized and a non-union group. A sample of faculty
at each was polled on their perception of changes in eleven
areas, rating them on a scale of zero to twelve. The items
included academic freedom, democratic governance, and
institutional esprit, among others. The results generally
showed little or no statistically significant difference in
the perceptions of faculty at union and non-union colleges of
changes in these areas. Birnbaum and Inman suggest that much
of the opinion to the contrary may be due to the subjective
opinions of those interviewed.and.to the fact that some of the
commentary has come from administrators who are antagonistic
to union. They also make the suggestion that the apparent
lack of difference between conditions at union and non-union
campuses may be due to the changes in campus climate that had

taken place in anticipation of unionization.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of the research was to measure faculty
perceptions of changes after the establishment of faculty
collective bargaining in two areas: participation in
governance and academic freedom. Specific examples of faculty
participation in governance and specific examples of faculty
freedom to perform certain activities were developed, as
described in Chapter I. The question to be addressed in each
case was: "Since the establishment of a faculty union has
there been an increase or a decrease in each item, or has it
remained the same?" This chapter will describe the
identification and selection of the sample, the development
of the instruments used in the study, and the methods used to

evaluate the results in order to address this question.

Researc Procedures
Three procedures were employed in this research:

1. Circulating a questionnaire to a sample of
faculty members at institutions of higher education
who were at the institution both before and after
the establishment of collective bargaining.

2. Interviewing a sample of the same group at
several of the institutions.

3. Examining the collective bargaining contracts at
those institutions to determine to what extent
faculty participation in governance and academic
freedom are written into these contracts.

24

25

Identification and Selection of The Sample

In order to measure the faculty perceptions, as described
above, it was assumed that the opinions of faculty who have
experienced conditions both before and after the establishment
of a faculty union should be sought. Due to the limitation
of time and resources, only institutions in the state of
Michigan were included.

The institutions that.were studied are those colleges and
universities in Michigan which are traditional four-year
institutions of higher education and which have collective
bargaining agreements with faculty unions. The two unions
which have collective bargaining agreements at universities
and colleges in Michigan are the American Association of
University Professor (AAUP) and the Michigan Education
Association (MEA). The state headquarters of each of these
unions provided this researcher with a list of campuses in
Michigan where they are the collective bargaining agent for
the faculty; The ones selected for this research.were: Adrian
College, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Ferris State,
Northern Michigan, Oakland, Saginaw Valley, Wayne State, and
Western Michigan. Two other universities with faculty unions,
Lake Superior State and The University of Detroit were not
included because the union secretaries at these two
institutions declined to provide this researcher with the
necessary information described. belowu Two other ‘union

institutions which give bachelor degrees were not included:

26
The Kendall College of Design and the Detroit College of
Business, because both of these have recent backgrounds as
proprietary institutions.

The information requested from the secretary of each
local union was a list of the names of the faculty on that
campus who had been there both before and after the
establishment of the union. Due to limitations of time and
resources, it was not feasible to send questionnaires to the
entire list of eligible faculty members. A random sample of
approximately 40 to 45 names were selected from each campus,
this number being a compromise between the desire for a
meaningful sample and the time and expense involved in polling
a larger sample.

The following procedure was used: The names of the
eligible faculty were listed in alphabetical order. Then a
random number generating program (written in Basic Language)
was used to select the faculty for questionnaires. For
example, at Eastern Michigan University, there were 351
eligible faculty members. In order to select 40 of them for
questionnaires, the program was set to generate 40 random
numbers between 1 and 351. Questionnaires were then sent to
those numbered faculty on the alphabetical list. A similar
procedure is described in Glass and Stanley.‘28 At Adrian

College, where there were fewer than 40 eligible faculty, the

 

2.8 Glass, Gene V. , and Stanley, Julian C. , Statistical Methdods
1n Education and Psychology , New York, Prentice Hall, 1970

27
questionnaire was sent to the entire list. The response rate
for all of the questionnaires sent was approximately 50%.

Questionnaires were sent to Adrian College and Wayne
State and answers were received from them prior to sending out
the questionnaires to other institutions. Therefore, they
acted as a pilot, since the responses indicated that faculty
had no particular problems in understanding and filling out
the questionnaires.

Samples were selected for interviews at seven of the
campuses by a similar method. Approximately 25 requests for
interviews were sent to these seven institutions. The sample
selected for interview requests did not include any of the
names on the questionnaire list. At Adrian, there were not
enough eligible faculty to do this, due to the small size of
the institution.

The original intention was to conduct interviews at three
institutions, but this was expanded to seven due to the
insights provided by the initial interviews. The two
institutions. not included. in 'the interviews ‘were .Adrian
College and Northern Michigan. In the case of Adrian, the
number of faculty was small and in the case of Northern
Michigan, the distance was great and the number of faculty was
relatively small. Therefore, the limitations of time and
resources caused the omission of these two from the group of

campuses at which interviews were conducted.

28
Questionnaire Design

A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix I.
Because of the large number of faculty that were polled, the
questionnaire was kept fairly short and easy to answer, in
order to encourage a high rate response.

It. was the intention. in. this research. to describe
academic freedom and faculty participation in governance in
specific terms, rather than to ask vague general questions
about the respondents' perceptions of changes in "governance"
or "academic freedom" in general. Therefore, the questions
asked the respondents if they perceived changes in a number
of specific practices since the advent of the union.

In all cases, there are three possible choices for
answers to each question» They are: that the condition is the
"same", "more", or "less". In some cases there is an
additional choice, "other". The use of three choices was
justified in a study by Jacoby and Matell.”’Another argument
against using a scale with too many steps was made by Gale,
who states: "If respondents become annoyed or generally
confused by the large number of gradations used, they could
become careless and provide you with unreliable date."30

There are fifteen questions on the original

 

29'Jacoby, Jacob, and Matell, Michael 8., "Three Point Likert

Scales Are Good Enough", Journal of Marketing Research, Nov.
1971, pp. 495-500

30 Gale, Robert K., Instrument DevelOpment in The Effective

Domain, Boston, Kluwer-Highhoff, 1986, p. 41

29
questionnaire. The first two were disregarded in the

subsequent research for the following reasons:

1. Question #1 asked whether tenure was easier or harder
to get since the advent of the union. This was based on a
special situation at Ferris State College at the time the
research was begun. Under the union contract in effect at
Ferris at that time, tenure had been superseded by special
provisions of the contract which provided that a faculty
member could not be dismissed without cause after the third
year of employment. Under these conditions, tenure, for which
faculty became eligible after five years of employment, became
meaningless and was generally granted to everyone who had
survived the three years. In the course of conducting the
research, it became clear that this was a unique situation at
Ferris and not part of the academic traditions anywhere else.
Since then, the Ferris contract has been changed so that
tenure has resumed its earlier importance, since faculty who
fail to achieve tenure are now dismissed, as they are at most
other institutions.

2. Question #2 asked if merit pay was easier or harder
to get since the advent of the union. This, too, was based
on the practice at Ferris State College. It soon became
clear, in the course of conducting the research at other
campuses, that there was no uniformity in merit pay practices.

Therefore, it could not be considered part of established

30

academic practices or traditions.

Academic Freedom Questions
Question #3 asks if the ability of faculty to "teach any

ideas related to the course they wish without interference for
political or other reasons" has changed since the union
contract. This language comes from the AAUP definition of
academic freedom.31

Questions #4 through #8 deal with specific areas in the
practice of teaching as enumerated in Chapter I. Question #4
asks about any change in the freedom of faculty to choose
textbooks. Question #5 concerns the freedom to determine
course subject matter. Question #6 concerns the freedom of
faculty members to determine the kinds of exams. Question #7
concerns the freedom of faculty members to determine students'
grades. Question #8 concerns the freedom of faculty members
to determine curriculum requirements. Eble in his textbook
on teaching discusses all of these matters, implying that
faculty normally make these decisions.32

Question #15 concerning any change in the stringency of
supervision by the administration was added after a suggestion

by a faculty member of this researcher's committee. It is a

matter that also affects academic freedom” In.addition.to the

 

m AAUP'definition of academic freedom.as quoted in the Faculty
Handbook, Ferris State College, 1976, p.105

32 Eble, Kenneth E., The Craft of Teaching, San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, 1976

31
choices of "more", "the same", or "less", a fourth choice,
"other changes in the social climate", was added to this
question. This choice brought in a number of responses which

will be described in more detail in Chapter IV.

Governancegguestions

Questions #9 through #14 concern examples of faculty
participation. in lgovernance: as enumerated. in Chapter I.
Question #9 asks about any change in the influence of faculty
in the hiring new faculty since the union. Question #10
concerns faculty influence in approving promotions. Question
#11 concerns faculty participation in granting tenure.
Question #12 concerns faculty’ participation. in. approving
requests for sabbatical leave. Question #13 concerns faculty
influence in determining class sizes, and question #14
concerns faculty influence in determining the work load.

The fact that faculty traditionally participate in these
governance decisions is spelled out in the union contracts at
Ferris State and at the other institutions which were a part

of this study.

Other Responses
In addition to answering the questions on the
questionnaire, many of the faculty members wrote in comments
on some of the questions and general comments about the social

climate on their campus and their opinion of the union. The

32
comments were tabulated.and.reported, but.no statistical tests

were made on them.

Personal Interviews With Faculty
To supplement the questionnaires, personal interviews
were conducted with faculty members at seven of the
institutions, as described above. The purpose of conducting
personal interviews was primarily to verify the results of the
questionnaire by:

1. Determining if the results of the interviews were
approximately the same as the questionnaire results.

2. Determining if the faculty understood the questions
in the same way as this researcher did in.preparing them.

3. Determining whether other faculty agreed with this
researcher's conceptions of the academic traditions of
academic freedom and faculty participation in governance.

4. Eliciting other ideas about academic traditions and

unions that may not have been covered in the

questionnaire.

Interviews were conducted at the seven of the
institutions, as described above, with faculty members chosen
by the selection process previously described. The response
to requests for interviews was about 25%. .A total of 41
faculty agreed to be interviewed.

The interview questions were based on those in the
questionnaire. In addition, each interviewee was asked if he
or she agreed with the researcher's conception of academic

traditions as including academic freedom and faculty

participation in governance. Each interviewee was also asked

33
his or her perception of what caused the union to be voted in
originally. The interviewees were not asked their opinions
about the union, as such, but in many cases their attitudes,
pro or con, soon became clear during the course of the

interviews, along with other insights.

Studv of Union Contracts
The final procedure was a study of union contracts at the
subject institutions. Copies of the contracts were obtained
from.the union secretaries in.each case and they were examined
to see if they contained clauses in the following areas:
1. Academic freedom
2. Retention of existing practices
3. Establishing criteria for approval of:
(a.) Tenure
(b.) Promotion
(c.) Hiring
(d.) Sabbatical leave
4. Degree of faculty participation in the above.

5. Grievance procedures for faculty denied any of the
above.

34
Statistical Testing of The Results

Tabulation of the results and calculation of standard
deviations and means was done using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSSX) computer package on the main frame
computer at Ferris State University.

Tests of statistical significance 'were :made on. the
results of the questionnaires, but not on the interview
results due to the smaller number. There were 165 responses
to the questionnaires and 41 interviews.

The answers to the questions were given numerical values
from "one" to "three". The numerical value "one" was given
to the answer most favorable to unions, such as more freedom
in the various activities involved in teaching or ‘more
participation in the various aspects of governance. The value
of "two" was given to the answer indicating no change and
"three" to the choice which indicates that unions have had an
unfavorable effect.

In tabulating the answers, there were nine groups, each
group consisting of one of the institutions which ‘were
surveyed. For each of the 13 questions which were used, the
following null hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1. (Ho 1): The faculty members perceive

no change in this item since the establishment of

collective bargaining through a faculty union at

their respective institutions.

Hypothesis 2 (Ho 2); There is no difference in faculty

members' perception of change in this item among the
several institutions surveyed.

35
The following statistical tests are described by Glass
and Stanley33 and Conover.“
The two-tail "t" test with.a 5% level of significance was
used to test the first null hypothesis, that the faculty group
perceived no change. If this hypothesis were true for each
question, the mean results would.have a value of two. The "t"

statistic was calculated using the formula:

t = x -a
std.dev. of x/ sq.rt. of n

where x = the sample mean, a = 2, (the mean of the population
according to the null hypothesis), and n= the size of the
sample.

This value of t was compared to a table of "t" values
found in Glass and Stanley” for the appropriate number of
degrees of freedom at the 5% level of significance. If the
absolute value of t is lower than the value of t on the table,
it indicates that probability of getting these results if less
than .05 if the true mean is actually two. If so, we can
reject Null Hypothesis 1, that the mean is actually two. If
not, we cannot reject Null Hypothesis 1.

A "t" test was conducted on the answers from each

 

1” Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C., Statistical Methods
in Education and Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall, 1970

3‘ Conover, W.J., Nonparametric Statietige, New York, John
Wiley & Sons, 1980

35Glass, Gene V. and Stanley, Julian C., Statistical Methods

in Education.and Psychology , Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice
Hall, 1970

36
institution.

In order to test Hypothesis 2, that there is no
difference in the results among the different institutions,
a non-parametric approach was used because the various groups
did not all have the same standard deviation. The Tukey-HSD

36 This

test, which was employed, is described in Conover.
test uses a numerical ranking of the answers to test whether
the result from any group is different from the result from

any other group at a 5% level of significance. This test was

conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Summary

The research was conducted at four—year institutions of
higher education in the State of Michigan which have
collective bargaining contracts for faculty. Questionnaires
were sent to a random sample of faculty at nine of the
institutions who had taught there both before and after the
establishment of the union. The questionnaire was designed
to be specific and simple to answer. Numerical values of
"one", "two", and "three" were given to the answers.
Statistical tests were conducted on the answers to thirteen
of the questions, to test two null hypothesis: (1) The union
has had no effect, and (2) There is no difference in the

faculty perceptions among the nine different institutions.

 

36Conover, W.J. , Nonparametric Statistics, New York, John Wiley
& Sons, 1980

37
Interviews were conducted with a random sample of such
faculty at nine of the institutions to discuss the questions
that were included in the questionnaire. The union contracts
at the nine institutions were also examined to see what
provisions they contained concerning academic freedom and

faculty participation in governance.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The study was designed to measure the effect of faculty
unions in the areas of academic freedom and faculty
participation in governance, as perceived by faculty members
who have had the experience of teaching at their respective
institutions. both. before and. after' the establishment. of
faculty collective bargaining. The research consisted of
questionnaires sent to a random sample of such faculty at nine
institutions, interviews with faculty members at seven
institutions, and examination of union contracts at the nine

institutions.

The Questionnaires

Thirteen questions from the questionnaire were considered
in analyzing the data gathered in this study. Each of these
questions asked if the respondent perceived any change in a
specific area of academic freedom or faculty participation in
governance since the establishment of faculty collective
bargaining. There were three possible answers to check off
for each question: "no change", "more", or "less". "More"
indicated that, in this case, academic freedom or faculty
participation in governance was greater since the union.
"Less" indicated that it was less. A fourth choice, "other",
was included in the question on academic freedom. This was
because the question was more general, as compared to the

subsequent specific questions. 'Ehere was also a fourth choice

38

39
on the question concerning stringency of supervision, which
is discussed later in this chapter.

For the purpose of statistical analysis, the "more"
answers were given a numerical value of one, the "no change"
answers were given a numerical value of two, and the "less"
answers were given a numerical value of three.

There were 165 responses to the questionnaire from nine
colleges and universities. In two cases, the total number of
responses to a specific question added up to 166, in four
cases the total was 164, in one case, 160 and in one case 157.
This was due to the fact that a few respondents omitted some
questions or checked off more than one choice for the same
question. This difference in total number of responses was
relatively small, so the t test was conducted in each case

using the total number of responses to that question.

Quespioppeiye Resplpe, Acedemic Freedom Questigns

The responses to academic freedom questions are shown in
Tables 1 through 7. These are followed by the results of the
statistical tests described in chapter III.

The "t" test was used to test the null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (Ho.1): Faculty members perceive no

change in this item since the establishment of

collective bargaining through a faculty union at

their respective institutions.

The "t" test was conducted for each university.

The Tukey-HSD test, a non parametric test, was used to

40
test the null hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (Ho.2): There is no difference in

faculty members' perception of change in this item

among the several institutions surveyed.

This test uses a numerical ranking of the answers to test
whether the results from any group is different from the
results from any other group at a 5% level of significance.
If no group is significantly different from any other, then
Ho 2 cannot be rejected.

The first question used was Question #3:

Since the advent of the union contract:

(1.) There has been no change in the ability of faculty
to teach any ideas related to the course they wish without
interference for political of other reasons. (Value=2)

(2) This ability has been curtailed (Value=3)

(3) This ability has been enhanced (Value=1)

(4) Other (No numerical value assigned)

In the following table, the number of "more", "the same",
"less", and "other" answers are tabulated for each institution
and for the total sample. The numerical mean, based on the
numerical value given to each answer, is also given for each
institution and for the total sample. The table of
statistical results shows the "t" value of the results for
each institution and indicates whether the probability of
getting these results is greater of less than 5% if Ho 1 is
true and, based on this, whether or not Ho 1 can be rejected.

As indicated in the table, Ho 1, the null hypothesis of no

effect, can be rejected for Adrian, Central Michigan, Ferris,

41
and Western.MIchigan at the 5% level of significance. In each
of these, the indication ‘was that the faculty' perceive
increased academic freedom since the union.
The Tukey-HSD test results indicated that no two
institutions were significantly different at the 5% level.
Therefore, the null hypothesis of homogeneity among groups,

Ho 2, cannot be rejected.

TABLE 1. Responses to Question #3

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS OTHER TOTAL MEAN
Adrian 4 16 20 1.80
Central 9 14 23 1.61
Eastern 3 16 19 1.84
Ferris 4 15 2 19 1.78
Northern 1 9 10 1.90
Oakland 2 18 1 20 1.95
Saginaw 2 3 2 7 2.00
Wayne 2 14 2 2 18 2.00
Western 4 20 1 24 1.82
TOTAL 30 125 5 5 160 1.84
PERCENT 18.2 75.8 3.0 3.0 100
Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -2.182 < 5% Reject

Central -3.748 < 5% Reject

Eastern -1.860 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -2.406 < 5% Reject

Northern -1.001 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland -0.707 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Western -2.231 < 5% Reject

42

The next question was Question #4;
Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of faculty
members to choose textbooks is:
(1.) Greater (2.) The same (3.) Less

As indicated in the table, the "t" tests indicate that
the hypothesis of no effect, can be rejected at the 5% level
only at Wayne State. The indication at Wayne State was that
the faculty perceive some decrease in their freedom to choose
textbooks since the union contract. .At all the other
institutions, this hypothesis cannot be rejected, indicating
that most faculty at the other institutions do not perceive
any effect on their ability to choose textbooks since the
establishment of a faculty union.

The Tukey-HSD test indicated the following at the 5%
level:
Saginaw Valley significantly different from Ferris State
Saginaw Valley significantly different from Wayne State
Adrian significantly different from Wayne State
Eastern Michigan significantly different from Wayne State
Central Michigan significantly different from Wayne State

Therefore, the hypothesis of homogeneity among groups,

can be rejected.

43

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2. Responses to question #4:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 2 18 20 1.90

Central 1 22 23 1.96

Eastern 1 18 19 1.95

Ferris 19 2 21 2.10

Northern 10 10 2.00

Oakland 20 20 2.00

Saginaw 2 5 7 1.71

Wayne 15 4 19 2.21

Western 26 26 2.00

TOTAL 6 153 6 165 2.0

PERCENT 3.6 92.7 3.6 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -1.453 > 5% Cannot reject
Central -1.001 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.007 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris 1.450 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -1.546 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 2.185 < 5% Reject
Western 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject

The next question was Question #5:

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of faculty
members to determine the course subject matter is:

(1.) Greater (2.) The same (3.) Less

The results of the "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis
of no effect, can be rejected for Wayne State, but for none
of the others. As with the previous question, the indication
is that the faculty at Wayne State perceive less freedom to

determine course subject matter since the union contract,

while the faculty

change.

The Tukey-HSD

level:

Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw

Saginaw

Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley

Valley

significantly different
significantly different
significantly different
significantly different

significantly different

44

at the other institutions perceive no

test indicated the following at the 5%

from Eastern Michigan
from Central Michigan
from Oakland

from Wayne State

from Ferris

Adrian significantly different from Wayne State

Therefore,

the hypothesis of homogeneity among groups,

can be rejected.

TABLE 3. Responses to Question #5

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 2 18 20 1.90
Central 1 22 23 1.96
Eastern 1 18 19 1.95
Ferris 19 2 21 2.10
Northern 1 9 10 1.90
Oakland 20 20 2.00
Saginaw 3 4 7 1.57
Wayne 16 4 20 2.20
Western 26 26 2.00
TOTAL 8 152 6 166 2.0

PERCENT 4.8 91.6 3.6 100

45
(Table 3, Cont.)

Statistical Results

 

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -1.453 > 5% Cannot reject
Central -1.001 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -0.999 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris 1.450 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern -1.000 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -2.122 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 2.124 < 5% Reject
Western 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject

The next question considered was Question #6:

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom.of faculty
members to determine the kinds of exams is:

(1.) Greater (2.) The same (3.) Less

The results of the "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis
of no effect cannot be rejected for any of the institutions,
therefore faculty are generally unaware of any difference in
their freedom to determine the kinds of exams since the union
contract.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates that no two institutions
show results that are significantly different from each other
at the 5% level. Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity

cannot be rejected.

46

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4. Responses to question #6:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 2 18 20 1.90
Central 1 22 23 1.96
Eastern 1 18 19 1.95

Ferris 21 21 2.00
Northern 10 10 2.00
Oakland 20 20 2.00
Saginaw 2 4 1 7 1.86

Wayne 19 1 20 2.05
Western 24 2 26 2.08

TOTAL 6 156 4 166 2.0

PERCENT 3.6 94.0 2.4 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -1.453 > 5% Cannot reject
Central -l.001 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -O.999 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -0.548 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 0.975 > 5% Cannot reject
Western 1.415 > 5% Cannot reject

The next question considered was Question #7:

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of faculty
members to determine students' grades is:

(1.) Greater (2.) The same (3.) Less

The results of the "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis
of no effect can only be rejected in the case of Eastern
Michigan, where the indication ‘was that faculty' members

perceive some decrease in their freedom to determine students'

47
grades since the union contract. At the other institutions,
faculty perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:

Saginaw Valley significantly different from Eastern Michigan

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity, can be rejected.

Table 5. Responses to question #7:

 

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 2 18 20 1.90
Central 22 1 23 2.04
Eastern 17 2 19 2.11

Ferris 1 20 21 1.95
Northern 10 10 2.00
Oakland 20 20 2.00
Saginaw 2 5 7 1.71

Wayne 2 16 2 20 2.00
Western 26 26 2.00

TOTAL 7 154 5 166 2.0

PERCENT 4.2 92.8 3.0 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -1.453 > 5% Cannot reject
Central 1.001 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern 2.132 < 5% Reject

Ferris -1.000 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -1.549 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Western 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject

48
The next question considered was Question #8:

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of faculty
members to determine curriculum requirements is:

(1.) Greater (2.) The same (3.) Less

The results of the "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis
of no effect, can be rejected only in the case of
Wayne State and Adrian. At Wayne State, the indication was
that the faculty perceive less freedom in determining
curriculum requirements, and at Adrian the faculty indicate
more freedom in this area since the union contract. At all
the other institutions, the indication was that the faculty
perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:
Adrian significantly different from Ferris
Adrian significantly different from Wayne State

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity, can be rejected.

49

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Responses to question #8:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 9 11 20 1.55
Central 4 14 4 22 2.00
Eastern 4 14 1 19 1.84

Ferris 1 l6 4 21 2.14
Northern 2 8 10 1.80
Oakland 1 18 1 20 2.00
Saginaw 4 1 2 7 1.71

Wayne 14 6 20 2.30
Western 2 22 1 25 1.96

TOTAL 27 118 19 164 1.95
PERCENT 16.5 72.0 11.2 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -3.943 < 5% Reject
Central 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.372 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris 1.370 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern -1.500 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -0.795 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 2.781 < 5% Reject
Western -0.569 > 5% Cannot reject

The last question in the area of academic freedom was

Question 15:

Since the advent of the union contract, supervision of working

hours and activities by administration has been:

(1.)

More stringent

(2.) The same

(3.) Less stringent

(4.) Other changes in the social climate:

The question on changes in the strictness of supervision

by the administration had a fourth,

check:

open-ended choice to

"Other changes in the social climate", which elicited

50
a great number of comments, both on the questionnaires and in
the interviews.

In tabulating the results of this question, "less
stringent" is given a value of 1 and "more stringent" is given
a value of 3.

The "t" test results indicate that the hypothesis of
no effect, can.be rejected in the case of Wayne State, Western
Michigan, and Eastern Michigan. In each of these three cases,
the indication is that faculty’ members perceive. a :more
stringent supervision of working hours and activities by the
administration since the union contract” In, the other
institutions, Ho 1 cannot be rejected, indicating that faculty
do not perceive a change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:

Adrian significantly different from Eastern

Northern Michigan significantly different from Wayne State
Central Michigan significantly different from Eastern Michigan
Central MIchigan significantly different from Wayne State
Ferris significantly different from Wayne State

Oakland significantly different from Wayne State

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can be rejected.

51

Table 7 Responses to question #15:

 

 

 

COLLEGE LESS SAME MORE TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 4 13 2 19 1.89
Central 6 10 5 21 1.95
Eastern 1 7 11 19 2.53
Ferris 3 13 5 21 2.10
Northern 1 9 10 1.90
Oakland 16 3 19 2.16
Saginaw 1 2 2 5 2.20
Wayne 3 14 17 2.82
Western 18 8 26 2.31
TOTAL 16 91 50 157 2.22
PERCENT 10.2 58.0 31.8 100

Statistical Results

 

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1
Adrian -0.830 > 5% Cannot reject
Central -0.308 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern 3.750 < 5% Reject
Ferris 0.697 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern -1.000 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland 1.932 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw 0.632 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 9.134 < 5% Reject
Western 3.269 < 5% Reject

Qpeetionnaire Commente on Academic Freedom

Of the total number of respondents who included comments,
22 could be identified by this researcher as pro-union and 14
as anti-union. In the specific area of traditional academic
freedom, ten gave reasons why unions enhance this, such as
"codifying it in the contract", and eleven made specific
negative comments about unions and this tradition. Seven
specifically stated that unions had no effect on academic

traditions and practices.

52
The following is a selection of comments from the various
institutions involved in the survey.
From Adrian College (concerning freedom to choose textbooks):

...(More freedom) because there is less concern
about the repercussion regarding a controversial
title.

From Central Michigan:

Faculty union managed to preserve academic
traditions which otherwise would have eroded with
economic and staffing losses in the last decade.
Departmental autonomy and academic freedom remain
strong' at. my institution, but. the support for
quality education no longer exists among
administrators.

From Eastern Michigan:

In my opinion, it (academic freedom) has declined

--things are more rigid now than before the union.
But if there were no unionLI am sure I'd be teaching
an.even bigger load.than four classes, earn less pay
and might not be teaching at all.

From Ferris State:

The union does not seem to affect academic tradition
in the classroom or relation of teacher-pupil. It
seems that the union makes teachers more involved
in things other than their own teaching.

From Oakland:

The effects on "academic traditions" were minimal.
If anything, our contract preserves traditional
practices and protects them from administrative
interference.

Our faculty voted for AAUP as a bargaining agent
precisely' in order’ to :make sure that academic
traditions would be protected, and they have been.
Our experience shows, I think, that faculty can form
a union without losing any of these traditions.

The "academic tradition" you refer to is, in my
opinion, after more than 30 years of teaching at

53

five schools, one which respects faculty rights
until there is a crisis, at which point, whether
the pressures are economic, political, or social,
administrators run like rabbits.

From Northern Michigan:

It's clear to me now, after 17 years at this
institution, that the administration cares not one
whit about the faculty or student. They are
isolated and can see only the bottom line. They
know nothing of the concept of intellectual inquiry
and academic excellence.

My opinion of how collective bargaining would affect
academic traditions was that it could reinforce them
if we chose to use it that way. That was the case
here at NMU. I believe our ten years of experience
has validated this claim.

The contract has produced a legal document which
refers to much of what you asked about. Previously
we only had the AAUP Redbook and the good word of
the administration. In my opinion, the union has
made life better and the academic climate much
better here at NMU.

Among the many comments on the fourth choice in Question
15, "other changes in the social climate" in the
questionnaires that were returned, both pro and anti union
sentiments were expressed. There were quite a number of
comments stating that the atmosphere was more adversarial
since the union: more of a "them and us" attitude. The
following are examples:

In general, there is an adversarial relationship

between administration and faculty...This has been

supported by several studies. Frankly, while unions

have their faults, I know that the administration

would try to walk all over us without one.

The principle effect of unionization is the

institutionalization of faculty-administration
hostility. Secondary effects are the improvement

54
of fringe benefits and the protection of mediocrity.

Morale of the faculty is lower and there is far less
cooperation between faculty and administration.

Ipterview Responses to Academic Freedom Questions

A total of 41 faculty members at seven institutions were
asked the same questions in personal interviews as those on
the questionnaire. In the area of academic freedom, 26 of the
41 stated that it was unchanged and 14 said that it was
enhanced, either wholly or partly. Only two interviewees
believed that it was reduced. In the responses to the
questionnaires, a preponderance (51 out.of 63) of the"t" tests
on academic freedom questions indicated no change and the
others were approximately evenly split between "more" and
"less" academic freedom since the union. Fourteen of the 41
interviewees stated that the existence of the union or the
union contract actually protects academic freedom by giving
more security to the faculty. It provides more protection
against arbitrary acts by the administration, as suggested in
the following comments made by interviewees:

A grievance procedure against administration
pressure to change grades is now formalized.

The former administrative practice of calling in

professors to point out that their grade levels are
different from the average has been discontinued.

The union is a resource available to protect academic
freedom, should it become necessary.

The union backs up the faculty in the case of

55

abuses.

The ability to teach ideas without interference has
been enhanced, as the university can no longer take
arbitrary actions in the areas of pay or
promotion...There has been an instance where the
union defended a faculty member against an attempt
by the administration to change a grade.

Due process has been spelled out in the contract,

making faculty members more secure and free to
express ideas.

On the other hand, the following negative comment was made:

Curbs of academic freedom since the union have been

due to the union leadership imposing their opinions

on faculty.

The interviews elicited detailed answers to the last part
of the question on supervision: "Other changes in the social
climate". Sixteen interviewees expressed the opinion that
the social climate is more adversarial since the union, and
two stated that it is the same. Fourteen interviewees
suggested that the social climate had.already been.adversarial
before the establishment of a union. Four stated that the
faculty and administration had overcome their initial
adversarial feeling. Four stated that the social climate was
improved due to more protection for faculty and a greater
feeling of equality.

The following is a selection of comments made by
interviewees:

The social climate is more adversarial with less

social interaction between administration and
faculty.

56

The social climate is an armed camp, bifurcated
between union and non-union.

Everything is more structured and the old sense of
collegiality is gone. The union has caused an
atmosphere of confrontation. It has socially
divided the campus. Previously, the faculty and
administration were closer.

On the other hand, there were these comments, expressing
a different point of view:

Unhappiness existed before the union. The union
exacerbated the tensions at first, but conditions
have now settled down.

There is no change. The adversarial conditions
existed before and after the union.

The authoritarian attitude of the administration
existed before the union and still exists. Faculty
input is mostly pretense, with no real
participation.

The social climate has improved recently, as the
union people become more skilled in handling
relations with the administration. There is more
contact among faculty of different disciplines, due
to union activity.

The faculty is more cohesive since the union.
The faculty is more collegial now. There is more

of a feeling of equality between the faculty and
the administration.

The social climate is, on the one hand, more open.
The faculty can express any dissatisfaction freely.
It is also more adversarial. The group
identifications are more firmly cemented: "Support
the union or support the administration."

Contract Provieions Concerning Academic Freedom
Of the nine institutions included in this study, the

contracts at five of them specifically included a clause

L5 I

57
calling for "academic freedom". These are Adrian, Eastern
Michigan (where academic freedom is described as the purpose
of tenure), Ferris, Saginaw Valley, and Wayne State. The
specific items, such as freedom to choose textbooks, types of
exams, or grades are not mentioned. The AAUP definition of
academic freedom is used in each case. All contracts include
grievance procedures which, according to some of the
interviewees, have sometimes been used in cases of

administrative interference with some of these freedoms.

Questionnaire Results, Governance Questions
The next group of questions concern the effect of the
union on faculty participation in various governance
decisions. The first of these is Question #9:

Since the advent of the union contract, the influence of
faculty in the area of hiring new faculty is:

(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less

The "t" tests show that the hypothesis of no effect, can
be rejected for Adrian and Ferris. In both cases, the
indication is that faculty perceive more faculty influence in
making the decisions to hire new faculty. In the other
institutions, the indication is that there has been no effect
on this influence since the establishment of the union.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:
Wayne State significantly different from Adrian

Wayne State significantly different from Ferris

58

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity, can be rejected.

Table 8 Responses to question #9:

 

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 10 11 21 1.52

Central 7 13 3 23 1.83

Eastern 8 6 5 19 1.84

Ferris 10 10 1 21 1.57
Northern 4 5 1 10 1.70

Oakland 4 14 2 20 1.90

Saginaw 4 2 1 7 1.57

Wayne 3 9 8 20 2.25

Western 7 8 9 24 2.08

TOTAL 57 78 30 165 1.836
PERCENT 34.5 47.3 18.2 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t 95 percentile Ho 1

Adrian -4.161 < 5% Reject
Central -1.283 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -0.826 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -3.297 < 5% Reject
Northern -1.406 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland -0.829 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -1.446 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 1.521 > 5% Cannot reject
Western 0.482 > 5% Cannot reject

The next governance question considered was Question #10:
[Faculty influence] In approving promotion:

(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less

The results.of the "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis

59

of no change could be rejected in the cast of Ferris, Northern
Michigan, Oakland, and Saginaw Valley. In each of these
cases, the indication is that faculty members perceive a
greater faculty influence on approving promotion since the
union contract. In the other institutions, faculty members
perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicate the following at the 5%
level:
Wayne State significantly different from Adrian
Wayne State significantly different from Ferris

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can be rejected.

Table 9 Responses to question #10:

 

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 3 17 1 21 1.90
Central 5 14 4 23 1.96
Eastern 10 4 5 19 1.74

Ferris 15 4 2 21 1.38
Northern 8 2 10 1.20
Oakland 10 7 3 20 1.65
Saginaw 5 2 7 1.29

Wayne 3 8 8 19 2.26
Western 5 14 6 25 2.04

TOTAL 65 72 28 165 1.78
PERCENT 39.4 43.6 17.0 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -0.976 > 5% Cannot reject
Central -0.327 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.316 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -4.247 < 5% Reject
Northern -6.001 < 5% Reject
Oakland -2.152 < 5% Reject
Saginaw -3.873 < 5% Reject

Wayne 1.564 > 5% Cannot reject
Western -0.296 > 5% Cannot reject

The next governance question was Question 11:

[Faculty influence] In granting tenure:

(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less

The "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis of no effect
can be rejected in the case of Northern Michigan, Oakland,
Saginaw Valley, and Wayne State. At Wayne State, the faculty

perceive less influence inlgranting'tenure since the union and

61

at the other three institutions the faculty perceive more
influence. At the rest of the institutions, the faculty
perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD tests indicate the following at the 5%
level:
Northern Michigan significantly different from Western
Michigan
Northern Michigan significantly different from Central
Michigan
Northern Michigan significantly different from Adrian
Northern Michigan significantly different from Wayne State
Saginaw Valley significantly different from Wayne State
Oakland significantly different from Wayne State

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can be rejected.

Table 10 Responses to question #11:

 

 

 

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN
Adrian 1 14 4 19 2.16
Central 4 14 5 23 2.04
Eastern 9 5 4 18 1.72
Ferris 10 7 4 21 1.71
Northern 8 2 10 1.20
Oakland 12 5 3 20 1.55
Saginaw 5 2 7 1.29
Wayne 2 7 8 17 2.35
Western 5 14 6 25 2.04
TOTAL 56 70 34 160 1.86

PERCENT 35.0 43.8 21.3 100

62

(Table 10, cont.)
ta istica esults

 

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian 1.408 > 5% Cannot reject
Central 0.327 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.465 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -1.670 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern -6.001 < 5% Reject
Oakland -2.716 < 5% Reject
Saginaw -3.873 < 5% Reject

Wayne 2.192 < 5% Reject
Western 0.296 > 5% Cannot reject

The next governance question was Question #12:

[Faculty influence] In approving requests for sabbatical
leave:

(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less

The "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis of no effect
can be rejected for Adrian, Ferris, Northern Michigan, and
Saginaw Valley. In each of these cases, the indication is
that faculty perceive more influence:in.approving requests for
sabbatical leave since the union contract. In the other
cases, the faculty perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD tests indicates the following at the 5%
level:
Adrian significantly different from Western MIchigan
Adrian significantly different from Oakland
Adrian significantly different from Wayne State
Adrian significantly different from Central Michigan
Saginaw Valley significantly different from Wayne State

Saginaw Valley significantly different from Central Michigan

63
Northern Michigan significantly different from Wayne State
Northern Michigan significantly different from Central Ferris
Ferris significantly different from Oakland
Ferris significantly different from Wayne State
Ferris significantly different from Central Michigan

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can.be rejected.

 

 

 

 

Table 11 Responses to question #12:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN
Adrian 15 6 21 1.29
Central 2 13 8 23 2.26
Eastern 7 10 2 19 1.74
Ferris 13 6 2 21 1.48
Northern 7 3 10 1.30
Oakland 2 15 3 20 2.05
Saginaw 5 2 7 1.29

Wayne 2 11 5 18 2.17
Western 6 17 2 25 1.84

TOTAL 59 83 22 164 1.774
PERCENT 36.0 50.6 13.4 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -6.901 < 5% Reject
Central 2.021 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.756 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -3.529 < 5% Reject
Northern -4.583 < 5% Reject
Oakland 0.449 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -3.873 < 5% Reject

Wayne 1.175 > 5% Cannot reject
Western -1.445 > 5% Cannot reject

64

The next governance question was Question #13
[Faculty influence] In determining class sizes:
(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less

The "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis of no effect
can be rejected for Wayne State and Western.Michigan. In both
of these cases, the indication is that faculty perceive less
influence inmdetermining class sizes since the union.contract.
In all the other institutions, the faculty perception is no
change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:
Western Michigan significantly different from Wayne State
Western Michigan significantly different from Eastern
Western Michigan significantly different from Adrian
Western Michigan significantly different from Saginaw Valley

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can be rejected.

65

 

 

 

 

Table 12 Responses to question #13:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN
Adrian 3 16 1 20 1.90
Central 2 14 7 23 2.22
Eastern 9 6 4 19 1.74
Ferris 1 l7 3 21 2.10
Northern 1 7 2 10 2.10
Oakland 5 12 3 20 1.90
Saginaw 5 2 7 1.57
Wayne 13 7 20 2.35
Western 2 9 15 26 2.50
TOTAL 28 94 44 166 2.096
PERCENT 16.9 56.2 26.5 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian —1.000 > 5% Cannot reject
Central 1.739 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.423 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris 1.000 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern 0.557 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland -0.715 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -1.162 > 5% Cannot reject
Wayne 3.117 < 5% Reject
Western 3.857 < 5% Reject

The last governance question was Question 14:
[Faculty influence] In determining work load for faculty:
(1.) More (2.) The same (3.) Less
The "t" tests indicate that the hypothesis of no effect
and

can be rejected in the case of Adrian, Saginaw Valley,

Wayne State. At Adrian and Saginaw Valley the indication is
that faculty perceive more faculty influence in determining

the work load and at Wayne State, the faculty perceive less

66
faculty influence in this area. At the other institutions,
the indication is that faculty perceive no change.

The Tukey-HSD test indicates the following at the 5%
level:
Western Michigan significantly different from Wayne State

Western Michigan significantly different from Adrian

Therefore the hypothesis of homogeneity can be rejected.

 

 

 

 

Table 13 Responses to question #14:

COLLEGE MORE SAME LESS TOTAL MEAN

Adrian 9 11 1 21 1.62
Central 7 10 6 23 1.96
Eastern 6 9 3 18 1.83
Ferris 5 12 4 21 1.95
Northern 2 6 2 10 2.00
Oakland 4 13 3 20 1.95
Saginaw 4 3 7 1.43

Wayne 10 9 19 2.47
Western 7 9 9 25 2.08

TOTAL 44 83 37 164 1.958
PERCENT 26.8 50.0 22.6 100

Statistical Results

COLLEGE t Probability Ho 1

Adrian -2.890 > 5% Cannot reject.
Central -0.272 > 5% Cannot reject
Eastern -1.028 > 5% Cannot reject
Ferris -0.326 > 5% Cannot reject
Northern 0.0 > 5% Cannot reject
Oakland -0.379 > 5% Cannot reject
Saginaw -2.828 < 5% Reject

Wayne 4.025 < 5% Reject
Western 0.492 > 5% Cannot reject

Comments on Governance Questions

67

A number of comments in the returned questionnaires
suggested that faculty participation in governance is improved
or protected as a result of the union contract. In some cases
a feeling of antagonism and suspicion toward the
administration was revealed. There were only a couple of
comments indicating a specific negative effect on faculty
participation in governance. The following is a sample of
comments on governance from the questionnaires.
From Saginaw Valley:

Before the union contract, doing some things was
easier, but treatment was not fair and uniform for
all members of the faculty. Some faculty were
better off because of their personal friendships
with some administrators. After the union contract,
procedures to obtain promotion, tenure, etc. are
more structured. committees have more faculty
representation, but because of the systematic steps
to go through, it is harder for faculty to get
promotion and tenure.

It may not seem that the contract has done much,
but believe me it has. Before we had pg tenure
policy other than "trust me". Sabbaticals were hit-
or-miss. I think the purely academic side of things
has been greatly strengthened. The contract lets
faculty do what they know how to do.

From Wayne State:

Our experience is that all aspects of academic
freedom and traditional faculty governance 'are
enhanced, since they are now legally protected by
a contractual agreement.

By and large I believe the faculty has less direct
input to the administration and there is much less
flexibility in dealing with the administration than
there used to be. This has been accompanied by a
great increase in paper work and committee
deliberations, not all the fault of the union. This
has had some good aspects, but by and large I
believe it has not been helpful, perhaps because a
disproportionate number of active union workers are

68
not faculty members. The bargaining unit today has
too many non-academic types.
From Western Michigan:
I am more opposed now. The union takes a blue
collar, assembly line approaoh to salary, making

compensation merely a function of years in rank
instead of competence.

The contract assures faculty their rights as
professionals. I see little if any effect on
academic traditions.

The net effect of faculty unions is, in my opinion,
to preserve academic traditions. This opinion has
been strengthened since collective bargaining began.

It has actually restored a greater degree of faculty
participation in decision making in many areas.

Interview Responseefion Governance

There is a similar response by interviewees on the
question of governance. Eleven said that faculty
participation was unchanged and twenty one said that it had
increased, at least in some areas. Eleven said that it was
protected by the union contract and seven interviewees
suggested that faculty participation in governance is more
structured.by virtue of being written into the contract. Only
two of the 41 stated that there was less faculty participation
in governance since the union. Again, this is in line with

the questionnaire responses.

Many of the interviewees pointed out that the traditional

governance provisions at their institutions have generally

69
been installed in the union contracts. Typical comments by
interviewees concerning governance include the following:
The criteria for promotion, tenure, etc. are now
formalized in the contract.
The contract has formalized past practices.
There is greater participation in governance, since
the contract spells out provisions for departments
to set up by-laws for’hiring, promotion, and.tenure.
The union has taken up grievances in cases of
refused sabbatical leave or promotion; so far with
limited success.
It is difficult for the administration to turn down
an application for promotion or tenure that has been
approved by the faculty committee.
On the other hand, there were two comments stating the
opposite:
The faculty has less input in this area. They ceded
certain rights to the administration in exchange
for privileges.
There is less faculty influence and. more
interference by the administration in governance.
This may be due to economic pressures, rather than
the union. The administration is more hard-nosed

over’ class sizes, due: to 'the adversarial
relationship that exists.

Contract Provisions Concerning Governance

All of the nine contracts spell out in detail the
requirements for tenure, promotion, and sabbatical leave. 'Ehe
contracts at Adrian, Eastern, and Ferris also include
provisions for determining work load and the contracts at
Western and Northern spell out the criteria for hiring. All

contracts call for faculty input in approval of sabbatical

70
leave requests. All but Adrian call for faculty input in the
approval of tenure and promotion. The Ferris and Oakland
contracts call for faculty input in hiring new faculty.
Generally, the contracts call for various faculty advisory
committees in these areas, with the Board of Control having
the final say. In every case, there are grievance procedures
in the contracts for faculty members denied tenure or
promotion, particularly if the denial is by the administration

after the faculty committee has approved the request.

Other Comments by Interviewees

The interviewees were asked two questions in addition to
those on the questionnaire: (1.) whether or not they agreed
with this researchers's conception of academic traditions and
(2.) what they felt was the reason for the establishment of
a faculty union at their campus. In every case, the
interviewees agreed that academic traditions included academic
freedom and faculty participation in governance, as described
in this study. The most common reason given for the
establishment of the union was a feeling of insecurity
brought about by the economic retrenchment in the 1970's.

Among other reasons for the establishment of the union
were the following examples of administrative actions and
attitudes:

At a college founded in the 1950's, the original faculty

members were mostly young and new to the academic world.

71

After a few years, the president--who was also the founder of
this institution--was asked by some of the faculty to set up
a tenure system. He replied that this was unnecessary. "You
already have tenure because I would not fire anyone without
cause." This did not satisfy the faculty members who then
took the matter to the board of control. They, in turn
directed the president to set up a tenure system. The
president complied by proposing two individuals initially for
tenure: himself and his secretary.

At another one of the institutions, several faculty cited
to this researcher an instance when the administration had
employed a business consulting firm with.more of a commercial
rather than academic point of view. This university conducts
a seminar on. medieval studies each year' which attracts
scholars from all over the ‘world, including“ Oxford and
Cambridge. The consulting firm advised the administration to
cancel this event because it was not cost-efficient. Only
strong protests by faculty and others kept the administration
from following this advice.

Other actions by administrations which were mentioned
during the interviews included several specific instances at
some campuses of attempts by the administration to alter
grades given by faculty members.

All of the above are examples of issues other than
economic that added to the impetus to organize unions.

There was not much of a "halo" effect in evidence. Most

72
of the interviewees who identified themselves as being anti-
union nevertheless stated that most of the academic freedom
and governance items, as described on the questionnaire, were
unchanged since the union.

The following is a selection of general comments by
faculty members on the subject of unions and academic
traditions:

Tenure and academic freedom have been substantially
eroded, in part because of the union, which enforces
frivolous or minor contract provisions more
rigorously than basic tenets of the profession,
since their enforcement does not require real
thinking on the level of fundamental issues among
union leadership. The union fails to weight
contract issues. There is reason to believe the
union discriminates against white male faculty.

Probably vitiated academic traditions, making
cliques and divisions more common.

I was not in favor of the union at any time and
still feel that way. Academic unions tend to drive
the entire academic process toward mediocrity. In

my opinion, there is still no firs; class American
university that has a faculty union.

Summary

The research methodology consisted of circulating
questionnaires to faculty members at nine institutions of
higher education in Michigan, conducting interviews at seven
of these institutions, and examining the union contracts at

the nine institutions.

The questionnaires were sent to a random sample at each

73
institution of faculty who had been there both before and
after the establishment of a faculty union. A total of 165
responses were received. Statistical tests were conducted to
test two null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. (Ho 1): The faculty members perceive no

change in this item since the establishment of collective

bargaining through a faculty union at their respective
institutions.

Hypothesis 2 (Ho 2): There is no difference in faculty

members' perception of change in this item among the

several institutions surveyed.

There were a total of seven questions concerning various
aspects of academic freedom. Questionnaires were sent to nine
institutions, therefore a total of 63 "t" tests on the answers
from individual institutions were conducted. In twelve cases
Ho 1, the null hypothesis of no effect, could be rejected.
In seven of those twelve cases, the effect of the union
contract was unfavorable--a decrease in the particular item
of academic freedom--and in the other five cases the effect
of the union contract was favorable. Four of the seven
unfavorable effects were at one university: Wayne State. Three
of the seven unfavorable effects concerned question #15:

change in the strictness of supervision by the administration

since the union contract.

The null hypothesis of no difference between groups
could be accepted for the question concerning academic freedom
in.general and for the freedom of faculty members to determine

grades; but not for the other five questions.

74

There were a total of six questions concerning various
aspects of faculty' participation in governance.
Questionnaires were sent to nine institutions, therefore a
total of 54 "t" tests on the answers from individual
institutions were conducted. In fourteen cases, the null
hypothesis of no effect, could be rejected. In four of those
fourteen cases, the effect of the union contract was
unfavorable--a decrease in the particular item of academic
freedom--and in the other ten cases the effect of the union
contract.was favorable» Three of the four unfavorable effects
were at one university: Wayne State.

Interviews were conducted and the totals were tabulated
but no statistical tests were conducted on these results. The
interview results agreed, in general, with the questionnaire
results. Many comments pointed out that the union contract
solidified faculty participation in governance and protected
academic freedom. On the other hand, there were a large
number of comments indicating an adversarial social climate
since the advent of the union.

All of the union contracts were found to have very
specific provisions concerning faculty participation in a
number of governance decisions. Several of them specifically

mentioned academic freedom as defined by the AAUP.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

W

The use of unions by college faculty for collective
bargaining has expanded in the last two decades. In Michigan,
nine state-sponsored universities and two private institutions
have collective bargaining contracts with faculty unions.
State universities and colleges in Michigan are not affected
by the Yeshivah decision which prohibits unions of faculty
members who participate in governance, since faculty unions
are specifically allowed by state statute.

A number of writers have expressed the opinion that
unions are detrimental to academic tradition in the areas of
governance and academic freedom. The purpose of this study
was to measure the effects of faculty unions in those areas,
as perceived by faculty members at a number of Michigan
universities who have had the experience of teaching in their

college both before and after the establishment of the union.

Methodology

Specific areas of academic freedom were identified, based
on various writings, including Eble's textbook, The Craft of
Teaching, and the AAUP definition of academic freedom. These
included the ability of faculty to teach any ideas without
interference, the freedom to choose textbooks, the freedom to

determine students' grades, and the freedom to determine

75

76

curriculum requirements. In the area of governance, based
partly on union contracts, the items included the influence
of faculty on decisions concerning hiring new faculty,
approving promotions, granting tenure, approving sabbatical
leave requests, determining class sizes, and determining work
loads.

A.questionnaire‘wasjprepared.asking'whether’each.of'these
items had changed since the establishment of the union. The
choices were generally "more", "the same", or "less". An
additional question asked if supervision by the administration
had increased or decreased since the union and if there were
any other changes in the social climate. This question was
added based on a suggestion by a faculty member of this
researcher's committee who pointed out that academic freedom
may be affected by the stringency of supervision.

The questionnaires were circulated to a random sample of
faculty members at nine campuses where the researcher'was able
to obtain a list of faculty who had been there before and
after the establishment of the union. A total of 166 replies
were received. Statistical tests were conducted on the
results for each question to test two null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. (Ho 1): The faculty members perceive

no change in this item since the establishment of

collective bargaining through a faculty union at
their respective institutions.

Hypothesis 2 (Ho 2): There is no difference in faculty
members' perception of change in this item among the
several institutions surveyed.

77

For statistical testing, the three possible choices were
given numerical values. An answer that indicated an
improvement due to the union was given the value of one, a no-
change answer was given the value of two, and a deterioration
due to the union.was given the value of three. Ho 1, the null
hypothesis of no effect, was tested for each question for each
institution.

In addition, interviews were conducted with 41 faculty
members at seven of these institutions at which they were
asked the same questions as those on the questionnaires. ‘They
were also asked two other questions: whether they agreed with
this researchers conception that academic traditions included
academic freedom and faculty participation in governance and
what they felt was the reason for the original vote by the
faculty to establish the union.

In addition to the above, the union contracts at the nine
institutions were examined to see if they contained specific
provisions for academic freedom and participation in

governance in the areas described above.

Results in the Area of Academic Freedom

For the academic freedom questions, the results indicated
that Ho 1, ‘the null hypothesis of no change in the perception
of academic freedom could not be rejected for the results in
a.majority of the questions.at.a:majority of the institutions.

There were seven questions circulated to nine individual

78

institutions, therefore there were 63 "t" tests. Ho 1 could
be rejected only for twelve of these cases. In cases where
Ho ltcan be rejected, the indication was that there is greater
academic freedom since establishment of a union in five of
them. The null hypothesis of no significant difference
between groups could not be rejected for four of the six
questions.

Some of the respondents to the questionnaires made
comments which expressed the opinion that the union protects
academic freedom by making the faculty safer from
administration action and by including protection in the union
contracts. The questionnaires also included some derogatory
comments by the respondents about the union and some
derogatory comments about the administration.

The fourth choice Question 15 was "Other changes in
Social Climate." Eight of the respondents wrote comments
stating that the social climate was more confrontational,
adversarial, or rigidly codified since the establishment of
a union.

Among the interviewees, 26 of the 41 felt that academic
freedom was unchanged, 14 said that it was enhanced, and two
believed that it was reduced since the union. The most common
reason cited for improvements since the union was the
protection provided by the union against arbitrary acts by the
administration.

The fourth choice in Question 15, "Other changes in

79

social climate", evoked a number of comments by
interviewees. Sixteen of the 41 felt that the social climate
was more adversarial since the union. On the other hand,
fourteen of the interviewees stated that the social climate
had already been adversarial before the establishment of the
union. A few specific examples of abuses by administrations
in pre-union days were cited by some of the interviewees.
Four the of interviewees believed that the social climate had
improved since establishment of the union.

Some of the union contracts had a general provision
calling for academic freedom as defined by the AAUP. The
other specific items of academic freedom as compiled by this

researcher were not specifically mentioned in these contracts.

W

In the case of the questions concerning faculty
participation in governance, the results indicated that the
null hypothesis of no change could be rejected for fourteen
of the 54 "t" tests of results from individual institutions.
In the majority of these cases, ten of the fourteen, the
indication was that the union had a favorable effect on
faculty participation in governance. In each case, the
indication was that the union had a favorable effect. Ho 2
could be rejected for four of the six governance questions.

Therefore, in the area of governance, the questionnaire

results indicated a greater perception of change since the

80
union than the questionnaire results in the area of academic
freedom. There was an indication of some improvement in
faculty participation in hiring, approving promotion, granting
tenure, and approving requests for sabbatical leave.

A.majority of those respondents who‘wrote comments on the
question of faculty participation in governance suggested that
this participation is improved and protected as a result of
the union contracts. Only two of them wrote negative comments
about union influence in this area. Among the interviewees,
the response was similar. Improvement in faculty
participation in governance as a result of the union was
perceived by 21 of the 41 interviewees, and only two of them
stated that there was less faculty participation since the
union.

A number of the interviewees cited specific provisions
in the contracts which increased participation in governance,
and this was confirmed by the examination of these contracts.
All of the contracts had specific provisions for faculty
participation in decisions concerning granting of tenure,
approving promotion, and approving requests for sabbatical
leave. Several also included provisions for participation in

determining work load and in hiring.

Other Commente bv Facultv Members
Among the interviewees and the questionnaire respondents

who wrote comments, there were expressions of pro- and anti-

81

union sentiments. All of the interviewees agreed with this
researcher's conception that academic traditions include
academic freedom and faculty participation in governance.

Interviewees were asked their opinion of the reason for the
establishment of a union at their campus. Most of them cited
economic causes, but some suggested that specific abuses by
administration officials had been the precipitating cause of

the establishment of a faculty union.

Summary of Results

In the area of academic freedom, there was a predominant
indication of no change due to the union as perceived by the
faculty. In the area of governance, there was some indication
of an increase in faculty participation as perceived by the
faculty. Most of the union contracts contained provisions
establishing faculty participation in various areas of
governance. Specific academic freedom items were not
included, instead there was a general provision for academic
freedom as defined by the AAUP. A considerable portion of the
faculty, particularly the interviewees, indicated a tendency
toward a more adversarial social climate since the union.
There were others, however, who suggested that the social

climate had already been adversarial prior to the union.

82
mm

Based on statistical tests of the responses to the
questionnaires, the null hypothesis of no effect could not be
rejected in the case of most of the academic freedom items.
In the case of academic freedom.inlgeneral, the indication was
that this was enhanced since the union, with no significant
difference between groups. Based on the interviews, most
faculty have not personally experienced an example of
curtailment of their freedom to perform the usual activities
associated with college teaching, which probably explains why
most perceive no change since the establishment of the union.
There were some individual instances of curtailment of
academic freedom that were revealed in the interviews and some
of the faculty expressed the feeling that the union contracts
protect academic freedom. A much smaller number expressed the
opinion that unions had decreased academic freedom. This
leads to the conclusion that:

Meet faculty do not perceive anv effect by the unions on

their freedom to perfo;m_ typical teaching functionee

There ie a general feeling that unions have hacLeome

positive effect on academic freedom in general.

In the area of governance, the null hypothesis of no
effect could be rejected in many cases. The indication was
that, on the average, faculty perceive a positive effect by
the union on faculty participation in governance. A number

of faculty pointed out in interviews and comments that faculty

83
participation in various aspects of governance is specifically
written into the union contracts, rather than existing at the
sufferance of the administration. This was confirmed by a
study of the union contracts. In most cases, the procedures
for faculty participation in governance did not originate with
the union contracts, but the contracts solidified practices
that were already in effect. Several of the faculty members
pointed out that it is very difficult for the administration
to override a recommendation made by the appropriate faculty
committee, as called for in the contract. All of this leads

to the conclusions that:

The faculty generally perceive an improvemenp in faculty
participation in governance since the establishment of

 

facultv unioney

A non-statistical examination of the interview results
confirms both of these conclusions.

The results of the question on stringency of supervision
and other changes in social climate indicated that faculty
perceive some increase in stringency since the union. (One
interviewee commented that once terms and conditions were
codified in a union contract, the administration tended to
insist that faculty live up to the letter of the law.) There
was a considerable write-in response to the choice "other
changes in social climate", indicating that the social climate

had become more adversarial. This was backed up strongly by

84

the interviewees, although many of them also expressed the
opinion that the social climate had been adversarial prior to
the union. There were instances of administrative actions
cited that back up this last statement. All of this leads to

the conclusion that:
ere 's a erce tion b facult that administrative
supervision has become more rigid and the social climate
has become more adversarial since the establishment of
the union. There ie aleo a feeling bv manv facultv that

the so 'a climate was advers 1a efore th

estaplishment of the union.

Reflections

In this study, an attempt was made to establish specific
examples of academic freedom and collegiality: the freedom
that faculty have to perform customary teaching activities
without interference and the influence of faculty in various
areas of governance. In all but one of the questions where
the null hypothesis of no effect cannot be rejected, it would
be difficult to make a case that unions had a negative effect
in any of these areas. In cases where the null hypothesis
could not be rejected, the indication was for a positive
effect by the union, except in the matter of supervision and
social climate.

The indication of a positive effect was stronger in the

governance items than in the academic freedom items. 'This may

85
be due to the fact, as pointed out by several interviewees,
that most faculty have not had a personal experience of
curtailment of academic freedom, so most are unaware of any
change since the ‘union- 1However, there ‘were some 'who
expressed the opinion that union contracts protect the
academic freedom that they already enjoy.

In the case of governance, there was a greater perception
of improvement in faculty participation since the union. The
specific forms of faculty participation in decision making
have been written into most of the union contracts. Academic
freedom is only mentioned in general terms in some of the
contracts.

One old established academic tradition is tenure. This
has been written into all of the union contracts that were
examined. Faculty’ participation in ‘tenure decisions is
spelled out in most of them. To the extent that tenure
protects academic freedom by protecting faculty members from
arbitrary dismissal, it could.be said that in this respect the
union contracts protect academic freedom. IDn general, the
contracts incorporate the academic practices that were already
in effect.

The opinion that the social climate has become more rigid
or adversarial since the union is prevalent, even though it
is somewhat balanced by the opinion expressed by some that
the social climate was already adversarial at the time the

union was established. It would seem that, in both industry

86
and academia, there was never a union established in an

37points out in

institution where everyone was happy. Owen
detail the unhappy atmosphere at Ferris State College that led
to the vote to establish a faculty union there.

It is also true that, in some cases, the universities in
this study have grown considerably in the years since the
establishment of a union. (A good example is Saginaw Valley.)
Therefore, when a faculty member recalls an institution with
a friendlier relationship between faculty and administration
and with a less rigid or adversarial social climate, he or she
may be remembering the college when it was smaller, and
therefore friendlier. There was also a "golden age", as
described by several interviewees, from the end of World War
II until the 1970's, when there seemed to be an endless supply
of funds for higher education and a growing pool of potential
students. Universities were expanding; there was hiring,
rather than retrenchment: and this may also have contributed
to the happier social climate.

The indication of non-uniformity of results among the
various institutions may be partly due to the small sample
size from each individual college, but it may also be due to
differences in the experiences that faculty have had at these

nine institutions of higher learning. They include Wayne

 

37 Owen, William Robert, "Why Professors Choose Collective

bargaining: The Michigan experience" , Unpublished dissertation
at Michigan State University, 1978

87

State, a large and old established university; Ferris State,
with it tradition of vocational education; Saginaw Valley and
Oakland, which were post-war institutions; and several long-
established teachers' colleges which expanded to full
universities in the post-war period. Therefore, it is not
surprising that faculty have had different experiences at
different institutions. Two examples of unique experiences
involving an arbitrary college president in one case, and an
administration that set profit and loss ahead of academic
values in the other, were described in Chapter IV.

Wayne State had the majority of the few cases where the
faculty perceived a decrease in certain items of academic
freedom since the union. Wayne State is also the most
academically prestigious of the nine universities in this
study and probably has the strongest tradition of academic
freedom of the group. Therefore, the faculty there are less
likely to feel that unions are needed to protect academic
freedom or participation in governance.

Based on the tabulations of opinions in this study, the
following conclusions can be drawn. According to the
perceptions of faculty members: .

1. The establishment of a faculty union causes no

change in their freedom to perform the various

functions of teaching as they see fit. The effect

of the union contract is to strengthen these

freedoms.

88

2. The establishment of a faculty union causes some
increase in faculty participation in governance and
solidifies these practices by incorporating them in
the union contract.

3. The establishment of a faculty union causes a
change in the social climate by making relations
between faculty and administration more adversarial
and rigid; although it is possible that the social
climate was already adversarial and this was a cause

of the union being organized in the first place.

Suggestions for Further Research

Due to limited resources and.time, this study was limited
to nine institutions of higher education in Michigan. It
might be useful to replicate the study in other institutions
in other parts of the country.

With regard to the question of changes in the social
climate after the establishment of a union, perhaps some more
detailed questions could be devised, along the lines of the
questions relating to academic freedom and governance, in
order to discover in what specific ways faculty members
perceive a change in the social climate.

The question of whether or not the social climate at an
institution of higher education.was already adversarial prior

to the establishment of a faculty union could be investigated

89

more thoroughly. One approach could be similar to the method
of this study; polling faculty who were at a university both
before and after the establishment of a faculty union in order
to find out their views on the social climate prior to the
union. In addition, perhaps a study could be made of the
social climate at comparable institutions that have faculty
unions, compared to those that do not. Michigan State, a non-
union campus, could be compared to Wayne State, and Grand
Valley, a post—war university without a union, could be
compared to Saginaw Valley, a post-war institution which has
a faculty union. A comparison such as this between similar
institutions with and without a faculty union might give a
good indication of the effects of faculty unions on social
climate.

Community Colleges were not included in this research,
due to limitations of time and resources. The effects of
unions on academic traditions at community colleges, and the
extent to which faculty at the four year institutions were
influenced by the effects of unions at the community colleges

is another useful area for future study.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire

1.

90

QUESTIONNAIRE

Since the advent of the union contract:

1. [ 1 There has been no change in the tenure policy.

2. [ ] Tenure is easier to get.

3. [ ] Tenure is more difficult to get.

A. [ ] Other:

Since the advent of the union contract:

1. [ 1 There has been no change in the merit pay policy

2. [ ] Merit pay is easier to get.

3. [ ] Merit pay is more difficult to get.

A. [ ] Other:

Since the advent of the union contract:

1. [ ] There has been no change in the ability of
faculty to teach any ideas related to the course they
wish without interference for political or other
reasons.

2. [ ] This ability has been curtailed

3. [ ] This ability has been enhanced.

4. [ ] Other:

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of
faculty members to choose textbooks is:

1. [ ] Greater
2. [ ] The same
3. [ ] Less

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom of
faculty members to determine the course subject matter is:

1. [ ] Greater
2. [ ] The same

3. [ 1 Less

10.

11.

12.

91

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom
faculty members to determine the kinds of exams is:

1.

2.

3.

[ ] Greater
[ ] The same

[ ] Less

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom
faculty members to determine students' grades is:

1.
2.

3.

[ ] Greater
[ ] The same

[ ] Less

Since the advent of the union contract, the freedom
faculty members to determine curriculum requirements is:

Since

1.
2.

30

...In approving promotion:

1.
2.

3.

...In granting tenure:

1.
2.

3.

...In approving requests for

1.

[ ] Greater
[ ] The same

[ ] Less

the advent of the union contract, the influence
faculty in the area of hiring new faculty is:

[ ] More
[ ] The same

[ ] Less

[ ] More
[ ] The same

[ ] Less

[ I More

[ ] The same

[ ]_Less

[ I More

sabbatical leave:

of

of

of

of

92

2. [ J The same
3. [ ] Less
13. ...In determining class sizes:
1. [ ] More
2. [ ] The same
3. [ ] Less
14. ...In determining work load for faculty:
1. [ ] More
2. [ ] The same
3. [ J Less

15. Since the advent of the union contract, supervision of
working hours and activities by administration has been:

1. [ 1 More stringent

2. [ ] The same

3. [ ] Less stringent

4. [ ] Other changes in the social climate:
Please comment, if you desire, on any of the above. Also, would
you please state whether your opinion of the effect of faculty

unions on academic traditions is different now than it was before
the union contract.

APPENDIX B

Consent Forms

93

 

‘Fefi'is State College

School of Business

 

 

CONSENT FORM FOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Colleague,

The enclosed questionnaire is part of my research for a
doctoral dissertation on the effect of faculty unions on academic
traditions and practices at four-year institutions of higher
-1earning. This questionnaire is being sent to all faculty
members who have taught at your college both before and after the
establishment of a faculty union. The names of such faculty
members were provided by the union.

All replies will be kept confidential. Do not provide your
name or any other identifying information, so that you can remain
anonymous.

Return of this completed questionnaire constitutes your
voluntary consent for me to use the information in my research
subject to the confidentiality conditions as described above.

There is, of course, no penalty for declining to participate
or for discontinuing at any time.

This questionnaire is for faculty who were at Adrian both
before and after the establishment of a faculty union. If you
are in that category, I would appreciate your returning this
questionnaire by October 15, 1987.

Sincerely yours,

' ”(Milli m
Marshall Giller
Asst. Professor

School of Business
Ferris State College

 

Big Rapids. Michigan 49307 - (616) 796-0461

 

GFefi’ls State College

SchoolotBumness

 

 

CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEH
Dear Colleague,

I am conducting research for a doctoral dissertation on the
subject of the effect of faculty unions on academic traditions
and practices at four-year institutions of higher education. The
interviews are to be conducted with faculty members who have been
at the institutions both before and after the establishment of a
faculty union. I have been provided with the names of such
faculty members by the local unions. All of them have been sent
questionnaires and some of them have been selected by a random
process for interviewing. If you consent to be interviewed, I
agree to keep your identity and your answers to any questions
completely confidential. I therefore request that you agree to
the interview by signing the accompanying consent form.

Sincerely yours,

4mm Kim

Marshall Giller
Asst. Professor
School of Business
Ferris State College

DATE

 

I hereby voluntarily agree to be interviewed for the
above-mentioned research, with the understanding that my identity
and my answers to any questions will be kept strictly
confidential. I understand that the interview will take
approximately 30 minutes, and that I may discontinue the
interview at any time without penalty. I also understand that I
may decline to participate in this project without penalty, and
that if I do participate I will remain completely anonymous.

 

 

Blg Rapids. Michigan 49307 - (616) 796-0461

BI BLIOGRAPHY

95
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agreement between The Adrian College Board of TTustees and The
Adrian College Association of Professors, 1986

Agreement, Central Michigan University and CMU Faculty
Association, 1987

Agreement between Eastern Michigan University and the Eastern
Michigan University Chapter of the American Association of
University Professors, 1987

Agreement between the Board of Control of Ferris State University
and the Ferris Faculty Association, MBA-NEA, 1987

Agreement between Board of Control, Northern Michigan University
and American Association of University Professors, Northern
Michigan University Chapter, 1984

Agreement between Oakland University and the Oakland University
Chapter, American Association of University Professors, 1985

Agreement between Wayne State University and the Wayne State
University Chapter of te American Association of University
Professors, 1986

Agreement. between ‘Western. Michigan ‘University' and. the ‘W.M.U.
Chapter of the American.Association of University Professors,
1987

Faculty Contract between Saginaw Valley State College and the
SVSC Faculty Association, 1984

Birnbaum, Robert, and Inman, Deborah, "The Relationship of
Academic Bargaining to Changes in the Campus Climate"

Journalof Higeher Edeucation, Sept-Oct. 1984

Conover, W.J., Non-Parametric Statistics, New York, John Wiley &
Sons, 1980

Daponte, Kenneth J., "Practical Implications of the Yeshiva
Decision", CUPA Journal, Jan. 1981

Drotning, John E., and Whalen, Garry M., "Grievance
Administration in SUNY", The Journal of Higher Education,
May-June 1978,

Eble, Kenneth E., The Craft of TeachinqL San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass, 1976

Faculty Handbook, Ferris State College, 1976

96
Faculty Handbook, Michigan State University

Gale, Robert K., Instrument Development in The Effective Domain.
Boston, Kluwer-Highhoff, 1986

Gemmell, James, "Improving Academic Personnel Administration
Under Collective Bargaining", CUPA Journal, Summer 1978

Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C., Statistical Methods in
Education and Psychology, New York, Prentice Hall, 1970

Glenn, Larry E. "The Faculty Senate and the AAUP at Southern
Connecticut State University", Academe, Nov-Dec 1987

Heller, Scott, ”AAUP's Probes of Academic Freedom Cases Draw
Outspoken Complaints from Colleges: , Chronicle of HIqher
Education, June 17, 1987

Hopper, Carol Nuremberger, "An Exploratory Study of the
Perceptions of Professors as Professionals at a
Unionizedand and a Non-Union State University", Unpublished
dissertation at Michigan State University, 1984

Jacoby, Jacob, and Matell, Michael 8., "Three Point Likert Scales
Are Good Enough", Journal of Marketing Researchy Nov. 1971

Jones, Lewis L., "The Impact of Faculty Unions on Higher

Education: - A Reconsideration", Public Personel
Manggemegg, Summer 1986,
McMeen, George R., and Bowman, Richard F., Jr., "Faculty

Development and Collective Bargaining", Improving College
and University Teaching, Winter, 1984

National Labor Relations Board vs. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S.

671, 1980
Owen, William Robert, "Why Professors Choose Collective
Bargaining: The Michigan Experience" , Unpubl ished

dissertation at Michigan State University, 1978

Schaefer, Susan Davidson, "The Senate and the Union in the
California State University System", Academe, Nov-Dec 1987

 

Sommers, Alexis N., "Collective Bargaining: Issues and
Complexities of the Campus Environment", CUPA Journal, Summer
1978

Walther, Peter D., Esq., "The NLRB in Higher Education", CUPA
Journal, Summer 1978

 

97

Watkins, Beverly T., "AAUP's New General Secretary Takes Stock of
Organization's Strengths and Weaknesses", Chronicle of Higher
Edgcatiog, Oct. 17, 1984

Yellowitz, Irwin, "Academic Governance and Collective Bargaining
in the City University of New York", Academe, Nov-Dec 1987

Zirkel, Perry .A., "Faculty Bargaining and Campus Governance:
Rhetoric vs. Research", American Association of university
Administrators, Washington, D.C. 1986