美国公立与私立大学教师人事决策程序趋同研究
|
摘要
法律机制、市场机制与行业机制分别对美国公立与私立大学教师人事决策规范趋同产生了不同程度的影响。美国公立大学完善教师人事决策程序的行为主要受法律机制影响,其动机在于规避诉讼风险;私立大学受法律机制影响较小,其完善教师人事决策程序规范的行为主要受市场机制的影响,是基于声誉、竞争力以及成本—效益考虑的理性选择。此外,以美国大学教授联合会为代表的行业协会对公私立大学均构成广泛影响,促进了二者程序规范的趋同。从长远而言,当程序正义理念嵌入大学治理行动者的观念图景,它逐渐演变为深层意义上的合法性机制,并构成公立与私立大学在教师人事决策程序趋同的根本动力。
Legal mechanism, market mechanism and industrial mechanism exert different degrees of impact on American public and private universities respectively. The behavior of public universities in the United States to improve personnel decision-making procedures are mainly affected by legal mechanism, with the motivation of avoiding litigation risk. While private universities are less affected by legal mechanism, their actions to improve faculty personnel decision-making procedures are mainly influenced by market mechanism as rational choices based on reputation, competitiveness, and cost-benefit considerations. In addition, industrial associations represented by AAUP have a broad impact on both public and private universities, which promotes the convergence of their internal procedures. In the long run, when the spirit of procedural justice are imbedded in the conceptual image of university governance actors, it gradually evolves into a deep legitimacy mechanism and constitutes the fundamental power of convergence of faculty personnel decision-making procedures in American public and private universities.
Legal mechanism, market mechanism and industrial mechanism exert different degrees of impact on American public and private universities respectively. The behavior of public universities in the United States to improve personnel decision-making procedures are mainly affected by legal mechanism, with the motivation of avoiding litigation risk. While private universities are less affected by legal mechanism, their actions to improve faculty personnel decision-making procedures are mainly influenced by market mechanism as rational choices based on reputation, competitiveness, and cost-benefit considerations. In addition, industrial associations represented by AAUP have a broad impact on both public and private universities, which promotes the convergence of their internal procedures. In the long run, when the spirit of procedural justice are imbedded in the conceptual image of university governance actors, it gradually evolves into a deep legitimacy mechanism and constitutes the fundamental power of convergence of faculty personnel decision-making procedures in American public and private universities.
引文
[1]Meyer J W,Rowan B.Institutionalized Organizations:Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony[J].American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2):340-363.
[2]William A.Kaplin,Barbara A.Lee.The Law of Higher Education[M].San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2013:633-659.
[3]The FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook[EB/OL].[2018.10.20]https://academic-appointments.fas.harvard.edu/internal-promotion-tenured-professortenure-track-position.
[4]2018 Outline of Procedures for Faculty Promotions(effective2017-2018)[EB/OL].(2018-07)[2018-10-20]https://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/promotion_guidelines/procedures.html
[5]Grievance Procedure and Dispute Resolution[EB/OL].(2009-07)[2018.10.20]http://spg.umich.edu/sites/default/files/201X08%20Grievance%20Procedure.pdf
[6]Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances[EB/OL].(2018-10-20)[2018-10-20]https://academicappointments.fas.harvard.edu/e-grievance-prodecures
[7]Metzger W P.Freedom and Tenure in the Academy:The Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1940 Statement of Principles||The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure[J].Law and Contemporary Problems,1990,53(3):3-77.
[8]Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings[J].AAUP Bulletin,1958,44(1):270-274.
[9]Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments[J].AAUP Bulletin,1971,57(2):206-210.
[10]Education A C O,Washington,Washington,et al.Good Practice in Tenure Evaluation:Advice for Tenured Faculty,Department Chairs,and Academic Administrators[J].2000:34.
[11]林晓.美国中北部协会院校认证标准与程序研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2010:56-88.
[12]周志宏.学术自由与大学法[M].台北:蔚理出版社,1989:159-161.
(1)Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,17 U.S. 518(1819)研究,2015,37(07):107-112.
(1)宾夕法尼亚大学的教师尼尔林因公开反对资本主义自由化的言论引起董事会不满,董事会不顾教授会的建议而解聘了尼尔林,引发了校内教师的抗议和声援。随后,AAUP成立调查委员会对该事件展开调查,调查发现,宾夕法尼亚大学既没有经过同行专家审查,也没有遵照正当程序,其解聘行为违反了学术自由原则。因此,AAUP对宾夕法尼亚大学进行了公开谴责,尽管最终尼尔林的职位依然未被恢复,但宾夕法尼亚大学不得不重新修订了终身制和教师解聘方面的程序。
(2)Board of Regents v. Roth, 408(U.S. 564 1972)
(3)Perry v. Sindermann, 408(U.S. 593 1972)
(4)Potemra v. Ping, 462 F. Supp. 328(E.D. Ohio 1978)
(5)Levitt v. University of Texas, 759 F.2d 1224(5th Cir. 1985)
(1)King v. University of Minnesota, 774 F.2d 224(8th Cir. 1985)
(2)NLRB v.Yeshiva University(444 U.S.672.1980)
[2]William A.Kaplin,Barbara A.Lee.The Law of Higher Education[M].San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2013:633-659.
[3]The FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook[EB/OL].[2018.10.20]https://academic-appointments.fas.harvard.edu/internal-promotion-tenured-professortenure-track-position.
[4]2018 Outline of Procedures for Faculty Promotions(effective2017-2018)[EB/OL].(2018-07)[2018-10-20]https://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/promotion_guidelines/procedures.html
[5]Grievance Procedure and Dispute Resolution[EB/OL].(2009-07)[2018.10.20]http://spg.umich.edu/sites/default/files/201X08%20Grievance%20Procedure.pdf
[6]Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances[EB/OL].(2018-10-20)[2018-10-20]https://academicappointments.fas.harvard.edu/e-grievance-prodecures
[7]Metzger W P.Freedom and Tenure in the Academy:The Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1940 Statement of Principles||The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure[J].Law and Contemporary Problems,1990,53(3):3-77.
[8]Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings[J].AAUP Bulletin,1958,44(1):270-274.
[9]Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments[J].AAUP Bulletin,1971,57(2):206-210.
[10]Education A C O,Washington,Washington,et al.Good Practice in Tenure Evaluation:Advice for Tenured Faculty,Department Chairs,and Academic Administrators[J].2000:34.
[11]林晓.美国中北部协会院校认证标准与程序研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2010:56-88.
[12]周志宏.学术自由与大学法[M].台北:蔚理出版社,1989:159-161.
(1)Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,17 U.S. 518(1819)研究,2015,37(07):107-112.
(1)宾夕法尼亚大学的教师尼尔林因公开反对资本主义自由化的言论引起董事会不满,董事会不顾教授会的建议而解聘了尼尔林,引发了校内教师的抗议和声援。随后,AAUP成立调查委员会对该事件展开调查,调查发现,宾夕法尼亚大学既没有经过同行专家审查,也没有遵照正当程序,其解聘行为违反了学术自由原则。因此,AAUP对宾夕法尼亚大学进行了公开谴责,尽管最终尼尔林的职位依然未被恢复,但宾夕法尼亚大学不得不重新修订了终身制和教师解聘方面的程序。
(2)Board of Regents v. Roth, 408(U.S. 564 1972)
(3)Perry v. Sindermann, 408(U.S. 593 1972)
(4)Potemra v. Ping, 462 F. Supp. 328(E.D. Ohio 1978)
(5)Levitt v. University of Texas, 759 F.2d 1224(5th Cir. 1985)
(1)King v. University of Minnesota, 774 F.2d 224(8th Cir. 1985)
(2)NLRB v.Yeshiva University(444 U.S.672.1980)