A tenured journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin-Superior is fighting a battle with the university that many say could have repercussions for tenure throughout the system. John B. Marder was fired this past summer despite unanimous recommendations from two faculty committees that he not be dismissed. And although a majority of the UW board of regents voted for his dismissal, they were going against their own personnel matters review committee, which also had voted unanimously on two occasions this year not to dismiss Marder because the university had insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Marder, who has taught at the university since 1987 and who was recognized for his teaching and work as an adviser to the student newspaper, was accused of sexually harassing two undergraduate women in 1995 and of uncollegial behavior in 1996. The two harassment claims were investigated at the time they were alleged, and the university dropped them. Oddly enough, while those charges were not among the 18 compiled in the chancellor's complaint letter for dismissal of Marder, they were the most discussed in the case.

There are other oddities in the case, points out Richard Schauer, chair of The Association of University of Wisconsin Professors/AFT academic freedom and tenure committee. Schauer has been representing Marder for the past few years and has witnessed and documented the university's violations of Marder's right to due process to an extent that "boggles the mind," Schauer says.

Under Wisconsin law, tenure is a property right, and the dismissal of a tenured professor is prosecuted very formally under a special law known as Chapter 4. From the time the UW-Superior chancellor fired Marder in 1999 without first setting into motion dismissal proceedings, the administration has repeatedly violated Marder's due process rights, the union maintains.

In 2000, Marder went through the regular appeals process while carrying out his teaching duties. He presented his case before the UW faculty senate's committee on faculty terminations, which recommended retaining Marder because the evidence was insufficient for termination. In spring 2001, the board of regents personnel matters review committee reached the same conclusion. The regents asked their committee to review the evidence, which it did and again found insufficient grounds to terminate. On June 8, 2001, the board of regents took the unprecedented step of overturning its own committee's recommendation and voted to fire Marder.

It is Schauer's view and that of the union that internal politics have more to do with Marder's dismissal than any behavioral infractions. Schauer worries that because the unfounded harassment charges can raise such a red flag for well-intentioned people, they can provide a cover for those who have a personal agenda against the popular professor. Because so many aspects of university life rest on the sometimes fractious process of debate and discussion, both within departments and campus- and university-wide, the treatment of Marder by the UW-Superior administration sets a precedent for all faculty in the system that should raise alarm, says the union. "This is the death of tenure at the University of Wisconsin," says TAUWP president Ray Spoto.

With the help of his union, Marder is taking his case forward into civil court. His lawyer filed a complaint in Douglas County Circuit Court charging both a violation of Marder's due process rights and a violation of the state's open records laws.

N.Y.U. adjuncts build community

New York University adjunct faculty are familiar with limitations. Over time they've lived with the restrictions the elite private university puts on their pay, working conditions, and professional growth and security. By limiting academic labor costs, NYU's wealth has grown. Its endowment places it among the wealthiest 50 universities in the country.

NYU's adjunct work force, which numbers between 4,000 and 5,000 in the course of an academic year, is proud to be associated with NYU, but lately, some adjuncts are beginning to question whether the university's financial health should come at the expense of their own. That's why the adjuncts likely will be voting for the chance to be proudly associated with the New York State United Teachers and the AFT before the end of the spring semester.

Adjunct Peter Schweitzer is a retired employee assistance program administrator who used to work for the city of New York. Now he teaches in the human resources certificate program within the School of Continuing and Professional Studies (SCPS). Schweitzer makes $1,000 on the course, he says, whether he has a class of 20 or 10. "The students pay $500 each," he notes, making "the university a tremendous amount of money. My sense is that this section is such a revenue center, adjuncts should get a share of that."

Teaching conditions for some of the adjuncts are not optimum. Schweitzer teaches his course in the Norman Thomas High School in lower Manhattan. Other adjuncts teach at more than 140 different work sites that include church halls, public schools and other institutions. Schweitzer is not able to enter the school or his classroom until shortly before his students arrive at 6:20 p.m., an inconvenience for someone who doesn't have an office. The bathrooms smell, and there's no chalk. "We hate that," he says.

There are other unpredictable variables to teaching at NYU. Sometimes, when Schweitzer has prepared a new course for the program, he has been paid extra; other times, not. He has no contact with full-time faculty nor with many other adjuncts. He is on his fourth supervisor in four years. "My student evaluations give me top marks, so [administrators] don't bother me," he says.

Louis Rosen is a composer who supplements his income by teaching music in the SCPS. He has taught two or three courses a semester for more than 18 years. He is paid $58 per contact hour or about $1,300 a course. Rosen says he consistently gets excellent evaluations and wonders why his compensation can't reflect that. Offering benefits to people like himself "would be a real service to teachers," he says.

But equal to benefits, Rosen says, would be the value of being able to teach in other departments--a cross-fertilization so difficult to execute, he notes, that it is almost prohibited. "You should be able to grow in the job," he says. "Right now there is no sense of that. In my case, it would be the possibility of getting to know people in the music department and being able to move from one department to the other."

Although AFT organizers have heard many different stories from the teachers at NYU, no two stories are alike. There is the 10-year veteran film studies instructor who has been receiving $3,000 per course to teach in two different NYU schools, was then told he'd get a raise of $2,000 per course at one of the sites--only to be released from that teaching assignment the day he showed up to begin at the new pay level.

As the new semester gets under way, adjuncts are finding that the union can give them a sense of community where they were a marginalized work force before. And together, they can start leveraging their unified voice to get a consistent and fair level of compensation for all. They would be joining more than 10,000 adjuncts represented by NYSUT in the state of New York.

Temple University agrees to recognize union

After 2.5 years of organizing, amassing community support, receiving favorable court and labor board rulings, and winning a landslide victory at the collective bargaining polling booth, the graduate employee union at Temple University has finally gotten the administration to cry "uncle."

On Sept. 14, the Temple University Graduate Students' Association/AFT (TUGSA) and the university signed an agreement that will bring them to the bargaining table. It spells out what will and will not be subject to negotiations. And it binds the university to drop its appeal of the union's election and to recognize TUGSA as the exclusive representative of the employees. Temple's board approved the agreement on Sept. 26.

The agreement defines what academic matters will be beyond the scope of bargaining. These include, for example, admissions requirements for graduate students; how tuition, fees and student benefits are set, but not within the context of employment; how departments are organized; and how decisions are made regarding assistantships.

The agreement also includes an illustrative list of 13 topics the union plans to address at the bargaining table: benefits, evaluations, hours and workloads, job training, a grievance procedure, wages, termination, disciplinary proceedings and so on.

"In essence, it makes distinctions between our roles as students and our roles as employees," says Rob Callahan, a TUGSA founder and organizer. "We agree to a principle that we've maintained all along--that the collective bargaining contract will be relevant strictly to our employee status. The language the university inserted is pretty vague. Our paragraph says, whatever that language means, it doesn't mean these specific points."

High court to review Ohio voucher case

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Sept. 25 that it will consider the constitutionality of a voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio, that uses taxpayer money to pay for students' tuition at private and parochial schools. The state-funded "scholarship" program in the city began in 1996 and provides vouchers of up to $2,500 to each of more than 3,500 students in Cleveland now attending 56 private schools. More than 90 percent of those children using publicly funded vouchers are attending religious schools; in December 2000, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the voucher program violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Our public schools are the bedrock of our democracy--open and accessible to all children," said AFT president Sandra Feldman in a statement. "It is terrible public policy for public dollars to go to schools that exclude any student, as voucher schools do." Feldman emphasized that the union respects private and religious schools, including their use of Title I federal dollars for poor children, but that vouchers are a direct payment of public dollars for private school tuition. "With so many proven reforms that are turning around once-failing school districts, like Cleveland, there is no reason to turn to unconstitutional and academically bankrupt schemes like vouchers," she added. "Now, more than ever, we need a strong public school system."

A federal court has ruled that the United Academics/ AFT/AAUP of the University of Alaska was following the law in the procedures it used to collect agency fee from its non-members. The union had been sued by two professors from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, who objected to the procedures the union followed in setting and collecting dues. In particular, the professors asserted that the union erred in how it sought agency fee payments from those employees covered by the collective bargaining contract who do not join the union.

The professors had sued the union after receiving a March 1998 letter and subsequent letters in the next six weeks, demanding that they pay their fees or face dismissal from the university, as provided in their collective bargaining agreement. The professors said the union was not in compliance with an important Supreme Court case, Chicago Teachers Union Local 1 v. Hudson, which lays out how agency fees must be collected. The professors also stated that their First, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights were violated.

The district court ruled against the professors in the broad case but found that the union had not followed Hudson guidelines properly. The union sent out two letters by the end of 1998 that clarified its dues-collecting process and reimbursed agency fee payers for fees collected when the union was not in compliance.

Despite these measures, the professors kept up their suit. In September, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that in correcting the deficiencies of the earliest notifications, the union had resolved the problem. It added that the union was unlikely to revert to the inadequate notifications.

Says UA/AFT/AAUP president Michael Jennings, "This is a stunning victory. We have a great attorney."

The AFT's latest report on standards-based reform efforts in the states, Making Standards Matter 2001, offers mixed reviews for the standards movement nationwide.

On the plus side, the report shows a big increase in the number of states that have developed clear and specific standards in the core subject areas (English, math, science and social studies) over the last six years. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have such clear and specific standards--up from 13 six years ago. In addition, most states have begun to align their tests with their standards, and many are using test results for school and student accountability.

The report's biggest concerns relate to testing policies in the states. In too many states, tests that are not aligned to the standards or that are based on weak standards are driving reforms. In addition, high-quality curriculum that teachers can use to help all students meet the standards is lagging well behind. Only nine states meet three of five components that the AFT believes are essential for a well-developed curriculum in the core subjects. "All too often," the report says, "high-stakes decisions are being made before state education systems have developed aligned assessments and curriculum to support instruction in the standards."

Among other recommendations, the report suggests that states should:

• Explain the standards they set and the performance levels required to meet them, including providing examples of standards and student work at various grade and performance levels so teachers, students, parents and the public all understand what's expected.
•  Involve teachers in the development of curriculum aligned to the standards, and develop data banks that include exemplary lessons and student work related to the standards.
• Phase in the "stakes" related to tests so districts have adequate time to implement curricula, professional development and intervention systems.
• Give students multiple opportunities to pass high-stakes exams, and look for additional evidence from achievement indicators other than standardized tests in making important decisions about students.
• Provide high-quality early intervention to students identified as at risk of failing to meet standards, and provide adequate resources to ensure that students have access to extra assistance.
• Pay more attention to proper implementation: Tests should reflect the state's curriculum; teachers must understand the standards and how to help students meet them; and teachers must be provided standards-based professional development that emphasizes deep content knowledge, clear instructional strategies and the assessment tools necessary for determining student progress.

It's not enough just to have strong standards. The assessment component has to be done right, as well. "Tests cannot and should not drive the system," it says. "Instead, they should assist in determining whether the system is working effectively." Tests should "ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed at the next level of schooling and to trigger assistance to those students who would otherwise fall through the cracks."

Making Standards Matter 2001 also warns that current federal proposals to increase the number of tests may simply result in "more, not better, testing and may thereby exacerbate the problems that the public and educators have identified with current state testing efforts."