The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding 
and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon 
procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions 
of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to 
further the interest of either the individual teacher (The word 
"teacher"as used in this document is understood to include the 
investigator who is attached to an academic institution without 
teaching duties) or the institution as a whole. The common good 
depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.
 
Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both 
teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the 
advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is 
fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in 
teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with 
it duties correlative with rights.[1](Bold-faced numbers in brackets 
refer to Interpretive Comments which follow.)
 
Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of 
teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a 
sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession
attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic 
security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an 
institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to
society.

                   ACADEMIC FREEDOM 

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the 
publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of 
their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return
should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of 
the institution.

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing 
their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into 
their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their
subject.[2]  Limitations of academic freedom because of religious 
or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in 
writing at the time of the appointment.[3]

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a 
learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. 
When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position 
in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and 
educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge
their profession and their institution by their utterances. 
Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise 
appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of 
others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are 
not speaking for the institution.[4]
                        ACADEMIC TENURE 
 
After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or 
investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and 
their service should be terminated only for adequate cause, 
except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary 
circumstances because of financial exigencies.
 
In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that 
the following represents acceptable academic practice: 

The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should 
be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution 
and teacher before the appointment is consummated.

Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor 
or a higher rank, [5] the probationary period should not 
exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service 
in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso 
that when, after a term of  probationary service of more than three 
years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another 
institution it may be agreed in writing that the new appointment 
is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though
thereby the person's total probationary period in the academic 
profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years. [6] 
Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration 
of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued 
in service after the expiration of that period.[7]

During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic 
freedom that all other members of the faculty have.[8]

Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the 
dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration of a 
term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a 
faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all 
cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should 
be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should 
have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all 
bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be 
permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing 
who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record 
of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of 
charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers 
and other scholars, either from the teacher's own or from other 
institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed 
for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their 
salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of
dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties at 
the institution.[9]

Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial 
exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.
                   1940 INTERPRETATIONS 
	     
At the conference of representatives of the American Association 
of University Professors and of the Association of American 
Colleges on November 7-8,1940, the following interpretations of the
1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure 
were agreed upon:

That its operation should not be retroactive.

That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the 
endorsement should be determined in accordance with the principles 
set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom 
and Tenure.

If the administration of a college or university feels that 
a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph (c) of 
the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural 
utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts 
concerning the teacher's fitness for his or her position, it may 
proceed to file charges under paragraph (a)(4) of the section on 
Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges the administration
should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded 
the freedom of citizens.  In such cases the administration must 
assume full responsibility, and the American Association of 
University Professors and the Association of American Colleges
are free to make an investigation.
               1970 INTERPRETIVE COMMENTS 

Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of 
Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with leading educational 
associations and with individual faculty members and administrators, 
a joint committee of the AAUP and the Association of American 
Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. 
On the basis of the comments received, and the discussions that 
ensued, the joint committee felt the preferable approach was to 
formulate interpretations of the Statement in terms of 
the experience gained in implementing and applying the 
Statement for over thirty years and of adapting it to 
current needs.
 
The committee submitted to the two associations for their 
consideration the following "Interpretive Comments."  These 
interpretations were adopted by the Council of the American
Association of University Professors in April 1970 and endorsed 
by the Fifty-sixth Annual
Meeting as Association policy.
 
In the thirty years since their promulgation, the principles 
of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom 
and Tenure have undergone a substantial amount of refinement. 
This has evolved through a variety of processes, including 
customary acceptance, understandings mutually arrived at 
between institutions and professors or their representatives, 
investigations and reports by the American Association of 
University Professors, and formulations of statements by that
association either alone or in conjunction with the Association 
of American Colleges. These comments represent the attempt of 
the two associations, as the original sponsors of the 1940
Statement, to formulate the most important of these 
refinements. Their incorporation here as Interpretive Comments 
is based upon the premise that the 1940 Statement
is not a static code but a fundamental document designed 
to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing 
times and circumstances.
 
Also, there have been relevant developments in the law 
itself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts 
on due process within the academic community which parallels 
the essential concepts of the 1940 Statement; 
particularly relevant is the identification by the 
Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected 
by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in
Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 U.S. 589 (1967), 
"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic 
freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not 
merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore 
a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not 
tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the 
classroom."
 
The numbers refer to the designated portion of the 1940 Statement 
on which interpretive comment is made. 

1. The Association of American Colleges and the American 
Association of University Professors have long recognized that 
membership in the academic profession carries with it special 
responsibilities. Both associations either separately or jointly 
have consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy 
statements, providing guidance to professors in their utterances 
as citizens, in the exercise of their responsibilities to the 
institution and to students, and in their conduct when resigning 
from their institution or when undertaking government-sponsored
research. Of particular relevance is the Statement on 
Professional Ethics, adopted in 1966 as Association policy. 
(A revision, adopted in 1987, was published in Academe: Bulletin of
the AAUP 73 [July-August 1987]: 49.) Back to Text  
 
2. The intent of this statement is not to discourage 
what is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of the 
free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed 
to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers 
to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to 
their subject. Back to Text  
 
3. Most church-related institutions no longer need or 
desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied 
in the 1940 Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure.Back to Text  
 
4. This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation 
adopted by the sponsors of the 1940     Statement 
immediately following its endorsement which reads as follows:
 
If the administration of a college or university feels 
that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph (c) 
of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural 
utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts
concerning the teacher's fitness for his or her position, it may 
proceed to file charges under paragraph (a)(4) of the section on 
Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges the administration
should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded 
the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must 
assume full responsibility, and the American Association of
University Professors and the Association of American Colleges 
are free to make an investigation.
 
 
Paragraph (c) of the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted 
in keeping with the 1964 "Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances" 
(AAUP Bulletin 51 [1965]: 29), which states inter alia: 
"The controlling principle is that a faculty member's expression of
opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless 
it clearly demonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his or 
her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty 
member's fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should 
take into account the faculty member's entire record as a teacher 
and scholar." 
 
Paragraph V of the Statement on Professional Ethics also deals 
with the nature of the "special obligations" of the teacher. The 
paragraph reads as follows:
 
As members of their community, professors have the rights
and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of 
other obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their 
subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their 
institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid 
creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or 
university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon 
freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular 
obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further 
public understanding of academic freedom.
 
Both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of 
academic responsibility apply not only to the full-time probationary 
as well as to the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such
as part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching 
responsibilities.Back to Text  
 
5. The concept of "rank of full-time instructor or a higher 
rank" is intended to include any person who teaches a full-time 
load regardless of the teacher's specific title. (For a discussion 
of this question, see the "Report of the Special Committee on 
Academic Personnel Ineligible for Tenure," AAUP Bulletin 
52 [1966]: 280-82.) Back to Text  
 
6. In calling for an agreement "in writing" on the 
amount of credit for a faculty member's prior service at 
other institutions, the Statement furthers the general 
policy of full understanding by the professor of the terms and 
conditions of the appointment. It does not necessarily follow 
that a professor's tenure rights have been violated because of  
the absence of a written agreement on this matter. Nonetheless, 
especially because of the variation in permissible institutional 
practices, a written understanding concerning these matters at 
the time of appointment is particularly appropriate and advantageous 
to both the individual and  the institution. (For a more detailed 
statement on this question, see "On Crediting Prior Service
Elsewhere as Part of the Probationary Period," AAUP Bulletin
64 [1978]: 274-75.)Back to Text  
      
7. The effect of this subparagraph is that a decision 
on tenure, favorable or unfavorable, must be made at least twelve 
months prior to the completion of the probationary period. If the 
decision is negative, the appointment for the following year 
becomes a terminal one. If the decision is affirmative, the 
provisions in the 1940 Statement with respect to the 
termination of services of teachers or investigators after 
the expiration of a probationary period should apply from the 
date when the favorable decision is made.

      The general principle of notice contained in this paragraph 
is developed with greater  specificity in the Standards for 
Notice of Nonreappointment, endorsed by the Fiftieth Annual 
Meeting of the American Association of University Professors 
(1964). These standards are:

      Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend 
reappointment to the governing board, should be given in writing in 
accordance with the following standards: 

Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, 
if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a 
one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least 
three months in advance of its termination. 

 
Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, 
if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial 
two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least 
six months in advance of its termination. 
At least twelve months 
before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years
in the institution.

Other obligations, both of institutions and of individuals, are 
described in the Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of 
Faculty Members, as endorsed by the  Association of American 
Colleges and the American Association of University Professors 
in 1961.Back to Text  

8. The freedom of probationary teachers is enhanced by the 
establishment of a regular procedure for the periodic evaluation 
and assessment of the teacher's academic performance during 
probationary status. Provision should be made for regularized 
procedures for the consideration of complaints by probationary 
teachers that their academic freedom has been violated. One 
suggested procedure to serve these purposes is contained in 
the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom 
and Tenure, prepared by the American Association of University 
Professors.Back to Text  

9. A further specification of the academic due process to 
which the teacher is entitled under this paragraph is contained in 
the Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal 
Proceedings, jointly approved by the American Association of 
University Professors and the Association of American Colleges 
in 1958. This interpretive document deals with the issue of suspension, 
about which the 1940 Statement is silent. 

The 1958 Statement provides: "Suspension of the faculty 
member during he proceedings is justified only if  immediate harm 
to the faculty member or others is threatened by the faculty
member's continuance. Unless legal considerations forbid, any 
such suspension should be with pay." A suspension which is not 
followed by either reinstatement or the opportunity for a hearing 
is in effect a summary dismissal in violation of academic due process.

The concept of "moral turpitude" identifies the exceptional case in 
which the professor may be denied a year's teaching or pay in whole 
or in part. The statement applies to that kind of behavior which goes 
beyond simply warranting discharge and is so utterly blameworthy as  
to make it inappropriate to require the offering of a year's teaching 
or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities of persons 
in the particular community have been affronted. The standard is 
behavior that would evoke condemnation by the academic community 
generally.Back to Text  

资料来源 : American Association of University Professors