美国大学教授协会研究
摘要
学术自由是大学理念中一个最基本的学术价值观,它赋予学者自由研究的权利,为传承文明、探索新知、追求真理提供了宽松的学术氛围,使大学保持了特有的独立品格和精神,对大学的发展产生了十分重要的影响。美国完全意义上的学术自由概念出现于19世纪末20世纪初,此时,美国大学开始出现官僚化趋势,大学和学院工商业人士操纵的董事会随意解聘教师的事件不断发生,大学教师的职业安全无法得到保障,严重影响了大学教师的学术自由权利。在此状况下,大学教师迫切寻求维护自身学术自由和职业安全的方法。美国大学教授协会(American Association of University Professors,简称AAUP )正是在这样的背景下应运而生,旨在倡导和保护学术自由,确立高等教育的标准与价值理念,促进高等教育对美国社会的贡献。
在我国,由于政府权力过大,大学缺乏自主性,学术自由精神不能体现,学术自由价值贬损。行政力量的过多干涉使教师学术自由权利、参与治校权利等受到很大限制。聘任制及权利保障机制的不完善,也使教师职业面临着威胁。为此,本文对AAUP的组织沿革、特征及其现实状况等进行考察,对协会地位、作用予以剖析,以期对促进我国学术职业标准的提升,保障高等教育事业健康发展提供可靠的理论依据和实践经验。就保障我国教师学术权利而言,AAUP无疑为一个有益的研究素材,其成就及成因,为我国加快学术自由的立法,加速制度创新,建立健全教师专业组织,加强教师维权意识等,提供了重要的研究价值和借鉴意义。
Academic freedom has been a working and learning environment what the scholars pursue to have. The universities play a special role as education research institutions in today's society. But the pressure comes from the religion, the plutocrat and the polity sphere always impact its development. A malformation academic environment is bound to affect the progress of society and lead to the country backward. Therefore, how to keep the independence of academic institutions, and prevent the scholar in teaching and researching from any outside interference becomes a main task in academia. Safeguarding academic freedom and the academic rights has been a topic that all circles of community are concerned about.
American academic freedom has been influencing the mainstream of academic freedom in the contemporary world. American university teachers’academic freedom is closely linked to their occupation safety. A series of ideas and principles that AAUP advocated to enhance academic freedom, the tenure system it established, as well as the criterion and standard it carried out since it came into existence,has been advocating and complying by not only American but even the world academia.
The Academic Association of University professor was founded in 1915 to safeguard academic freedom and teachers’right. It issued the“Declaration of the Academic Freedom”soon after its foundation, which clearly put forward the principle of academic freedom protection, and established the tenure system. After the World War II, its weakness as a nongovernmental group exposed, and its limitations of the academic freedom protection in the face of powerful political forces made the association run bad. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, some teacher groups were able to organize labor unions,especially the AFT and the NEA, which forced the union issue for the AAUP. The rush of unionization in the early 1970s sustained the issue for the AAUP. Feeling somewhat embattled, the AAUP leadership decided using the collective bargaining tool to protect teachers’right. Since the 1980s, many colleges and universities called for post-tenure. Under the pressure of increasingly strong voice that against tenure, and also in order to improve teachers working activities, AAUP adjusted its policy of tenure, but it’s no doubt that AAUP is the firm defender and the best interpreter of the tenure.
Since the 1990s, AAUP developed gradually and steadily. It not only concerned about the teachers’academic freedom, tenure, university governance, treatment and collective bargaining, but also took an active interest in a wider teaching, learning and researching field. Determining the meaning of academic freedom, identifying the main areas for different tasks, as well as timely adjusting the policies by internal and external conflicts in different periods, all these built up its living philosophy that can ensure its life and help it to keep independence to complete the mission.
Including the introduction and the conclusion, this thesis has six parts. The first part is the introduction which briefly describes the article's background and significance of the study, summarizes general study situation about the field, and explains the study methods adopted in this paper. The main research on AAUP in it is divided into four parts:
Part I explores AAUP’s organization history, present organization situation and its characteristics. Then part II analyzes the association’s status, including its stable organizational structure, rational operation and its characteristics. All these matters keep its success in protecting teachers’rights in contemporary society when academic freedom facing much more pressure. And this part also analyzes its realistic challenge behind a series of achievements, with a view to providing a reliable theoretical basis and practical experience to promote China's academic career, to ensure healthy development of higher education. The status of AAUP reveals the relation between teachers’rights and universities, and between government and other teachers’organization. So, part IV analyzes AAUP’s status in the hope of giving us some experience of dealing with these relationships. And this part also concludes its achievements from four aspects. Owing to excessive government intervention, Chinese universities lack autonomy. The spirit of academic freedom cannot be embodied and academic freedom value devalues. Excessive administrative power restricts teachers’academic freedom and their participation in shared governance. The faultiness of appointment system and protection mechanism, make the teaching profession facing a threat. On protecting Chinese teachers’academic rights, AAUP is undoubtedly a useful research material. Its achievements and the causes will provide us some beneficial reassert value. To apply AAUP’s experience, we should accelerate the legislation about academic freedom, speed up institutional innovation, establish mutual understandings between faculty and administrative and enhance teachers’awareness of protecting their own right.
在我国,由于政府权力过大,大学缺乏自主性,学术自由精神不能体现,学术自由价值贬损。行政力量的过多干涉使教师学术自由权利、参与治校权利等受到很大限制。聘任制及权利保障机制的不完善,也使教师职业面临着威胁。为此,本文对AAUP的组织沿革、特征及其现实状况等进行考察,对协会地位、作用予以剖析,以期对促进我国学术职业标准的提升,保障高等教育事业健康发展提供可靠的理论依据和实践经验。就保障我国教师学术权利而言,AAUP无疑为一个有益的研究素材,其成就及成因,为我国加快学术自由的立法,加速制度创新,建立健全教师专业组织,加强教师维权意识等,提供了重要的研究价值和借鉴意义。
Academic freedom has been a working and learning environment what the scholars pursue to have. The universities play a special role as education research institutions in today's society. But the pressure comes from the religion, the plutocrat and the polity sphere always impact its development. A malformation academic environment is bound to affect the progress of society and lead to the country backward. Therefore, how to keep the independence of academic institutions, and prevent the scholar in teaching and researching from any outside interference becomes a main task in academia. Safeguarding academic freedom and the academic rights has been a topic that all circles of community are concerned about.
American academic freedom has been influencing the mainstream of academic freedom in the contemporary world. American university teachers’academic freedom is closely linked to their occupation safety. A series of ideas and principles that AAUP advocated to enhance academic freedom, the tenure system it established, as well as the criterion and standard it carried out since it came into existence,has been advocating and complying by not only American but even the world academia.
The Academic Association of University professor was founded in 1915 to safeguard academic freedom and teachers’right. It issued the“Declaration of the Academic Freedom”soon after its foundation, which clearly put forward the principle of academic freedom protection, and established the tenure system. After the World War II, its weakness as a nongovernmental group exposed, and its limitations of the academic freedom protection in the face of powerful political forces made the association run bad. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, some teacher groups were able to organize labor unions,especially the AFT and the NEA, which forced the union issue for the AAUP. The rush of unionization in the early 1970s sustained the issue for the AAUP. Feeling somewhat embattled, the AAUP leadership decided using the collective bargaining tool to protect teachers’right. Since the 1980s, many colleges and universities called for post-tenure. Under the pressure of increasingly strong voice that against tenure, and also in order to improve teachers working activities, AAUP adjusted its policy of tenure, but it’s no doubt that AAUP is the firm defender and the best interpreter of the tenure.
Since the 1990s, AAUP developed gradually and steadily. It not only concerned about the teachers’academic freedom, tenure, university governance, treatment and collective bargaining, but also took an active interest in a wider teaching, learning and researching field. Determining the meaning of academic freedom, identifying the main areas for different tasks, as well as timely adjusting the policies by internal and external conflicts in different periods, all these built up its living philosophy that can ensure its life and help it to keep independence to complete the mission.
Including the introduction and the conclusion, this thesis has six parts. The first part is the introduction which briefly describes the article's background and significance of the study, summarizes general study situation about the field, and explains the study methods adopted in this paper. The main research on AAUP in it is divided into four parts:
Part I explores AAUP’s organization history, present organization situation and its characteristics. Then part II analyzes the association’s status, including its stable organizational structure, rational operation and its characteristics. All these matters keep its success in protecting teachers’rights in contemporary society when academic freedom facing much more pressure. And this part also analyzes its realistic challenge behind a series of achievements, with a view to providing a reliable theoretical basis and practical experience to promote China's academic career, to ensure healthy development of higher education. The status of AAUP reveals the relation between teachers’rights and universities, and between government and other teachers’organization. So, part IV analyzes AAUP’s status in the hope of giving us some experience of dealing with these relationships. And this part also concludes its achievements from four aspects. Owing to excessive government intervention, Chinese universities lack autonomy. The spirit of academic freedom cannot be embodied and academic freedom value devalues. Excessive administrative power restricts teachers’academic freedom and their participation in shared governance. The faultiness of appointment system and protection mechanism, make the teaching profession facing a threat. On protecting Chinese teachers’academic rights, AAUP is undoubtedly a useful research material. Its achievements and the causes will provide us some beneficial reassert value. To apply AAUP’s experience, we should accelerate the legislation about academic freedom, speed up institutional innovation, establish mutual understandings between faculty and administrative and enhance teachers’awareness of protecting their own right.
引文
① 生云龙:《美国大学教授协会(AAUP)与终身教职》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2003 年第 1 期,第 76-82 页。
② 李子江:《论美国学术自由的组织与制度保障——AAUP 及其关于学术自由和终身制的原则声明》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10 期,第 19-23 页。
① 伍运文:《成立与成就:政治文化视野下的美国大学教授协会》[J],《大学教育科学》,2006 年第6 期,第 25-28 页。
② 李红惠:《美国大学教授联合会(AAUP)为何能维护美国大学教授的权益》[J],《现代大学教育》,2004 年第 5 期,第 76-79 页。
③ 陈悦、高锡文:《论美国学术专业的工会化——AAUP 工会主义及其特征》[J],《复旦教育论坛》,2006 年第 4 期,第 70-73 页。
④ 周作宇:《美国终身教授制的变迁与启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2001 年第 3 期,第 106-109 页。
⑤ 王保星:《 美国大学教师终身教职与学术自由的关系》[J],《北京大学教育评论》,2005年第1期,第81-86页。
① 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由——美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003年第 4 期,第 98 页。
② 方展化、林莉:《大学人事制度改革中的专业性协调——美国大学教授联合会在“终身聘任后评审”运动中的作用与评述》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 6 期,第 50-54 页。
③ 李子江:《美国大学集体谈判制度的形成与发展》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期,第23-27 页。
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization, Bureaucratization, and AAUP. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000,p22-97.
② Timothy Reese Cain . Academic Freedom in An Age of Organization,1913-1941. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 2005, p213-217.
① Hofstadter Richard & Smith Wilson. American Higher Education: a documentary history. vol.2 [Z]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961.p858- 859.
② Metzger W P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia University Press, 1964, p147.
③ Metzger W P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia University Press, 1955, p199.
① 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由一美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003年第 4 期,第 104-105 页。
② What Is Censure? [EB/OL].http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/AF/censure.htm.2007-6-14/2007-5-30.
① 王国均、徐辉:《麦卡锡主义时代美国大学教授协会生存哲学的动因分析》,http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/lw1103.html.2004-5-20.
① 李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月,第 65 页。
① Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p43.
② Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p43.
③ Philo A .Hutcheson, A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p15.
① 生云龙:《美国大学教授协会 AAUP 与终身教职》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2003 年第 1 期,第 81 页。
① 耿益群:《美国高校终身教授制度的困境与出路》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 2 期,第50 页。
①AAUP Election Bylaw. [EB/OL].http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/electionbylaws.htm.2007-7-10.
① Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p13.
① AAUP Constitution. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/constitution.htm.2007-6-5.
① AAUP Constitution. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/constitution.htm.2007-6-5.
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p169-170.
②李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月,第 100 页。
① http://www.aaup.org/Legal/info20%outlines/legdftenhtm.转引自:生云龙:《美国大学教授协会(AAUP)与终身教职》[J],《清华大学研究》,2003年第1期,第79页。
① Wilson, Robin. The AAUP, 92 and Ailing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, (8), p8.
① 王 国 均 、 徐 辉 :《 麦 卡 锡 主 义 时 代 美 国 大 学 教 授 协 会 生 存 哲 学 的 动 因 分 析 》,http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/lw1103.html.2004-5-20/2007-5-30.
① Bowen, Roger W. The Challenges of the Modern AAUP. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007, (6), p47.
① Bowen,Roger W. The Challenges of the Modern AAUP. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007, (8),p47.
① Wilson, Robin. The AAUP, 92 and Ailing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, (8), p8.
① 李国栋,《当前美国高等教育面临的主要问题》[J],《世界教育信息》,2006 年第 4 期,第 18 页。
① Timothy, Reese Cain. Academic Freedom in an Age of Organization [D]. 1913-1941. Michigan: Michigan University press, 2005, p213-217.
①1940 Statement. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm.2007-6-18.
① R. E. Haskell. “Academic Freedom, Promotion , Reappointment , Tenure and The Administrative Use of Student Evaluation of Faculty , ”http :/ / epaa. asu. edu/ epaa/ v5n17.html.
② Louis Joughin. Academic Freedom and Tenure [M], Washington : The University of Washington Press, 1967,p67
① Alstete Jeffrey W. Post-Tenure Faculty Development Building: A System of Faculty Improvement and Appreciation. Washington : The George Washington University Press, 2000,(3),p45.
② 周文霞:《美国教授终身制及其对中国高校教师人用改革制度的启示》[J],《中国人民大学学报》,2003 年第 5 期,第 78 页。
① AAUP 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and University, by Louis Joughin Ed, Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professor. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967, p90-101.
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p10-11.
① 周志宏:《学术自由与大学法》[M],台湾:蔚理法律出版社,1989年版,第128页。
② 沈文钦:《美国联邦最高法院的学术自由判例及其法律意涵》[J],《比较教育研究》,2007 年第 1 期,第 9 页。
① 沈文钦:《美国联邦最高法院的学术自由判例及其法律意涵》[J],《比较教育研究》,2007 年第 1期,第 9 页。
①Cases&codes.[EB/OL].http://caselaw.Ip.Findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pI?eourt=us&vol=385&invol=589.2005-11-06.
①高洪波:《教育协会在美国教育中的地位和作用》[J],《世界教育信息》,2006 年第 2 期,第 29 页。
[1] [美] 德里克·博克:《走出象牙塔—现代大学的责任》[M],徐小洲,陈军译,杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001 年版。
[2] [英] 阿克顿:《自由史论》[M],胡传胜等译,江苏:译林出版社,2001 年版。
[3] 舸舟:《漫步美国大学—美国著名大学今昔纵横谈》[M],哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学出版社,2000 年版。
[4] [美] 埃里克·方纳:《美国自由的故事》[M],王希译,北京:商务印书馆,2002 年版。
[5] [美] 詹姆斯·M·伯恩斯:《美国式民主》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,1993 年版。
[6] [美] 查尔斯·博哲斯:《美国思想渊源——西方思想与美国观念的形成》[M],符鸿令译,西安:陕西人民出版社,1987 年版。
[7] [德] 马克斯·韦伯:《学术与政治》[M],冯克利译,上海:三联书店,1998 年版。
[8] 施晓光:《美国大学思想论纲》[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001 年版。
[9] 周光礼:《学术自由与社会干预》[M],武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2003 年版。
[10] 陈学飞:《美国高等教育史》[M],成都:四川大学出版社, 1989 年版。
[11] 王英杰:《美国高等教育的发展与改革》[M],北京:人民教育出版社,2001 年版。
[12] 贺国庆:《近代欧洲对美国教育的影响》[M],石家庄:河北大学出版社,1999 年版。
[13] [美] 诺曼·杰·奥恩斯坦,学利·埃尔德:《利益集团、院外活动和政策制订》[M],潘同文等译,北京:世界知识出版社,1981 年版。
[14] 贺国庆:《德国和美国大学发达史》[M],北京:人民教育出版社,1998 年版。
[15] 张忠栋:《教育独立与学术自由》[M],唐山: 唐山出版社,1999年版。
[1] 别敦荣:《美国大学学术管理发展的历程及其启示》[J],《厦门大学学报》,1998 年第 2 期。
[2] 顾建民:《美国大学终身教职制度改革》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2006 年第 1 期。
[3] 李敏:《终身教职制和终身教职后评估及其启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期。
[4] 耿益群:《美国高校终身教授制度的困境与出路》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 2 期。
[5] 耿益群,高益民:《美国高校终身教授制度的历史演进》[J] ,《比较教育研究》, 2005 年第 5 期。
[6] 李子江:《论美国学术自由的组织与制度保障——AAUP 及其关于学术自由和终身制的原则声明》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10期。
[7] 屈琼斐:《美国大学终身聘任后评审制》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006年第 2 期。
[8] 生云龙:《美国大学教授协会(AAUP)与终身教职》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2003 年第 1 期。
[9] 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由一美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003 年第 4 期。
[10] 徐辉:《外国高校教师队伍管理的历史发展及启示》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10 期。
[11] 李子江:《美国大学集体谈判制度的形成与发展》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期。
[12] 李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月。
[13] 郭卉:《美国大学“联合治理”制度的历史发展及其价值意蕴》[J],《高教探索》,2006 年第 2 期。
[14] 陈悦、高锡文:《论美国学术专业的工会化——AAUP 工会主义及其特征》[J],《复旦教育论坛》,2006 年第 4 期。
[15] 孟亚波:《美国的利益集团》[J],《国际资料信息》,2002 年第 6期。
[16] 谭融:《美国的利益集团政治理论综述》[J],《天津大学学报》,2001年第 1 期。
[17] 王保星:《美国大学教师终身教职与学术自由的关系》[J],《北京大学教育评论》,2005 年第 1 期。
[18] 伍运文:《成立与成就:政治文化视野下的美国大学教授协会》[J],《大学教育科学》,2006 年第 4 期。
[19] 方展化、林莉:《大学人事制度改革中的专业性协调——美国大学教授联合会在“终身聘任后评审”运动中的作用与评述》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 6 期。
[20] 李红惠:《AAUP 为何能维护美国大学教授的权益》[J],《现代大学教育》,2004 年第 5 期。
[21] 文雪、沈红:《试析美国大学学术职业发展的独特性——基于对美国 大学终身教职制度的考察》[J],《高教探索》,2007 年第 2 期。
[22] 周作宇:《美国终身教授制的变迁与启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2001 年第 3 期。
[23] 龚兵:《从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究》[D],华东师范大学,2005 年 6 月。
[24] 王春多:《20 世纪美国大学终身教职制度研究》[D],河北大学,2005年 6 月。
[25] 周小虎:《利益集团视角下的美国教师组织对教育政策影响的研究》[D],东北师范大学,2006 年 5 月。
[1] Hutcheson,PhiloA.AProfessionalProfessoriate:Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000.
[2] A Report and Recommendation by The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Governance of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1973.
[3] Richard Hofstadter & Walter Metzger. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
[4] Richard Hofstadter & Wilson Smith. American higher education: a documentary history.vol.2 [2].Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961.
[5] Metzger,Walter P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1995.
[6] Ellen W. Schrecker. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
[7] Christopher J. Lucas. American Higher Education: A History, ST. New York: Martin’s Press, 1994.
[8] Louis Joughin. Academic Freedom and Tenure. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
[9] Louis Menand. The Future of Academic Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[10] Malcolm Tight. Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Open UniversityPress, 1988.
[11] Philip G. Altbach. American Higher Education in Twenty-First Century, Baltimore and London: The University of Michigan Press, 2000.
[12] Laurence R, Veysey. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[13] Noam Chomsky et al. The Cold War & Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966.
[14] Louis Joughin Ed. AAUP 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 7.
[15] Richard T. De George. Academic Freedom and tenure: Ethical Issues. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997.
[16] Philip G. Altbach, “Academic Freedom and the Parameters of Knowledge”. Howard Educational Review, Vol.41, No.3, April 2001.
[17] Robert M. Maciver. Academic Freedom in Our Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
[18] Robert K. Carr & Daniel K. Vaneyck. Collective Bargaining Come to Campus. American Council on Education·Washington, D.C., 1973.
[19] Henry Wasser. “Redefining Autonomy of Universities”. Higher Education Policy, Vol.8, No.3, 1995.
② 李子江:《论美国学术自由的组织与制度保障——AAUP 及其关于学术自由和终身制的原则声明》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10 期,第 19-23 页。
① 伍运文:《成立与成就:政治文化视野下的美国大学教授协会》[J],《大学教育科学》,2006 年第6 期,第 25-28 页。
② 李红惠:《美国大学教授联合会(AAUP)为何能维护美国大学教授的权益》[J],《现代大学教育》,2004 年第 5 期,第 76-79 页。
③ 陈悦、高锡文:《论美国学术专业的工会化——AAUP 工会主义及其特征》[J],《复旦教育论坛》,2006 年第 4 期,第 70-73 页。
④ 周作宇:《美国终身教授制的变迁与启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2001 年第 3 期,第 106-109 页。
⑤ 王保星:《 美国大学教师终身教职与学术自由的关系》[J],《北京大学教育评论》,2005年第1期,第81-86页。
① 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由——美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003年第 4 期,第 98 页。
② 方展化、林莉:《大学人事制度改革中的专业性协调——美国大学教授联合会在“终身聘任后评审”运动中的作用与评述》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 6 期,第 50-54 页。
③ 李子江:《美国大学集体谈判制度的形成与发展》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期,第23-27 页。
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization, Bureaucratization, and AAUP. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000,p22-97.
② Timothy Reese Cain . Academic Freedom in An Age of Organization,1913-1941. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 2005, p213-217.
① Hofstadter Richard & Smith Wilson. American Higher Education: a documentary history. vol.2 [Z]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961.p858- 859.
② Metzger W P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia University Press, 1964, p147.
③ Metzger W P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia University Press, 1955, p199.
① 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由一美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003年第 4 期,第 104-105 页。
② What Is Censure? [EB/OL].http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/AF/censure.htm.2007-6-14/2007-5-30.
① 王国均、徐辉:《麦卡锡主义时代美国大学教授协会生存哲学的动因分析》,http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/lw1103.html.2004-5-20.
① 李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月,第 65 页。
① Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p43.
② Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p43.
③ Philo A .Hutcheson, A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p15.
① 生云龙:《美国大学教授协会 AAUP 与终身教职》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2003 年第 1 期,第 81 页。
① 耿益群:《美国高校终身教授制度的困境与出路》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 2 期,第50 页。
①AAUP Election Bylaw. [EB/OL].http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/electionbylaws.htm.2007-7-10.
① Philo A .Hutcheson,A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p13.
① AAUP Constitution. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/constitution.htm.2007-6-5.
① AAUP Constitution. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/bus/constitution.htm.2007-6-5.
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p169-170.
②李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月,第 100 页。
① http://www.aaup.org/Legal/info20%outlines/legdftenhtm.转引自:生云龙:《美国大学教授协会(AAUP)与终身教职》[J],《清华大学研究》,2003年第1期,第79页。
① Wilson, Robin. The AAUP, 92 and Ailing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, (8), p8.
① 王 国 均 、 徐 辉 :《 麦 卡 锡 主 义 时 代 美 国 大 学 教 授 协 会 生 存 哲 学 的 动 因 分 析 》,http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/lw1103.html.2004-5-20/2007-5-30.
① Bowen, Roger W. The Challenges of the Modern AAUP. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007, (6), p47.
① Bowen,Roger W. The Challenges of the Modern AAUP. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007, (8),p47.
① Wilson, Robin. The AAUP, 92 and Ailing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006, (8), p8.
① 李国栋,《当前美国高等教育面临的主要问题》[J],《世界教育信息》,2006 年第 4 期,第 18 页。
① Timothy, Reese Cain. Academic Freedom in an Age of Organization [D]. 1913-1941. Michigan: Michigan University press, 2005, p213-217.
①1940 Statement. [EB/OL]. http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm.2007-6-18.
① R. E. Haskell. “Academic Freedom, Promotion , Reappointment , Tenure and The Administrative Use of Student Evaluation of Faculty , ”http :/ / epaa. asu. edu/ epaa/ v5n17.html.
② Louis Joughin. Academic Freedom and Tenure [M], Washington : The University of Washington Press, 1967,p67
① Alstete Jeffrey W. Post-Tenure Faculty Development Building: A System of Faculty Improvement and Appreciation. Washington : The George Washington University Press, 2000,(3),p45.
② 周文霞:《美国教授终身制及其对中国高校教师人用改革制度的启示》[J],《中国人民大学学报》,2003 年第 5 期,第 78 页。
① AAUP 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and University, by Louis Joughin Ed, Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professor. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967, p90-101.
① Philo A, Hutcheson. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP[M]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, p10-11.
① 周志宏:《学术自由与大学法》[M],台湾:蔚理法律出版社,1989年版,第128页。
② 沈文钦:《美国联邦最高法院的学术自由判例及其法律意涵》[J],《比较教育研究》,2007 年第 1 期,第 9 页。
① 沈文钦:《美国联邦最高法院的学术自由判例及其法律意涵》[J],《比较教育研究》,2007 年第 1期,第 9 页。
①Cases&codes.[EB/OL].http://caselaw.Ip.Findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pI?eourt=us&vol=385&invol=589.2005-11-06.
①高洪波:《教育协会在美国教育中的地位和作用》[J],《世界教育信息》,2006 年第 2 期,第 29 页。
[1] [美] 德里克·博克:《走出象牙塔—现代大学的责任》[M],徐小洲,陈军译,杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001 年版。
[2] [英] 阿克顿:《自由史论》[M],胡传胜等译,江苏:译林出版社,2001 年版。
[3] 舸舟:《漫步美国大学—美国著名大学今昔纵横谈》[M],哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学出版社,2000 年版。
[4] [美] 埃里克·方纳:《美国自由的故事》[M],王希译,北京:商务印书馆,2002 年版。
[5] [美] 詹姆斯·M·伯恩斯:《美国式民主》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社,1993 年版。
[6] [美] 查尔斯·博哲斯:《美国思想渊源——西方思想与美国观念的形成》[M],符鸿令译,西安:陕西人民出版社,1987 年版。
[7] [德] 马克斯·韦伯:《学术与政治》[M],冯克利译,上海:三联书店,1998 年版。
[8] 施晓光:《美国大学思想论纲》[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001 年版。
[9] 周光礼:《学术自由与社会干预》[M],武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2003 年版。
[10] 陈学飞:《美国高等教育史》[M],成都:四川大学出版社, 1989 年版。
[11] 王英杰:《美国高等教育的发展与改革》[M],北京:人民教育出版社,2001 年版。
[12] 贺国庆:《近代欧洲对美国教育的影响》[M],石家庄:河北大学出版社,1999 年版。
[13] [美] 诺曼·杰·奥恩斯坦,学利·埃尔德:《利益集团、院外活动和政策制订》[M],潘同文等译,北京:世界知识出版社,1981 年版。
[14] 贺国庆:《德国和美国大学发达史》[M],北京:人民教育出版社,1998 年版。
[15] 张忠栋:《教育独立与学术自由》[M],唐山: 唐山出版社,1999年版。
[1] 别敦荣:《美国大学学术管理发展的历程及其启示》[J],《厦门大学学报》,1998 年第 2 期。
[2] 顾建民:《美国大学终身教职制度改革》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2006 年第 1 期。
[3] 李敏:《终身教职制和终身教职后评估及其启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期。
[4] 耿益群:《美国高校终身教授制度的困境与出路》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 2 期。
[5] 耿益群,高益民:《美国高校终身教授制度的历史演进》[J] ,《比较教育研究》, 2005 年第 5 期。
[6] 李子江:《论美国学术自由的组织与制度保障——AAUP 及其关于学术自由和终身制的原则声明》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10期。
[7] 屈琼斐:《美国大学终身聘任后评审制》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006年第 2 期。
[8] 生云龙:《美国大学教授协会(AAUP)与终身教职》[J],《清华大学教育研究》,2003 年第 1 期。
[9] 刘北成:《以职业安全保障学术自由一美国终身教职的由来及争论》[J],《美国研究》,2003 年第 4 期。
[10] 徐辉:《外国高校教师队伍管理的历史发展及启示》[J],《比较教育研究》,2003 年第 10 期。
[11] 李子江:《美国大学集体谈判制度的形成与发展》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 3 期。
[12] 李子江:《美国学术自由的变迁:1880-1980》[D],北京师范大学,2004 年 5 月。
[13] 郭卉:《美国大学“联合治理”制度的历史发展及其价值意蕴》[J],《高教探索》,2006 年第 2 期。
[14] 陈悦、高锡文:《论美国学术专业的工会化——AAUP 工会主义及其特征》[J],《复旦教育论坛》,2006 年第 4 期。
[15] 孟亚波:《美国的利益集团》[J],《国际资料信息》,2002 年第 6期。
[16] 谭融:《美国的利益集团政治理论综述》[J],《天津大学学报》,2001年第 1 期。
[17] 王保星:《美国大学教师终身教职与学术自由的关系》[J],《北京大学教育评论》,2005 年第 1 期。
[18] 伍运文:《成立与成就:政治文化视野下的美国大学教授协会》[J],《大学教育科学》,2006 年第 4 期。
[19] 方展化、林莉:《大学人事制度改革中的专业性协调——美国大学教授联合会在“终身聘任后评审”运动中的作用与评述》[J],《比较教育研究》,2006 年第 6 期。
[20] 李红惠:《AAUP 为何能维护美国大学教授的权益》[J],《现代大学教育》,2004 年第 5 期。
[21] 文雪、沈红:《试析美国大学学术职业发展的独特性——基于对美国 大学终身教职制度的考察》[J],《高教探索》,2007 年第 2 期。
[22] 周作宇:《美国终身教授制的变迁与启示》[J],《高等教育研究》,2001 年第 3 期。
[23] 龚兵:《从专业协会到教师工会——美国全国教育协会角色转变之研究》[D],华东师范大学,2005 年 6 月。
[24] 王春多:《20 世纪美国大学终身教职制度研究》[D],河北大学,2005年 6 月。
[25] 周小虎:《利益集团视角下的美国教师组织对教育政策影响的研究》[D],东北师范大学,2006 年 5 月。
[1] Hutcheson,PhiloA.AProfessionalProfessoriate:Unionization,Bureaucratization,and AAUP. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000.
[2] A Report and Recommendation by The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Governance of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1973.
[3] Richard Hofstadter & Walter Metzger. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
[4] Richard Hofstadter & Wilson Smith. American higher education: a documentary history.vol.2 [2].Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961.
[5] Metzger,Walter P. Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1995.
[6] Ellen W. Schrecker. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
[7] Christopher J. Lucas. American Higher Education: A History, ST. New York: Martin’s Press, 1994.
[8] Louis Joughin. Academic Freedom and Tenure. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
[9] Louis Menand. The Future of Academic Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[10] Malcolm Tight. Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Open UniversityPress, 1988.
[11] Philip G. Altbach. American Higher Education in Twenty-First Century, Baltimore and London: The University of Michigan Press, 2000.
[12] Laurence R, Veysey. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
[13] Noam Chomsky et al. The Cold War & Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966.
[14] Louis Joughin Ed. AAUP 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 7.
[15] Richard T. De George. Academic Freedom and tenure: Ethical Issues. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997.
[16] Philip G. Altbach, “Academic Freedom and the Parameters of Knowledge”. Howard Educational Review, Vol.41, No.3, April 2001.
[17] Robert M. Maciver. Academic Freedom in Our Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
[18] Robert K. Carr & Daniel K. Vaneyck. Collective Bargaining Come to Campus. American Council on Education·Washington, D.C., 1973.
[19] Henry Wasser. “Redefining Autonomy of Universities”. Higher Education Policy, Vol.8, No.3, 1995.