This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

Francis Marion University
continued from page 4
enrollments, improperly changed grades, inadequate grievance policies for faculty, and an administration-faculty relationship that the auditors feared was ?severed beyond repair.? But it was the issue of how tax dollars had been spent that immediately caught public attention. Suddenly the press and the public remembered the faculty?s no-confidence vote and the AAUP?s imposition of sanctions. Newspaper editorials, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and TV reports mushroomed. From that point on, 1 think, Vickers? departure became inevitable.
Molotsky: What are conditions at FMU like today? How have policies and procedures changed following the AAUP?s imposition of sanction, the audit?s recommendations, and a new president?
de Montluzin: We are undergoing a major overhaul with the full support of President Carter. The existing faculty governance system, devised by a consultant to the former president, has major deficiencies.
An elected constitutional committee, led by the newly elected chair of the faculty senate, Charlene Wages, is working on revising the structure. I?m chairing a faculty handbook task force, and we?re hoping that our new handbook is going to be the most enlightened handbook in all of higher education. The AAUP sanction has helped us gready in this task because any time revisions not supported by faculty are suggested, everybody concerned knows that those revisions must be in conformity with Redbook policy.
Molotsky: What do faculty members at FMU want
to achieve now?
de Montluzin: We want to make sure that the policies and documents being proposed or in place cannot be overturned or set aside in the future. We now have appropriate processes in place for administrative searches, including presidential searches and election of department chairs. Our current president, as well as the board, is committed to shared governance, and we want to sustain this momentum.
Molotsky: What lessons can be drawn from your experience? How can faculty from other institutions benefit from it?
de Montluzin: I would emphasis the need for faculty confronted with governance or'academic freedom concerns to conduct a multifaceted campaign. We had expected we would be able to use the press to publicize the abuses, but when we were unable to do so, we turned to other means. One important resource was the state AAUP organization. South Carolina conference president Michael Morris kept FMU at the forefront of the conference?s agenda.
We knew we had the support of colleagues at institutions throughout the state, and this meant a lot to us. The words ?academic freedom? don?t really mean much to the public. It was easy for the former administration and its cronies to portray us as malcontents and to suggest that our calls for meaningful participation were a case of employees being uppity to their boss. It?s important for a faculty in trouble to latch onto a relevant issue that resounds with the public?financial improprieties, student discontent, falling enrollments, as the case may be?in order to gain attention. Use community reaction to help
Lorraine de Montluzin
remove an administration that is out of compliance with the academy?s norms. Then negotiate the issues that mean so much for faculty with the new administration. Dislodge with public outrage and restore with acadcmic values. This is where an AAUP sanction plays an important role. Incoming administrations do not want be associated with the burden of past administrative blunders and are eager to restore policies to comply with generally accepted standards. Looking back, I?ve observed that there are faculty who simply get depressed and faculty who get furious. It?s the furious activists who make a difference.