The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is not a suggestion; it's a necessity, born from the predictable chaos of human institutions. Established in 1915, this nonprofit charitable organization serves as a rather persistent thorn in the side of anyone who believes unchecked power is a good idea in higher education. Headquartered in Washington D.C., it operates across the United States, a testament to the enduring need for its existence.
Its membership is comprised of professors and other professional university staff – essentially, the people who keep the intellectual gears grinding, often against considerable resistance. English is, predictably, its official language, given its origins and primary operational sphere. Currently, the organization is helmed by Executive Director Mia McIver, with Todd Wolfson serving as President. For those inclined to seek out its pronouncements, the official website is aaup.org.
The organization was founded in 1915, emerging from the bustling intellectual landscape of New York City, before establishing its more enduring presence in Washington, D.C.. Its structure is robust, boasting a network that includes over 500 local campus chapters, each a miniature outpost of academic vigilance, alongside 39 state organizations, ensuring a widespread, if sometimes weary, presence.
A significant development occurred in June 2022, when the AAUP forged an affiliation with the American Federation of Teachers. This strategic alignment undoubtedly bolstered its collective strength, combining the AAUP's long-standing advocacy for academic principles with the broader labor movement's organizational power.
The AAUP's stated mission is as ambitious as it is essential: to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to meticulously define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure that higher education genuinely contributes to the common good. Founded by intellectual heavyweights Arthur O. Lovejoy and John Dewey, the AAUP has, with a persistent and sometimes exasperated effort, profoundly shaped American higher education. It has achieved this by developing and championing standards and procedures that are designed to maintain quality in education and, perhaps more crucially, to safeguard academic freedom within the country's diverse array of colleges and universities. One might even say it exists to remind institutions of their better selves, a task that, like Sisyphus, seems never truly finished.
History
Issues around academic freedom and tenure before the AAUP
Before the AAUP came along to formalize the obvious, the landscape for academics was, to put it mildly, precarious. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were rife with incidents where the intellectual integrity of faculty members was deemed less important than institutional convenience or the whims of powerful donors. It was a time when speaking inconvenient truths could, and often did, cost one a career.
In the 1890s and the nascent years of the 1900s, there was a disconcerting pattern of attempts to summarily dismiss college faculty members from their academic posts. A notable, albeit ultimately failed, effort to oust Richard Ely from the University of Wisconsin occurred in 1894, a minor victory that highlighted the ongoing struggle. Less fortunate was Edward Bemis, who was unceremoniously dismissed from his position at the prestigious University of Chicago in 1895. Similarly, George D. Herron found himself relieved of his duties at Grinnell College in 1899. These weren't isolated incidents; they were symptoms of a systemic vulnerability within the academic profession.
Perhaps the most glaring and illustrative of these early battles was the 1900 dismissal of Edward Alsworth Ross from Stanford University. Ross, a figure perhaps controversially remembered today for his association with eugenics, was nonetheless a prominent economics professor and sociologist. His critical work, which dared to scrutinize the employment practices of Chinese laborers by the Southern Pacific Railroad, a company controlled by Stanford's founder Leland Stanford, proved to be his undoing. Leland's widow, Jane Stanford, decided to intervene directly, and, over the objections of both the university president and the faculty who understood the implications, she succeeded in having Ross dismissed. This act of blatant interference, a clear demonstration of external power overriding academic principles, prompted a wave of protest. A number of Ross's faculty colleagues resigned in solidarity, including the notable philosopher Arthur O. Lovejoy, who would later become instrumental in the very organization designed to prevent such abuses. It’s almost poetic, if one appreciates the irony.
Foundation
The sheer volume of these unsettling incidents, these academic purges, eventually reached a critical mass. In January 1915, a series of meetings were convened at the somewhat less-than-academic setting of the Chemists' Club in New York City. From these discussions, the Association of University Professors was formally established. John Dewey, a towering figure in American philosophy and education, took on the role of the organization's inaugural president. Meanwhile, Lovejoy, fresh from his principled resignation at Stanford and now a faculty member at Johns Hopkins, assumed the crucial position of secretary. One can imagine their conversations, a mixture of idealism and weary pragmatism, knowing they were building something that should have existed decades prior.
The AAUP barely had time to print its letterhead before being plunged into its first major crisis. In February 1915, President Joseph T. Kingsbury of the University of Utah decided, with a flourish of administrative authority, to dismiss two professors and two instructors. This heavy-handed action triggered the immediate resignation of 14 faculty members in protest, a clear indication that the spirit of academic integrity, though often tested, was not entirely extinguished. This incident became the AAUP's very first institutional academic freedom inquest, a baptism by fire that solidified its purpose. It was not, however, the first time these issues had surfaced in Utah; an earlier 1911 controversy at Brigham Young University in Provo had, rather inconveniently, involved some of the same professors, suggesting a regional pattern of disregard for academic autonomy.
By December 1915, mere months after its formation, the inaugural volume of the Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors was published. This publication contained what would become known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure—a document that would serve as the AAUP's foundational statement. It meticulously outlined the rights of members of the academic profession, and, importantly, the corresponding obligations that came with such freedoms. It was a clear, if belated, attempt to codify what should have been inherent.
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure
The AAUP, with a certain cosmic weariness, has observed throughout its existence that "there are still people who want to control what professors teach and write." This isn't a new phenomenon; it's a persistent strain in the human condition, always seeking to impose conformity over inquiry. The AAUP's "Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" stands as the definitive articulation of these principles and practices. It is, to its credit, widely accepted by the academic community, serving as a kind of intellectual Magna Carta. The association's meticulously developed procedures for ensuring academic due process remain the gold standard, the model for professional employment practices across campuses nationwide. It’s a framework designed to prevent the kind of arbitrary dismissals that plagued earlier generations, though, as history shows, frameworks are only as strong as the will to uphold them.
Initially, these audacious ideas of academic freedom were not universally embraced. Even the venerable New York Times saw fit to criticize the declaration, perhaps finding the notion of intellectual autonomy a little too disruptive. Yet, despite initial resistance, the statement today stands "almost as nearly inviolate as the U.S. Constitution." A rather high bar, one might observe, and a testament to its enduring relevance, or perhaps the enduring need for such a clear articulation of rights.
The AAUP doesn't just offer the original principles; it provides a living document. This includes the crucial 1940 interpretations of the statement and a further 1970 interpretation, which formally codified the evaluation of these principles as they adapted to the changing times and circumstances of higher education. The statement itself is remarkably straightforward, anchored by three fundamental principles of academic freedom:
- Freedom in Research and Publication: The first principle boldly asserts that teachers are entitled to "full freedom in research and in publication of the results." It acknowledges, with a pragmatic nod, that the issue of financial gains derived from such research is contingent upon the specific relationship between the individual and their institution. It’s about the pursuit of knowledge, not just profit.
- Freedom in the Classroom: The second principle extends this essential liberty to the classroom, stating that teachers should possess the same degree of freedom in their instructional roles. This ensures that educators can engage with their subjects deeply and critically, without undue fear of reprisal.
- Freedom as Citizens: The third principle underscores that college and university professors are, first and foremost, citizens. As such, they should be free to speak and write as citizens, "free from institutional censorship." This is a vital distinction, separating the academic's role within the institution from their inherent rights as an individual engaging with the broader public sphere.
According to the 1970 interpretation, the statement is explicitly not a "static code but a fundamental document to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing times and circumstances." This foresight acknowledged that the world, and thus academia, would continue to evolve. The accompanying commentary reiterates key points from the 1940 interpretations, emphasizing that while the statement does not discourage controversy, it firmly stresses professionalism. It holds that professors should exercise caution "not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." This is not an invitation to censor, but a call to maintain academic integrity within the pedagogical context.
Beyond the three core tenets of academic freedom, the statement is further buttressed by five specific principles governing the terms of academic employment, particularly concerning tenure:
- Written Terms of Appointment: The terms of appointment for faculty members are to be clearly stated in writing, leaving no room for ambiguity or convenient administrative amnesia.
- Clear Tenure Path: The conditions and the length of the probationary period within which professors are expected to attain tenure must be explicitly stated. This provides a transparent path, or at least a clearly marked one, for career progression.
- Academic Freedom During Probation: Crucially, during the probationary period before attaining tenure, the teacher "should have all the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have." This prevents institutions from stifling nascent scholarship or critical thought from those still climbing the ladder.
- Joint Judgment on Tenure: Both the faculty and the institution's governing board should participate in the judgment of whether tenure is to be granted or denied. Furthermore, the terms for appealing a decision to deny tenure must be clearly stated, ensuring due process and a fair hearing.
- Bona Fide Financial Exigency: If a faculty member is denied a tenured appointment due to alleged financial restraint upon the university, the "financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide." This provision aims to prevent institutions from using financial difficulties as a convenient pretext for dismissing faculty for other, less defensible reasons.
The interpretive statement also maintains a delicate balance regarding professors' public roles. While acknowledging their rights as citizens, it subtly reminds both scholars and educational officers that "the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances." Thus, every effort should be made "to indicate they are not speaking for the institution." It's a pragmatic warning: your words carry weight, and the public often struggles with nuance. These comments also provide further insights into the evaluation process for tenure appointments and direct readers to the "1968 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which further elaborates on policy based upon the 1940 statement and subsequent documents concerning standards for faculty dismissal.
Academic freedom and the Supreme Court
It’s often depressing how long it takes for common sense to be enshrined in law, but sometimes, even the highest courts catch up. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States finally acknowledged academic freedom's essential role as a protected right under the First Amendment. This landmark case established a precedent that significantly influenced university policies nationwide, affirming the critical importance of academic discourse and inquiry to a functioning democracy, free from governmental interference. However, even this victory came with a caveat. "At the time of the Sweezy decision, the AAUP was deeply ambivalent about the constitutionalization of academic freedom, because some members feared the long-term consequences of having judges rather than professors elaborate and apply the protective rules of academic life." A valid concern, considering judges, for all their legal acumen, often lack the nuanced understanding of academic life.
A decade later, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the constitutionality and legal basis for the AAUP's principles of academic freedom were further solidified. These judicial pronouncements provided a crucial legal shield for the very principles the AAUP had been advocating for since its inception.
Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities
Beyond the individual rights of faculty, the AAUP also recognized the critical need for proper institutional governance. The American Association of University Professors published its initial "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" in 1920, a document that, even then, emphasized "the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies." These were, and remain, fundamental aspects of genuine shared governance. This foundational statement saw refinements over the subsequent years, culminating in the more comprehensive and widely influential 1966 "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities."
This latter statement was not merely an internal AAUP document; it was the product of a collaborative effort, jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). This tripartite effort underscored its broad acceptance and authority within the higher education landscape. Its primary aim was to clarify the respective roles of governing boards, faculties, and administrations, delineating their spheres of influence and responsibility. The document, however, deliberately refrained from providing a rigid "blueprint" for the governance of higher education, recognizing the diverse structures and cultures of different institutions.
Furthermore, the statement's purpose was not to dictate principles for relations with external entities like industry and government, though it did establish a direction for "the correction of existing weaknesses" within internal governance. Rather, its core objective was to establish a shared vision for the internal governance of institutions, fostering a more collaborative and balanced approach to decision-making. Notably, student involvement was not addressed in detail within this particular statement, its focus remaining squarely on the general education policy and internal operations, providing an overview of the formal roles for governing structures in the organization and management of higher education. It’s a framework for adults to behave like adults, a concept that often requires formal documentation.
Recent events
The AAUP, ever vigilant, continues to adapt and engage with the evolving landscape of higher education. Since 2010, it has published the Journal of Academic Freedom, an online-only, open-access annual journal. This platform serves as a vital forum for scholarly discourse on the very principles the AAUP champions, ensuring that the conversation around academic freedom remains vibrant and accessible.
As previously noted, a significant organizational shift occurred in June 2022, when the AAUP officially affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. This move, a strategic alliance, promised to enhance the AAUP's advocacy reach and organizational power, particularly in an increasingly unionized academic environment.
More recently, in August 2024, AAUP president Todd Wolfson made headlines by unequivocally calling United States Senator JD Vance a "fascist" during that year's heated presidential election. This blunt assessment, delivered from the helm of an organization dedicated to intellectual integrity, was not merely a casual remark. It underscored the AAUP's increasingly vocal stance against political figures and policies perceived as threats to academic values and democratic principles. Such a declaration foreshadowed battles to come, particularly as the AAUP has actively opposed many of the Trump administration's higher education policies and even initiated legal action to challenge recommended funding cuts targeting prestigious Ivy League institutions. It seems the fight for academic freedom often involves calling out uncomfortable truths, a task the AAUP, or at least its current president, seems prepared to undertake.
Censured institutions
The AAUP, with a certain gravitas, maintains a public record of institutions that have demonstrably failed to uphold the fundamental tenets of academic freedom and tenure. This "censure list" is not merely symbolic; it serves as a stark warning to the academic community and a public indictment of institutional failings. The AAUP censures institutions that violate its established standards of academic freedom and tenure, and it further sanctions those that have infringed upon university governance standards through "serious departures by the administration and/or governing board from generally accepted standards of college and university government." It’s a way of saying, quite clearly, "you have failed."
The historical context of this censure process is illuminating. In 1930, a particularly egregious incident led to the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and Mississippi University for Women being placed on a list of "non-recommended" institutions. This drastic action was a direct consequence of Mississippi Governor Theodore Bilbo, a figure infamously associated with the Ku Klux Klan, orchestrating the mass firing of all three institutions' presidents, along with 179 faculty members. Such a wholesale purge, driven by political vendetta rather than academic merit, starkly illustrated the need for a mechanism to defend academic integrity.
The official censure list, as it is known today, was formally created in 1938. Between that year and 2002, a staggering 183 colleges and universities found themselves on this list at various times, a testament to the persistent challenges to academic freedom. As of 2024, the list remains a significant one, with 59 institutions currently under AAUP censure. It’s a sobering reminder that vigilance is not merely a suggestion, but a continuous obligation.
Conflict with religious institutions
One of the more complex and enduring areas of contention for the AAUP has been its relationship with religious institutions. The AAUP has, over the years, censured numerous religious institutions, including The Catholic University of America in 1990 and Brigham Young University in 1998. This has, predictably, sparked criticism. Some argue that the AAUP's stance on academic freedom in religious institutions appears to contradict its own 1940 statement on academic freedom, which explicitly permits religious institutions to limit academic freedom if those limitations are clearly stated. It's a clause that, like many compromises, has proven to be a source of perpetual debate.
In 1970, the AAUP itself expressed criticism of its own 1940 statement, positing that most religious institutions "no longer need or desire" to limit academic freedom. This suggested a shift in perspective, acknowledging that many faith-based universities had evolved to embrace broader academic principles.
However, the issue remains stubbornly unresolved. In 1988, the AAUP offered yet another interpretation, suggesting that the "1970 de-endorsement clause" effectively requires a religious institution to forfeit its "right to represent itself as an 'authentic seat of higher learning'" if it chooses to impose academic freedom limitations. This was a bolder, more assertive stance. Yet, the AAUP's Committee A, the body responsible for academic freedom and tenure, did not officially endorse this interpretation. Consequently, the fundamental question of whether a religious institution can limit academic freedom, even if those limitations are clearly stated, appears to remain a point of ongoing, and perhaps eternal, debate. It’s a classic example of principle meeting pragmatism, and neither side entirely yielding.
Sanctioned institutions
Distinct from its censure list, the AAUP also maintains a list of sanctioned institutions for violations specifically related to shared governance. This list, while addressing a different facet of institutional integrity, is no less important. Currently, fourteen U.S. colleges are on the AAUP's list of sanctioned institutions for violations of shared governance. This group is diverse, encompassing three community colleges, ten four-year colleges and universities, and an independent law school, indicating that issues of governance can arise in any academic setting, regardless of its size or mission. It's a reminder that good governance is not an automatic outcome, but a continuous effort.
Collective bargaining
The AAUP, recognizing the evolving dynamics of academic employment, began a significant reorganization in 2009. This initiative aimed to better integrate its various functions: its role as a think tank, its non-organized advocacy chapters, and its increasingly vital support for collective bargaining chapters. It was a pragmatic acknowledgment that individual advocacy, while noble, often needs the backing of organized power.
This strategic shift culminated in the historic June 2022 affiliation with the American Federation of Teachers, a move that further solidified the AAUP's commitment to collective action.
Today, the AAUP represents more than 65 collective bargaining affiliates nationwide, predominantly within the public sector. These affiliates provide a structured mechanism for faculty to negotiate terms of employment, working conditions, and, crucially, to safeguard academic freedom through contractual agreements.
However, the path to unionization, particularly in private institutions, has been fraught with legal challenges. In 1980, a decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University was issued by the United States Supreme Court. This ruling created "major roadblocks to unionization" among faculty members at private colleges and universities, by effectively classifying many faculty as managerial employees, thus excluding them from the protections of labor law. Despite this significant hurdle, the AAUP has managed to maintain collective bargaining affiliates at a number of private colleges and universities, primarily where the chapter had already existed prior to the 1980 decision. These include, among others, Adelphi University's chapter (which proudly highlights "Our History" on its website), Bard College, Curry College, D'Youville University, Edward Waters University, Fairfield University, Hofstra University, LeMoyne-Owen College, Long Island University Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy, New York Institute of Technology, Niagara University, Oakland University, Rider University, St. John's University, the University of Scranton and Utica University. For part-time faculty, the AAUP also represents chapters at private institutions such as Emerson College, Manhattanville University and Suffolk University, among others.
These collective bargaining efforts are not without their flashpoints. Several university chapters have been involved in significant labor strikes, demonstrating the lengths to which faculty are sometimes forced to go to protect their rights and working conditions. Notable examples include the contentious 1979 Boston University strike (which was later decertified in 1982), the faculty strikes at Wright State University and Oregon Tech in 2021, and most recently, the significant 2023 Rutgers University strike. These actions, while disruptive, underscore the critical role collective bargaining plays in asserting faculty agency.
Contingent faculty
The AAUP has, with increasing urgency, turned its attention to the precarious situation of contingent faculty—a growing segment of the academic workforce that often lacks the job security and benefits afforded to tenured or tenure-track professors. It's a symptom of a larger systemic problem, and the AAUP has been diligent in documenting and advocating for change.
In 2008, the AAUP released a report specifically addressing accreditors' guidelines as they pertain to part-time faculty, seeking to ensure that quality standards are not compromised by exploitative employment practices. That same year, it published a report detailing an investigation into alleged violations of the academic freedom and due process rights of a full-time contingent faculty member, highlighting that these protections are not just for the tenured elite. In 2006, the AAUP developed an index providing crucial data on the sheer number of contingent faculty at various colleges, shedding light on the scale of the issue. Also in 2006, the AAUP adopted a new policy that meticulously outlined the job protections that should be afforded to part-time faculty members, recognizing their vital, yet often undervalued, contributions.
These efforts built upon its major policy statement from 2003, Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession. This comprehensive statement put forth new recommendations in two critical areas: first, advocating for a significant increase in the proportion of faculty appointments that are on the tenure line, thereby reversing the trend towards precarity; and second, pushing for substantial improvements in job security and due process protections for those who, by necessity, hold contingent appointments. It's an ongoing battle, of course, but one the AAUP seems determined to fight.
Leadership
The AAUP's trajectory has been guided by a succession of individuals, each bringing their own perspectives to the enduring challenges of academic life. Below is a roll call of those who have held the presidential mantle, a testament to the persistent, if sometimes thankless, work of leadership in academia.
Presidents
| Number | Name | Dates | Subject | Institution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | John Dewey | 1915–1916 | Philosophy | Columbia University |
| 2 | John Henry Wigmore | 1916–1917 | Law | Northwestern University |
| 3 | Frank Thilly | 1917–1918 | Philosophy | Cornell University |
| 4 | John Merle Coulter | 1918–1919 | Botany | University of Chicago |
| 5 | Arthur Oncken Lovejoy | 1919–1920 | Philosophy | Johns Hopkins University |
| 6 | Edward Capps | 1920–1921 | Philology | Princeton University |
| 7 | Vernon Lyman Kellogg | 1921 (acting) | Zoology | National Research Council |
| 8 | Edwin R. A. Seligman | 1921–1922 | Political Science | Columbia University |
| 9 | J. V. Denney | 1922–1924 | English | Ohio State University |
| 10 | Armin Otto Leuschner | 1924–1926 | Astronomy | University of California, Berkeley |
| 11 | William T. Semple | 1926–1928 | Classics | University of Cincinnati |
| 12 | Henry Crew | 1928–1930 | Physics | Northwestern University |
| 13 | William B. Munro | 1930–1932 | Government | Harvard University |
| 14 | Walter Wheeler Cook | 1932–1933 | Law | Johns Hopkins University |
| 15 | Samuel Alfred Mitchell | 1934–1936 | Astronomy | University of Virginia |
| 16 | Anton Julius Carlson | 1936–1938 | Physiology | University of Chicago |
| 17 | Mark H. Ingraham | 1938–1940 | Mathematics | University of Wisconsin |
| 18 | Frederick S. Deibler | 1940–1942 | Economics | Northwestern University |
| 19 | William Thomas Laprade | 1942–1944 | History | Duke University |
| 20 | Quincy Wright | 1944–1946 | International Law | University of Chicago |
| 21 | Edward C. Kirkland | 1946–1948 | History | Bowdoin College |
| 22 | Ralph H. Lutz | 1948–1950 | History | Stanford University |
| 23 | Richard Harrison Shryock | 1950–1952 | History | Johns Hopkins University |
| 24 | Fred B. Millett | 1952–1954 | English Literature | Wesleyan University |
| 25 | William E. Britton | 1954–1956 | Law | University of Illinois |
| 26 | Helen C. White | 1956–1958 | English | University of Wisconsin |
| 27 | Hiram Bentley Glass | 1958–1960 | Biology | Johns Hopkins University |
| 28 | Ralph F. Fuchs | 1960–1962 | Law | Indiana University |
| 29 | Fritz Machlup | 1962–1964 | Economics | Princeton University |
| 30 | David Fellman | 1964–1966 | Political Science | University of Wisconsin |
| 31 | Clark Byse | 1966–1968 | Law | Harvard University |
| 32 | Ralph S. Brown, Jr. | 1968–1970 | Law | Yale University |
| 33 | Sanford H. Kadish | 1970–1972 | Law | University of California, Berkeley |
| 34 | Walter Adams | 1972–1974 | Economics | Michigan State University |
| 35 | William Warner Van Alstyne | 1974–1976 | Law | Duke University |
| 36 | Peter O. Steiner | 1976–1978 | Law and Economics | University of Michigan |
| 37 | Martha Friedman | 1978–1980 | Library | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign |
| 38 | Henry T. Yost | 1980–1981 | Biology | Amherst College |
| 39 | Robert A. Gorman | 1981–1982 | Law | University of Pennsylvania |
| 40 | Victor J. Stone | 1982–1984 | Law | University of Illinois, Urbana |
| 41 | Paul H. L. Walter | 1984–1986 | Chemistry | Skidmore College |
| 42 | Julius G. Getman | 1986–1988 | Law | University of Texas at Austin |
| 43 | Carol Simpson Stern | 1988–1990 | Performance Studies | Northwestern University |
| 44 | Barbara Bergmann | 1990–1992 | Economics | American University |
| 45 | Linda Ray Pratt | 1992–1994 | English | University of Nebraska |
| 46 | James Perley | 1994–1998 | Biology | College of Wooster |
| 47 | James Richardson | 1998–2000 | Judicial Studies | University of Nevada, Reno |
| 48 | Jane Buck | 2000–2006 | Psychology | Delaware State University |
| 49 | Cary Nelson | 2006–2012 | English | University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
| 50 | Rudy Fichtenbaum | 2012–2020 | Economics | Wright State University |
| 51 | Irene Mulvey | 2020–2024 | Mathematics | Fairfield University |
| 52 | Todd Wolfson | 2024–present | Media Studies | Rutgers University–New Brunswick |
Secretaries, general secretaries, and executive directors
Beyond the elected presidents, the daily operations and enduring institutional memory of the AAUP have been maintained by a series of dedicated individuals, whose titles have evolved over time from secretary to general secretary, and most recently, executive director. These are the people who manage the mundane, yet essential, details that keep an organization functioning.
| Name | Dates | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Arthur Oncken Lovejoy | 1915–1929 | Secretary |
| Harry Walter Tyler | 1929–1933 | General Secretary |
| Walter Wheeler Cook | 1934–1935 | General Secretary |
| Harry Walter Tyler | 1935–1936 | Acting General Secretary |
| Ralph Himstead | 1936–1955 | General Secretary |
| George P. Shannon | 1955 | Acting General Secretary |
| Ralph F. Fuchs | 1955–1957 | General Secretary |
| Robert K. Carr | 1957–1958 | General Secretary |
| William P. Fidler | 1958–1967 | General Secretary |
| Bertram H. Davis | 1967–1974 | General Secretary |
| Joseph Duffey | 1974–1976 | General Secretary |
| Jordan E. Kurland | 1977 | Acting General Secretary |
| Morton S. Baratz | 1977–1979 | General Secretary |
| Martha Friedman | 1979–1980 | Interim General Secretary |
| Irving J. Spitzberg, Jr. | 1980–1984 | General Secretary |
| Ernst Benjamin | 1984–1994 | General Secretary |
| Mary A. Burgan | 1994–2004 | General Secretary |
| Roger W. Bowen | 2004–2007 | General Secretary |
| Ernst Benjamin | 2007–2008 | Interim General Secretary |
| Gary Rhoades | 2009–2011 | General Secretary |
| Martin Snyder | 2011–2013 | Senior Associate General Secretary |
| Julie Schmid | 2013–2023 | Executive Director |
| Nancy Long | 2023–2024 | Interim Executive Director |
| Aaron Nielson | 2024–2025 | Interim Executive Director |
| Mia McIver | 2025–present | Executive Director |