Jonathan Knight, Associate Director of the American Association of University Professors, provided a brief description of the history and current activities of the AAUP with respect to investigating violations of academic freedom. Knight said that at its inception in 1915, the AAUP's first president, John Dewey, believed the organization's first task would be to promulgate a code relating to academic freedom. That very same year, the AAUP became involved with the kind of investigative activity it has so prominently carried out up to the present time.

Knight reported that the AAUP receives about 2,000 complaints a year. Files are opened in regard to roughly half of these. He said that when investigating a complaint, the AAUP begins with a discovery process in which it familiarizes itself with the basic aspects of the case. It then explores the possibility of resolving the complaint offering itself as a mediator. If such efforts are unsuccessful, then it sends an investigative team to the institution against which a claim has been registered. After thorough examination of the case, if the facts warrant it, then an institution's name will be placed on the AAUP censure list.

Knight maintained that the censure list helps to instruct the academic community on the principles of academic freedom. As he said, "AAUP operates in the coin of moral persuasion." Knight also noted that courts on both the state and federal levels are more likely to intervene and lay down applicable standards for an institution where AAUP guidelines are not accepted.

Commentator Stephen Unger, Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University, said he thinks engineering professional associations should study the AAUP censure procedures very carefully as a model. Unger observed that university administrations are not so very different from corporation management hierarchies. Hence, he rejected the notion that AAUP-style censure activities are peculiarly appropriate only in academic contexts. Pointing to efforts on behalf of members who were involved in whistle-blowing situations, Unger maintained that both the IEEE and AAAS have prevented firings.

Taft H. Broome Jr., Professor of Civil Engineering at Howard University, described a new umbrella organization, the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) and its activities in the area of engineering ethics. According to Broome, "The mission of the AAES is to advance the science and practice of engineering in the public interest. The principal objectives by which the mission is to be fulfilled are (i) to undertake, for the good of mankind, the activities that the member organizations acting individually could not accomplish as well; and (2) to foster interaction of the engineering community with other segments of our culture. Members of AAES are not individuals but societies."

Broome reported that AAES has an ethics committee of which he is a member. He described the activities of the committee which are geared to achieve both "a short-range goal and a long-range goal." These he referred to collectively as "the AAES plan." According to Broome, "The short-range goal has two components. The first is to establish a common code of ethics for the AAES member societies. The aim is not to ratify a code by a majority of its membership to which all members are to be subject. The aim is rather to develop a model code that each member society would adopt as its own; thus, wherever additions to the code are made by any member society, such additions will not, as it is intended, be contrary to the provisions of this code."

"The second component of the short-range goal," Broome reported, "is to establish a common position on whistle-blowing. Such a position," he said. "would probably consist of (1) a definition of whistle-blowing; (2) case studies analysis; (3) delineation of pertinent legal rights of the parties; (4) recommended procedures for engineers involved in whistle-blowing situations; (5) a rationale for these procedures based on the common code of ethics; and (6) responsibilities (if any) of the AAES vis a vis whistle-blowing situations."

Broome reported that the ethics committee is reviewing the suggestion that AAES institute a hot line for giving advice to engineers in whistle-blowing situations, and that AAES sponsor investigating teams "which act in the public interest in such situations." Broome noted that at present the members of the ethics committee have divergent views on these proposals.

As for the long-range goals, Broome listed:

(1) Develop means for establishing a dialogue between interested engineers relative to the code of ethics.

(2) Re-examine particular provisions of the common code for clarity, relevancy to engineers, and acceptance by engineers.

(3) Examine areas not covered by the common code to determine whether additional principles . . . should be considered.

(4) Encourage a more structured approach to teaching engineering ethics and professionalism in engineering curricula.

(5) Explore alternatives for making the code of ethics effective and meaningful for all engineers whether licensed or not.

Broome concluded with an evaluation of the AAES plan, noting first a structural problem he perceives in AAES: ". . . attempts to unite engineering societies . . .fit into a now familiar pattern . . . . Their collapses can be attributed to conflicts between the interests of business and those of professionalism . . . . the AAES is not better structured to mollify business interests than its predecessors. . . A complex of mechanisms for strengthening the influence of old-line engineers and young engineers in decision making should be established.

Broome also suggested that the ethics committee consider methods of enforcement such as licensing for all engineers, and engineering tenure and corporate censure policies. He proposed defining a responsibility to the environment and to the least advantaged, i.e. those who cannot afford engineering services. Broome also identified a need to make engineering codes pertinent to areas of engineering practice not presently addressed, such as the ethical problems of engineering educators.