Farewell to Autonomy: American University Governance in the Age of Compliance
-
摘要: 传统上,受学术自由、大学自治以及联邦主义的影响,美国联邦政府较少干预高等教育事务。20世纪后半叶,在学术界和法律界之间关系发生革命性转变的背景下,基于开支权、税收权、贸易权以及公民权利执行权四种与教育相关的明示或默示的联邦宪法权力形态,联邦政府开始积极介入大学治理。至此,美国大学治理进入合规时代。联邦高等教育规制的强化在促进师生权利保障、增进公共利益的同时,也不可避免地滋生了“合规恐慌”与教师权利危机。近年来,在“螺旋式”合规文化的影响下,美国大学合规的压力来源持续增多。作为受规制最为广泛的机构类型之一,大学经常被拉入不同的、有时相互冲突的、有时不可调和的方向之中。当前,通过联邦高等教育规制的革新、大学合规职能的拓展以及大学法律顾问角色的重新定义等举措重塑联邦政府与大学之间的关系,构成了合规时代美国大学治理变革的最新动向。Abstract: Traditionally, influenced by academic freedom, university autonomy and federalism, the US federal government has been less involved in higher education. In the second half of the 20th century, in the context of a revolutionary change in the relationship between academia and the legal world, the federal government began to actively participate in university governance based on four explicit or implied federal constitutional power forms related to education, including the right to expenditure, taxation, trade, and enforcement of civil rights. At present, American university governance has entered an era of compliance. The strengthening of federal higher education regulations not only promotes the protection of teachers and students' rights and the public interest, but also inevitably breeds a “compliance panic” and a crisis of teacher rights. In recent years, under the influence of a “spiral” compliance culture, the sources of compliance pressure for American universities have continued to increase. As one of the most widely regulated types of institutions, universities are often pulled into different, sometimes conflicting and irreconcilable directions. Now, through the reform of federal higher education regulations, the expansion of university compliance functions, and the re-definition of the role of university legal counsel, the relationship between the federal government and universities is being reshaped, which constitutes the latest trend of American university governance change in the era of compliance.1) ① 美国《国内税收法典》规定的501(c)(3)的免税包括慈善、宗教、教育、科学、文化、公共安全测试、促进国家或国际业余体育竞赛、防止残害儿童和动物等目的。大多数的501(c)(3)公益免税机构必须向国税局递交年度免税机构税表990来汇报机构的收入、费用支出和活动。2) ② 在联邦层面,有许多机构和高等教育外部治理相关,但它们倾向于囊括所有的公共或私人高等教育机构,最明显的联邦机构是美国教育部,此外还有许多其他内阁级别的、拥有高等教育财务开销和管理权的部门和行政机构。例如,国土安全部(DHS)监督参与国内研究的外国留学生;美国卫生及公共服务部管理医疗保险计划,这对设有医疗中心的高等教育机构尤其重要;劳动部制定和管理关于工资、工作时间和工作条件的各种法律;还有一些机构对大学开展的特定研究产生影响。3) ③ 2011年底,美国学院与大学律师协会(NACUA)率先与近20个全国性协会建立了合作伙伴关系,并建立了高等教育合规联盟数据库,将其作为一个集中的信息和资源存储库,为高等教育机构遵守联邦法律法规提供指导。
-
[1] 别敦荣. (2019). 美国大学治理理念、结构和功能. 高等教育研究,(6),93—101. [2] 杜德斯达等. (2008)美国公立大学的未来(刘济良译). 北京: 北京大学出版社. [3] 高秦伟. (2011). 美国行政法上的非立法性规则及其启示. 法商研究,(2),147—153. [4] 龚怡祖. (2009). 大学治理结构: 现代大学制度的基石. 教育研究,(6),22—26. [5] 胡敏洁. (2013). 美国行政法中的“政策声明”. 行政法学研究,(2),125—131. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0078.2013.02.020 [6] 刘春玲. (2018). 美国防治高校性骚扰的制度与实践—第九条下高校的主要义务. 妇女研究论丛,(1),111—120. [7] 秦惠民. (2017). 从渐进放权走向法治—对高教简政放权的趋势解读. 探索与争鸣,(8),42—44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2229.2017.08.008 [8] 西内登等. (2013). 欧美比较行政法(伏创宇等译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社. [9] 于安. (2018). 公立高等学校的依法治理问题—基于公益服务原则的制度性观察和思考. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(2),29—37. [10] 张东海.(2010).美国联邦科学政策与世界一流大学发展. 上海: 上海教育出版社. [11] Adams, N. A. (2015). Academic Compliance Programs: A Federal Model with Separation of Powers. Journal of College and University Law, 41(1), 1—24. [12] Babbitt, E. M. & Franke, A. H. & Lee, B. A. (2015). Shared Governance: New Pressure Points in the Faculty/Institutional Relationship. Journal of College and University Law, 41(1), 93—115. [13] Ben Zur, N. D. (2019). Differentiating Legislative from Nonlegislative Rules: An Empirical and Qualitative Analysis. Fordham Law Review, 87(1), 2125—2170. [14] Bernstein, D. E. (2019). Antidiscrimination Laws and the Administrative State: A Skeptic’s Look at Administrative Constitutionalism. Notre Dame Law Review, 94(3), 1381—1415. [15] Carle, R. (2016). The Strange Career of Title IX. Academic Questions, 29(4), 443—453. doi: 10.1007/s12129-016-9590-8 [16] Castagnera, J. O. (2010). Handbook for Student Law for Higher Education Administrators. New York: Peter Lang. [17] Dunham, S. S. (2010). Government Regulation of Higher Education: The Elephant in the Middle of the Room. Journal of College and University Law, 36(3), 749—790. [18] Glicksman, R. L. & Hammond, E. (2019). The Administrative Law of Regulatory Slop and Strategy. Duke Law Journal, 68(8), 1651—1717. [19] Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2013). The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making (Fifth Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [20] Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2019). The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making (Sixth Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [21] Koebel, J. T. (2019). Facilitating University Compliance Using Regulatory Policy Incentives. Journal of College and University Law, 44(2), 160—208. [22] Langhauser, D. P. (2002). Executive Regulations and Agency Interpretations: Binding Law or Mere Guidance?. Journal of College and University Law, 29(1), 1—33. [23] Lee, B. A. (2010). Fifty Years of Higher Education Law: Turning the Kaleidoscope. Journal of College and University Law, 36(3), 649—690. [24] Levin, R. M. (2019). The Regulatory Accountability Act and the Future of APA Revision. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 94(2), 487—549. [25] Newberry, J. (2018). After the Dear Colleague Letter: Developing Enhanced Due Process Protections for Title IX Sexual Assault Cases at Public Institutions. Journal of College and University Law, 44(1), 78—95. [26] Shapiro, S. A. (2019). Rulemaking Inaction and the Failure of Administrative Law. Duke Law Journal, 68(8), 1805—1842. [27] Stearns, J. (2017). The Harmful Effects of Federal Regulation on Higher Education. Journal of Law & Education, 46(2), 303—312.
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 270
- HTML全文浏览量: 354
- PDF下载量: 23
- 被引次数: 0