A Look Backward and Ahead has been some ten years since the American Association of University Professors declared of-ficially that collective bargaining was an appro-priate means for the faculty members represented by our chapters to participate in institutional governance in higher education. Time enough has passed to permit an assessment of the impact that collective bargaining, by the AAUP and other faculty representatives, has had upon the academic world. Scholars in the field of labor relations and higher education have already been undertaking such studies. My purpose is to assess selectively the impact that AAUP involvement in collective bargaining has had upon the Association itself. Quite apart from the effects of collective bargaining, the past ten years have witnessed a dramatic change, by way of diver-sification in the methods by which the Association pursues its traditional objectives of protecting aca-demic freedom and tenure, promoting faculty influence in the governance of institutions, improving the economic status of the faculty, and other important Association goals. We have supplemented our traditional methods of policy-declaration, advice and conciliation, investigation and reporting, by a vigorous government-relations program in the states and in the national Capitol, by participation in major litigations as a party and as friend of the court, by the growth of decentralized agencies of advocacy through the state conference system and the Assem-bly of State Conferences, and most recently by a revival of major symposia on important issues in higher education and by joint efforts with associations representing college and university administrations. Most of the fears expressed when collective bargaining was added to the AAUP arsenal have, in my judgment, not proved warranted. We have not significantly diluted our influence as a moral force in higher education with a major role in policy formulation, conciliation, investigations leading to censure, and the gathering and interpretation of data concerning higher education. While it does appear that there has been to some degree, as a concomitant of collective bargaining, a shift on many campuses from collégial to adversary relationships between faculty and administration, that shift appears to be attributable even more to such trends as the growth of a mana-gerial rather than academic cadre in university administrative offices, the increasing remoteness of administrative control particularly in public and multicampus systems, and the worsening economy which has pitted faculty claims for due compensation against the claims of hardware, maintenance, and energy. Similarly, while the fears that our membership outside of collective bargaining would decline have come to pass, I am convinced that this is a product not so much of our own involvement in collective bargaining as it is of a number of other factors-loss of members on campuses which have been organized by the AFT, NEA, or independent faculty associations, which exact a high fee for their services; a shrinkage in the overall number of full-time faculty; an increase in our dues at a time when the ravages of inflation have reduced the real value of faculty income; and the failure, despite our efforts, to attract into membership young faculty members to replace those who are retiring.

The achievements and the contributions of our collective bargaining chapters have been most significant. Although I shall very soon turn to cataloguing those achievements and contributions, candor re-quires me to point out as well conflicts that have arisen, or may yet arise, as larger proportions of the Association's membership and leadership come from …