How inflammatory is this?

On the Value of an Independent Faculty Senate

The rhetorical sleight of hand used in the attempt to discredit AAUP principles on academic freedom and tenure as well as to justify the marginalization of faculty senates resembles that used to discredit traditional university education and promote for-profit institutions and MOOCs. As academic blogger Undine indicates in her discussion of a promotional piece on MOOCs from the April 29 New York Times, faculty criticism of outsourced education is represented as fear of losing status. The defense of face-to-face teaching is reinterpreted as a lack of care for students “shut out” of traditional courses. The sharing of original insights based on current research is the dull practice of “writing one’s own lectures” or “one way delivery of content,” while the use of class time to administer a commercial educational product is “student centered” and modern. In a recent meeting on teaching, the presenters enacted the format they were advocating against.

On the AAUP, former University of Louisiana System President Randy Moffett suggested in his June 12, 2012 statement on AAUP censure of Northwestern and Southeastern that this mainstream professional association only aspires to relevance, and that only 4% of university faculty ascribe to the professional values and standards the AAUP has been articulating and defending for nearly one hundred years. The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, one hears, is outmoded because it was promulgated in 1940. Indeed, it serves the neoliberal paradigm well to reframe academic freedom and other rights as concerns of alien centuries.

In the 2012-2013 academic year I had occasion to observe the use of similarly deceptive language in an attempt to revise the Constitution of a Faculty Senate so as to “make it a more effective body,” as one administrator put the issue in an open meeting. The apparently administration-led project was framed in terms of “democracy.” Desired was (a) to limit the number of Full Professors who could serve on the Senate at any given time; (b) to increase the number of administrators voting as Senators and chairing Senate committees; (c) to radically reduce the total size of the Senate.

Finally, language was proposed for the Constitution stipulating that Senate recommendations not have an impact on University policy and insinuating that the Senate was a new and apparently, an irregular institution. Diminished in power, the Senate was now to function as a focus group or echo chamber for an administrative message, and no longer as a deliberative body and a clear faculty voice:

[Senate] meetings will not determine University policy nor shall they undermine the regular processes through which the faculty has input into University affairs. The meetings shall be designed to complement the input through existing channels and to provide an exchange of ideas on broad areas of concern.

Since the President of the University is President of the Senate and all Full professors are Senators, it was possible to use the term “patriarchal” to describe the Senate structure. The Full Professors were also termed “non elected members” of the Senate. To increase democracy and reduce patriarchy, it was suggested, Full Professors should stand for election and the ratio of less experienced faculty on Senate should be increased. At the same time the size of the Senate should be reduced, so that all members would be fully engaged.

It was not lost on all that these reforms would have caused the composition of the Senate to tend toward less experienced and also more vulnerable faculty, nor that a Full Professor has a fiduciary role and responsibility, and not mere seniority in the institution. It was also noted that some who wanted to reduce the number of Full Professors who could participate in Faculty Senate, also wanted to retain voting rights in it themselves. Executive Committee meetings were heavy with administrators. It was proposed that the membership of this committee be expanded to include the chairs of all Senate committees, appointed by the Senate Executive Officer. Presumably these measures were intended to increase democracy as well.

Reflecting upon these proposals it became clear that the intention was not only to limit the already moderate powers of the Faculty Senate but to marginalize it as a body. A small group of mid-level to contingent faculty is not as strong or as representative of informed faculty opinion as is a large group incuding as many as possible of the faculty most likely to be national figures.

Years ago I took Faculty Senates and the AAUP for granted, working instead on unionization efforts and in advocacy groups for the rights of immigrants. I never expected I would need to use my organization skills to defend something as mainstream as shared governance at universities. I am disturbed, however, when I see how high the average age is at AAUP meetings and how small they are, and the common assumption among newer faculty that Faculty Senate is an onerous form of “service” to which they are “assigned.”

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the neoliberal model is already so well entrenched that these modestly democratic institutions have already lost their purpose. Perhaps I will suffer reprisals for signing this column and publishing these comments in the newsletter of a rival institution. Considering the quality of my colleagues here and elsewhere, though, and their respect for academic values, I doubt all of this. As the present governorship wanes, I believe we can defend our democratic, academic institutions and thrive. Now is not the time for faculty to disengage but to increase participation, and to stand together with colleagues in institutions state and nationwide.

Axé.