ACADAME,
November-December 2005
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/matr.htm?PF=1
Who Needs a Faculty participation in campus governance is
declining nationwide. As higher education shifts toward market models of organization,
boards and administrators increasingly apply bureaucratic modes of decision
making to areas that used to be the domain of faculty members. All too often,
administrators seem to sidestep faculty senates in favor of “more
efficient” and “accountable” decision making that does not
reflect faculty opinion or expertise. To explore this issue at the local
level, a faculty committee at our institution, Although BC may be unusual among its peers—in 2002, the
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the University of Southern
California reported that more than 90 percent of doctoral-granting
institutions have a faculty governing body that participates in institutional
governance—we believe that faculty responses to the Boston College
survey point to the concerns and frustrations that might develop among
faculty at other institutions as higher education increasingly adopts
corporate-style management structures and forgoes shared decision making. On
the other hand, the responses also suggest that the traditional senate model
is not without its problems and sometimes may not actually be the most
effective mechanism of shared governance. Although the institution’s fortunes improved considerably
after the reforms of the 1970s, the faculty senate was not reinstituted. Over
the following decades, faculty increasingly expressed concern about their
lack of involvement in institutional decision making. Ultimately, in 2002, a
faculty committee commissioned the survey of all full-time faculty whose results
we report in this article. The survey instrument was based on one developed
by the AAUP, but it was modified to fit BC’s circumstances and the
requirements of the commissioning committee. Mixed PictureThe survey found that most professors at Faculty members reported being satisfied with their role in
decision making at the departmental and school levels, agreeing that faculty
committees represent their interests well and accomplish objectives such as
developing educational policy; reviewing curricula; setting standards and
procedures for evaluation of teaching and scholarly production and for
retention, promotion, and tenure; and granting of tenure and promotion of faculty.
Respondents were also positive about the effectiveness of faculty committees
in governing themselves and communicating with university constituents. Most
agreed that faculty have a say in setting the agendas, choosing
representatives and leadership, and establishing procedures for the
committees that oversee areas in which the faculty should have primacy. In terms of institutional-level governance, the respondents were
more negative. They reported little or no influence over institutional
decision making in areas such as the university’s budget or athletics.
In addition, they noted few formal arrangements for communications between
the faculty and the governing board and said faculty have little influence
over the selection and evaluation of academic administrators. Almost
two-thirds of the respondents said they do not believe that On the positive side, respondents said they believe that
relationships between them, academic administrators, and the governing board
are cooperative and open to communication. Similarly, most faculty members
agreed that they can express dissenting views without reprisal. A small
majority of the faculty agreed that the campus climate supports a diversity
of opinions, schools of thought, perspectives, and personal styles. Still, although respondents reported being satisfied with some
aspects of institutional governance, most BC faculty are unhappy about their
current role in the governance of the institution. They do see a solution,
however: 81 percent say they favor the establishment of a faculty senate. Influential or Ceremonial?In expressing their desire for a senate, faculty respondents made
it clear that they want any senate that is established to be
“effective” and not “look good but be a waste of
everyone’s time.” The BC faculty is thus looking for the type of
senate that higher education scholar James T. Minor has termed
“influential” rather than “ceremonial.” Influential
senates aim to bring about productive changes throughout the institution, not
simply in areas that are strictly academic. Ceremonial senates are more
symbolic than effective and are typically unable to enact real change within
an institution. Unfortunately, achieving an influential senate is no easy task.
In a 2004 article titled “Understanding Ceremonial senates might not be all bad, however. In a 1991
article, “The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate:
Why Senates Do Not Work but Will Not Go Away,” published in New
Directions for Higher Education, higher education scholar Robert
Birnbaum wrote about the important, if unintended, role of faculty senates in
meeting more than the apparent or manifest needs of faculty and institutions.
By providing opportunities for socialization, congregation, discussion,
professional screening, and the like, senates can contribute to institutional
stability in the potentially contentious, volatile environment of higher
education. So even if a senate at BC turns out to be mostly ceremonial, it
might meet the needs of some faculty members and the institution generally. A faculty senate might also increase the perceived prestige of
the institution and help to attract high-caliber faculty. Senates, effective
or not, are prominent features of elite institutions. They signify a
commitment to academic standards. BC is now developing a five-year strategic
plan and considering how it might further raise its standing in different
communities. As BC moves to re-engineer its image, it may want to ensure that
all of the standard indicators of academic quality are in place. Introducing
a senate would be a low-risk activity that might help recruit academic
highfliers—even if they are unlikely to attend senate meetings. Institutional ResponseIn response to data from our survey and other information,
BC’s administration has tentatively agreed to establish a faculty
senate. Despite the possibility that a senate will be, initially at least,
largely ceremonial, we believe that BC should move forward with a senate. After twenty years of financial reform and efforts to elevate
prestige among its peer institutions, BC has reached a position that permits
the administration to relax a little, ease up on the reins of power, and
engage more constituents in governance. A faculty senate will create a forum
for interschool discussion and collaboration to complement the faculty
involvement now occurring at the department and school levels. Although
faculty members are not clamoring for more administrative work, many of them
clearly want the opportunity for systematic cross-school collaboration. As this article goes to press, the structure of BC’s
future senate—including the degree to which it will have
decision-making powers—has yet to be determined. We expect that, in the
short term, the senate’s establishment will contribute to a greater
sense of validation and recognition within the faculty. In the longer term,
however, the senate’s effectiveness will be determined by the degree to
which administrators—and fellow faculty—actually use the senate in
governance. The challenge will be to develop trust and respect between
members of the faculty senate and administrators, especially senior
administrators. If BC is genuinely committed to shared governance, the senate
may become an influential force on campus, able to contribute to the
institution’s educational mission as well as its market aspirations. Robin Matross Helms, formerly of Boston College, is
director of international exchange programs at Concordia Language Villages in
St. Paul, |