Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Necessities

When we speak of academic freedom and shared governance, I tend to hear the terms defined this way:

"Academic Freedom means I can do whatever I want, and Shared Governance means I can tell you what to do."

In a business-minded, self-centered society, this is indeed how the concepts play out. We rarely hear one another say things like, "I enjoy sharing the governance of my department with others," but we often hear how administrators are expected to share governance with us. When other instructors disagree with us, do we rush to protect their academic freedom? I hope so; we should.

At some colleges, there is no pretense of shared governance. In the strongest cases, a military-minded, authoritarian administration dictates policies without the input or agreement of the faculty. The faculty, meanwhile, exhibit the same tendencies toward one another, so that department chairs are lords of their departments, senior faculty are barons of their offices, and junior faculty live to serve.

Other colleges and universities claim to practice shared governance in one form or another. If shared governance is to work properly, though, it must be desired. A self-directed faculty has little desire to share governance with anyone else. A faculty who view their work as merely a job that pays the bills will be unable to glimpse the benefits of shared governance. An administration who adhere strongly to a business model of the college -- wherein the students are clients and the faculty are employees -- will likewise have great difficulty thinking that there might be any advantage to shared governance. Thus, a shared paradigm must precede shared governance.

Simply put: in order to have it, we must want it. In order to want it, we must know what it means to share. We must realize that if things get out of control, it is not our job to "fix" them. If others do contrary to what we would do, not only should we accept it, but it behooves us to embrace their freedom to do so. Sharing governance means that the community deliberately obtains input from one another prior to, and in the process of, making decisions. We do not seek such input because we are required by policy to do so; on the contrary, we do this because their input might likely be useful, and because we do not wish to marginalize anyone. If people stop caring, then they stop sharing, and shared governance ceases to exist.

Academic Freedom is likewise an ideal that must be closely guarded. Protecting the academic freedom of others means letting them speak when we think they should shut up. It means letting them teach when we think it will blow up in their faces. To have academic freedom means allowing others to do whatever decision we would like the liberty to make for ourselves.

Sharing our governance with one another and protecting one another's academic freedom are central concepts in the educational paradigm. These things distinguish us from corporations. They are what allow us to focus on education as our primary objective. But notice that we have turned the definitions around. Shared governance and academic freedom must not be things that we "take" for ourselves. If we hold such an attitude, then these things will escape us. We must always remember that shared governance and academic freedom are things that you must all give in order for any to have.

Friday, March 21, 2008

You Didn't Hear This From Me



"I heard it in the night

Words the thoughtless speak

(Like vultures swooping down below)

On the Devil's Radio."


People in the engineering department are squabbling over office space.
The exchange professor from Bangla Desh is getting deported because he propositioned his students for sex.
Dr. Noah Boddy got a tattoo of President Killpatrick's face -- on his buttocks!

Some gossip is silly, but all of it is malevolent. It might seem well-intentioned to tell a few friends that Dr. No hates Dr. Yes, but then someone will say that Dr. Yes has a grudge against Dr. No -- and when word gets back to them, they both feel betrayed. Now they really do dislike one another, and it's your fault.

It is a nice thing to console a friend during a crisis, but it is not nice to stir up the whole department about it. Sometimes I wish that my own lips had come pre-buttoned from the lip factory!

I'm not sure about all of you, but I like everyone I work with -- even though we disagree sometimes. But if one of you sees one such disagreement and tells someone else, "Oh, Pascal really doesn't like Aloysius," then if that person or someone further down the gossip chain tells Aloysius, "Pascal is trying to get your tenure revoked," all that accomplishes is to place a fine friendship in a proverbial pickle.

These seeds of distrust are sown every day. No one wants to walk around campus feeling like everyone is whispering about their personal (and personnel) matters, but this is what we are doing to one another. This is the atmosphere of discontent that we are creating for one another,
and if we bite at and gnaw on one another, we need to beware or we will consume one another.

If we must talk about one another to others, let it be like this:
"I just heard that Richard is getting an award."
"Everyone says that Gretchen is a great friend."
"Bret really cares about student learning."
"Mike has done some really good things as a leader."
Aren't there at least a few stories that are truly worth telling? I believe there are. I think we have done some very good things in secret that could be told in public. Instead of telling stories that offend and harm, let's sell stories that construct and heal. What a fine place this would be if we all found nice things to say about one another.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

A Typical Unbiased Faculty Survey

1. Why do you think administrators treat faculty unfairly?
2. Which of the college president's qualities or attributes most negatively impact his job performance?
3. Describe how overworked you are.
4. Describe how underpaid you are.
5. Which administrator is most directly responsible for all of the negativity on this campus?
6. Which administrators are not qualified to do their jobs?
7. Describe the impact of the top-down management style at this college.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

What the Rough Rider Said

"You stand for Academic Freedom, for the right of private judgment, for a duty more incumbent upon the scholar than upon any other man, to tell the truth as he sees it, to claim for himself and to give to others the largest liberty in seeking after the truth." (Theodore Roosevelt at Trinity College, September, 1905)

With those words, President Roosevelt kept racial issues on the front burner of the political stove. Although it had been practiced for some time previously, the legal concept of academic freedom originated in Germany in 1850, when the Prussian Constitution formally declared, "Science and its teaching shall be free."

This freedom carries with it the responsibility to guard the freedom of others. The failure to protect that freedom allows one side of a disagreement to dominate. This majority opinion becomes the rule of the day, and that rule is used to compel others to conform.

"What were the Romish arguments, from the days of the Nicene debate, down to the pontifical anathama? They were, truth is one -- therefore true believers can not differ. But they do differ Therefore there is heresy. Heresy must be kept out. Make a creed to keep it out; and as to which side is heresy "Quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus." That is, "heresy is the opinion which is in the minority." A strange rule in a world where wise heads are certainly not generally in the majority, but a rule eminently convenient and practical. Yes; shear off the troublesome thinkers, and sing stagnant hallelujahs!" (Charles Beecher, "Creeds," the Western Preacher, Vol. 1, 1865).

It is indeed possible for this majority rule to become so strong in the secular realm that academic freedom is infringed. Consider the landmark case, "Adler v. Board of Education," in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a teacher may be dismissed based on membership in an organization that is regarded negatively by the school or system.

"The present law proceeds on a principle repugnant to our society - guilt by association. A teacher is disqualified because of her membership in an organization found to be "subversive." ...The mere fact of membership in the organization raises a prima facie case of her own guilt. She may, it is said, show her innocence. But innocence in this case turns on knowledge; and when the witch hunt is on, one who must rely on ignorance leans on a feeble reed. The very threat of such a procedure is certain to raise havoc with academic freedom." (statement of Justices Douglas and Black, dissenting with Adler v. Board of Education, 1952)

Thus we see how easy it was for such an important principle to be tossed aside because of prevailing sentiments. Fortunately for academia, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court was expressed as follows five years later:


"We believe that there unquestionably was an invasion of petitioner's liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression – areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread.

"The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation." (Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957)

Taking these words to heart, every faculty member, every student, and every department must jealously guard the freedom of those around us. We should not allow the college as a whole, or its administration, to make decisions that rightly belong to the departments, or to individuals. Even so, an open discussion of ideas is necessary to ensure that the best possible paths are chosen. Think about these things as you plan the upcoming semester, schedule courses, and select and order textbooks.