How could shared governance look?

As a follow-up to my earlier post on shared governance, here is how I imagine Chicago State could operate if a genuine commitment to maximizing the effectiveness of the university’s human resources existed here. Not to disappoint some of my colleagues, but shared governance is not participatory democracy. Rather, it represents an understanding of which decisions should be made by which university groups. As a 2001 article makes crystal clear:

“Faculty sometimes defend the principle of shared governance by invoking the democratic principle of self-government, but the primary justification for the need for shared governance is not deference to the ideal of rule by the people. A college or university is not strictly speaking a democratic polity. [However,] (n)ot all the constituencies of an institution of higher education are equally positioned to make sound judgments about what is appropriate or necessary when it comes to teaching and research. Consequently, the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which remains the AAUP’s principal policy document on the issue, premises its defense of shared governance on the assumption that faculty ought to exercise ‘primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process,’ because the faculty—not students, administrators, or boards of trustees—have the greatest expertise in these matters.”

“Inextricably Linked”: Shared Governance and Academic Freedom, by Larry Gerber. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2001/MJ/Feat/gerb.htm

This quotation speaks to the underlying flaws in Chicago State’s version of “shared governance.” Here, faculty are not treated as experts in curriculum, teaching, or “faculty status.” As our recent history demonstrates, arbitrary decisions regarding curriculum and faculty retention ignore or do not seek the recommendations of “expert” faculty trained in specific disciplines, privileging instead the judgment of persons with little or no understanding of those disciplines. How could this be done better?

I would argue that the key is for our administration to recognize faculty expertise and substitute a collaborative, rather than a hierarchical para-military “we decide, you make it work” approach to curricular and personnel questions. Everyone on this campus has a vested interest in our success. If the administration has concerns about the rigor or questions about the requirements of specific programs why not ask the experts on those programs? My colleagues and I frequently make changes designed to improve the rigor of our degree programs–a process undoubtedly replicated by faculty across campus. Imposition of poorly conceived curricular and graduation requirements, elimination of programs (or colleges)in spite of overwhelming faculty support for their continuation, and unsupportable decisions to terminate tenure-track faculty, have a deleterious effect on students and faculty, sowing discontent and resulting in mistrust. This toxic mix contributes to an atmosphere of disaffection that a top-down management style only exacerbates.

I am not calling for some kind of revolution here. Rather, I am arguing that an effort on the part of our administrators to return (if it ever resided there) primary responsibility for their areas of expertise to the faculty would result in a healthier campus climate, and likely help assuage faculty concerns about their lack of influence in programmatic and curricular issues. While I believe that everyone is motivated only by a desire to improve the university, we need to try a different approach. Interestingly, Northeastern Illinois offers a model for us to consider. In curricular matters, their Senate constitution reads:

NEIU Faculty Senate Constitution

ARTICLE VII: DEPARTMENTAL OR OTHER EQUIVALENT UNITS (INCLUDING
PROGRAMS)

Each College and Resource Professional area is divided into departmental or other equivalent units. The embodiment of the University is the academic department. It initiates all matters regarding curriculum and must approve all curriculum proposals before they are considered by the appropriate College Academic Affairs Committee. Department/unit/program bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Faculty Constitution.

It seems like this would work no matter how we are reconfigured.

Shared Governance

At the end of the trustees meeting on Friday, several faculty had a chat with one of the trustees about the institutional role of the faculty at CSU and ways to improve communication between faculty and the board. While some board members(or faculty for that matter) may not be interested in either of these issues, it might be a propitious time to think about what shared governance should mean and what faculty in this institution find so demoralizing about our administrative culture.

A document from the University of Iowa supporting the 1966 AAUP definition of shared governance captures the dilemma of university governance quite well. First, Chicago State operates on sort of a diluted version of the "stakeholder" system. In this rendition, shared governance operates in a figurative sense: various constituent groups ostensibly have a "conversation" before the people in power make the final decision (or in some cases, have arguably made the decision before the "conversation" occurs). Theoretically, the opinions and ideas of the various "stakeholders" are considered, and because decision makers have sought "input" they believe that "governance is said to be shared." As the Iowa document underscores, this version of shared governance "incorporates This understanding of shared governance incorporates two suppositions: (1) when it comes to important issues, final decision-making power belongs to the president, and (2) all subordinate campus constituents are pretty much equal, regardless of function and expertise (the insidious implication of the term “stakeholder”)."

In contrast, the 1966 AAUP "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" articulates a vision of governance in which "faculty not only possess the right to be heard in institutional decision-making; they actually possess 'primary responsibility'—or authority—for reaching decisions in their areas of expertise, namely, “curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.” The text of that 1966 document is available here: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/governancestatement.htm. The Iowa document here: http://www.uiowa.edu/~aaupweb/shared_gov.pdf

Thus, the 1966 governance statement recognizes faculty preeminence in certain areas. For example, "the delegation of primary responsibility to faculty in academic matters is founded upon the assumption that faculty are not merely employees, but professionals with special training and knowledge, and thus distinctly qualified to exercise decision-making authority in their areas of expertise." A final note on the 1966 statement: It represents more than a unilateral declaration by university faculty, since it results from the collaborative efforts of the AAUP, the Association of Governing Boards of American Colleges and Universities (AGB), and the American Council on Education (ACE). Chicago State University belongs to both the AGB and ACE.

The preceding material serves as a preface to the question of what changes that CSU faculty would like to see occur in the area of university governance. What follows will detail how the “stakeholder” system of shared governance at CSU has worked in the recent past. I would argue that curricular and faculty retention issues are presently more important to the efficient operation of the university than issues of hiring. In that regard, I would remind everyone that during the past two years, the administration ordered two major curriculum changes: the mandatory senior thesis and the mostly mandatory master's thesis. It seems that the administration presented both these changes as "done deals" and expected the faculty to go about the process of implementing them. To the best of my knowledge, they both came out of the president's "shock" at finding that neither component existed in specific program curricula. I remember no attempt to solicit faculty input on either mandate (if someone can correct my recollection here, I would be appreciative).

The imposition by fiat of these two curriculum changes was flawed on a number of levels. First, the administration arrogated to itself the responsibility for curriculum, a responsibility that clearly belongs to the faculty. Second, the pseudo-educational "one size fits all" approach to curriculum ignores significant differences between disciplines, their research methods, and their standards of evidence. Third, points one and two vividly demonstrate how the administration views the faculty's role in institutional governance and highlights the top-down administrative style that undercuts "shared governance." There was no pretense here of even consulting the faculty. This kind of activity continues as we are now confronted with that ridiculous "General Studies" curriculum. No one seems to know who developed that program's courses or why, exactly, the changes were necessary.

Earlier this year, following a regular cyclical review, the administration eliminated the university’s Economics department. Despite the faculty’s recommendation that the program be retained, a recommendation with which 15 of 17 members of two different committees agreed, the administration eliminated the department and program.

The administration’s haphazard and often arbitrary decisions about curriculum are matched by erratic and arbitrary decisions regarding faculty retention. This past cycle, five tenure-track faculty were denied retention, apparently by the president. It is my understanding that although all five had satisfied their colleagues, deans, and the University Personnel Committee that they had met their respective DAC standards and should be retained, the administration disagreed– based on some unknown criteria that apparently resides outside their DACs. Subsequently, the administration (read president) reversed its decision to deny retention to four of the five faculty.

Currently, institutional structures exist for faculty to express their ideas about university governance, but I am not sure how effectively we are utilizing them. During recent contract negotiations, union representatives were apparently hesitant to insist on the inclusion of shared governance language, primarily because of the anti-union activities going on in Ohio. I did not find this a particularly compelling reason to back off on the creation of contractual language that might give faculty a little more ability to use their expertise for the benefit of the institution. In the same vein, the speed of the implementation of the mandated senior and master’s theses allowed little or no time for discussion. In the only Senate meeting with those two topics on the agenda, Senators spent an excruciating seventy-five minutes discussing the university’s attendance policy, as if we were working in a high school. The Senate never got around to discussing either curriculum change.

I would argue that, at a minimum, the faculty (and students) at CSU need to be insulated against arbitrary and capricious decisions in the areas of curriculum and faculty retention. While acknowledging that the University’s administration in general, and the president in particular, have the ultimate responsibility for the functioning of the school, incursions into faculty areas of expertise should be rare and the reasons for administrative actions should be substantive and clearly articulated. I believe the best way to achieve these goals would be for the university to begin practicing, at least in part, the type of university governance articulated in the 1966 statement. I think this should be our model for a new university culture that includes the faculty in a meaningful way and does more than give lip service to the concepts of “shared governance” based on a recognition of faculty “expertise.” This may have to be done incrementally, but it seems like a worthy goal. As the Iowa document makes clear: “By assigning primary authority in educational matters to the faculty, genuine shared governance, as articulated in the Statement on Government, promotes and sustains academic excellence. It doesn’t take a doctorate in higher education to figure out why. In the plain words of one of the twentieth century’s great university presidents, ‘we get the best results in education and research if we leave their management to people who know something about them’ (Robert Maynard Hutchins, Higher Learning in America, Yale, 1936, p. 21).”

More "General Studies"

Sorry to go on about this, but here's a link to the University of Connecticut's General Studies program. Follow the weblinks to look at the specific coursework required. You might note some differences between their course offerings and ours: http://continuingstudies.uconn.edu/bgs/academicprograms.html

Our new "General Studies" degree program

Based on a perusal of the potential courses in our newly mandated "General Studies" program (I assume that those things listed under the four main categories are courses since as a faculty member, I had no input on the design of this program), I think some important topics are being ignored in that new "more marketable" curriculum. I offer the following humble suggestions: 1) Gravity: Truth or Fiction? 2) The Alien Influence in World History. 3) The Earth or the Sun, Which is Really the Center of the Universe (remember Ptolemy)? 4)Where is Elvis Now, Really?

These suggestions are, of course, not fully thought out, and I'm sure that there are other topics worthy of inclusion in any curriculum that includes a course on "flat earth" implications. An obvious companion to any flat earth course would be a discussion of "hollow earth" implications. Honestly, I would like to know which faculty members participated in the creation of this curriculum, and when these courses received approval from the curriculum committee.

Board of Trustees meet Friday--

The 4th of 5 regularly scheduled meetings of CSU's Board of Trustees is tomorrow FRIDAY, September 23rd in the Academic Library Auditorium (room 415)

The agenda is available on the CSU's BOT website, but here are some highlights:

8.30 A.M.

-->Revised Board Regulations

-->a Tenure recommendation--but of whom? Faculty haven't applied yet. Doesn't tenure happen in the spring?

-->Changes to the President's contract--whatever could that include?

-->A mysterious "miscellaneous" fee increase

-->Approval of the budget --three months into the fiscal year.

-->Approval of the faculty contract

Full Board meeting @1.30 p.m.
Public comment will be at the end of the meeting --that means that YOU can say something about the state of the university as YOU see it.

Come see what the Governing Body is hearing about the goings on at our university

Invite your students to come on their lunch break.

And the thoughtless reorganizing continues...

So I will chalk this one up in the “I can’t believe what I just heard” column. Chicago State University is a doctoral degree granting institution that has now seen fit to not have a graduate college. I know, for all of us faculty who went to graduate school, it is incomprehensible how a university that awards masters and doctoral degrees will function without the administrative and quality control functions provided by the graduate college.
So as I understand this situation, 1) the current Dean of the Graduate College was removed as dean without cause, 2) the Graduate College is to be eliminated effective October 1st, 2011, 3) none of the faculty on the Graduate Council were officially notified that this decision was under consideration, 4) the Graduate Council will recommend to the administration how to maintain the as of yet un-articulated functions of the Graduate College, and 5) those recommendations will be considered and whatever decisions are made by the administration, with or without consultation or consent of the faculty, will be implemented in January 2012, ten months prior to the HLC accreditation visit.
A quick survey of the public institutions in this state reveals that only CSU and Governors State University do not have a Graduate School, Graduate College or Graduate Studies office. The Graduate College at UIC for example, has a plethora of activities and functions beyond simple admissions. The importance of quality control, especially in the area of thesis and dissertation submissions, cannot be understated. Having no focal point for this activity severely compromises the academic reputation of the institution and can significantly impact our graduate students who could have the quality of their degrees questioned because of the university’s administrative incompetence.
Re-organizing for the sake of re-organizing is useless and futile. It might be compared to teaching a pig how to dance, it just makes the pig upset. Management by ADD which appears to confuse and obfuscate real intentions has become the predominant management model. Unfortunately for the institution, this model could very well lead to its undoing.
And speaking of undoing, the university’s Board of Governor’s program has been restructured. Two curious facts about that are no faculty or staff from Continuing Education were consulted about the restructuring and the faculty contribution ex post facto is making another administratively inept decision worse. Getting the airplane pilots together after you have decided to use a hot air balloon doesn’t seem like the best way to reach the desired destination. Another Management by ADD (MADD) decision. Poorly conceived, ineptly communicated and incompetently implemented. The most disturbing thing about the absence of faculty involvement is the curricular restructuring that transformed the BOG into the General Studies Program. There are to be four concentrations; “Social and Environmental Justice (Struggles for Suffrage, Race/Gender/ethnic studies, Modern and Historical slavery worldwide, Effect of environmental policy on social justice, health care disparities, sustainability); Art (music, literature, dance, theater, art) and Culture(Role of Arts in defining culture, Historical influence of literature/art/music/dance/theater on (US or other) Culture, Art and politics (protest art, propaganda art, etc.), Marketing dynamics in the arts, Influence of Pop culture; Global Society (“Flat Earth” implications, Global Education, Globalization/nationalism, Population implications, Global Health, Global disparities); and Global Economy (Entrepreneurship, Global Manufacturing, Resource Markets, Global Competition, Global Health (i.e. HIV/AIDS or Maternal Mortality, funding formulas for research and treatment, etc.)” 

I have quoted you the four concentrations and the additional information, clearly stream of consciousness ideas about these concentrations. And to reiterate no faculty was involved in the creation of “Flat Earth” implications, Struggles for Suffrage or any of the other constructs. After several readings I have no idea what academic value there is in this change especially in examining something like Population implications. I can only ask population implications of what? Since faculty weren't involved in the initial discussions (assuming there was dialog and not dictum) faculty is likely to never know from what place any of this emerged from. And isn't it ironic there would be a concentration in Global Economy when this administration has eliminated the Economics degree and minor?

The newly formed General Studies committee is expected to take what can only be described as unintelligible drivel and transform it into a viable academically rigorous program. Good luck to them in that endeavor. As a computer programmer told me long ago, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Congratulations!!!

So this is the post I love to publish. Kudos to Mary Ann Ryan on the completion of her PhD. Mary Ann completed her degree in English Literature at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. A long time adjunct faculty member in the English Department, Mary Ann finished her doctoral journey August 15th. Congratulations to Dr. Ryan.

Please feel free loyal readers to forward to me the accomplishments and achievements of our faculty. You can reach me at pbeverly@gmail.com.

Bits and bobs...

So who are the VIPs visiting campus today who have warranted blocking off parts of the parking lot nearest the Cook Building??? Are they legislators come to visit and see that failure is not an option? Or are they financial benefactors come to rescue the helpless university from its financial turmoil? Or maybe they are federal investigators from the Department of Education coming for a second visit to look at some of the university's administrative practices. One thing is certain though. Given this administration's abysmal record of communication, you would more likely discover who shot Kennedy than discover what is going on at CSU.

And the rumor flying around that nepotism is alive and well at CSU is waiting to be put to rest. To wit, some of the desk attendants at the Jacoby Dickens Center and the Jones Convocation Center are rumored to be relatives of some of the university shuttle bus drivers. If that were true, it at least puts to rest that all of the new hiring at CSU is part of the City College Reemployment Program.

That sound was the timeclock punching your time card

So my colleagues have articulated the time sheet issue well. I will go a bit beyond that to ask about reasonable solutions. The genesis of this policy was with the now discredited Blagoevich Administration. This was the same administration that created the annual ethics test for state employees and formed the Office of the Executive Inspector General. The irony can't be lost on anyone seeing as federal prosecutors are seeking a prison sentence  of as much as 30 years for the convicted former governor. 

So what might a reasonable solution to this problem be? Clearly it isn't the policy of the current administration. I find it interesting that an administration that tripled the number of audit findings would put so much emphasis on addressing this finding. For an administration that took more than a year to negotiate a faculty contract that provided no demonstrable improvement in faculty working conditions, I sense that the current policy is actually about a continued attack on faculty. Recall loyal readers, this was the same president who told members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he was going to have to teach the CSU faculty how to teach. His disdain for faculty was evidenced even before his contractual start date. I understand that creativity is not the strong suit of this administration. Yet it doesn't take much creativity, even from a career long political appointee, to know that there is a political solution to this situation. 

So let's play the "If I Were President" game. I would first consult with all of the other university presidents in the state and propose a massive lobbying campaign on behalf of the faculty. I would stress how much the faculty does off campus, after hours, or during the summer and in effect teach often uninformed legislators about the role of faculty at universities. I, of course, could do that because I know what faculty do firsthand. I would encourage all of the university lobbyists to pressure the legislature for some relief for faculty. Providing the reasonable explanations articulated by my colleagues could convince the legislature to provide some relief for the faculty who are often scapegoated by those who don't understand the role of university faculty. I would also encourage all of the state universities to lobby the governor and seek relief in the form of an executive order exempting faculty from the provisions of the act requiring time keeping. This would save the state money in trying to implement inane policies. How much is lost in terms of productivity as public bodies play these games without trying to help themselves by getting the rules changed? 

Even the most intellectually limited must appreciate doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity. That appears to be what is happening here so let's do something different. Since nothing different is being done, it really begs the question about university leadership and/or ulterior motives.

What is Happening to the Non-Traditional Degree Programs?

As a new academic year dawns with all the enthusiasm normally associated with such an event, unease is also felt on campus. Where did several academic programs go and what happened to them over the summer? Despite 15 of 17 faculty on two different university level committees established to review the matter and voting to retain the Economics program in some fashion, the major and minor degree programs in Economics at CSU have been terminated. What is surprising (maybe) is that there has been no written communication to the university community alerting the faculty and students to this fact nor the reasons behind it. As an occasional student of history, I am surprised that a degree program representing the area of expertise of a major university benefactor with significant political and scholarly distinction (a building is named for him on campus) who also had a profound influence on American life as a trained economist is effectively gone without a trace. I doubt the people who made the decision to eliminate the Economics program even know of whom I am speaking or the influence on critical economic programs created in the 1930's and desperately needed to be revived today. While a few students may continue on to finish their degree (to avoid the likely lawsuits), the Econ program cannot offer any more academic degrees to students who wish to complete a course of study in Economics. That the timing in American history is unusual goes without saying. That the importance to the affected CSU community goes without saying. That the institutional history and memory of some individuals at CSU is deficient goes without saying. But at least the proper committees were formed and I suppose there are some written communications of the decision at the administrative level even though this decision apparently doesn’t merit any more communication of a rationale to the broader university community (including students).

And so now we turn to the BOG… when did these programs become candidates for reorganization? It is my understanding that several non-traditional degree programs have been halted/reconfigured/changed without much discussion to the broader university community about the rationale behind such a move. These programs have been designed to serve the non-traditional student (which usually means returning adult student with work and/or life experience) and for someone who is older than the average undergraduate. This is also a strength of CSU’s mission; that is, that we focus on serving the needs of such students to a greater degree than other local four year baccalaureate degree granting institutions. Given our historical (and current) mission of serving such students, what happened to the program(s) over the summer? and were the faculty consulted? Is there a rationale? Have the appropriate committees been formed to examine the reasons and to find out if these really are in the best interest of the CSU community? Or if this decision is in alignment with our mission? Or whether the reasons are supported by any data?

Maybe I am wrong to have such unease at the start of the academic year. Certainly it must be the case that these decisions have been considered from all sides by the administration with all the avenues for saving key functions and retaining key personnel and institutional knowledge considered. It certainly could not be the case that these decisions were made hastily and only for the appearance of action over inaction. That is why written reasons and public forums to discuss these decisions are so important. It would seem to be the case that if the administration had been careful in making these decisions, then the data to support the decisions, transparency in the process, and clarity of the reasons for such decisions are not much to ask for.

Otherwise why else would we be asking as the Fall semester dawns, “What happened to the BOG?” and “Where is the Economics program when faculty voted to retain the program on probationary status?”