I once had a class where we read and discussed a book written by the professor. On the day of the discussion, he chose to leave the room because he knew that even though we all had good intentions, we wouldn’t feel comfortable criticizing his work to his face, largely because he was in a position of authority. The faculty’s recent vote to replace President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 as the presiding officer of faculty meetings is the right move for the same reason. When the president of the university presides over faculty meetings, faculty are less free to criticize the president’s decisions.
The editorial page board argues that replacing the president as presiding officer is merely a symbolic gesture and that the Faculty Executive Committee should be using its procedural power to place faculty interests on the agenda. But this misses the point of the replacement: The faculty believed that the president had been using her position as presiding officer to shut down productive conversation on agenda items related to faculty concerns, specifically compensation. Chastising the FEC for not “sufficiently representing faculty interests” is blaming the victim.
The editorial page board’s argument heavily depends on the Faculty Rules and Regulations, which outline the structure of the monthly faculty meeting, but fails to consider the unwritten social dynamics that shape the meeting’s outcome. The presiding officer matters because what is on the agenda is less important than the discussion that follows. In any setting, a meeting facilitator has immense power to control the conversation. This is especially true when they are also the university president. Even if the FEC placed their full wish list on the agenda, the individual who presides over the meeting controls the length of time spent discussing each agenda item, the light these items are portrayed in, whose hand gets called on and, most importantly, when to shut down uncomfortable conversations. These aspects of serving as presiding officer can be used to deflect objections to the administration’s decisions and control the meeting’s narrative.
According to Herald reporting, such stifling of dissent occurred at the November 2024 faculty meeting. Brown’s faculty have been raising concerns about their compensation for years, so when University administrators rejected a one time 5% increase, several faculty members were understandably upset and wanted to press administrators on their decision. At the meeting, Professor and Chair of German Studies Kristina Mendicino, who served as FEC chair at the time, disagreed with Paxson’s assertions that the University couldn’t afford the increase in compensation. But Paxson did not want to discuss the matter at the meeting, saying that she hadn’t received the relevant motion in time. “This is a faculty meeting, and this is about our compensation, so at some point, I think it would behoove you to listen to the faculty and listen to our concerns,” said Gerhard Richter, professor of German studies and Comparative literature. Does this sound like a lack of conviction, as my colleagues suggest?
Paxson makes my argument for me. She said that since faculty often consider motions proposed by the FEC chair, it could create a “perceived conflict of interest” if the chair of the FEC leads the meeting. If the position of presiding officer is largely powerless, as the editorial page board suggests, why would there be a conflict of interest? Paxson voices her concern that the FEC chair will gain the exact power she previously held: the ability to steer the conversation in her favor. The difference is that the FEC chair, unlike the president, must be elected by their colleagues.
If faculty tell us that they feel afraid to speak in meetings, we should take their word for it. Even if your job was secure, wouldn’t you feel nervous criticizing your boss to her face in front of hundreds of your colleagues? The editorial board argues that the motion doesn’t change anything because the president will still attend the meetings, but it likely wasn’t so much her presence that was the problem, but her dominance over the conversation.
This decision must be placed in context: Faculty have very little formal power over the governance of the University, especially financial decisions. The committees they sit on are merely advisory to administrators. Historically, faculty used to have more influence over the University’s governance, but never any formal administrative power. The proposal to have the FEC chair lead faculty meetings was submitted back in December as a means to reclaim faculty governance power and refocus the meetings on issues of faculty concern, including compensation.
The change is a step in the right direction for Brown. Reclaiming control over faculty meetings need not be adversarial or harm relationships. It’s asserting a basic professional boundary that provides our faculty with a more open forum for discourse and hopefully helps them gain more governing power. After all, Brown would be nothing without its professors. Shouldn’t they have some say in running it?
Evan Tao ’27 can be reached at evan_tao@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Dissenting Opinions: When The Herald’s editorial page board disagrees, members have the opportunity to publish a dissent to explain why they voted against the editorial. Editorials — and dissents, if any — are written by members of The Herald’s editorial page board, which is separate from those of The Herald’s newsroom and the 136th Editorial Board, which leads the paper.
