In a March 30 op-ed, several of our colleagues argued against the recently passed motion to have an elected faculty member chair faculty meetings. The authors are among a group of faculty who seek to repeal the vote. Unfortunately, their letter is one in a series of misconstruals of the March 3 decision, and the focus on this one decision distracts from the main issue at stake in the series of Faculty Executive Committee recommendations, the first of which was changing who chairs faculty meetings. The larger stake is faculty participation in how Brown is governed and how to improve it.
The FEC spent over a year holding meetings with 35 departments and another six months producing a report. The FEC report concluded that Brown prides itself on its dedication to shared governance, but “faculty across the board felt that, at least in recent years, shared governance has existed in letter only.” As a result, faculty morale has decreased and trust between faculty and administrators has eroded. “The most effective remedy, as determined by the FEC, would be to grant the faculty a more prominent voice and role in decision-making at Brown,” they wrote.
The FEC report recommended five short-term governance changes and seven longer-term efforts designed to increase shared governance. Based on the report, which has been circulated several times among the faculty since November and discussed at multiple meetings, the committee crafted a motion following the FEC’s initial recommendation that an elected faculty member — the FEC Chair — preside over University faculty meetings. The motion passed with a majority at the March 3 meeting. The margin was indeed slim, but the process was in alignment with the conduct of all faculty meeting votes.
Despite being repeatedly characterized as adversarial — by President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 in the faculty meeting and by some faculty in Herald opinion pieces — the March 3 vote was not a reflection on the work of Paxson, which we highly respect. Rather, it was an attempt to open space for discussion and even dissent on issues of concern to faculty and administration. This motion is in keeping with the goal of the other reforms proposed in the FEC report: to address a decades-long trend that is restructuring American universities according to a corporate model — one in which administrators have taken on larger and larger roles, thereby making more decisions that are then communicated to faculty at meetings, rather than decided upon with them, to the detriment of greater engagement and democratic processes. It is therefore inaccurate to characterize the vote as one of “no confidence” in the president. On the contrary, to suggest that a faculty member chair faculty meetings is a vote of confidence in the ability of the faculty to participate in shared governance.
Votes of the full faculty are relatively rare, and those on governance issues are even less common. The idea that faculty decisions can be immediately re-voted at the request of a group that doesn’t like the outcome is deeply destructive to the principle of faculty governance. In fact, it would corrode any stable governance system. Rather than taking anything away from the president — a position, not a person — having an elected faculty member chair meetings could relieve the head administrator of a duty that faculty are capable of managing ourselves. Briefings from administrators are crucial to faculty understanding of important issues, and we look forward to hearing from the president and the provost regularly at faculty meetings. A faculty chair will ensure that ample time is allotted to the very discussion that shared governance requires.
Given that the March 3 vote was itself an exercise in faculty governance during difficult times, to attempt to overturn it is to undermine faculty governance itself. If we can immediately overturn a faculty vote, why not revisit other contested or close votes? This effort to reverse a faculty vote distracts from the time, dedication and consultation put forward by the FEC, the American Association of University Professors and other faculty members concerned with shared governance, including the motion that passed. In fact, the effort arguably undermines every task force, every study, every report and every vote conducted at Brown in recent years. Brown needs to relearn how shared faculty governance works.
Denise Davis MA’97 PhD’11 is an associate teaching professor of gender and sexuality studies, Lynne Joyrich is a professor of modern culture and media, Timmons Roberts is a professor of environment and society and Michael Steinberg is a professor of history, music and German studies. They can be reached at denise_davis@brown.edu, lynne_joyrich@brown.edu, j_timmons_roberts@brown.edu, and michael_steinberg@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
