[Vision2020] The ISU Faculty Senate is but a Shadow of its Former Self

[Nicholas Gier]

Good Morning Visionaries,

The situation at ISU is getting worse and here is the latest.  This is
now part of a revised piece "Alarming Trends on Idaho's Campuses,"
which is attached.

Nick Gier, President, Higher Education Council, Idaho Federation of
Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO.

The ISU Faculty Senate is but a Shadow of its Former Self

After the faculty at Idaho State University voted 80 percent against
his leadership in February 2011, President Arthur Vailas abolished the
faculty senate. In June of the same year the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP), whose policies on tenure and academic
freedom have long been supported by ISU and nearly every other
American college and university, sanctioned ISU for violating basic
principles of faculty governance. There are only four other colleges
and universities that have this dubious distinction.

The State Board of Education proposed that a provisional faculty
senate write a constitution for the governance of the university.
Earlier the Board had approved a BSU faculty constitution, and the
provisional senators used it as a model. Vailas refused to accept the
draft document and, incredibly enough, the Board instead approved his
own document “General Principles of Faculty Governance,” which gives
all power to the president and guarantees that ISU will remain on a
national black list for dysfunctional campus governance.

In the selection of new senators the ISU administration made it clear
that those who had served in the last three years could not be
nominated.  Very few faculty agreed to run for office, and only 26.5
percent of the faculty voted in early October. The administration
announced that the turn out ranged from 19 to 75 among the colleges,
but only science and engineering actually reported that only 31 of its
139 faculty voted.

Provost Adamchik is currently chairing the faculty senate, also
unprecedented in my experience.  To her credit she does not want the
job, but no senator has volunteered to lead nor has anyone been
nominated.  Senator and biology professor Jeff Meldrum expresses his
own hesitations: “I certainly don’t agree with the unprecedented
actions to disband the faculty senate. I don’t agree with some of the
extreme positions of some past senators, but I feel many points that
they made are very valid and have not been given true consideration by
the administration and the State Board.”  It is difficult to see how
honestly expressing one’s opinions could be called “extreme.”

The current senators have been stripped of most of the duties that
faculty representatives have across the nation.  This action appears
to be a violation of Board policy about faculty governance, which
states, following the long tradition of self-governance, that “the
faculty of each institution will establish written bylaws, a
constitution, and necessary procedures, subject to the approval by the
President and the Board.” The procedures now in effect at ISU were
imposed by Vailas and the Board; they did not originate with the
faculty.

The current senators cannot address research issues or personnel
cases. (Traditionally, faculty appeal board, such as the one that
supported Professor Sadid, report to academic senates.) This semester
they have taken up minor issues such as tuition breaks for dependents
of ISU faculty, and complaints that some of ISU’s international
students have problems with the English language.

Although I’ve been informed that no senator has been authorized to
speak for the current senate, blog posts at ISUVoice.com contain the
following statements. “We the members of the newly formed faculty
senate [believe that previous senators are] misguided people who
refused to understand their subordinate role in faculty governance.”
Vailas “must lead and that is why he disbanded those dysfunctional
faculty senates.” The statements conclude: “We are sincere in
promoting good will and representing (not repressing) our
constituents.” However, the tradition on American campuses, embodied
in AAUP principles universally recognized, is “shared governance”
between faculty and administrators.

In the not too distant past, Idaho faculty senate leaders and college
and university president were given equal time before the Board.  Now
they have to get permission to speak and only then for limited time.
When previous faculty senators did speak in the past two years, none
of the Board members even had the courtesy to ask any questions. One
board member was overheard saying that “we should bust the union.”

Over the past decade State Board of Education has been criticized for
being “power hungry and arrogant,” returning the state to “the dark
ages of higher ed non- cooperation” (GOP Rep. Tom Trail), and “undoing
a decade of progress” (GOP Sen. Gary Schroeder). Board members have
shown little respect for faculty rights, and have been particularly
critical of academic tenure.  In 2003 board members were shameful in
their treatment of Superintendent of Schools Marilyn Howard, the only
Democrat serving on the body.  I hope that someday soon the ISU
administration and the Board of Education will come to their senses.

Nick Gier taught philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALARMING TRENDS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 152604 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121227/baca5d4c/attachment-0001.pdf>