The head of the University of New Mexico’s Faculty Senate has resigned because he sees “no hope for an effective shared governance at UNM” under the institution’s current president, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Douglas E. Fields, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, informed administrators on Monday in an e-mail letter of resignation that the Journal called “another blow” to David J. Schmidly’s presidency that could cause problems with accreditors. The university’s communications office did not respond immediately to calls for comment from the Journal.
- 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20037
- Copyright © 2013 The Chronicle of Higher Education
I am baffled by calls for “shared governance.” Trustees and presidents take responsibility for whatever goes wrong: a budget shortfall, deterioration of libraries or facilities, student unrest, outbreaks of illness, crime, faculty misbehavior or bad tenure decisions made years ago that now plague the institution, low graduation rates, poor scores on graduate school admissions tests, and the rest. Faculty may have opinions about such matters and may even act through senates to give advice about them. But they cannot be removed if things go wrong, and they are rarely blamed by the public or state officials for such setbacks. So faculty can surely be consulted and can offer advice, but they cannot really “share” in governance. What can Professor Fields mean by “effective shared governance”? He surely does not mean “shared responsibility” for decisions that go wrong.
My guess is that he was tired of decisions being made in a vacuum. Shared governance usually means having a voice on policy and providing feedback on its implementation. I’m baffled by the statement by post #1 that “Trustees and presidents take responsibility for whatever goes wrong”, unless that simply means being the ones with the explanations [e.g., "bad tenure decisions made years ago that now plague the institution" is an explanation, not an acceptance of responsibility, the responsible parties being long gone]. Apparently the faculty have so little voice at UNM the only one willing to head the faculty senate was an assistant professor, and even he threw in the towel. What this president can take responsibility for is his failure of leadership.
22286504 – you missed it. Shared governance is about letting faculty having influence over matters that affect them, it is not about making the decisions themselves. Faculty just want to have a voice and an administration that is committed to making decisions through a collaborative, consensus oriented process where possible (and granted, that is not always possible).
Shared governance means that faculty are viewed as stakeholders in the institution. They participate in shaping the future of the institution and solving problems as they arise. I work in an institution with no shared governance to speak of; in the end, the students lose out. Faculty can see when policies negatively impact students, but it is damned near impossible to get anything changed. Our university committees take their agendas from the administration. Committee reports are written for committees and meetings are for rubber stamping. There is a clear sense that if one speaks out, they will be punished. Our faculty council is a joke. Nothing happens there. No one speaks out. Morale is very low. But there are no leaders to take up the cause.
upallnight, ditto here at my university. There is no shared governance. It’s a joke. All faculty senate meetings rubber stamp whatever is on the agenda. The provost and deans hold the biggest sway on what gets on the agenda. Anyone who speaks out against something becomes a target for the administration, so few are willing to do that. it’s only the little details where faculty can have any real impact.
What passed for faculty governance at my institution died decades ago. As the place shifted to a corporate model, administrators became executives, students became customers, and faculty became Walmart associates. Education ceased to be a mission, morphing into a means of realizing the two real priorities of the university: generating revenue streams and being a Division I sports entertainment center. Oh, there is still a senate and committees continue to meet. But any of their recommendations and opinions are ignored when found to be inconvenient.
To clarify, this statement by cwinton is incorrect:”the only one willing to head the faculty senate was an assistant professor, and even he threw in the towel.”The University of New Mexico Faculty Senate has new leadership each year. The Faculty Senate president-elect, Richard Wood, became president when Doug Fields resigned, as he would otherwise have done after June 30, when Fields’ term ended.
Do the faculty at the U of New Mexico have a Union affiliation? Way,way back when the auto makers wanted to avoid having their employees organize a union, management offered to form “in-house” sweetheart representation. The NLRB stepped in and ruled that “Collective bargaining, by its very nature, creates an adversarial relationship between labor and management; therefore internal “sweetheart” bargaining practices are inappropriate to the intent of true collective bargaining.” If the U of New Mexico faculty voted to be represented by an union, the moment their affirmative vote was confirmed, any internal faculty governance system immediately became useless. It is true that institutions continue to try to use them as a matter of public fluff. But it is soon clear that both sides try to politically manipulate the governance system to their respective advantage. The faculty sees it as a way of perhaps getting more percs outside of the formal collective system, which is periodic in nature with new contracts occurring, generally every three to five years. The management side sees it as an attempt by faculty to keep getting bites at the institutional apple – bites they don’t really deserve. So it is no surprise that games are perpetually played with internal governance. If U of New Mexico is collectvely bargained, then the governance chief was wise in walking away. It is a useless effort. If however, the faculty at the university are not collectively bargained, there is a big proplem brewing at the U.
To Willynilly, UNM does not appear to have a faculty union. If it did, it would not legally have any ability to strike. So, there is a big problem at UNM, and it is not new. A few years back the president of the Faculty Senate was an assistant professor who did not get tenure. The university has gone through a few presidents in the past few years and the Faculty Senate voted no confidence in both President Schmidly and (I believe) the chair of the Regents.Shared governance at our New Mexico institution does mean that new programs and degrees are not introduced without the approval of the faculty, but it does not mean that the faculty have veto power over the budget. Faculty are represented on a budget committee that has more power than it did.
Shared faculty governance is a myth that refuses to die because of the few faculty who still try to convince administrators that they share responsibility for important decision, such as who get tenure, what programs are added and dropped, and who is selected as their Chair or Dean. Faculty need to learn to put on the yoke of silence and pull the institution in the direction of their administrators. If you don’t like this truism then get a job in government where your opinion is valued less.
Doug Fields is not an assistant professor but a tenured associate professor who has done an incredible job as the UNM Faculty Senate president. This is a reporting error.
I am not surprised that there is no faculty governance at University of New Mexico. It is true of many institutions. At present I am working in a HBCU and there is no faculty governance. The administrators don’t listen or care about the Faculty Senate. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the University System does not pay much attention. Faculty are not in involved even in academic matters at the university. The accreditation agencies are fooled by putting their friends to meet with them.
I wish to respond to the first respondent (225??) who wrote:I am baffled by calls for “shared governance.” Trustees and presidents take responsibility for whatever goes wrong: a budget shortfall, deterioration of libraries or facilities, student unrest, outbreaks of illness, crime, faculty misbehavior or bad tenure decisions made years ago that now plague the institution, low graduation rates, poor scores on graduate school admissions tests, and the rest. Faculty may have opinions about such matters and may even act through senates to give advice about them. But they cannot be removed if things go wrong, and they are rarely blamed by the public or state officials for such setbacks. So faculty can surely be consulted and can offer advice, but they cannot really “share” in governance. What can Professor Fields mean by “effective shared governance”? He surely does not mean “shared responsibility” for decisions that go wrong.Well, presidents and provosts usually do NOT get fired for budget short falls. They often get bonuses and raises even though THEY fall short in their avowed institutional goals.John Thelin