The Faculty Senate of South Carolina State University overwhelmingly voted no confidence in the university’s president, George E. Cooper, and his administration on Thursday. A position statement issued by the Faculty Senate in connection with the vote argues that President Cooper and the university’s vice president for academic affairs, Joyce A. Blackwell, “have failed to demonstrate effective leadership during their tenure” and “are responsible for the continued demise” of the institution. Among the reasons the position statement gave for the vote is a view that administrators disregarded academic freedom and shared governance in demoting the Faculty Senate’s president, M. Evelyn Fields, from a position as head of the university’s education department after she criticized the policies of Mr. Cooper and Ms. Blackwell. A spokeswoman for the university administration on Friday said it had no comment.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
4 Responses to Faculty Senate Votes No Confidence in President of South Carolina State U.
willynilly - January 17, 2011 at 11:05 am
As I have said in the past, extensive research into “No Confidence” votes by faculty groups – especially those who are collective bargained, reveal that in a very large percentage of these events the president is actually doing a very good job managing the institution, given the particular circumstances and issues it is facing at this point in time. The usual cause of faculty discontent in these instances is “Change”. Faculty deeply love and are greatly comforted by the status quo. This comfort is fiercely protected no matter if it threatens the overall institution and its students. Conversely, “change” is scary and threatening. Its outcome cannot be accurately predicted by the faculty who tend to see the worst case scenerio for their careers. Ergo the best and fastest route back to the comfort zone is to get rid of the “change-agent” and all will be cool and predictable again. Astute Trustee Boards are able to discern which of these two issues is in play – and then can act accordingly.
22221757 - January 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm
The prior post is absolutely on point and exactly the case of what happened here at West Virginia University a few years back. The new presidential administration was making many changes and the faculty did not like it one bit. The shaky board caved to the pressure and simply folded under the faux pressure. The administrations that followed were nothing more than status quo joes. Change agents are always scary to the status quo – in higher ed they are treated like the Salem Witches…………
landrumkelly - January 20, 2011 at 11:36 am
“in a very large percentage of these events the president is actually doing a very good job managing the institution, given the particular circumstances and issues it is facing at this point in time. The usual cause of faculty discontent in these instances is ‘Change.’ Faculty deeply love and are greatly comforted by the status quo.”
No. Faculty members don’t like repression, and, if they are worth their salt, they won’t tolerate it. Typical academic administrators simply do not respect the requirements of shared governance. Dictatorship is all they know, and they will always find that style of “leadership” at odds with the culture of the academy–which they will never understand.
When will they ever learn? When they are either fired, sued, or prosecuted–there’s not much in between.
Landrum Kelly, Jr., Ph.D.
Livingstone College
lightningstrike - January 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm
It really depends on how one defines “change.” Change is a good thing and happens all the time, and faculty will make note of it and adapt. But if the change is misguided and not in the best interests of all stakeholders, people will speak up. Isn’t it a good thing for the stakeholders on the front lines, the ones actually delivering the education, to have a voice? Extensive research into “No Confidence” votes by faculty groups – especially those who are collectively bargained, reveal that in a very large percentage of these events the incompetent president has no regard for governance.