|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building Baylor, TogetherBy
putting the principle of shared governance into practice, a
university's administration and faculty can strengthen an institution
By Meg Cullar, Illustration by Leigh Wells
On May 6, Baylor University's Faculty Senate--a group of
representatives elected by faculty members--voted to pass a resolution
decrying the "failure of shared governance at Baylor University." The
vote came in the wake of the university president's denial of tenure to
twelve of thirty faculty candidates this spring, though seven of the
denials were later reversed after going through a reconsideration
process.
 Although
the Faculty Senate is not formally involved in the tenure process,
senate chair Matthew Cordon--who is director of legal research,
associate director of the Law Library, and professor of law--said that
in this case, the senate was playing a needed role. "The senate
provides an open forum for the discussion of faculty issues, and, when
necessary, we serve as an advocate for faculty," he said.
On May 8, Baylor President John Lilley responded to the resolution in
an e-mail sent to all faculty. "The provost and I unequivocally support
the concept of shared governance," he wrote. "Following the existing
policy, this year the provost and I considered faculty input from every
level of the candidate's review, from departmental colleagues up
through the university tenure committee."
Lilley told the Line
that Baylor's policies outline both rights and responsibilities for the
various university entities. "Given the central importance of the
faculty in the life of the university, regular communication results in
collegiality for the sometimes difficult decisions," he said. "I have
worked closely with the Faculty Senate and its leadership and have
valued that relationship."
But to those outside of academia--especially those in the corporate
world--the whole concept of "shared governance" can seem incongruous
with the workplace. What does it mean for faculty to share in the
governance of the university, which is also their employer? Why should
they? How can such a process work in a practical sense?
A Unique Concept
To explain the ways of the academic world, faculty members often turn
to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Baylor
senior lecturer Dr. Lynn Tatum is a longtime AAUP member, former
president of the Baylor chapter, and the current president of the Texas
State Conference of the AAUP. He describes the organization as the
major trans-disciplinary organization for faculty, with a stature
similar to that of the American Medical Association for doctors.
"There are basically three entities involved in the management and
operation of the university," Tatum explained, "and they are the board,
the administration, and the faculty. Shared governance is the concept
of how those three work together."
The university is unlike the corporate world, he argued, because
academia has a different function. "We are serving society, not the
stockholders of a particular company," he said. Faculty are granted
tenure, he said, because they are expected to be on the cutting edge of
new knowledge, and new knowledge can be a threat to someone. "We don't
want our religion professors, for example, to be fired because 51
percent of pastors or deacons in the BGCT [Baptist General Convention
of Texas] disagree with them," he said. "Faculty members need to be
able to speak truth as they see it."
Tatum said that, according to AAUP standards, there are two basic
principles of shared governance: The first is that authority should
follow responsibility, providing the faculty with primacy in making
judgments regarding the academic side since they are in charge of
teaching the students. The second is that there should be communication
and consultation. No one--whether it is the board, the administration,
or the faculty--should be making decisions in a vacuum, separated from
the other two governing entities.
Dr. Robert Kreiser, associate secretary in the AAUP's Department of
Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, said that shared governance
means just what it says--"that the responsibility of running the
institution is shared. Depending on the type of decision that needs to
be made, the various roles are configured in different ways."
According to Kreiser, "In some areas, the board has primary
responsibility, and in most instances it is the ultimate decision
maker. The board cedes authority in administrative matters to the
president or other administrative officers, and it's generally
recognized that in matters having to do with educational issues and
faculty personnel matters, the faculty has primary responsibility."
In 1967, the AAUP published a formal "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,"
formulated by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The
statement outlines the basic definition and duties of the governing
entities. It states that the board is, with few exceptions, the final
institutional authority--setting the course for the future, determining
overall policies, and "husbanding" the endowment to ensure future
viability.
According to the statement, the president, as the CEO, shares the
responsibility for defining and attaining goals. The president's job is
"to plan, to organize, to direct, and to represent." The president,
according to the joint statement, will necessarily consult the judgment
of the faculty but may also seek outside advice from other scholars. It
is the president's duty to make sure the institution follows the
direction set out by the governing board. The president also functions
as the conduit between the faculty and governing board, representing
the faculty's views to the board and vice versa.
As described by the AAUP's statement, the faculty has the primary
responsibility for areas such as curriculum, subject matter and methods
of instruction, research, faculty status, and the aspects of student
life relating to the education process. "On these matters the power of
review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by
it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional
circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty."
Concerning faculty status issues--such as tenure--the AAUP statement
says the primary responsibility should lie with the faculty, noting,
"The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty
status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary
responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare
instances and for compelling reasons, which should be stated in detail."
This last statement is one that's been quoted often in the recent
tenure dust-up at Baylor. The Faculty Senate's resolution alleged that
the twelve tenure denials were largely in opposition to the
recommendations of faculty that were sent to the president and that the
president failed to provide a "compelling reason" for the disagreement.
This action, the senate alleged, amounted to a breach of the principles
of shared governance that are considered appropriate in the academic
world.
Tatum described the tenure process as a long one, typically
encompassing six years. During the recent tenure process, Tatum said,
"The president stepped in where the president should not step in and
certainly has not given compelling reasons and hasn't made the argument
that there was something unusual in these cases--a compelling reason
not to go with the recommendations of experts in the field."
Faculty Focus
The Faculty Senate's May resolution cited a "sudden and severe decline
in faculty morale," but senate chair Cordon said that the morale
problem had been growing over time and is related to a number of
issues. Earlier in March, he said, the senate passed another resolution
objecting to the university administration's stance on faculty
promotions.
Typically, a tenure-track faculty member begins life at Baylor as an assistant professor. When he or she achieves tenure,
that new status includes a promotion to associate professor. Attaining
the rank of full professor can take many years, Cordon said, and in the
past faculty have been evaluated based on the criteria under which they
were hired. Recently, he said, the criteria have been changed to allow
only research-focused faculty to advance to the rank of full professor.
"This affects a lot of associate professors who came here under very
different circumstances," he noted. "We have quite a number of people
who were associate professors and who have taught heavy loads for a
long time and who basically gave up a research agenda to teach the
classes here. To tell them after fifteen or twenty years that now you
will be judged based on your research, that made a lot of people
mad--including full professors."
Some departments have also struggled with the policy and procedures for
the selection of department chairs, Cordon said. "Departments are not
allowed to vote for chair candidates, but must only present candidates'
strengths and weaknesses," he said.
Baylor's provost, Dr. Randall O'Brien (pictured above, right, with
Lilley), who is a former chair of the religion department, acknowledged
that the chair selection process has been a point of contention, but he
believes there are good reasons for not taking an official vote. "If
you rank them, and your first choice--and possibly even your second
choice--cannot come to Baylor, now everyone in the department, soon
everyone in your school or college, and after that everyone in the
university family knows that the chair was not the first choice," he
said. "Furthermore, when candidates are voted on for chair and ranked,
that creates a sense of division in the department, because some are
for one and some for another."
O'Brien said the provost's office usually gets a very clear picture
from departments about what their preferences are. "And there's another
reason [for not voting] as well," he told the Line.
"A chair position is a faculty appointment, but it's also an
administrative appointment, and, concerning shared governance, the gate
swings both ways. It's not simply a matter of faculty preference, but
also of administrative preference. In a joint conversation, I think
it's important for administrators to be involved in making the
selection of an administrator."
Dr. Lee Nordt--professor of geology and dean of Baylor's College of
Arts and Sciences, the university's largest academic unit--said that in
the chair-selection process, "We generally get where everyone wants to
go." He said that the search committee, the dean, and the provost all
meet to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" list and that it's
"pretty obvious" whom the department wants. He also noted, "We're not
going to impose anyone; that's never happened in my three years here.
That wouldn't work."
Another recent decision that concerned faculty involved the Graduate
Council's changing of criteria for the designation of faculty members
as "graduate faculty," a designation that allows them to direct
doctoral dissertations or master's theses and have graduate assistants.
A new policy approved by the Graduate Council this spring requires a
reappointment of all graduate faculty every five years, with research
being the primary criterion for appointment.
Tenure Treatment
With such issues simmering on the back burner, Cordon said, the ensuing
tenure controversy was enough to push many faculty members past the
boiling point. When the news broke in late March, stories appeared in
the Waco Tribune-Herald, the Baylor Lariat,
and in Baptist as well as national educational news outlets. The
contention from faculty members was that the standards for attaining
tenure were frequently changing--without proper faculty input--making
it impossible for some faculty members to hit a moving mark.
Both Inside Higher Ed and the Baptist Press
reported that nine of the twelve faculty members who were denied tenure
had received positive recommendations from both their departmental
faculty members and from the University Tenure Committee--a broad-based
committee charged with reviewing tenure candidates and making
recommendations to the administration. In the April 8 Faculty Senate
meeting, however, Provost O'Brien said that those numbers were
incorrect, according to the meeting's minutes.
Baylor biology assistant professor Rene Massengale, whose tenure denial was upheld after the reconsideration process, told the Waco Tribune-Herald
that the written guidelines for tenure had changed three times in the
last six years. "What President Lilley has done in the last month is to
say, 'I'm holding you to a different standard. I'm not telling you what
that standard is, and I'm not giving you prior notice of what it's
going to be,'" Massengale told the local paper.
O'Brien told the Tribune-Herald,
"All the standards of [Baylor] 2012 are in play in the tenure
judgments. The university is feeling that when faculty are hired with
reduced teaching responsibilities, the expectations for research
productivity--those expectations increase."
The Faculty Senate meeting on April 8 focused largely on the tenure
denials, with Provost O'Brien addressing the group for an hour,
according to the Tribune-Herald.
Faculty Senate meetings are closed to the general public and media, but
open to any faculty member. At that meeting, senators passed a motion
asking the administration for more detailed information. It read, "The
Faculty Senate expresses its deep concern on what appears to be a
failure of shared governance and requests information regarding the
number of candidates who were denied tenure in opposition to an
affirmative vote by the University Tenure Committee."
The next encounter between administrators and faculty came at the
previously scheduled annual "State of the University" address, open to
the public, on April 21. Bennett Auditorium was nearly full of faculty,
staff, and administrators as Lilley spoke in a mainly
question-and-answer format for about two hours. In very short order,
the topic of the process used in the recent tenure reviews came up, and
faculty members questioned Lilley on whether he and O'Brien had given
due deference to the judgments of the faculty during the process.
One faculty member noted that, even though his department had been
operating with explicit tenure guidelines, he had no idea how he, as a
senior faculty member, should advise the younger faculty who were
striving for tenure. "I'll be honest with you," he said. "Right now, I
have no clue what to tell them is sufficient and is something that they
can put out there with confidence that they will be able to get tenure."
 "I
would hope you will not take that approach of a formula," Lilley
responded. "What we are asking faculty to do is to demonstrate who they
naturally are. I think there is a level of productivity that is natural
for them. It's not just about getting over some tenure hump. We want to
see who they plan to be for the rest of their professional careers."
Cordon asked the president whether departments, whose guidelines had
been approved by the administration, were entitled to any deference.
"Deference will be made to those who put forth a good argument," Lilley
responded. "Deference is based upon the reasoning given. And we got
some terrific departmental reviews that were very clear--and not always
about a positive. To say that the president and provost would simply
rubber-stamp all the department recommendations, that's not our policy."
AAUP representative Tatum (pictured) told the president at the forum
that giving deference to faculty views in the tenure process is a
"tier-one" practice. So, Tatum asked Lilley, if the administration
expects faculty to aspire to tier-one status as part of Baylor 2012,
shouldn't the faculty expect the administration to act like tier-one
administrators and follow policies and procedures that conform to
contemporary professional standards?
"What I would say to you is that it is very easy over a period of time
to change this," Lilley said. "If the faculty take a very, very
disciplined approach to this process, there will be no need for Randall
and me ever to disagree with the department."
Also during the open meeting, Lilley made reference to an "Academic
Summit"--a meeting he intended to convene during the summer to discuss
the tenure procedures.
The topic of the summit came up again on May 6 during the Faculty
Senate's regularly scheduled monthly meeting, which ran for nearly four
hours. For part of that time, President Lilley and Provost O'Brien were
present to answer questions, address concerns, and participate in the
discussion. At the end of the meeting, the senate passed the
"Resolution on the Failure of Shared Governance at Baylor University"
that was critical of the administration's handling of tenure decisions.
After laying out fifteen items of contention regarding the tenure
denials, the resolution called for administrative action on six
specific items, including the restoration of shared governance and due
process, that tenure candidates be given a reasonably long timetable to
adjust to policy revisions, and for the president and provost to repair
damage to faculty morale.
Also at that senate meeting, the president and provost presented a
draft proposal for the summer's summit. The proposed meeting would
address the tenure process by gathering "substantial input from across
campus," with participants including administrators, deans, department
chairs, the Faculty Senate executive committee, the president of the
local AAUP chapter, representatives of the University Tenure Committee,
and a group of senior faculty selected by the Faculty Senate and the
provost.
The senate passed a motion saying that involvement in such a meeting
might be premature, depending on the final outcome of the tenure
process.
Administrative Perspective
On May 8, President Lilley sent his response to the Faculty Senate's
resolution on shared governance, saying that he was "writing to correct
some of the recent statements that have been made regarding faculty
involvement at Baylor."
He noted, "The university policy to which the senate resolution makes
reference gives to faculty the primary review regarding tenure, but it
also vests final responsibility with the president, who, after
reviewing all supporting evidence and in consultation with the provost
as well as the appropriate dean, is expected to make the final decision
to award tenure." He said that a reconsideration process was underway
and that he would not respond to the senate's earlier request for
statistical information on tenure denials until the process was
complete.
Lilley's e-mail also noted steps taken by the administration to improve
faculty conditions, including a benefits package that is the "most
generous" in the Big 12. "And this year, our faculty are receiving the
highest percentage salary increase in the Big 12," he noted. He also
mentioned the university's strategic planning process, through which
faculty can propose major new academic programs. He expressed
disappointment that the Faculty Senate had not endorsed the summit
meeting and said that the Faculty Senate had "declined to be involved"
in a process to get more faculty input into the promotion process.
On May 14, Lilley sent another e-mail to faculty and staff, titled
"Report on the Conclusion of the Tenure Process." In it, he indicated
that twenty-five of the thirty total candidates for tenure had been
granted tenure, meaning that seven of the twelve original denials had
been reversed through the reconsideration process. He noted, "There
were significant differences between the documents Randall and I
reviewed initially and the documents we saw for reconsideration." He
said that faculty were allowed to add to their tenure files any
articles that had been accepted since their initial submission, which
would have been last November. The president and provost also met with
the University Tenure Committee, he said, "and they are pleased."
O'Brien told the Line
that of the twelve who were initially denied tenure, two decided not to
request reconsideration. With the ten who did, he said, "We took a very
liberal interpretation of what constituted new evidence in passing on
all the notebooks to the University Tenure Committee, and we wanted
them to have another shot at this." O'Brien said candidates were
allowed to improve their notebooks by adding external review letters
from scholars at other universities and by including articles that were
published between November (when the notebooks were turned in) and May.
"In general, on reconsideration the candidates submitted stronger
evidence and arguments in favor of their record," Lilley told the Line.
"Tenure is not awarded by default, and each candidate bears the burden
of making his or her case. Many of the documents the first time around
were insufficient in making a conclusive case for the quantity and
quality of a candidate's research."
He continued, "In a few cases, because of persuasive arguments by the
candidates, we allowed faculty to add to their records any new articles
that had been accepted since the initial submission of their tenure
file. In two cases, faculty who had not met the expectations of their
department did meet those guidelines by having that extra time to work.
One of those two faculty members added four articles over the
seven-month period."
O'Brien said that the administration also ran an impact analysis on the
articles. "For instance, if a faculty member was originally denied
tenure for having published only a few articles, by running an impact
analysis, we could see that sometimes if they were not in a quantity
that we would have liked, the quality might have been exceptional," he
said. "So that helped reverse some decisions." He said that some
departments had been "more thorough than others" in the original
explanations of the importance of the articles.
"Poor external letters about the quality and placement of a candidate's
research in some initial tenure files were improved," Lilley added.
"Stronger evaluators from better universities spoke more specifically
to some candidate's credentials in the material submitted for
reconsideration."
Those letters from outside scholars have been a major point of
discussion in the recent tenure controversy. Whether such letters, in
which a scholar from another institution evaluates the scholarly
production of the Baylor tenure candidate, should be required ought to
be up to individual departments, according to Faculty Senate chair
Cordon.
Cordon questioned the practice in general. "What you're doing with
external review letters is you're going to another school and saying
please look at our scholarship," he said. "When the administration
looks to the judgment of somebody outside, we're no longer trusting the
judgment of our own departments. Are we giving those letters more
deference than our own judgment?"
Kreiser, the associate secretary at the AAUP, said that soliciting such
letters is not uncommon. "As a general proposition, seeking outside
letters about a candidate is standard operating procedure in large
numbers of institutions," he said. "But if it's not common at Baylor
and a new system was introduced unilaterally by the administration,
that's wrong. A change in policies, procedures, criteria, or standards
should be made primarily by the faculty, and the administration should
not make unilateral changes in any of those."
While the letters had not been stated as a requirement in the
university's tenure policy, most of the specific requirements--how many
scholarly articles published, how many classes taught, how much service
to the university or community--are instead outlined in guidelines
housed in individual departments. These went through a thorough
updating process several years ago, Cordon said, and should be
generated at the departmental level.
Dr. James Bennighof, Baylor's vice provost for academic affairs and
policy, said the requirement for external review letters is now
included in the guidelines of every department, "with a couple of
exceptions, because they haven't been updated yet, and those are cases
where we specifically communicated with the department."
"It would be one thing if the faculty said we want to do this," Cordon said. "It's another thing to tell the faculty they are going
to do that." And that, he contends, is exactly what happened. President
Lilley mandated the letters for all candidates, Cordon said, because it
was what he was accustomed to at other institutions.
The "Academic Summit on Tenure" did take place the week of June 9, with
deans, department chairs, Faculty Senate and AAUP representatives,
University and Distinguished Professors, and numerous senior faculty
members in attendance. Faculty members split into groups to consider
questions and suggestions that had been submitted by faculty regarding
tenure policy and procedures and to suggest improvements to the
documents.
The tenure documents they examined were new ones; Lilley signed a new
tenure policy on June 2, and a separate document regarding tenure
procedures was dated June 2. The requirement for department chairs to
solicit three letters from external reviewers was included in the
procedural document.
On the summit's first day, Bennighof said that the new documents had
been in the works for a long time and that faculty were informed when
the policy was approved. He said one reason the president changed the
policy was that the administration wanted the summit group to work on
those new documents, rather than on the old one.
"We wanted to use this as the point of departure for this summit,
because it represents the best thinking we had," Bennighof said, noting
that the documents were created with input from many faculty sources.
"We are assuming that this policy will not be the one we end up with at
the end of the summer. Essentially, we're using it as a temporary
document."
Decisions, Decisions
There are many decisions--both large and small--that have to be made in
order to run an organization as large as Baylor. Provost O'Brien told
the Line that the administration supports shared governance on academic matters.
"In issues such as the ones we've dealt with recently on tenure
decisions and promotion decisions, I think the faculty is right to say
that we need to have collective intelligence and participation in
policy formation and decision making, and we support that," O'Brien
said.
Lilley told the Line,
"Receiving input from the various constituent elements--administration,
faculty, and students--is the essence of the shared governance process,
but when policy negotiated between administration and faculty allocate
final decision-making to one camp or another, deference should be given
to the policy."
He added, "Randall [O'Brien] and I give substantial deference to the
faculty in academic matters such as designing and determining
requirements for degree programs, course structure and materials,
study-abroad programs, strategic initiatives in expanding master's and
doctoral programs, research and scholarly pursuit topics and
trajectory, hiring decisions in the departments, and other allocations
of departmental resources."
Lilley outlined a multitude of ways in which the faculty play a major
role in university management--citing a significant role in appointing
members of standing committees that cover nearly every aspect of
university life; special committees on particular topics, including
enrollment management and campus sustainability; and focus groups on
topics such as parking, communication strategies, and the campus master
plan.
Faculty have also played the central role in the new major strategic
planning process, Lilley said, which is now in its second year. Through
that process, faculty develop program ideas--which can be teaching or
research based--and work through a process to have them financed and
implemented.
"Major strategic proposals are all bottom up," said College of Arts and
Sciences dean Nordt. "They come up through the departments to my office
[for College of Arts and Sciences faculty], and I never reject them. I
may make comments and suggest ways to improve, but I never stop them
here. They go to a University Strategic Planning Committee that
consists of faculty, students, and staff." Approved plans next go to
the Executive Council and then through regular curricular approval
process.
The process of creating a university policy on faculty matters involves
every policy going through the provost's office, and only the president
has to officially approve policies, O'Brien said. The basic process is
always similar--the administration receives input and makes a final
decision.
"We use our judgment in what level of approval or information would be
necessary for any given policy," vice provost Bennighof said. "In a
worst-case scenario, some group could object and we could say, 'We
appreciate your response, but we're going to do it anyway.' I don't
think that happens very often at all. On the other hand, they could
say, 'We want this or that adjusted,' and we take that into
consideration and usually adjust it."
He also said, "In the vast majority of cases, the policies are
developed by the provost's office. However, whenever we develop
policies that involve the faculty, it's very important to us to have
faculty input and to make sure that they know what's going on and that
we haven't missed anything. For policies of any importance at all, we
run it by the Faculty Senate and get their comments while it's in the
development stage."
According to O'Brien, the administration believes that the process is
as important as the product. "The buy-in, that participation, the
collective wisdom and intelligence, the coming together--that will be a
process that will lead to a good product," he said.
In most cases, Bennighof and O'Brien agreed, a close collaboration with
the Faculty Senate is part of the process to create new policy. When
the tenure policy was updated a few years ago, an ad hoc
committee consisting of two representatives from the provost's office
and three from the Faculty Senate worked on the policy, Bennighof
noted. "Representatives from the Faculty Senate would go back to the
senate and report and then come and tell us what they thought," he said.
A similar give and take has been taking place in regard to the
promotion policy, O'Brien said. In fact, a new document is in the draft
stages. That draft gives to the University Tenure Committee the added
responsibility of making similar recommendations for promotion from
associate professor to full professor.
Currently there is no faculty input in promotion decisions, O'Brien
said, but "the president says we need faculty involvement." The
president's idea, he said, "is to do it here the way it's done at some
other places, where you have one committee called the University Tenure
and Promotions Committee. And then that joint committee, according to
what the president is recommending, would make decisions on both tenure
and promotion."
The Faculty Senate has raised a few questions about that proposal. For
instance, they questioned whether associate professors on the tenure
committee should make judgments about who should move to full
professors, since they themselves have not achieved that rank. When the
administration suggested that associate professors wouldn't vote on
promotions, the senators noted that it would shift the balance of
various schools' and colleges' representation on the committee. "So
right now we're trying to find a shared path that makes sense as we go
forward," O'Brien told the Line.
Lilley said, "We have a group on campus that is working hard to collect
all of the university's policies, identify issues or inconsistencies,
and make those policies more readily accessible. Once they have done
that, they will develop a process and schedule by which we will
regularly review all of our policies."
Page 2: Due Deference
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
