EDITORIAL: A vote without a voice

By:

Posted: 3/11/08

Professors who don't yet have tenure but hope to one day receive the honor are conscious of not stepping on anyone's toes. The same goes for faculty whose job contracts are renewed periodically. Any public statement, research conducted or grant received could impact their job security. They fear that if they criticize a certain administrator, are too outspoken or get on their department chair's bad side, they could jeopardize their professional futures.

This unfortunate relationship between non-tenured faculty and universities is inevitable. Perhaps to alleviate this sticky arrangement, the faculty voted last Thursday to allow non-tenured professors the chance to serve on the Faculty Senate-the faculty's representative body to the administration-either as an at-large senator or as a senator from a graduate school (although a clause stating that no more than half of the senate may be non-tenured was added to this faculty handbook amendment).

Previously, non-tenured faculty could only serve on the Senate as a representative for one of Brandeis' undergraduate schools. Those who voted in favor of the ruling may hope that by being on the senate, non-tenured professors will be able to express the specific concerns of their "constituency," perspectives which administrators may hear less frequently.

Professors at last Thursday's faculty meeting expressed that the University has lost many astute researchers over the years to other schools because it couldn't offer them tenure, and giving non-tenured faculty more opportunities like this one may very well help reverse that trend.

In theory, the change makes the Senate a more diverse body. In practice it almost certainly won't. Professors vying for tenure or those who worry about renewing their contracts, even those who serve on the Faculty Senate, probably won't feel comfortable enough to speak up as much as they should for fear of angering the provost or the University president. Given the current political climate, non-tenured and even some tenured professors feel uneasy expressing their views. Provost Marty Krauss' rejection of the Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities' report-which criticized the administration's irrational treatment of Prof. Donald Hindley (POL)-undermines the Senate's and Committee's authority and legitimacy. The provost's threat to fire Mr. Hindley unless he cooperated with her terms heightens the faculty's lack of confidence in the administration.

In response to what it called this "imminent breakdown in the system of faculty dispute resolution," the committee issued a statement last week that it would "defer the review of faculty grievances" until they reach a set of "shared principles" with the Senate and administration. By not taking on any more cases, the committee is saying it cannot fulfill its role, interpreting the faculty handbook, in this environment.

The Senate and faculty committees work with the administration on critical issues facing campus and help foster a healthy dynamic between the two parties. We worry about this relationship falling to pieces.

Inviting non-tenured faculty to participate more fully in the Senate won't improve the Senate's relationship with the administration because these particular faculty members are even less likely than tenured faculty to criticize the administration.

The senate should consist of a mix of representatives from different departments, graduate and undergraduate, tenured and non-tenured. But until the Senate receives the respect it deserves from the administration, it won't be the committee it should be.