Some Comments on Convocation

If you missed Convocation, you missed a good gathering. We honored our award-winning faculty and staff. (Congrats to all of them.) We heard an informative update from President Andrews on a variety of matters, including the budget, SACS, and the academic review, among other subjects. And President Andrews and Provost Hughes took questions from faculty and staff (mainly faculty).

My first comment is that I am very proud of the questions that MSU faculty members asked. From those questions, there could be little doubt in the minds of observers from outside academia that we remain deeply committed to our teaching, professional achievement, and service work. And I am encouraged that President Andrews and Provost Hughes have consistently been willing to engage with faculty in this manner. I think this is a good sign, and Dr. Andrews told me the same thing in an e-mail the next day.

Imagine my dismay later when I heard, in a public setting no less, an Academic Affairs administrator complain about some of the questions at Convocation. Unfortunately, such actions undermine the spirit of open and honest communication absolutely crucial to shared governance. I blame neither the President nor the Provost for these remarks, but I hope they will use their influence to encourage rather than discourage faculty from voicing questions and concerns.

On a second matter, I would like to respond to a comment that Dr. Andrews made regarding the “corporate” nature of our Board of Regents. Basically, he said that the Faculty, Staff, and Student Regents do not represent constituency groups. Dr. Andrews and I have talked about this issue several times in the past, and he knows that, for the most part, I do not agree with this position.

I say “for the most part” because I do agree with some elements of the position. New Regents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I am very much aware that I must represent the taxpayers of Kentucky. Moreover, I realize that I need to consider the priorities of students and their parents (whether they are Kentucky residents or not), and—somewhat more abstractly—I must serve the priorities of the ideal “University.”

But—and this I believe with all my heart—faculty are the heart and soul of the University. Without faculty, there is no University. Thus, in my role as Faculty Regent, serving faculty and representing their interests is the surest way to serve the Commonwealth, students, parents, and staff at the University.

So, yes, feel free to tell me—in person, by e-mail, through this blog, or through any other means you can imagine—what is on your mind. And tell me some positive things as well as negative. I need to be able to tell the other Regents where the faculty stands on a huge array of issues. While at the end of the day I have to cast a vote for or against some action, I promise to articulate your opinions and vote in your best interests. If I don’t, you have every right to elect another faculty member who will.

The President’s comment about the “corporate” nature of the Board also suggests the principle frequently expressed in literature from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) that Board members will speak with “one voice.”

As you might expect I cannot entirely subscribe to this principle, and indeed other Faculty Regents across the state do not consistently follow the principle when they believe Boards are making bad policies or decisions. (One recent example would be the abolishing of tenure in the Community and Technical College system in Kentucky, and indeed the Faculty Regents condemned the action.)

While most faculty believe that the “one voice” principle is not compatible with academic freedom and the spirit of shared governance, it is also, in my opinion, an ethically untenable position for members of public boards. In recent weeks and months, you have read the allegations involving several boards of public agencies and institutions in Kentucky. It is unfortunate that some individual board members did not step up and break the “one voice” principle and perhaps spare these boards an avalanche of negative publicity.

Luckily, we work at a University that values diversity, which I think means, among other things, a diversity of opinion. I honestly believe that all of us—faculty, administrators, Board members—want MSU to develop into the best institution it can possibly be. We should value dissent and disagreement because ultimately they will make our institution stronger.

Have a great semester. Stay in touch, and stay strong.

Ron