from the AAUP Listserv
|
2:20 AM (6 hours ago)  |
|
||
|
||||
Dear all,Communication in a large, decentralized setting full of busy people is one of the most difficult and persistent issues that arises — whether it’s faculty or administrative leaders doing the communicating. We are all bombarded with information, selectively filter (we NEED to for survival) and too often blame others for failing to communicate. No good or bad guys – happens all the time.
But the fact remains that faculty senate HAS consistently communicated and consulted on this one and faculty leadership and administration have together come up with legislation that does expand protection for academic freedom. Does it cover everything that anyone or everyone might like – probably not. Is it a good step forward – no question.
Others have pointed out some issues with our adjudication system. I agree there is work to be done there, but the issues there are not primarily ones having to deal with academic freedom and this legislation does not affect them one way or the other.
This was good collaborative work and a good step forward for faculty. I join faculty senate leadership in strongly endorsing this legislation.
Ana Mari
Ana Mari Cauce
Ana Mari Cauce
Provost
University of Washington
Ana Mari’s post reassures me that the intent was good. I am also sure either that she believes ” that the < legislation> does expand protection for academic freedom.” or that Ana Mari believes that passage of this is important to collaboration between the administration and the Senate. Unfortunately she does not address the issue of whether this is well written code. I still have been unable to get an example of how this would have prevented the events in Colorado. So my reading is that she and other well meaning advocates see this as a political step, important to collaboration between the administration and the Senate.
That argument would be consistent with her statement that “the fact remains that faculty senate HAS consistently communicated and consulted on this one and faculty leadership and administration ” My response is that the faculty and the Senate are (sadly) two very different things. The failure to involve the faculty should be seen as a failure of both the administration and the Senate to communicate with the faculty.
There is no legal reason that we … the administration or the faculty could not have conducted this legislation in a more open way. Given the improvement in administration that Ana Mari and Michael Young signify, I had hoped (and have lobbied for) they might take the initiative and create a moderated blog where just such a discussion could have occurred.
The argument I would agree with is that “Communication in a large, decentralized setting full of busy people is one of the most difficult and persistent issues that arises –. We are all bombarded with information, selectively filter (we NEED to for survival) and too often blame others for failing to communicate. No good or bad guys – happens all the time. ” I would agree that there are no good or bad guys here, but the idea that the “guys” here .. faculty, staff or administration are well served by the lack of an open and moderate forum is wrong.
Since I always ask myself “What would Jefferson do: I went to the web for a quote:
I still intend to vote no.