Faculty Forum on Faculty Governance in the Arts and Sciences at Columbia

12 November 2008

Present: c. 45 members of the Arts and Sciences faculty

Moderators: Katharina Volk (Chair, ECFAS) and Amber Miller (Vice Chair, ECFAS)

This faculty forum was organized by the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (ECFAS) as part of the ARC review of faculty governance in the Arts and Sciences at Columbia. The following is not a blow-by-blow account of the meeting, but a summary of the major points made and issues discussed.

General points

There was general consensus that the current structures of faculty governance raise a number of questions and some concern that the faculty does not have the voice and powers that it should have. This issue is particularly pressing in the present situation, where the University is searching for both a new Provost and a new Dean of the College; under these circumstances, it is especially desirable to establish structures and procedures that enable faculty voices to be heard by the administration.

Models of governance

There are two models of faculty governance: the "consultation model" and the "input model." In the former, there is an established mechanism for formal consultation of the faculty (e.g., a particular faculty committee regularly works with the administration on policy decisions); in the latter, there are venues for informal expressions of faculty opinion. A number of faculty members expressed preference for the consultation model; it was also suggested that there could be a hybrid model (e.g., ECFAS as the body for consultation and the faculty meeting as a venue for input).

The Chicago model

The University of Chicago was held up as a model of faculty governance. At Chicago, there is an elected faculty council, which in turn appoints an executive committee. Elections are highly contested, and major decisions are not made without extensive faculty consultation.

Faculty involvement

Lack of information and transparency is a serious problem. Many faculty members are confused by governance structures or simply do not know that they exist; this makes them less inclined to participate in governance. It was suggested that all committees should have clear statements of their mission and procedures. These statements should be published, as should membership lists of all committees and the hierarchical structure of all bodies of governance within the University.
There was concern about the "Columbia culture" and faculty apathy: Do many of our colleagues simply not consider involvement in governance worthwhile? If so, is this largely because existing faculty governance structures are ineffectual?
There was concern likewise about faculty over-commitment and about the necessity of protecting faculty time. Many colleagues feel that there are too many committees and too little coordination among them, and that the time they spend on committees is not always well used.
Columbia does not have specific periods of time during the week that are kept free from teaching assignments and open specifically for meetings. This makes it more difficult for faculty to be involved in governance. The fact that faculty are (supposedly) unwilling to meet on Fridays and during vacation makes it even harder to schedule meetings.

Areas of decision-making

Faculty members singled out the following areas and topics on which it is especially necessary for faculty to have an input (as is not necessarily always the case at the moment):

Curriculum
Appointments and promotions

Manhattanville
Budget
"Globalization," including the establishment of global centers

Appointment of committees

Since with the exception of ECFAS, all bodies of governance are currently appointed, there was some concern that committees are "stacked" by the administration to produce preordained results. This is even more an issue with ad hoc and advisory committees that are established single-handedly by administrators.

Specific bodies of governance

ECFAS

As the only elected faculty committee and a so-called "executive" body, ECFAS ought to play a central role in A&S policy—but it currently does not. The role of ECFAS needs to be a central concern of the governance review; the committee needs a clearer mission and needs to set an annual agenda. It was suggested that all other faculty committees should report to ECFAS.

A&S Faculty meetings

There was general consensus that these meetings in their current format are unsatisfactory. Despite the fact that ECFAS sets the agenda, the meetings are dominated by administrators, who simply give presentations. Instead, ECFAS should run the proceedings. Low attendance is a problem, but if the meetings become more relevant, attendance might go up as well.

See below under "Autonomy of departments."

The A&S Chairs meeting

There was concern that large parts of this meeting tend to be taken up by "show and tell" presentations. There is the additional problem that Chairs do not always pass on information to the faculty in their departments.

The Senate

The Senate is generally perceived as problematic. Its powers are few and ill defined; no one wants to serve on it.

Autonomy of departments/pressure on academic work

There was some concern that the VP's office attempts to steer departments in certain intellectual directions by granting or withholding authorization for appointments and that newly-established centers and programs (which are perceived as representing an interdisciplinary approach dear to the administration) get more support than long-existing departments (on the other hand, it was pointed out that such institutions enable interesting new work that is sometimes not possible in traditional departments). To which extent should the intellectual mission of A&S be determined centrally? This also raises the question of ARC: Should ARC be telling departments what they should be doing?

Other issues

Faculty from the American Language Program drew attention to the fact that their internal structures of self-governance were recently modified by the administration against the wishes of the Program and that an Administrative Director is supposed to be appointed from the outside. Members of the ALP feel disenfranchised and wished to bring their concerns to the A&S faculty at large.
The status of lecturers within the A&S faculty is unclear, and lecturers often feel that they and their concerns are neglected when it comes to faculty governance. ECFAS now has a lecturer representative (Richard Korb, German); however, the status of lecturers warrants further consideration.
A proposal is on the table to establish a new Educational Planning and Policy Committee. It remains to be seen what powers this potentially very significant committee will have and how its membership will be established.

Submitted by Katharina Volk

Chair, Executive Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

19 November 2008