ARCHIVE - August, 2001

Getting A Few Crumbs: Reflections on Faculty Government
Ira Chernus, Department of Religious Studies

After six years of faculty governance activity, I am taking at least a year off. I am not sure whether I would go back and do it again. Six years is a lot of meetings, phone calls, and emails; a lot of time and energy that I could have spent on what we euphemistically call "my own work." There are certainly benefits to being involved in faculty governance. It's about the only way to find out at least a bit of what is going on in the University. That is the main benefit, I think. But it is hard to get that benefit without being an officer or committee chair, which is even more time-consuming. And what I learned, above all, is that you are never sure whether you are seeing what is really going on, or merely an illusion created for your benefit. Distinguishing accurately between illusion and reality here is a fine art. It takes several years to begin to develop some ability at it. And even the most experienced among us is never quite sure.

Beyond getting clued in just a bit, faculty governance affords the more abstract satisfaction of feeling like a good citizen. I take this very seriously. If no one on the faculty practices good citizenship, decisions are all made, by default, by a handful of people at the top.

Of course the main drawback of faculty governance is that, no matter how much time and effort the faculty put in, most decisions will be made by others anyway. This is no reflection on any of the individuals involved. It is the inevitable outcome of our institutional structures, both formal and informal. The way those structures are set up, faculty members who want to have some control over the circumstances of their professional lives must expend enormous amounts of energy for even the smallest results.

After one especially protracted and exhausting issue was settled, an experienced faculty governance leader told me that I should feel quite proud of my efforts. "You didn't get the whole loaf," this leader said. "But you got a few crumbs." The implication was clear: a few crumbs is the most the faculty ever gets in political dealings with administration and other forces, so a few crumbs must be counted a genuine success. That is hardly a formula for encouraging good citizenship and active participation.

Nor does it encourage us to put the good of the institution above, or even equal to, our own good. It is hardly surprising that faculty focus on "my own work" and make their individual salaries their highest political priority. Having so little influence on decisions that shape the University as a whole, we have little incentive to work for, or even think much about, the good of the University as a whole. Thus we are discouraged from trying to change the institutional structures that limit our influence. It is a cycle that feeds itself.

Paradoxically, the best cure for this apathy-engendering syndrome may be unionization. Opponents of labor organizing often argue that it sets faculty against others and encourages selfishness. But if it is done right, it gives faculty more real power in shaping the life of the University. Therefore it gives more sense of being an active part of a real community; it engenders more community responsibility. Perhaps it is time to try that route to good citizenship.

IN THIS ISSUE:

The opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors, and do not represent those of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, CU faculty at large, or the University of Colorado.

Responses to these articles are welcome. We are developing our capacity to collect responses on-line. In the meantime, please send your comments via e-mail to Thomas.Mayer@Colorado.edu.

Click here for the names and contact information of the membership of the BFA Communications Committee.