There was an interesting little op-ed in the Vancouver Sun the other day, to the effect that faculty are “waking up”, “realizing their voices matter”, and taking collective action to “effect substantive change at UBC”. You can read it, here.
I think it is a fantastic piece. It’s great when people in a community realise they have the power to change things, and begin acting together to effect that change. My only question is: what was stopping them from acting on this before?
The answer, if we’re honest, is “nothing”, and the authors admit as much. Canadian Senates – or academic councils, or General Faculty Council, or whatever they are called in your neck of the woods – have an enormous amount of power to drive institutional policy; at the faculty level, things differ a bit from place-to-place, but there is no doubt that at most universities, the collective professoriate is able to develop and drive policy, if it wants to.
But the plain simple fact of the matter is that at most universities, most of the time, they don’t want to. There was a time, when universities were much smaller, cheaper, and less complex, when academic staff could take on a lot of non-academic work as part of their day jobs, and universities could run more or less without professional non-academic staff. But with massification and the growing importance of research in academia, staying engaged in senior levels of academic governance is a real struggle for many. So they do what they are supposed to do: delegate to professionals, and hope these people do a good job.
And for the most part, they do. Or at least they do it well enough that there is no concerted movement by professors to turn back the clock and put more academic oversight into the system. It’s tacitly understood that a university that doesn’t hire good communications professionals, good fundraisers, and good government relations people is likely to be a smaller, poorer university. We might bemoan this fact a bit, but everyone knows it’s true. And so by and large, the expansion of administration over the last 30 years has tacitly been endorsed by faculty, because otherwise they are the ones who would have to do that work. And, y’know, thanks but no thanks.
Where administration becomes an issue is when those professionals are no longer seen to be of good value: that is, they are paid too much relative to their value, or when they are perceived to put their own interests ahead of those of the academic enterprise. And while rare, this does happen every once in awhile. And when it does, there is nothing to stop academics re-taking the wheel. Which is as it should be.
So in sum, it isn’t a matter of faculty “re-taking” power in universities. Faculty have always had power in universities; they’ve just chosen for the sake of convenience not to use it very much. If this is changing, and faulty want to exercise power to a greater extent, as the UBC editorialists suggests, that’s perfectly A-OK. Just remember that everything has trade-offs.
What the trade-offs are would depend on how faculty power is expressed. If it’s expressed in endless “consultations,” then it’s just time-spending without any real power. If, on the other hand, the senate and faculty councils are endowed by law with certain powers and the administrations respects these, then a veto can be exercised in a few hours a term without seriously detracting from the real work of teaching and research.
And by the way, I should think that the greater danger isn’t admins putting “their own interests ahead of those of the academic enterprise” but simply misunderstanding the academic enterprise.