Some of my notes (I’ve got to dig up the abstract):
On the topic of faculty governance, or shared governance, I’ve noticed the following phenomena as universities have gone to the entrepreneurial or “market” model:
- no departmental meetings (decisions made by chairs in consultation with administration, or by ad hoc, sometimes secret committees)
- no departmental peer review, evaluations made by chairs alone in consultation with administration
- faculty no longer vote on tenure, decision is made by secret, ad hoc committee
- no general rules for tenure, decisions made on “case by case” basis
- no reasons given for negative tenure or promotion decisions (as giving a reason could invite an appeal / a lawsuit)
- chairs do not support departments but follow orders given from above, and there is no clarity on who has given these orders
- Faculty Senate meets but is not listened to
- Strategic plans envision replacement of Faculty Senate with much smaller “University Senate”
- Hand-picked task forces, undertaking tasks formerly done by Senate, but this time following directives from above
- University committees charged with implementation of recommendations made by consultants hired by administration
- …and more along these lines.
All of this is still called faculty governance, you realize, but it does not allow faculty agency qua faculty members or as a faculty and treats them more like staff or administrative staff.
I think it is important to note since so much AAUP wisdom presupposes a different conceptualization of the faculty role, imagines that the senate still is serious as a governing body, and so on.
Thus, my question becomes, how AAUP advocacy chapters can be effective when the governing structures that existed up until about 2008 have fallen away?