When the MSU Board of Trustees had a padlock secured on their conference room doors last week in Petoskey to protect their key documents, their action was more symbolic of faculty unrest than it was indicative of a request for privacy.
From the realignment of the liberal arts college last spring to last weekend's lock-up, the tension between some faculty and MSU administrators has approached a boiling point. Some faculty feel they need a stronger voice in university affairs, and rightfully so. The Board of Trustees is fully cognizant of that, yet they are still insistent on acting aloof of problem altogether.
Exhibit A - A search for MSU's next president that lasted five weeks, never left campus and culminated in the selection of Provost Lou Anna Simon without a formal forum for faculty input. In late May, faculty members of the Executive Committee of Academic Council and some faculty liaisons to the board submitted a list of presidential qualities to be considered in the search. Simon's selection, though, was made without a forum of faculty - or student - input. The MSU Board of Trustees were completely within their rights to act accordingly, but the exclusivity of the presidential search left a sour taste in many a Spartan mouth.
Exhibit B - The giant, yellow padlock that kept the trustees' documents inside their Petoskey board room, and kept the others out. Trustees said the lock was necessary for the confidentiality of their discussions, some faculty said it was another instance of ignoring faculty voice. Again, the Board was completely within their rights to lock up such confidential documents, but nevertheless, another symbolic barrier was set against faculty intrusion. In this case, physically.
We understand the concern of frustrated faculty members. As students, we also feel underrepresented in the decisions that govern us. But in both cases, we agree that a stronger voice for both groups is well in reach. Last April, faculty members convened the Academic Senate for the first time in eight years to discuss means of amplifying their voice to administrators, but the initiatives failed to muster much support. This fall, faculty members have the opportunity to convene again, this time with a more earnest, organized approach.
This September, the associate secretary of the American Association of University Professors is scheduled to visit MSU faculty to assess such an approach. Some say the meeting will nurture faculty involvement, as well as offer structure in organization. Proactive measures such as this visit are exactly the right medicine for faculty malaise. The voice and involvement in university affairs that the faculty seek is entirely attainable, but it remains their responsibility to see it through to completion. We expect this to be a fine first step.
No one has ever been maligned by evaluating a second opinion. We urge the Board of Trustees to evaluate how their actions are capable of parlaying into exclusionist overtones, and we insist concerned faculty members continue to make their voices heard. The board makes decisions that affect all of us - students, staff, faculty and otherwise. It is not the responsibility of one side to initiate more dialogue - it's imperative that both sides of this equation shed their pride and meet in the middle.
