Communication problems between MSU's administration and faculty have become a highly visible national issue. At least that's what a letter from the American Association of University Professors should signify when it lands on a university official's desk.
After talking to professors at MSU, the AAUP decided to take issue with the lack of faculty involvement in appointing Provost Lou Anna Simon the next president, moving the College of Human Medicine to Grand Rapids and restructuring MSU's liberal arts programs. If a national organization sends representatives to talk to your faculty, you should at least think about what they've said. Especially if you disagree with the validity of complaints in the letter.
The problems facing MSU are not "sleeping dogs" as suggested by Dick Weber, a member of the Executive Committee of Academic Council. These dogs, the rifts between faculty and administrators, are awake and ferocious. They need to be addressed and won't go away over time. The AAUP operates outside of MSU politics. Its members can criticize the administration freely, without having to worry about losing their jobs. One of the worst ideas is pretending that a large group such as the AAUP will just go away.
The AAUP's letter was addressed to MSU President M. Peter McPherson and MSU Board of Trustees Chairman David Porteous. Copies of the letter made their way to at-large members of the executive committee. After all, the executive committee is responsible for approving university-wide decisions such as combining colleges, so the arguments in AAUP's letter fall squarely in its turf. But when it came down to discussion, the committee was divided on whether or not to send a response to AAUP.
One reason committee members declined to respond was because the letter was not directly addressed to them. If the letter is indeed based on false presumptions, allowing presumptions to run rampant will do more harm than good. It doesn't matter where the letter was sent, if it affects or involves the committee, they should respond.
Although Porteous did send a response to AAUP, the exact details of the letter have not been made public. Right now, it's hard to say if the executive committee's concerns were addressed or not.
The letter that the executive committee ignored accuses them of habitually ignoring faculty. It's a slap in the face to faculty who already are mad, and can be seen as another brick in the pile to the many upset by the ongoing friction. It adds another mark to their big lists of things the administration has done wrong. By opting for the executive committee to ignore the letter, any opportunity MSU officials had to show the AAUP they were actively listening is gone.
Ignoring letters does not fix communication problems between the administration and faculty. If something is broken, fix it. Putting off problems that should have been resolved, or at least worked on by now, obviously isn't working. Making MSU a textbook "what not to do" case for AAUP to point at should not be a plan for our university's administration.
That's hardly something to disregard entirely.
