Leaders of Academic Governance called out the Academic Congress. The Congress consists of all 4,103 faculty employed by MSU. We asked them to vote: Do you have "confidence and trust” in the leadership of President Guskiewicz, and do you have “confidence and trust” in the oversight conducted by the Board of Trustees?

Faculty are the long-term stewards of campus, spending decades here building academic programs and teaching generations of Spartans. They deserve to be heard on consequential campus matters. Campus leadership – the Board and the President – need to know where they stand with this crucial constituency.

The American university system is built on the idea of shared governance. The faculty are the guardians of the academic mission of the institution since we have deep expertise in our subject areas. We are responsible for the curriculum. For teaching students. For conducting research that pushes the bounds of knowledge for the greater benefit of the citizens of Michigan, who help fund this institution, and for the citizens of the world, who all benefit from the innovations produced here on campus.

Under shared governance, however, faculty need to have a meaningful say in the running of this institution. This is why structures like the Academic Congress exist. It is a vehicle to allow all faculty a voice in processes. And it is a structure designed to let leadership know how the 4,000-plus faculty feel about important issues.

It is rare to call on the Academic Congress because most decisions are not consequential enough to need this level of input. But after seven presidents in six years (2018-2024) and the seesawing trajectories of presidential fate this summer threatening yet another time of transition on campus, it was time to hear from faculty.

The Academic Congress is direct democracy at its finest. All faculty have an equal chance to have their voice heard. The Congress can only be called out by the Steering Committee – a group of faculty members who are elected campus-wide to represent the faculty in the day-to-day interactions with administrators. Their remit is to oversee the academic mission and to ensure that the general business of MSU benefits from faculty advice.

Some have suggested that a vote by the Academic Congress was premature. That it was too soon to know what President Guskiewicz and the Board will do now that he has recommitted to MSU after committing to Clemson. That faculty should remain quiet and grateful that, despite Board chaos, the president decided not to leave. Calling out the Academic Congress, however, allowed us to test these conjectures. We now have hard data to say definitively how faculty feel about the President and the Board.

The faculty have spoken. This was not an election of winners and losers, but rather a barometer of confidence and trust. Will the President and Board consider what these results say when making substantive decisions about the future of MSU? 

Given the revolving door within the president’s office over the last decade and the constant specter of conflict and scandal hanging over this Board, they both might do well to stop fearing honest faculty input and start working with us toward our collective success so that Michigan State University can reach even higher heights. The faculty will be here for years, and we earnestly desire to build a better institution. Lean on us and let’s work together for the greater good of MSU.

John Aerni-Flessner is a Professor of History in the School of Residential Community-Engaged Arts and Humanities (RCAH) in the College of Arts and Letters. He is the Chair of the Faculty Senate and the Chair of the Academic Congress. His views are that of his own and do not reflect those of The State News. 

Want to submit guest commentary?

The State News welcomes guest commentary from students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members. If there’s an issue you care about or a perspective you think others should hear, we encourage you to submit a piece for consideration. Please visit the portal to learn more.