Walter Hutchens’ Blog

Yesterday we had a long faculty assembly. I love being a professor, but attending meetings is, ah, not the principal reason I was attracted to the profession. They can be quite tedious. For one thing, academics are people who analyze and talk for a living. Thus a group of them can generate, when vetting an issue, the most exquisite details, nuances and refinements. Often this process is not burdened much by consideration of transaction costs or opportunity costs. This specific meeting included a long discussion and then vote on whether TLAC or APOC (alternative committees) should handle task xyz. We also devoted a good bit of time to a presentation on whether coaches should be in category 2 or 3 under the faculty handbook. Both discussions were thorough; once faculty voted the results were unanimous or overwhelmingly in favor of some specific resolution of the question presented. However, there was virtually no discussion, and no votes were taken, regarding whether the faculty thinks the Univ. should expand into Costa Rica (it will), proceed with construction of an expensive new science building at a time when the budget is contracting in a way that will likely prohibit faculty raises (it seems the construction will proceed, if the university can borrow the money). The theme seemed to be that the less important a matter is the more discussion it requires, while the most material issues are simply presented FYI. I could do with a bit less of this type of “shared governance.” I noticed, as I stood in the back of the auditorium, several of my colleagues grading, preparing for classes and even playing Sodoku. QED?

We also voted on faculty reps for the university’s new presidential search committee. That was an interesting exercise on many levels. I found it curious that the leadership insisted that we achieve “gender balance” in our faculty representation on the search committee (so that we were told to vote for at least one male and one female, and they reserved the right to appoint a faculty member to the search committee if the vote did not yield adequate representation for both genders). This made some sense to me, but I found it surprising that securing male/female representation on the search committee was privileged above other conceivable imperatives. For example, as a young, pre-tenure faculty member, I probably have concerns different than those of more senior faculty (in fact, I imagine I have more in common with other junior faculty than I do with other male faculty). But we were given “suggested selection criteria” that said we should pick people with long service to the institution (even though a good quarter of the faculty are relatively new hires). Second, there was no effort to achieve balanced representation from faculty in the humanities, sciences and “professions.” This I found more disturbing. The business school (in which I teach) is by far the largest division on campus in terms of student enrollment. Recently we have been told to pursue specialized accreditation (a goal I support, but one which will require substantially increased resources from the central administration and thus is an initiative that will require meaningful buy-in from the new president). But there will be no representative from the business school on the presidential search committee. In fact, no one selected for the committee is from any professional, graduate or non-traditional program. Surely the interests and concerns of people in these programs could be different from those in the more traditional liberal arts programs. As one of my colleagues adroitly observed, if the search committee only had reps from the business school and other grad/professional/non-traditional programs, faculty from other, traditional liberal arts departments would likely be aghast. If we told them, “Don’t worry, you can voice your concerns to us and we will make sure they are addressed,” they might be less than enthusiastic. Yet that is the message the business school was given. I confess I do not much like it. It almost feels like a liberal arts putsch. I support the liberal arts—I was a history major, I have an interdisciplinary degree in Asian Studies, I have chosen to teach at a liberal arts college, last year I helped craft a new inter-disciplinary minor . . . but my receptivity to and enthusiasm for the traditional liberal arts is not I fear matched by a reciprocal enthusiasm and support by colleagues in other disciplines for the school’s business program, hence the marginalization of the biggest division on campus in this matter, while insisting on adequate gender representation. I’m nonplussed.

There will I’m sure be ways for business faculty to opine on presidential search matters, and I do esteem the individuals selected as faculty reps to the search committee, but this incident weaves into a pattern that makes me wonder how our Christian, liberal arts institution can build a superlative business education program, or whether in its heart of hearts it even wants to. Maybe somebody will ask the presidential candidates for their views on that.