Where is the faculty voice in recent academic decisions?

Abstract

Long-term traditions in academic institutions have accorded primary decision-making authority on academic matters to the professoriate. In the United States this view of the faculty role has its most explicit form in the 1966Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, I which states: 'The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process' (AAUP 1990, 123). Most govemance structures at American universities reflect this tradition (Schuster, Miller, and associates 1989). Typically, an institutionwide faculty senate exists, comprised of faculty elected by the university's schools, colleges or departments. The senate usually has standing committees, including a curriculum committee which is responsible for reviewing changes in curriculum (Gilmour i991, 29). Recently, there is concern that the centrality of the faculty role in academic decisions is threatened. As a leading researcher on governance matters has stated, '...the functional authority of the faculty's role in governance has seemed...to be under siege from all directions...' (Schuster et aL 1989, viii). Recent financial pressures have led many universities to ignore or undercut the traditional faculty role. Between 1989 and 1992, many public institutions made major decisions about academic programs in the context of a financial 'crisis'. Budgets were cut, course offerings were cancelled, and new programs were put on hold. Some faculty (primarily part-rime appointments) did not have their contracts renewed (E1-Khawas 1993). Most of these derisions were made by senior administrators, under extreme time pressures. Many of these decisions were made with little or no consultation with college faculty. Admittedly, there was an urgent need for fast decisions: for 1991-92, only half of the public universities in the United States had any increase in their operating budget, despite enrolment increases; in addition, 61 per cent had budget cuts during the Year (EI-Khawas 1992)~ The next year was almost as difficult: 6 in i0 had increases in operating budget and 4 in 10 had mid-year budget cuts (EI-Khawas 1993). 9 Still, while acknowledging the financial difficulties, it is important to consider the implications of how universities responded and what