Final Address by the Outgoing Faculty and Senate Chair: Glen Howze
When I became Chair of the Faculty 12 months ago, our University had just been confronted with its latest crisis, another crisis manufactured by the Bobby Lowder clique on the Board of Trustees and predicated on a set of assumptions that were patently false. At the April 3, 1998 meeting of the Board, President Muse, with the assistance of the Executive Vice-President and the Provost, had presented an update of a Board-approved long-term strategic plan designed to enhance Auburn's academic programs and to maintain the University’s hard earned reputation for academic excellence. The plan called for raising revenues, reducing costs, phasing out non-viable programs and reallocating resources.
The President responded to Trustee critics who had charged that the University had done nothing to cut costs and to place the University on a firm financial footing. Noting the drastic cuts in state appropriations, the President provided details about cuts in programs and personnel that had been made to adjust to the new financial realities. He noted that there had been a balanced budget for each of the previous six years. His message was that while our University faced financial challenges in the coming years, a plan was in place to effectively deal with current and future financial realities.
The administration’s report was ignored. Trustee Robert Lowder and others opined that cuts had not been made and that they were prepared to make the hard decisions about what to cut.. The Board voted to establish a Commission to Review the Role of the University in the 21st Century. In spite of its high-sounding name. I believe that the intended function of the Commission was to be little more than a slash-and-burn operation designed to take away the role of the faculty and administration on issues related to academic programs and structure.
Also, I believe that the clique’s agenda included a nostalgic desire to return Auburn to its "glory" as a polytechnic institute of the 1950's. In their view, Auburn had lost its way. The administration had allowed the faculty to turn Auburn into a comprehensive research University. As Trustee Lowder or his ghostwriter wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1992: "Some at Auburn apparently wish to see Auburn compete academically with Vanderbilt or Emory rather than serve the traditional land grant functions that Auburn has historically undertaken." And he described his critics in the faculty as those "who want desperately for Auburn to become a "Harvard of the South." Later he writes: "Indeed, I would suggest that for those for whom teaching at Auburn is a burden, there are other institutions in America whose missions may suit them better."
Thanks to the negotiating abilities of our President, the membership of the Commission included faculty and administrators. The President asked the Rules Committee of the Senate to select two faculty members to serve. The campus commissioners understood the need to work together. Prior to each Commission meeting, the campus representatives met to discuss what might happen at the upcoming meeting and what would be appropriate responses to anticipated issues. There were seldom disagreement about tactics or substance.
It is important to note that the very establishment of the Commission meant that University governance at Auburn had broken down. Auburn, like other good universities, has a tried and true way to make changes in academic programs. The Board choose to ignore this proven process. Fearing that the Board, with its five members on the Commission, would use the Commission to ram through ill-considered and damaging changes, the Senate undertook a number of activities to try to minimize the damage.
At the General Faculty Meeting a year ago, you approved a resolution that established a Task Force of faculty, administrators, staff and students from both the AU and AUM campuses. The purpose of the Task Force was to provide deliberate and informed counsel to the Commission. Not knowing the agenda of the Trustee Commissioners, it was difficult to write a charge for the Task Force. Once the Commission began to talk about restructuring, President Muse asked the Task Force to review the many proposals for reorganization and to recommend changes in our administrative structure. Professor Barry Burkhart and his tireless committee spent the Summer with this effort and did an outstanding job. Barry held open meetings and tried to get input from all interested parties. We owe Barry and his committee much.
The Senate had already established the Program Review Committee chaired by Professor Drew Clark. The President charged this committee with reviewing the programs slated for elimination and providing him with recommendations about whether to eliminate or maintain the programs. Professor Clark and his excellent committee did an exceptional job and we owe them much.
When the task of identifying high priority programs became an agenda item for the Commission and the Board, the President asked the Rules Committee to name the faculty members to a University-wide Priorities Committee. The committee had only a couple of months to complete its work. A call went out for proposals. The committee then did its best to evaluate the programs and provide useful advice to the President.
Keeping the faculty and other interested parties informed about the work of the Commission was essential. The Senate leadership did several things to try to accomplish this. With the help of the local chapter of the AAUP, we established a Website where all of the documents of the Commission were posted and a listserv where faculty and others were free to comment on the work of the Commission. The AAUP chapter also sponsored an open forum where all of the Commissioners were invited to attend and most did. I bombarded you and your Senators with numerous email messages. Reports were made at each meeting of the AU Senate and the General Faculty. Our efforts at information were greatly aided by the outstanding coverage of the Plainsman, the AU Report and the Alumni’s Auburn Magazine. I personally appreciated the exceptional editorials by Lee Davidson and the outstanding articles by Roy Summerford .
A crucial issue faced by the Commission at its initial meetings was whether or not to close the meetings. Wayne Flynt and I argued successfully for open meetings. You responded by attending in droves. Your presence was essential in keeping the process honest.
We also fought hard for public comment. Major changes were being proposed for our University, changes that would shape the character of Auburn and have long-lasting effects on your students and your careers. We felt it was important for you to have an opportunity to speak to the Commission. We were successful in getting two meetings set aside for public comments. Many of you came and made statements. Students spoke. Alumni spoke. You put faces on programs and made it difficult for Trustees to ignore the importance of what you do.
What was the outcome? Well, it wasn’t great but maybe it was not as bad as it would have been had you not been seen and heard. Personally, I think that we were much too quick to sacrifice programs, much too quick accept restructuring. I am far from convinced that many of the mergers and programs eliminations will be beneficial to the University. I doubt if they will save much money or improve the way we do things. I’m afraid that many of us felt that we had to offer the Board something, some sacrificial lamb in order to get them to drop the subject. I wish that we could have acted in a more deliberative manner and without the threat of the heavy boot of the Board poised and readied to stomp us. I wish that we would have forced the Board to show its hand before we showed ours.
I am certain that all of you know what happened at the Board meeting last Friday. Once again the Board ignored the judgement of the faculty and the recommendation of the President. Once again the Board engaged in inappropriate micro-management of the academic program. The Lowder clique said that it didn’t want to second guess a Dean. I wonder what would happen to a Branch Manager of a bank if he/she doubled-crossed the CEO at a meeting of the Board of Directors.
Of course, the best quote from the meeting had to do with the demolition of the Math Annex. President Muse indicated that he did not want to tear down the Math Annex until suitable office space could be found for the faculty and graduate students currently housed in that building. Trustee Lowell Barron responded that he wanted the building torn down and Auburn could house the faculty in tents. After all, the priority was to put a parking lot in place on the Math Annex before football season. I heard an unnamed administrator say that perhaps he could borrow some trailers for the faculty from Supt Ed Richardson.
I would like to mention two other controversies that occurred on campus during my tenure as chair of the faculty, controversies that seemed to involve the heavy hand of the clique that runs the Board.
Once again, Auburn has experienced a series scandals having to do with Auburn’s athletic program. First there was the untimely "resignation" of the head football coach. Then there was cancellation of the Florida State University game. I believe that the mark of the Board is on both of these scandals. In Trustee Lowder’s Chronicle article, he wrote that "the Board ... granted to the new President (Muse) enhanced authority over all matters related to athletics ... including the authority to hire and dismiss personnel." Well, who believes that President Muse had much to do with the demise of Coach Bowden? Formal authority is worth little where raw power can be used to force a coach to resign, forcing a coach to choose between receiving a generous golden handshake and walking away without anything Any one who tells you Auburn’s sport program is not different that those at other Division I schools is wrong.
In January of this year, the Board for Student Communications, led by the SGA leadership and with a vote of 5 to 4, censured the Editor of the Plainsman. This was a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of the Editor. It should be noted that had one of the administrators on the Com Board voted against the censure, it would not have passed. None did. Another crisis, with extremely bad press for our University, had been created. As you know, the press around the state, region and even nation rallied to support the editor and the Alabama Press Association threatened to sue the University unless the stated threat to remove the editor was rescinded. Our own AU Senate passed a resolution in support of the Editor and also called for the censure to be rescinded.
What terrible thing had the editor done that warranted the wrath of the Com Board? The Plainsman had provided extensive coverage of the Commission and the athletic scandals. The editor had also dared to write editorials opposing actions of the Board and even asking Trustee Robert Lowder to quit the Board. She had also criticized the SGA leadership for its public support of Trustee Lowder.
What role did Trustees play in the Com Board action? Who knows for sure? What I do know is that at the January meeting of the Board, Trustee Paul Spina publicly chastised the Editor and praised the SGA leadership for its bravery for standing up for what was right. Board President Pro Tem W. J. Samford refused to recognize me for a response, in spite of the fact that Trustee Bessie Mae Holloway requested that I be heard. Let me make one thing clear. The only brave person in this sorry mess is Lee Davidson, the Editor of the Plainsman. She deserves our respect and our support.
I don’t want to belabor the point but I want to emphasize that I believe that a key thing that differentiates Auburn from a great University is the micro-management style of our Board. This is not a new development. Read Professor Wayne Flynt’s comments from the September 18, 1998 meeting the Commission. He notes that "Auburn University has been governed since the later 1970s by a conflict management style." He provides some detail of the destructive nature of the Board’s actions over the past twenty years. Professor Barry Burkhart’s columns in recent AU Reports make similar points.
If the Board should not be heavily involved in academic and personnel decisions, what should be Board by doing? I point you to the 1966 Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities which was a joint effort between the Association of Governing Boards, the American Council on Education and the American Association of University Professors.
- The governing Board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or University shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future.
- The Board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable resources; it has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is responsible for obtaining needed capital and operating funds.
- When ignorance or ill-will threatens the institution or any part of it, the governing Board must be available for support. In grave crises it will be expected to serve as a champion.
- The governing Board of an institution of higher education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conduct of administration to the administrative officers, the President and the deans, and the conduct of teaching and research to the faculty. The Board should undertake appropriate self-limitation.
I had hope that my year as Chair of the Senate could have been spent dealing with a number of real problems that face our University. I had an active agenda. Needless to say, I never got to it. I apologize for that. What do I think are some of the major issues facing Auburn?
- Auburn must do something about its poor numbers in the enrollment of African-American students and the employment of African-American faculty. Our numbers are far worse than those for our peer institutions in the South-East. We will never be a truly great University until this vestige from the past is buried once and for all.
- Auburn needs to continue its efforts to make sure that there is equity in promotion and salary to make certain that there are no gender, racial, age or other biases.
- Auburn needs to extend the model of shared governance to the College and Departmental level. I know of too many situations where important decisions affecting the academic program are being made solely by Deans and/or Department Heads.
- Auburn has a class of faculty known as non-tenure track faculty. Colleagues in this category make important contributions to our University. However, this is not a homogeneous category and many that I have spoken with do not feel that they are really faculty. We need to review the category of non-tenure track faculty.
- Auburn has far too many temporary faculty teaching in its academic programs. I understand all of the arguments about the need for flexibility and the assertion that tenured faculty don’t like to teach Freshman English. Nevertheless, you do not build a quality academic program with temporary and part-time faculty.
I would caution you that we should be vigilant in our efforts to protect tenure and academic freedom at Auburn. There is a move in the land to rid universities of tenure, the arguments being that tenure protects deadwood and is unfair to young faculty. These are false arguments. A seemingly less insidious effort is to institute post-tenure review which has been all the rage in state legislatures around the country. I shouldn’t have a hard time conniving this group about the importance of tenure. Auburn may hold the record for being in violation of the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The Auburn administration was censured in 1958 for firing a professor who wrote a letter to the Plainsman advocating the radical notion of integration. In 1973, we barely avoided censure by promising reform after having dismissed a faculty member with 11 years of service. Of course, there was a second censure in 1983 for again dismissing a faculty member with service beyond the probationary period. Finally, there was the case of Professor Charles Curran. At that time, the Montgomery Advertiser quoted R.C. "Red" Bamberg, a Trustee for 37 years, as saying, " "Academic freedom doesn’t mean much to me. I’m not concerned, and the average person in Alabama is not that concerned. Frankly, I don’t know what academic freedom is...If the man can’t fit into an organization, he ought to move on." Invited to replay, Professor Curran said simply, "the defense rests."
I would like to make comments about a couple of harmful faculty activities on campus: Harm and the self-proclaimed Auburn Guardian. Many of their attacks are personal and not issue based. It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues. It is quite another to defame their character and ascribe all sorts of unethical and immoral behavior to them. Secondly, their approach ignores the established mechanisms at Auburn for airing complaints and questioning administrative decisions. Faculty at Auburn have worked long and hard to institute the model of shared governance on our campus. While the current system is less than perfect, we ought to try to use it before we resort to guerrilla tactics. The Guardian effort is particularly troubling since the members refuse to identify themselves. Some real courage there.
Finally, I would like to thank a large number of people for their support, counsel and hard work during the last year. President Muse, Provost Walker, Vice-President Large and other administrators approached their dealings with the Senate leadership in an open and honest manner. My already enormous respect for each of them grew as we attempted to deal with the problems facing our University.
I appreciate all of the tireless work that former faculty leaders performed during the past year. Their capable leadership helped to minimize the damage caused by the intemperate Board actions. Their counsel helped to moderate my own proclivity for confrontation. Particularly, I would like to thank Sara Hudson, Charlotte Ward, Kent Fields, Barry Burkhart, Yvonne Kozlowski, Jennie Raymond, Gary Mullins and Gary Swanson. I owe these and other former leaders a debt of gratitude for their good deeds Conner Bailey and Larry Gerber, who on a daily basis responded to my endless requests for advice and therapy, deserve special mention.
I would like to thank the present Senate leadership for their contributions. Jean Weese and Marcia Boosinger not only performed the duties of Secretary and Secretary-Elect, but were also equal participants in key decisions. Herb Rotfeld, our parliamentarian, kept us all on target. And what can I say about Jo Heath? I can say that she will be an outstanding chair of our faculty. I’ve learned much from her. I call on all of you to give her your full support over the next year.
In closing, I would like to thank you the faculty. Being chair provided me with a wonderful and rare opportunity to get to know faculty across campus. It’s been a marvelous experience. I want you to know that I appreciate your every email, letter and phone call, the ones criticizing me as well as those supporting me. I appreciate your willingness to serve on committees. Hundreds of you attended Commission and Board meeting. Your presence was a mighty force that the Lowder clique had a hard time ignoring.
You the faculty are what makes Auburn a great University. You teach the courses, do the research and provide the outreach to our state, nation and world. You are Auburn University. Be tireless in the defense of our academic programs. Be deliberate in your participation in shared University governance. Be vigilant in the protection of tenure and academic freedom. We must refuse to accept the micro-management of the Board of Trustees.
