Reprint from Wisconsin Week, April 2, 1997At the 3 March 1997 Faculty Senate meeting, the Chancellor criticized me directly for failing to show respect for the processes of faculty governance. Because the March 12, 1997 Wisconsin Week report failed to report both sides of the story, I am compelled to reply. I do respect the processes of faculty governance which is why I spoke out. I share even greater respect for freedom of speech, a right I can and will continue to exercise in both the public arena and university affairs.
The Chancellor’s comments were seemingly provoked by my questioning, at the 3 February 1997 Faculty Senate meeting, the Chancellor’s decision last April to agree to a specific minority enrollment goal as well as a specific timetable for reaching that goal, both proposed by a student group, the Civil Rights Defense Coalition. To the best of my knowledge, that decision was made without consulting either the Committee on Academic Affairs for Minority/Disadvantaged Students, which is designated to consider such matters, or the University Committee which is the Senate’s Executive Committee. Moreover, the Chancellor’s agreement was never brought to the Faculty Senate for its consideration or even announced to it. In my view, the Faculty Senate sets goals and timetables.
Whatever views members of the university community may express elsewhere, personal attacks should have no place in the Faculty Senate. Coming from the Chancellor, they exert an especially chilling effect on the free speech rights of every faculty member. This effect is pernicious because shared faculty governance requires the free and open exchange of ideas on both substantive issues and procedural matters. Shared faculty governance includes questioning whether governance processes are being followed not only by individual faculty members and faculty committees but also by the University Committee and the Chancellor. In the absence of an open atmosphere, we can neither learn nor test our views in this marketplace of ideas.
Universities are fragile institutions that must constantly demonstrate, both to themselves and to the public which supports them, a commitment to open inquiry. Our own guide is emblazoned on the bronze plaque at the front of Bascom Hall: “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the Great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”