The University Senate voted today to
Below is coverage and analysis from the Senate's debate today:
Playing it safe and being content with the status quo is the path to decline
-Provost Farvardin
With University President Dan Mote present the University Senate approved with minor amendment the Strategic Plan today. The Strategic Plan is the result of
Several amendments were offered for the Senate's consideration - all but one by faculty Senators. Three of these amendments were particularly contentious and rejected by the Senate, including amendments rejecting a framework for a future general education program, changing the creation of a process for reducing compensation of tenured faculty to a study to assess the need of creating that process, and striking from the proposal or changing a reallocation process for University resources. Other amendments scrutinizing the particular language of the plan such as removing limiting qualifiers.
An amendment to remove the specification of the three dimensions of a future general education program until a new general education program is developed offered by Prof. Claire Moses was rejected by the Senate. Those three dimensions, a framework to underpin the development of a new general education, are "Pathways to Knowledge and Creativity," "2020 Perspectives," and "Ways of Thinking" (p. 22 Strategic Plan.) Jim Wallace, Professor of Engineering and Director of the Gemstones program, argued that the three dimensions are important to guide the formulation of a new general education program. Prof. Ira Chinoy supported inclusion of 2020 perspectives calling it "bold and gutsy."
Marshall Grossman indicated that the amendment addresses a procedural change so that the substance of future general education programs can be debated at a time dedicated for that purpose. Claire Moses explains that the amendment is nothing more than waiting to develop a general education plan before approving its substance.
Speaking for the amendment, Undergrad Senator Elliot Morris argued the importance of a liberal education, saying that current programs offer a, "fine tuned to make it in the work force with little education in the other facets of life." Morris's comments are on-point, we, as a university community haven't asked the question: What is a liberal education? As a consequence, students are left with programs churning out middle managers and engineers instead of programs fostering participation, critical thinking, and dissent.
Morris is absolutely correct in arguing that we cannot really develop an effective general education program until we really examine the purpose of the University? Is the University of Maryland a Defense Department research farm or is it a place to grow as and learn as a community?
Professors Clyde P. Kruskal and Chau-Wen Tseng offered an unsuccessful amendment to change the paragraph below to read "The Senate will investigate whether there exists a need to establish . . . " in what Prof. Kruskal characterized as an attack on tenure.
A policy and a fair and equitable mechanism for reducing compensation will be established for use when performance improvement goals that are set following an unsatisfactory post-tenure review are not subsequently met. The policy will be developed in cooperation with the Senate and will include stringent safeguards to ensure that this mechanism is not abused. (p. 30 Strategic Plan)"It is suicidal to go down that path" urged Prof. Vincent Brannigan in favor of the amendment, arguing that adopting the language as proposed throws the protections of tenure into the hands of the State legislature and opens the door to the elimination of tenure.
Ann Wiley, Assistant President and Chief of Staff, speaking against the amendment, said there are tenured professors that do not perform and renege their responsibility to the institution and, in order to protect tenure the senate must establish a policy to deal with those faculty members. Other faculty Senators and student body President Andrew Friedson concurred, arguing that the protections of tenure are in small cases abused and require a process for disciplining those offenders.
Professor Boden Sandstrom offered an amendment unanimously approved to include benefits for domestic partners to University employees.
Professors Marshall Grossman and Maynard Mack offered four unsuccessful amendments to remove from the proposal a policy for resource reallocation within the University. Grossman argues that reallocation will result in gutting funding from some programs and unfairly preferring others.
Ann Wiley, against the amendments, argued that the only way to find the funds to implement the Strategic Plan and other new initiatives is through reallocation. Mentioning that Provost Favardin urged "strongly" to reject the amendments saying that "if these amendments are approved the strategic plan becomes meaningless." Without reallocation, the University will not be able to respond to external forces and will require downsizing of programs. Deans of ARHU and CMSC argue that to leverage more funding from the state government the University will have to demonstrate that it can effectively use what little state funding it receives.I agree that resources ought to be reallocated, but that the areas and programs to which funds are directed must be carefully scrutinized. I.e. terrorism studies and the engineering school do not need new funding and LGBT, Persian Studies, Latina/o Studies, etc do need new funding.
No amendments challenging broadly the motivation or goals of the strategic plan were made. The Strategic Plan was written as a framework for the growth and development of the University. The nature of the University as a place for industry R & D and a recruiting station for military officer corps and Central Intelligence Agency is something foundational to the idea of strategic planning. It is also something that the Strategic Planning Committee failed to address.
Following the vote on the strategic plan, Prez Mote so eloquently addressed the body describing the Strategic Planning process as "a remarkable experience in governance and in planning" and lauding the Senate and its "best meeting" ever. The Diamondback this morning reported that "parts of [the plan] could be implemented over senate opposition."
Despite Farvardin's rhetoric about status quo and the University's decline, we cannot overlook the political systems and ideologies at work in the plan. The neo-liberal project and the military industrial complex are, and with the implementation of the strategic plan, will continue to be key parts of the operation of the University of Maryland.
No comments:
Post a Comment