Two weeks ago, we, the Editorial Board of The Poly, used this space to address the ongoing issue of faculty governance. We recognized the importance of dealing with the problems resulting from the inconsistent definitions of faculty. We criticized the solution proposed by the Institute administration, however, as it was irresponsible in its disregard for the members of the teaching and research community at RPI. Even so, we concluded by calling on all involved to work together in spite of the rocky start to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Since we went to press on August 29, this issue has seen harsh words from all sides of the debate. Tempers have been high and frustration has abounded. The situation reached an all-time low, however, on Monday with an open letter from Provost Robert E. Palazzo. In it, he attempted to defend the ongoing governance review by decrying the Faculty Senate as “destructive” and saying that it had “lost credibility.” He continued to use strong language throughout the missive, accusing the Senate of “interfering with a fair and open faculty governance review process” and other “egregious” acts.
We find Palazzo’s letter to be appalling on several levels. He resorted to accusations of misconduct on the part of the Faculty Senate—accusations that are highly inflammatory at best and downright wrong at worst. He alleges, for example, that the Senate violated its own constitution by submitting its proposed amendments directly to the Board of Trustees rather than to the provost for review. That constitution merely states that following faculty approval, amendments only need “endorsement by the President and the Board of Trustees.” Furthermore, as noted by a subsequent response to the faculty from Faculty Senate President Larry Kagan, Palazzo’s accusations ignore the fact that the recommendations regarding the definition of faculty were transmitted to him for review as acting provost last year; it was only after receiving no response from the Office of the Provost that the Senate sent its recommendations directly to the Board.
The misrepresentation by the provost underlies a sinister trend belying the administration’s lack of concern for the faculty and other community members throughout this process. In an academic environment built of enlightened principles and scholarship, mutual respect is key; it is impossible for us to work together when we cannot even be civil to each other. Sadly, the administration at all levels—ranging from the provost to the president to the Board of Trustees—seems to have been oblivious to the necessity of good relations throughout the process of governance review. From the beginning, the Board created an uncomfortable atmosphere by restricting the definition of faculty, rather than expanding it per the Senate’s recommendation. Regardless of the merits of that definition, the Board’s move created an environment of tension that has only escalated.
Furthermore, that escalation has resulted in large part from an utter lack of diplomacy by Palazzo, President Shirley Ann Jackson, and the Board of Trustees. All have used strong language in their communications—language that seems intended to inflame and undermine the integrity of the Senate rather than productively work through the issues. As an example, besides the cases cited above, the Board’s resolution in support of Palazzo’s proposed review process “supplanted” the newly-elected Senate. In addition, when asked about how the process will affect the current tensions between the faculty and the administration, Jackson firmly denied that any significant strain even exists.
We find it highly disturbing, therefore, that Palazzo is stating that the Senate is “destructive” and without credibility. It seems, rather, that by calling on the faculty to ignore its elected Senate, Palazzo is the one causing destruction. The administration is attempting to create a massive schism within the faculty by discounting the Senate and its members; Monday’s letter from Palazzo even goes so far as to imply that the Senate is being subversive by merely continuing to operate.
This madness needs to stop, and the administration must recognize the irreparable harm it is doing to RPI as a functioning academic community. The question of faculty definition is certainly an important one, but it has been eclipsed by the issues of integrity and trust being raised. Given the events of the past few weeks, it appears that the administration is incapable of addressing the issues at hand in a civil, mature manner. If this truly is the case, then perhaps it is time for Jackson and Palazzo to step down before any more damage is done. On the other hand, if they can work with the community rather than against it, we encourage them to start doing so.
The issues at hand are very emotionally-charged; above all, when discussing them, all parties need to be respectful of each other. If this doesn’t happen, we’ll find that we are only digging our own grave. In fact, we’ve already started.
