This comes after the provost recommended that the Faculty Senate be supplanted for the duration of his proposed faculty governance review. The reason he stated was that the Senate had “lost credibility,” according to a letter sent to the Faculty on September 10.

The Faculty Senate held a general faculty meeting to discuss the recent events that have occurred as a result of the review process. President of the Faculty Senate Larry Kagan summarized, for the 135 faculty members who attended, the situation that has developed particularly over the past few weeks, as well as background information from when G.P. “Bud” Peterson had been serving as provost.

“We considered the Board of Trustee’s directive to rewrite the constitution; however, we felt it tied our hands and we could not function,” said Kagan during the meeting. “Any rewriting of governance could not be done, so we declared an ‘impasse.’”

Kagan detailed the process that the Faculty Senate had gone through to have clinical faculty included in the Senate’s constitution, which, according to Kagan, had Peterson’s support. He described the central problem as a “communication breakdown.”

One of the major topics of debate during the meeting was the resolution the Senate passed on September 5, which ceased operations of all committees—including the Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure.

Some faculty members felt that this resolution would only hurt the tenure-track faculty in the long run. Alan Cramb, dean of the School of Engineering, said, “It is unfair to those who have worked six and seven years toward tenure; and regardless of issues between the Faculty Senate and the administration, no one coming forward for tenure should be hurt.”

Other faculty members did not share this opinion, however. One member stated, “It is totally illogical to keep the committees running when the rest of the Senate has been dissolved.”

The primary purpose of the meeting, however, was to discuss a resolution that would eventually be put forth for a vote among all tenured and tenure-track faculty.

The referendum put before those at the meeting was designed to confirm the faculty’s support for the Senate as its representative body and also asks the Board of Trustees to reinstate the Senate. It states that, “In particular we affirm the legitimacy of the Spring 2007 election that was conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Faculty Handbook, and we call for the immediate restoration of the Faculty Senate and its committees to their governance functions.” It calls for “the provost to enter into dialogue with the Faculty Senate in a legitimate process of shared governance that results in restored mutual trust.”

“When I got here, serving on the Senate was an honor and serving as [its] president was an even greater honor,” said Kagan during the meeting. “We want to try and bring the faculty back together as one body.”

A majority of those present at the meeting wished to put the referendum forward for a faculty-wide vote—a vote to call the resolution into question was passed with a 111-24 majority.

There was a mixture of strong opinions regarding the referendum.

“I really am committed to a meaningful faculty role in shared university governance, and I was so offended not only by the insulting tone of the provost’s message, but at its outrageous misrepresentation of events,” said Associate Professor for the Department of Science and Technology Studies Mike Fortun after the meeting.

“I have no confidence that anyone who can so willfully and egregiously distort reality so that it reflects what the president wants, won’t be just as willing to distort and misrepresent whatever ‘proposals’ concerning faculty governance come from the committee he is selecting to again reflect only whatever the president wants.”

Others, however, felt that the provost is taking the correct measures in disbanding the Senate during the review, and that the resolution would not be of any help. Chair of the Department of Cognitive Science Selmer Bringsjord said following the meeting, “When there is zero credibility, there is no point, and the best thing is to start afresh, which is what we need to do. Since MIT has no elected Faculty Senate or equivalent, I suspect that at some point the best thing for MIT was just that: don’t have one.”

Bringsjord continued, “In our own case, the provost has established a process for assembling a committee that would start fresh, and if a new Faculty Senate is desired, it will happen—but it would be one that has credibility.”

The faculty-wide vote will be held on Monday and Tuesday in the DCC Great Hall from 10 am until 4 pm. There will also be a table set up in DCC 330 from 2–3 pm on Wednesday for voting. Votes will be counted later on Wednesday.