Just when faculty were starting to see themselves as mere employees at RPI, the trustees and administration pulled us back to a realization of our higher responsibility. It is high time the faculty took that responsibility seriously, and began stewarding at a world-class level. To that end, consider four proposals.

First, the faculty might reconsider pursuing its successful referendum to reinstate the Faculty Senate. The Senate was suspended at the corporate level—the administrative level—and the faculty seeks reinstatement there. But RPI is not a corporation. It is a school that, among other things, is incorporated. And no one (corporate or otherwise) has the authority to suspend a democratic institution. They only have the power to infringe it. (What would such authority be, after all—the authority of autocracy, oligarchy, authoritarian monarchy? Would it be divine right?) Thus, the Faculty Senate still stands as a faculty body.

What’s more, those elected to the Faculty Senate have a “social contract” with their faculty constituents to represent them democratically. These constituents have not released the senators from this contract. Thus, the senators remain obliged to perform their elected functions. To cease or suspend those functions would be a democratic breach, showing a level of irresponsibility unworthy of the lowest and most unfaithful steward, not to mention a world-class one.

Second, the faculty must recognize its steward-responsibility toward support personnel—toward the administration and trustees, for example, who back up the educational effort financially. Every faculty member is evaluated five times per year—for each course taught, and for annual accomplishments in research, education, and service to the Institute. By embarrassing contrast, there are no performance reviews at all for the Board of Trustees; this is so despite their invaluable, if subsidiary, role as stewards of the RPI corporation. There likewise is no rigorous faculty review of the administration on its contribution to the central mission: education and research.

The Board of Trustees functions virtually unsupervised, with no oversight. Its decisions are subject to no quality control whatsoever. Look at the revolving door track record this negligence has produced regarding RPI central administrations. Look at the confidently false proclamations it has invited from the Board regarding faculty opposition to these administrations. First, our faculty was called “a small group of malcontents”—who then turned out to be a faculty majority. Then, the Board called opponents an “old guard” of faculty—who turned out to be a plurality (on the most recent faculty referendum). Next, no doubt, the Board will brand the faculty “French.” This sort of wild “Cheney-ism” is what happens when no supervision is exerted.

Faculty stewards must show more responsibility than this. Surely RPI’s corporate staff can only welcome a performance evaluation given how concerned it is with the leadership excellence, stewardship, and world-class growth of RPI. And such a review can hardly be avoided. A world-class faculty and institution must have a world-class administration and Board, after all.

It might seem best to suspend the Board and administration to formulate this performance review. But good judgment suggests the better course of partnering intimately and thoroughly with them to devise the most world-class evaluation instrument possible.

Third, where faculty can spare time from its important educational and research pursuits, a more extensive on-site monitoring of performance must begin across the Institute. Faculty should be observing each other’s classes and suggesting improvements in teaching approach. They should be attending trustee meetings and provost meetings en-masse to assure that a world-class perspective on the central mission is ever present. An instance would be the upcoming provost meeting designed to review faculty governance. It is unfair to burden those few faculty chosen to represent each department in this task. The attendance of far more faculty is required, providing a majority sampling of faculty-steward perspectives. (I know I’ll be there, how about you?)

Finally, the entire faculty and the corporate sector at RPI should be retooling in “steward leadership” to go forward together. A world-class leader in this field is Emory University, through its center for stewardship and servant leadership. It emphasizes excellence in democratic management and process, multi-lateral negotiation, shared responsibility, non-hierarchical organization (lateral not vertical chains of command), team management, and the like. Stewardship is no longer merely a catchword or amateur responsibility, but a carefully researched art and science. Thus, part of the annual evaluations for faculty, administration, and the trustees should assess how world “classedly” we exhibit this approach.

Bill Puka