I have read the recent flurry of e-mails discussing the Faculty Senate’s effort to reconstitute itself, the revocation of Don Steiner’s campus e-mail privileges, and the administration’s decision to not grant Sandy Sternstein (and many others) emeritus status. I feel compelled to comment on these issues since they have a common thread.

A few weeks ago I attended the summer IEEE meeting, where I received the Herman Halperin Award for my technical activity over the past 40 years. To say the least, I was very pleased and honored with this recognition; even more, I was proud to be included with a group of engineers and scientists that is internationally recognized. By now, we are all gray-haired citizens, yet in great demand for consulting and advising because of our technical capability and wide experience.

In exactly the same way, I have considered it an honor to be a part of the RPI faculty—a diverse, intelligent, hard-working group of individuals. This group (both active and retired faculty) also has been showered with well-deserved recognitions honoring their creativity, innovation, and understanding of complex, far-ranging issues. They are sought after for their opinions and guidance as technical and managerial advisors. Many are entrepreneurs applying their skill to the “real world.” Surprisingly, the advice and insight of this same group of internationally respected and honored engineers, scientists, and businessmen are actively ignored (or, in the case of Steiner, suppressed) by President Shirley Ann Jackson’s administration. She thinks so little of this valuable resource that she abolished the Faculty Senate because it had the courage to question the prudence of some of the administration’s policies. In several previous messages to the faculty, I expressed my frustration with this administration, its policies and bullying tactics, and my outrage with the long-term damage this administration has done and is doing to RPI. To abolish the Faculty Senate so that this administration does not have to address honest questions about university plans, actions, and policies is completely unacceptable.

Before I retired in June 2007, I served on the Faculty Senate. I chaired the committee that put together the governance questionnaire that, when issued by the Faculty Senate, was interpreted by this administration as so incendiary that the survey was illegally confiscated by the provost and destroyed. Professor Bruce Nauman was formally reprimanded, and an attorney was imported from Philadelphia to explain the “law” to the Faculty Senate. Some will say this is ancient history and we need to move on. In my opinion this was an illegal act by this administration to suppress free expression by the faculty. Shamefully, the faculty accepted this treatment from the administrators.

However, it is even more frustrating to see this wonderful faculty try again and again to negotiate in good faith with Jackson’s administration. It is my opinion that this is a hopeless waste of time. To accept anything less than what was guaranteed in the Faculty Handbook prior to the abolishment of the Faculty Senate is an act of professional cowardice. In support of this statement, let me list a few of the administration’s past heavy-handed actions:

- Three years ago we were told which questions were unacceptable to ask in a faculty survey.

- Two years ago we were told which candidates were acceptable for the Faculty Senate.

- Last year we were told that the Faculty Handbook—and, in fact, the Faculty Senate—were unacceptable.

- This year, e-mail privileges are cut off when unpopular questions are asked.

Based on this conduct let me predict what will happen in the future:

- Tomorrow, we will be told what is important to teach and hold as truth.

- The day after tomorrow, expect to have this administration tell the faculty what conclusions must be drawn from its research if one wants to obtain tenure.

This is a very slippery slope. Time is running out for the faculty to reach firm ground at RPI. The faculty has a right and a responsibility to have a substantive place in the governance of RPI. Currently it has none.

Regardless of the perception that Jackson is a national treasure, neither she, nor her administration, nor her Board possesses the wisdom that resides with the combined active and retired RPI faculty. It is a travesty for this administration to exclude the faculty—active and retired—from helping to determine RPI’s future. Faculty input should be solicited and embraced rather than shunned. It is a huge mistake for the faculty to accept a new constitution when the former was arbitrarily voided. Doing this destroys all hope of meaningful faculty participation in the governance of this university. It is naïve to expect that this administration will soften its negotiation tactics once this new constitution is in place.

Robert C. Degeneff

ALUM ’67, ’74