College Faculty argue over summer stipend program

Dissent among faculty results in tense meeting

Governance procedure was the topic of debate at Tuesday's meeting of the College's General Faculty, drawing what many considered to be the best attendance of the year.

Professor of English Robert Longsworth, with the support of many of his colleagues, presented a motion that challenged the recent action of the College Faculty Council to rescind a standing policy of awarding summer research stipends to junior faculty members.

As part of faculty legislation dating back to the mid 1980s, new members were granted a summer stipend to support their academic research. This was an effort by the general faculty to aid their younger colleagues while raising the standards for tenure at the College.

Last December, the College Faculty Council (CFC), the executive council elected by the General Faculty, eliminated the summer stipend program due to budgetary constraints without bringing the issue to a discussion with the general faculty.

According to Professor of Economics Robert Piron, this faculty legislation was designed to strengthen tenure requirements at the College, while also making funds available for new faculty members to pursue their academics.

This stipend was designed to alleviate the financial burden of conducting academic research on a budget which Professor of Art William Hood described as "purse money for priests and nuns."

The issue of the summer stipend opened the door for a heated debate on the underlying issue of faculty governance. Many members felt the strength of a faculty governance was slowly diminishing with every decision the CFC makes concerning broad faculty issues that contradict standing legislation.

According to Piron, the specific issue of summer stipends should not be the topic of debate, but rather the procedure of decision-making within the faculty.

"If the executive committee has veto power over the faculty, then we need to decide whether we want that or not," said Piron. "How much respect does the faculty legislation receive?"

Professor of Politics Eve Sandberg defended the actions of the CFC.

"I think we made a minor budgetary revision," said Sandberg.

Other faculty members agreed, arguing that the CFC is a group of elected peers who must operate within the limits of the College's allotted budget.

The power struggle within the General Faculty is inflated by its structure solely as a legislative committee, without the power or responsibility of handling their own budget. The budgetary issues are handled by a different department of the administration.

Given this structure, it becomes crucial that the lines of communication between the General faculty of the College and the CFC are open, and the role of each is equally respected.

Members of the CFC repeatedly held their ground, arguing that their decision did not operate outside the realm of their authority.

"I did not think then, and I do not think now that any legislation was rescinded," said Sandberg.

"If we were to vote for this motion it would change the nature of faculty government relations that many of us think we need."

According to supporters of the motion, it is crucial that any decisions or revision of legislation made by the CFC that will affect the Faculty should be brought to the floor for discussion.

Professor of Religion James Dobbins pleaded for the motion to be passed in order to establish a precedent within the General Faculty to resist such actions by the CFC. "If we vote for this, we will set a precedent that the CFC has to bring issues of adaptation to this body," Dobbins said.

The motion was passed by a two vote margin with nine abstentions, illuminating the lack of unity and understanding of procedures by the College faculty.

Professor of Religion Paula Richman expressed her frustration with the lack of cohesive procedure among the faculty as the meeting approached the two hour mark.

"If every issue comes to the faculty in this manner and these are the results, how will we ever accomplish anything at Oberlin College?" Richman said.

Professor of Philosophy Norman Care, who initiated this discussion, expressed concern for the state of the diminishing faculty governance, citing an article in Academe titled "Faculty Governance: Death by Inattention."

"I think our faculty should give attention to our own form of faculty governance, and arrest the decline," said Care. According to Care, faculty governance should be "communitarian."

"It is a form of decision-making that allows us to move to new forms of educational experience together, and without the burden of not understanding them or the sense of being dragged into them," Care said.

"It is very important in such a small place as Oberlin that we have this communitarian governing body," he said.

The recognition that there is room for improvement is the first step in reevaluating the state of the College's faculty government. The next General faculty meeting for the will be held on April 21.

"I do not hold the view that decisions that have been made are unwise, but that procedural conditions on such decisions were not satisfied," said Care.