Professor Norman Care's remarks to the General Faculty on Oberlin governance

1. Anecdote.

When I came to Oberlin in 1965, 1 came from a teaching position at Yale University. At Yale I was a full-time faculty member with a new Ph.D., but I was decidedly a minor figure. I wag even on the edges so far as the business of the Philosophy Department was concerned. There were two or three "department meetings" a year for us "junior faculty members" (as we were called), but these were essentially social hours followed by a cheery and very brief report by the chair. I had no place at all in what passed for meetings of university faculty. I don't even remember if I was informed of them.

At my first meeting at Oberlin - the one in the fall at which new faculty are introduced - I had a formative experience. I was introduced, stood up and sat down, others were introduced, etc. Then some business came before the General Faculty of Oberlin College. It dawned on me that I was now a member of this group now turning to this business, and that that meant there would now be discussion of this business, and that I could participate in this discussion - now.

I was stunned. I remember talking later with academic friends at other schools, trying to articulate the formative experience. Not only did I work at Oberlin, i.e., I had a job there; not only did I have position in a small department such that I was expected at all meetings, and urged (indeed, required) to speak and argue about departmental business; I also was a member of THE FACULTY of Oberlin College. And this, in fact, so it turned out, meant something.

The best I could do back then, as a way of articulating the difference, was to say to myself and others that Oberlin invited me to make it MY school. My heart went out to Oberlin on the spot. It was (as the kids say today) awesome, both in opportunity and in responsibility and in privilege. I remember speaking to a senior big-deal faculty member in those early days. I asked her what was supposed to happen at those faculty meetings. She said, "we take care of the educational program there - and that program is Oberlin College. So it's a very large responsibility."

2. The character of Oberlin.

I won't try to carry the personal story further. It's been enough for me that Oberlin means to be a place where Teaching and Research are of major importance, and also a place where Service counts. It makes for a very large job description for faculty members who come to care about the College. I learned in due time to connect the Service part to what we call "faculty governance." There are of course many schools that claim to practice "faculty governance," but that often means only that faculty sit on a committee or two, or perhaps provide an advisory opinion on something if called upon. At Oberlin the faculty has responsibility for the educational program in general, this responsibility is met in collective assembly and through powers explicitly delegated to (typically) elected councils; the faculty's decisions carry authority, and through them an educational program gets presented, and re-worked, and constantly thought about. The result is that Oberlin College has become famous as a place where serious students can receive an education of very high quality, and I have learned to care about that.

In early talks with Nancy, she and I came to agree that Oberlin has a certain character. It is a place that is marked by (a) intellectual seriousness, (b) extensive attention to aesthetic sensibility, and (c) respect for social conscience. It is also marked by (d) its insistence on diversity in its community. I think there is a further feature of the character of Oberlin College: it is (e) that its educational program is in the care of faculty governance. So now the "large responsibility" that senior big-deal faculty member spoke to me about is really very very large, and very very important.

3. Communitarian rationale

Perhaps these remarks are enough to suggest why I think the most important rationale for faculty governance at Oberlin is the one I call "communitarian." There can be different rationales for different forms of faculty governance at different sorts of schools. But the one that impresses me as best for Oberlin is the communitarian one, for it emphasizes a connection of a generalized sort between faculty members and the educational program. It asks faculty members to detach a little from their disciplinary homes, and think more broadly about the educational program and the many services and activities that support it, and not just about the tiny chunk of the whole that involves one's own courses or departmental program. I want to say that if a faculty member could not, or were not willing to, think in general about the educational program, then Oberlin would not be his or her place to be.

I also want to place emphasis on the role in faculty governance of members of the faculty meeting in collective assembly, i.e., in the divisional faculties and the General Faculty. Scattered or fragmented governance, wherein authority is exercised in independent (perhaps elected) councils, or by administrators after consultation with selected faculty members, won't meet the standards of the communitarian rationale. In a place the size of Oberlin, the scattered or fragmented sort of decision-making leaves people uninformed, without voice, and finally either demoralized or uninterested.

4. Deterioration

In my view there has been a steady deterioration in communitarian faculty governance at Oberlin over the last several years. I don't know how to date its beginning, or measure its pace. Many of us have not wanted to face the facts in this matter.

The causes of the decline are a miscellany. My own view - and here I explicitly set aside Nancy - is that we have not, in recent history, been blessed with many senior administrators interested in helping make faculty governance work. Faculty governance can decline when administrators give it little or no attention, and it can really decline when individual faculty members give it little or no attention. Many individual faculty members have found reasons to stay away from meetings. Sometimes the reasons have to do with professional work or the apparent demands of reappointment and salary; sometimes they have to do with family responsibilities; sometimes they have to do with the fact that discussion in faculty meetings is occasionally boring, acrimonious, or silly, and the issues discussed something other than challenging.

At this point I dig in my heels, say the obvious, and hope for the best. The high quality educational program Oberlin is famous for needs the care and concern of the faculty in collective assembly. Without strong faculty governance, Oberlin will, I believe, become more "ordinary" than we want it to be. So both faculty and administrators have to wake up and give attention to how faculty governance can be helped to flourish.

5. Revitalization

Apart from waking up and giving attention (and coming to meetings), what are we to do to rejuvenate faculty governance. Here is a short list of things to do.

(a) We need new or better instruments of institutional memory. I find that I cannot carry the institutional history of my division in my head. Committee reports proposing policies to the faculty should include the recent history (if any) on their subject. We have a Faculty Guide, but we don't have helpful guides to existing legislation available to faculty members and elected members of councils. This is a solvable problem.

(b) We need appropriate socialization for new members of the faculty. My own student-and- teaching history involves four universities. But none of it made me ready for faculty governance at Oberlin, especially the parts of it concerning the educational program as a whole, and the notion that I would have "voice" in matters of policy direction for the College as a whole. This, too, is a solvable problem; it involves talk within departments and programs, meetings organized by the Deans, and informal discussion with colleagues.

(c) In our collective assemblies, we need to be less clever and bombastic and obtuse, and more trusting and generous, with one another, including the person chairing the meetings. One can make a point without belittling the opposition, and without fine delays of intimidating erudition, and one can seek clarification of something without excessive pretense of non-understanding. In our meetings, I think we should actually think of ourselves as more-or-less on a par with one another, so far as our responsibilities for the educational program are concerned. I don't know if this matter of style and attitude is a solvable problem - but I think we should try to solve it.

(d) We need more flexibility - and, frankly, more openness to flexibility - in our governance arrangements. In areas involving, say, institutional grants, but also some parts of strategic planning, and even bits and pieces of major campaigns, we should realize that officers of the College must sometimes act such that prior review of actions by the faculty in collective assembly is impractical. I think faculty governance and flexibility are not entirely incompatible. The faculty can in some cases delegate authority, and create limited pockets of discretion; in other cases it can review actions already taken and make objections if necessary. I think this is a solvable problem - or, put more modestly, a more solvable problem than one might initially think. It is, of course, a two-way street. Those entrusted with discretion in a system of strong faculty governance shouldn't run amuck.

(e) Above all, we should look to our means of communication. Strong faculty governance, if practiced well, has its way of keeping people informed about the College's issues, its troubles, and its progress. We are not practicing faculty governance well. We cancel meetings - often at the times when there are issues people should discuss. We mount Campaigns without systematic faculty input. We make major commitments to buildings and programs, but without anything like the review and approval that would be expected in a strong faculty governance system. We accept an important document concerning broad directions for the future of Oberlin without the opportunity for discussion in detail, with the usual sub-opportunities for motions and clarifications.

Let me say, here at the end, that my conversations with Nancy during this academic year have been wonderfully helpful to me. I do have concerns about governance, and her response to me has been supererogatory, especially when compared to the responsiveness of other senior administrators over the years. My thanks to Nancy. Maybe, with this conversation, and meetings next fall, we can revitalize and update our governance arrangements, and through them determine our future together.

Norman Care is a Professor of Philosophy