3 thoughts on “WG-F (12/16) Draft Report: Feedback”
Faculty will be coerced to participate in the contemplated “programming.” The draft of course speaks instead of a “requirement,” but one assumes that any member of the faculty who refuses to participate in the “programming” will be sanctioned in some manner. (Will tenured members of the faculty who do not want to participate because they believe doing so is inconsistent in some way with academic freedom be fired? The draft does not say.) That makes the requirement coercive. The University Administration has the legal power to coerce its employees, here, the faculty, however it likes within the limits of the law.
Because the University’s proposed reliance on coercion is, as the draft itself recognizes, likely to be controversial, I would propose that any such programming be put to an anonymous vote of all those members of the faculty to whom coercion will, upon non-compliance, be applied, rather than being left to the vote of Faculty Senators, who (at least in my unit) are appointed, and not elected by the faculty of their unit. If the University Administration wants to be able to say its coercion is morally permissible because that’s what the faculty wants, then it should have no objection to discovering what all members of the faculty actually want, discovered through an anonymous poll.
I appreciate the suggestion to prioritize an antiracist education program for faculty. I am concerned, though, that without appropriate measures this will become yet annother moderate-priority item that has to get squeezed in after hours. Many faculty already find it difficult to do what is asked of them in research, teaching, and service, within an amount of time each week that allows them to devote time to their selves, families, communities, and other important values. To show that the antiracism education program is really a priority, I would suggest that the committee consider explicitly identifying other duties that will be lessened to make time for this crucial priority. They could, for example, require that once or twice a year chairs use time usually allocated for faculty meetings to ensure that all faculty participate. Requiring that other priorities be subordinated to this one would show that anti-racism is truly valued, without devaluing the labor of university employees.
If there is a required educational program for students and faculty, there should be a component for the staff as well. The staff compose a significant portion of Cornell’s community and interact with both faculty and students, which both contribute to the overall atmosphere and environment on campus.
Faculty will be coerced to participate in the contemplated “programming.” The draft of course speaks instead of a “requirement,” but one assumes that any member of the faculty who refuses to participate in the “programming” will be sanctioned in some manner. (Will tenured members of the faculty who do not want to participate because they believe doing so is inconsistent in some way with academic freedom be fired? The draft does not say.) That makes the requirement coercive. The University Administration has the legal power to coerce its employees, here, the faculty, however it likes within the limits of the law.
Because the University’s proposed reliance on coercion is, as the draft itself recognizes, likely to be controversial, I would propose that any such programming be put to an anonymous vote of all those members of the faculty to whom coercion will, upon non-compliance, be applied, rather than being left to the vote of Faculty Senators, who (at least in my unit) are appointed, and not elected by the faculty of their unit. If the University Administration wants to be able to say its coercion is morally permissible because that’s what the faculty wants, then it should have no objection to discovering what all members of the faculty actually want, discovered through an anonymous poll.
I appreciate the suggestion to prioritize an antiracist education program for faculty. I am concerned, though, that without appropriate measures this will become yet annother moderate-priority item that has to get squeezed in after hours. Many faculty already find it difficult to do what is asked of them in research, teaching, and service, within an amount of time each week that allows them to devote time to their selves, families, communities, and other important values. To show that the antiracism education program is really a priority, I would suggest that the committee consider explicitly identifying other duties that will be lessened to make time for this crucial priority. They could, for example, require that once or twice a year chairs use time usually allocated for faculty meetings to ensure that all faculty participate. Requiring that other priorities be subordinated to this one would show that anti-racism is truly valued, without devaluing the labor of university employees.
If there is a required educational program for students and faculty, there should be a component for the staff as well. The staff compose a significant portion of Cornell’s community and interact with both faculty and students, which both contribute to the overall atmosphere and environment on campus.