Response to Dr. Wallace's "Open Letter to Faculty"
The recent "Open Letter" from Dr. Wallace makes a number of points that should be carefully considered by faculty.
I believe the administration has heard the message about change. The public commitments in the letter cover several of the issues that have concerned faculty for several years. Collective bargaining will surely be a much easier task now that there is some agreement on the issues and the nature of the solutions. The fear that collective bargaining would delay these solutions seems unlikely given such agreement.
The letter goes on to make a number of rather dire predictions. One may ask, who is going to bring about all these troublesome eventualities?
Would faculty allow "deep and bitter divisions" to result from a change in the way they are represented? I don't think so. The faculty is too professional and dedicated to its common educational task to let this happen. Indeed, the primary rifts have always been between faculty and administration, not between faculty members themselves.
In whose interest would it be to create conditions that result in "[s]tudents, the College and our community at large...be[ing] significantly and adversely affected"? Surely this is not something any faculty member would desire. And how likely is this outcome given the commonality of goals laid out by the FCCFF and the administration?
The concern about hiring new faculty is largely misplaced. With the exception of high-tech areas (which require special consideration), the applicant pool is more than adequate, often with scores of qualified applicants vying for a nationally advertised position. The common goal of raising entry salaries, accelerating step increases and providing more credit for past experience will easily erase inequities affecting newly hired faculty.
FCCFF supporters genuinely welcome the president's statement that his and the Board's "commitment to work toward the immediate resolution of faculty concerns has never been stronger." It is also notable that he states "We will, in fact, do so regardless of the outcome of next week's election..."
The president goes on to state: "The administration and Board are sincerely committed to providing market competitive [emphasis added] compensation and workload levels for faculty. There is no higher priority in the College, and this priority will be unaffected by the form of faculty representation."
With these commitments, it is hard to reasonably foresee what Dr. Wallace describes as an "adversarial process [that] could occasion long-term damage to the College and arrest institutional advancement." I think he underestimates his own administration's and the faculty's good will and dedication to common educational goals.
However, lest you think the administration is ready to "move forward immediately" on all faculty concerns without any changes in the governance process, please consider a short list of other issues yet to be addressed, including:
These are examples of shifts in educational policy and practice made without adequate or effective input from faculty, allowed by the existing governance process-a process even the president now admits is flawed.
Yes, it is time for a change and much work is left to be done-work best accomplished through a collegial process of collective bargaining. With the administration and our capable president now committed to responding to faculty concerns, collective bargaining holds promise for all concerned.
The fears will be put aside once the change is made. There is every reason to believe that all parties will work together for what is best for our employees, our institution, and our students.
Vote "Yes" for a change.
Vote "Yes" for the promise of representation that strengthens faculty values.
Gary Harr, South Campus Counselor