Several faculty members have written to me since we received the announcements of changes to the severance and tuition waver policies. Since then, I have spoke with several administrators about the changes and the reasons for them, as well as reasons for the haste.
Both of these matters (tuition waivers and severance pay) are related to faculty's advisory role, and clearly faculty and some administrators felt surprised by these announcements. I am concerned in several ways.
First, our governance system is intended to provide advice about budget, pay, benefits, and so on. In this sense, the faculty committee (in this case, FWCC) can indicate ways that the policies are not beneficial to the faculty or the entire institution. Even though only about 20 people take advantage of the doctoral tuition wavers, those individuals are important to the overall academic enterprise. The doctoral candidates who teach in my program are among our most reliable adjuncts, and the tuition waver is an important part of the reason they choose NLU.
Tuition wavers are also more than a compensation issue--they are an academic matter since they affect the academic enterprise. In that sense, they are related to the area we are responsible for directly.
In the case of the tuition wavers, the administration used a bludgeon to fix a small problem. Their overall concern is not the total cost of the 20 wavers (which is small), but the belief that a couple of doctoral cohorts are primarily students on tuition wavers. This problem could be addressed through better marketing of those programs or other targeted solutions, NOT eliminating 20 grad students per year.
Even though this is a small number when compared to the total university headcount who are eligible for wavers (staff, adjuncts, and faculty are all eligible), this number is huge when you consider that grad students are rare and precious. These grad students add tremendous value to the grad programs and to NLU student experience (through the classes they teach).
To quote one faculty member, "Often these are the people who are still in the “field” but who are also steeped in current theory and research in their doctoral programs. Many of our “practitioner adjuncts” don’t have as much opportunity to critically reflect on practice. So I think this will result in us losing some of our best adjuncts and perhaps some of our best doctoral students."
In addition, those students are among the ones who will build our reputation by taking jobs at other institutions when they leave. Seeding academe with our graduates is a great way to show the world the caliber of our students, our research, and our programs. Every grad department in the US works this way.
The severance package was the product of intense work of faculty and administration, and faculty feel a stake in it. It was developed collaboratively, so should be modified in the same way.
Even if we only provide advice, our advice can provide creative and imaginative solutions that avoid unintended consequences. Our advisory role is both a right and a responsibility. Indeed, the governance system has added considerable value to the calendar project, the Grace Period proposal, and many other initiatives of our president's as she works to turn this institution around.
I have also heard that our committee structure is not agile enough. That puzzles me because Senate was very responsive to the Grace Period proposal and every other proposal we received. FWCC has responded to administrative requests for input within a week when asked. I have never accepted this type of reason from students or employees who are late for work or class. If the traffic is heavy, leave earlier. If you can't leave earlier, then ask us to be more agile.
Even if administration insists that these measures are necessary after hearing our reasoning, faculty can at least hear administration's reasoning and not feel surprised when the measures are announced. Now the administration is backpedaling with upset people rather than asking for our understanding upfront. Everyone here has been working very hard to improve trust here, which is a necessary part of getting NLU through this budget crunch with improved systems. Surprising us with these revisions sets back the progress we have made and makes collaboration harder.
I have already expressed my concerns to several key administrators, and plan on talking with the president soon to express my thoughts and the concerns of the faculty. Faculty are worried about the future and eager to work with the administration to solve our problems, and our structures and committees are faculty's means of participating constructively. Going around us in this way does not build the environment we need to move forward together.
