I’d like to suggest an argument that I know will have some detractors. While my perspective won’t be shared by colleagues even within my own institution, I stand by the following comments which, ultimately, are intended to effect the sort of change that’s sorely needed inside many universities. The need to improve our Senate meeting behaviour, interactions, and processes.
I maintain that University Senates in many modern universities serve a counter purpose. Founded as the principal academic body for conducting business and meeting governance mandates, they are, in my experience, the most ineffectual and stifling fora for meaningful and critical discourse. Their function in the modern university thus runs counter to their actual agenda. They are, in a word, useless. But they don’t have to be.
I don’t think my experience is unique. Here’s what I’ve noticed. While Senate is open to all members of the university, only a comparatively small number of people choose to attend. Of that number, I’d wager that an even smaller number have read the agenda package. That is to say, very few people are actually prepared for the ensuing discussion and formal voting. This reality, however, doesn’t stop people from expressing their opinions, espousing critical and misinformed views, dominating and de-railing the discussion, from detracting and grand-standing, from boring and intimidating, and ultimately from slowing down critical university business and decision-making.
The danger is manifold, especially as it risks undermining the Senate’s authority and purpose. Without full, democratic participation, universities are making largely uninformed (and poor) decisions. They’re relying on the few to represent the many, when in fact not everybody is qualified to speak for others or their business. While trust is normally a good thing, one might argue that too much of it is placed on those who’ve been around the longest and speak the most in public. Neither condition guarantees knowledge or understanding. And from what I continue to witness at Senate meetings within my own organization, it’s the absence of knowledge and understanding that too often dictates the decision-making process. As a consequence, it has become of the worst and openly-hostile meetings to attend. I question it’s value.
Senate is definitely an imperfect system. Things sometimes get out of hand, despite a questionable allegiance to Robert’s Rules of Order. A Chair, normally the President, has an important role to play. Not only in keeping things moving, but in maintaining a decorum that is becoming of the academy and the institution’s values. And it’s here, in the absence of acceptable and professional behaviour, that I’ve witnessed some of the biggest problems with the current system. And with those overseeing its function.
We all know that people sometimes behave badly. That in and of itself is problematic. More troublesome, though, are the behaviours that are going largely unchecked and unchallenged. ‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ are mistakenly evoked to excuse inappropriate and sometimes downright uncivil actions. Toleration of such behaviours is far easier than confrontation, which is one reason why things proceed in a manner counter to the professed culture of an institution. In essence, we put up with poor behaviour because we’re too afraid or incompetent to address it head-on.
Much of the problem comes down to culture. The right tone needs to be struck. Inclusiveness and a sense of belonging need active nurturing. Leadership is modelled in practice, for people to see, hear, experience, and emulate. Senate is not anarchy; its meetings are controlled environments, where certain rules apply. We adhere to an accepted hierarchy to support a measure of structure and power, acknowledging our different roles in this peculiarly-formal setting. The Chair heeds an important duty to uphold the values of the organization and its members. Their approach is necessarily individualistic and personal, but the general standards should still apply.
There are, in my opinion, two basic rules that deserve more consideration: (1) Not everything should be said aloud, and (2) Not everyone should be permitted to talk at all times. I’m not condoning the suppression of speech, nor am I ignoring the valued perspective and experience that each committee member brings to the table. But the truth is very far from these noble ideals. The truth can be much more toxic, where a minority of voices often dominate and steer the discussion. Taking up airspace has the inverse effect of silencing others. Sometimes this happens unknowingly, and sometimes on a specific talking point. Where it becomes dangerous, however, is when it becomes accepted custom – the way things are done, have been done for so long, that nobody questions it anymore. The impact is sometimes immediate, sometimes cumulative. Either way, a custom and distinct culture prevails which ultimately stifles the business-at-hand. And that, in my view, runs contrary to the very purpose of Senate.
The goal should be open, honest, transparent, robust, and critical dialogue. Inquiry and curiosity are welcomed, but only insofar as they help advance the agenda. Too often they are used as platforms for individual interests. And too often an individual’s failure to comprehend translates into opposing votes, which is a wasted principle. The agenda itself should be honoured, as these meetings drag on beyond the allotted time when control is poor and attention is weak. As with many things in life, harmony and balance should ideally be struck, allowing time and space for discourse that shapes the tabled item. Anything beyond that is superfluous and distracting, no matter how much people might enjoy the entertainment.
Allow me to complete my rambling with a more concrete example. I’ve mentioned incivility on a few occasions. I consider it the outcome of a weak culture and a weak leadership. Expression is strongly encouraged in the shared governance of the academy. But is it working? Does it not erode the very principles we claim to be upholding? When people fear to speak, to share their views, to assert a contrary opinion, to probe for greater context and clarity, then I’m afraid the battle is already lost. What transpires – and here I speak from direct experience – is a silent, monotone, and disengaged Senate. The result of too many meetings, too many months and years of repeat offences, wherein the entire Senate membership is distanced just in order to survive.