My alma mater has today forcibly terminated its second consecutive president in three years. I will not grieve excessively for John Lilley, for I never believed that a Presbyterian elder ought to be at the helm of an erstwhile Baptist university. Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile for us to consider where University life in America has come.
Because of the tenure system, faculty positions are essentially secure. Exceptions that allow for the termination of a tenured faculty member are quite difficult to execute. The de facto situation in American universities is that the president and his administration cannot terminate faculty members.
On the other hand, faculties seem to be gaining more and more political influence over the job security of administrators. Both Sloan's and Lilley's departures are basically the result of faculty lobbying efforts (although in Sloan's case the influence of a former president contributed). But this is not a phenomenon unique to Baylor. Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers succumbed to faculty pressure at the unfriendly conclusion of his tenure at the nation's most prestigious university. Faculties are learning that it is well within their power to obtain the chief executive's head on a silver charger.
The net effect? The institutional situation at our universities is coming to be convoluted beyond belief: The supervisory executive branch cannot terminate the employees, but the employees can terminate their supervisors. Does anyone really believe that this is healthy? If so, would you care to explain why?
11 comments:
I really don't think the faculty should bear much burden for the firing of John Lilley.
The Faculty Senate didn't oust Lilley. The Board of Regents did. The Faculty Senate and their Resolution simply helped give the Board cause to do what they've long wanted to do.
Howie Batson's comment about Lilley's failure to bring unity is laughable.
If Batson successfully lobbies for a President in the mold of Robert Sloan, Baylor will then get a heavy dose of Unity!
One has to wonder whether it is the Board and not Lilley and not the faculty that is the real problem...
As a side note: my fiancee got her diploma under Sloan. My dad got his tenure under Lilley. I'm gonna get my MA diploma with Harold Cunningham's signature on it in a couple of weeks. Who knows who will be on my diploma in a few semesters when I finish my PhD!
Big Daddy,
I realize that the Board of Regents pulled the trigger, and I'm no fan of John Lilley's. I'm merely pointing out that the next president of BU (or of the vast majority of universities) walks into a situation in which, should he wind up in conflict with the faculty, the faculty stands a good chance of getting him fired if so inclined, while he has no hope of firing them). I think that is a dysfunctional situation.
Thus, in specific, I would be giving credit, not blame or burden, for Lilley's termination. But in general, the relationship of faculty to administration in a university is bizarre and unparalleled in any other venue that quickly comes to mind.
Bart says:
"The supervisory executive branch cannot terminate the employees, but the employees can terminate their supervisors. Does anyone really believe that this is healthy?"
Bart, isn't that just basic congregationalism? Are you saying that's not healthy?
;-)
(Man, I'm in for it now...)
Silly Greg (I'll bet nobody's ever said THAT before!), congregation members are not employees. One does not terminate people from a family.
Bart,
You are once again on top of your game. It is the beginning of the end for many in University leadership system. The real problem as you allude to is that leading by popular vote has never worked nor will it. I wonder what is next?
I have a feeling that Dr. Tom Corts is more thankful than ever before that he didn't leave Samford for Baylor when they came calling...
Bart said:
"Silly Greg (I'll bet nobody's ever said THAT before!), congregation members are not employees. One does not terminate people from a family."
No, but congregation members get disciplined from local assemblies, and pastors get fired by their congregations. So, then, the analogy I was broaching was:
In a congregational model, pastors cannot discipline church members on their own (typically, there must be a church vote). Likewise, "the president and his administration cannot terminate faculty members."
In the other direction, on a congregational model, congregations can vote out pastors. Likewise, "faculties are learning that it is well within their power to obtain the chief executive's head on a silver charger."
I don't have a dog in this fight. I just thought the parallels were interesting. Is it really so obviously unhealthy to have faculties with this kind of discretion?
-- Dr. Welty, power-mad faculty member ;-)
Greg,
I objected to the analogy because I believe that the purposes and nature of a congregation are different from the purposes and nature of a university. In many congregational churches, a pastor could remove a person from a position of service, although not from membership.
Another humongous difference, in my way of seeing things, is that the members of the congregation are also the ones funding the congregation rather than the ones receiving the funding. Thus your analogy does not hold, for the closest thing to an "employee" in a congregational church is the pastor, not the individual member, in a pecuniary sense.
Wow. Hastily composed comments sure can devolve into a muddled mess of spaghetti-strewn thoughts. If you can make heads-or-tails of my previous comment, fire right back. If not, perhaps after I complete my present post I can get back to you. Sorry.
Bart,
Actually, I thought your last comment there was a good one! Congregations differ from universities in both purpose and the financial relationships which obtain. That is enough to doubt any generalization from congregationalism to other spheres.
So, you clarified my thinking here.
Post a Comment