Students fear loss of voice in system

---

Tweet Ensuring student representation was one main concern among faculty at Tuesday's Faculty Council meeting, where a report proposing structural changes to Academic Governance was presented and discussed.

But under the proposed structure, student voice will decrease, said Eric Hinojosa, ASMSU's Academic Assembly chairperson.

The report, Task Force 1, was formally presented at the meeting for the first time since the report was turned in on Aug. 28, 2006.

Faculty members also praised the creation of a Faculty Congress — a faculty governance body, chaired by a faculty member. The current body, Faculty Council, is led by MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon.

The proposal calls for one undergraduate and one graduate student representative on the proposed Steering Committee, which would replace the Executive Committee of Academic Council. The executive committee currently has three undergraduate student representatives and two graduate students.

Two of the undergraduate seats are guaranteed for students.

"It's a great goal — they really should strive to get more faculty involved. I think it will better the university," Hinojosa said.

"But they shouldn't do it at the expense of the student voice."

Debra Nails, a member of the Task Force 1 committee, said faculty thought a smaller group would be more efficient in conducting academic business.

The changes, while eliminating some student voice on the yet-to-be created Steering Committee, would preserve student seats on the various standing committees — something students on the committee wanted.

The proposed Steering Committee would be composed of eight faculty members, two students and the provost.

"That's the way that happened historically," said Nails, a philosophy professor. "And that's something that can easily be fixed."

In addition, two faculty members stood up to endorse the creation of the Faculty Congress — and no one spoke against its formation.

"That's really badly needed," Jim Anderson, history professor, said at the meeting.

Dennis Propst, a forestry professor, agreed.

"The whole purpose of Task Force 1 is more faculty voice and representation, so that (body) is necessary," Propst said.

Provost Kim Wilcox said the discussion of the proposed faculty body was important to hear.

"Assuring that all groups have a full voice in the conversation is important, and part of that is the feeling that the group feels enfranchised and owns their role and to have a sense of empowerment in their role," Wilcox said.

"So it's important to listen to how people see us affecting that."

A faculty body led by a faculty member is essential for providing faculty more voice in governance, said Sheila Teahan, president of the MSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

"The faculty should feel free; they should be able to feel that they can have a freewheeling, open discussion about matters that are of primary concern to the faculty," said Teahan, an associate English professor. "No one is asking to have greater voice in things that are not the primary responsibility of faculty, like larger budget issues or the athletic program."

Simon said the next step, after hearing recommendations from the task force's committee, is to have the Voice Implementation Committee consider them and deliver their recommendations in a different context.

"I think the governance system could always be improved, and the question is really how best to do that," Simon said.

Nails, who helped present the report, said the discussion was only a beginning step in the process.

"I think there is still misunderstanding, and some of the misunderstandings were corrected and others were not," Nails said.

"But I'm hopeful that in the long run, we'll get it all worked out."

Sarah Harbison can be reached at harbiso9@msu.edu.

---