AAUP
American Association of University Professors
Oregon State University Chapter
ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT DISSOLVED
Overview:
The letter below was sent by the AAUP Executive Board to protest the termination of the Entomology Department in November, 2002. Although one could question the wisdom of terminating an Entomology Department in a university concerned with agriculture, forestry, and the environment, the primary problem from the AAUP's point of view is that the decision to terminate did not involve adequate input from the affected faculty. It was a unilateral administrative decision sprung unexpectedly upon the faculty. We appreciate the fact that no Entomology faculty were directly terminated, though they were forced to find homes in other departments, to seek academic positions elsewhere, or to retire.
In addition, the administration's unilateral actions violated not only basic AAUP priniciples (e.g., Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, 1966) , but also those included in the university's Regulations regarding Program Reduction (1992) and the State's Oregon Administrative Rules. Most of these violations are described in the letter below.We fear that similar unilateral decisions will be imposed on other departments in the coming years, especially given the massive reorganization implicit in the OSU-2007 process. Faculty need to be alert and ready to protect their discipline. Most of the Entomology faculty had no idea of the extent to which their rights were being violated.
The AAUP Board was disappointed with Interim-president White's response to our letter, which claimed that faculty were consulted and knew what was going on. We stand by our interpretation, which was based on discussions with multiple faculty within the Entomology Department.
March
3, 2003
Tim White, Interim President
Oregon State University
Dear Interim President White,
The Executive Board of the local AAUP chapter would like to express our
profound disappointment regarding the termination of the Entomology Department
and its associated faculty. We have been in contact with three faculty
and one emeritus faculty, all of whom have expressed dismay and disbelief
at the way their discipline and individual faculty members have been treated.
We will not discuss similar problems regarding the termination and restoration
of Rangeland Resources, although the actions raise similar issues.
The termination of Entomology represents a unilateral decision made by
the OSU Administration without the necessary and sufficient input from
the affected faculty. As such, it violates many facets of the AAUP principles
regarding shared governance. In particular, the AAUP believes that faculty
have the most expertise and are thus best qualified for making effective
decisions affecting their disciplines. Without faculty input, ill-informed
and harmful decisions are likely to be made. To make effective decisions,
it is essential that administrative and faculty perspectives are shared.
This was not the case in the decision to dissolve the Entomology Department.
Not only were AAUP principles violated, but also the rules of the Oregon
University System and the procedures of Oregon State University. Regarding
the OUS, OAR 580-21-315 states that program eliminations can be made upon
determination “pursuant to institutional procedures providing for
faculty and other appropriate intput” that such eliminations are
appropriate. Regarding OSU, the Faculty Senate (1992) formulated a set
of “Institutional procedures and criteria for program redirection,
reorganization, reduction and termination”. A major theme of this
document is that input from the affected faculty must be obtained prior
to a decision to terminate a department. This prerequisite is evident
in the document’s preface: “Academic program reorganization
requires faculty consultation”. It is made more explicit in the
section on procedures. When proposals arise out of the Colleges, the Faculty
Consultative Group (FCG) “must have the opportunity to solicit faculty
and other input from affected units” if there is no assurance that
faculty had input in dicussions at the college level. As with the FCG,
the Council of Academic Administers (CAA) “must have the opportunity
to solicit faculty and other input from the affected units”. The
thrust of these procedures is to insure strong academic disciplines and
to protect departments from inappropriate termination.
The required faculty input was not obtained from members of Entomology.
The FCG was called well after the decision to terminate the department
and the FCG did not interview any affected faculty. We do not know whether
the CAA was even convened, but the Deans of Science and Agriculture did
not speak with the Entomology department regarding the possibility of
termination. Although meetings occured, the Deans did not bring up the
possibility of termination or obtain crucial input. Instead, faculty in
Entomology were impersonally informed through e-mail that their department
was being dissolved, which came as a complete surprise to most of them.
None of the reasons for departmental termination were put in writing,
but were instead subsequently presented by the Dean through a set of overheads
that the faculty found to be unclear and unconvincing. We can only conclude
that this was a blatantly unilateral administrative action with no input
from the faculty, and that its justification consisted of metrics and
mission statements that the faculty found to be obscure and vague.
Entomology was previously placed on “probation” due to conflicts
in the department. We do not know the details of their problems. We do
know, however, that probations are usually accompanied by reviews that
result in feedback regarding progress toward improvement. These reviews
did not occur, even though faculty asked for them. In fact, last summer
they were told that no review was needed because they were doing “fine”.
Thus, it seems that faculty were denied the review process that would
have allowed them to demonstrate their improvement and to protect themselves.
We also note that many of the problems facing Entomology probably arose
from administrative decisions not to fill vacant positions. Specifically,
eleven faculty retired between 1994 and 2002, but only two were replaced
(and two new positions were gained through legislative line-items). In
the words of a group of nine emertus faculty, “The overal deficit
of 9 faculty positions between 1994 and 2002 speaks volumes as to the
reasons for the entire Dutson presentation”. In addition, the Faculty
Senate Guidelines state that “The University administration will
act in good faith and diligently seek out and attempt to place the affected
faculty member in an alternate position on the University”. Again,
this was not done. Faculty were told to meet with and find homes in other
departments (by December!). It was not even made clear to them whether
their salaries and space would follow them. They have received virtually
no support from their adminstrators. In speaking with members of Entomology,
we found them to feel discouraged and anxious about their future careers,
which is of course exactly what you would expect.
Returning to the AAUP’s perspective, the termination of Entomology
will have dire effects on the faculty’s academic freedom. Even if
the entomology faculty members do manage to find homes in other departments,
their instruction and research will be in the context of the goals of
their new departments. This may make it difficult for the entomologists
to exercise their basic right of freedom in research and instruction.
The question of whether this reorganization is the most effective way
to pursue entomological research was never discussed by those most qualified
to comment.
In addition, a reduced and geographically scattered department may weaken
crucial lines of communication between entomologists and their students.
This will undermine their ability to carry out and further develop their
core academic functions of research and instruction. Their role in governance
may also be undermined. Because they will be forced to function as isolated
outsiders in their new departments, the entomologists will not have the
support and advocacy of like-minded colleagues. Nor will they have a chair
who can protect and advance their discipline. Finally, the dissolution
of Entomology may turn out to be a serious loss for the University and
for the state of Oregon, as emphasized in the report presented by the
Emeritus Faculty.
We object to this unilateral administrative decision in the strongest
possible terms. Affected faculty must have input in these types of decisions.
They must have the right to protect their academic freedom, their careers,
and also their discipline. If the university wants to make reasonable
decisions, then it must obtain the best information possible, which in
these types of cases will include that from the faculty in the affected
department. Without faculty input, faulty decisions are likely to be made.
Furthermore, given the administration’s recent unilateral actions,
we can only expect that the OSU-2007 reorganizations will be characterized
by similar decisions that bypass faculty input. Again, this will violate
faculty rights, damage the academic disciplines, and increase tension
between faculty and administrators.
It is our understanding that new guidelines are being drawn up for reorganizations
during the OSU-2007 process. We strongly recommend that the guidelines
should not be stated in ambiguous terms. For example, we see statements
along the lines that “the FCG must have the right or opportunity
to seek faculty input” to be problematic, because such a right can
easily be ignored. Instead, the guidelines should clearly that the affected
faculty must have the right to provide input, and that the FCG and CAA
have the responsibility of hearing this input. We would like to receive
a copy of these guidelines as soon as they are available.
We also ask that the administration do everything possible to find the
best possible homes for all members of the Entomology Department.
Most important, we ask that the administration reconsider it’s decision
to terminate the Entomology Department. We would like to see the university
follow its own procedures by reopening the case and obtaining the required
faculty input. It may well be that restoring Entomology as a department
would be the best thing for the faculty, the academic discipline, and
thus the university as a whole. It would also help restore confidence
in the administration’s commitment to shared governance. Without
such confidence, we view the OSU-2007 process with considerable pessimism.
Sincerely,
Doug Derryberry, for the
Executive Board of the OSU Chapter
American Association of University Professors
cc: Arnold, Bloomer, Dutson, Burke.
