4
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Wednesday, October 9, 1968
Opinion forum: governance roles
by William M. Merrill
In recent years, there has been much discussion nationally as well as locally, of the proper roles of the several possible constituencies in the governance of universities. The following remarks are submitted because they express some elements that are pertinent to the discussion, although they have not been frequently heard.
At the outset, I express my appreciation of the work of SENEX and especially that of Professor Saricks, last spring as well as through the summer; and of the work of the Faculty-Student Committee on University Governance. Also, I admit that, faced with the same circumstances and the same pressures as were faced by these two groups, especially Professor Saricks, I cannot say what recommendations I might have had a hand in formulating. If anything I say appears to be negative in nature, it is certainly not intended to be personal criticism of any person who participated in the work of these two committees.
Too, I have heard the words "fair play" or similar expressions used several times in our discussions. I am not opposed to "fair play" in any game, but I do not think that we are engaged in a sporting event. I believe that the Faculty, including the Administration, is faced with the need for making some decisions that are ours to make because we have responsibilities to the University that are peculiar to the Faculty. No one else—particularly no student—faces these responsibilities, because no one else occupies the position of the Faculty in the University.
Last spring, the University was threatened with what might have been a major disruption, although it was evident that the threat stemmed from a very small group of students supported by a very small number of faculty members. Action we took at the time was taken under duress; regardless of other motives that influenced the vote, the votes were cast in an atmosphere of fear for the University that stemmed from a specific threat: the promise that we might not be able to avoid disruption if we did not pass, in the form in which they were presented, two resolutions that were laid before us.
At the time the resolutions were considered, discussion was minimal, almost entirely directed to the immediate problem, and the challenges so necessary to mature discussion were almost non-existent. No alternatives were extensively discussed. At no session in which I participated was there an analysis of the potential long-range effects on the University of Kansas as an institution, although I am sure that each of us was aware that we might be taking steps that could have very profound implications.
Perhaps I was alone, but I believed at the time that the action was taken without proper examination by the Faculty-in Council or Senate. All of us know of instances where faculties, including administrators, have resisted pressures—internal and external—on their institutions until the possible consequences of yielding to those pressures have been assessed. Last spring, for the first time in my experience, I believe I saw an otherwise strong Faculty in a fine University fail to insist upon its right and responsibility to properly examine a proposition before reaching a decision.
We now have the Committee recommendations before us. We may approve of them as they are; we may approve of them with modifications, minor or major; or we may reject them, referring the entire problem back to the Committee with appropriate instructions, and await new recommendations. Before we take any step, however, we must first execute our responsibility to examine the implications of what we do in terms of the future of this University. If we should decide to accept the recommendations, it should be because we have found a satisfactory answer to the question "why?"—the question "why not?" is not an appropriate one to ask. It should be because we have decided that the University will, in the long run, be a more effective and better institution for the changes that will result.
Reasons irrelevant to our decision are that we shall avoid trouble if we accept the recommendations; or that we shall be the first university to have accepted such far-reaching recommendations, or that these recommendations have the endorsement, limited or otherwise, of the Students or a particular group of students. Sometimes it is necessary to face trouble in order to defend an important principle or to protect an institution from destruction. We want to be the first to adopt far-reaching recommendations that may create change in the nature of our University only when we are as sure as we can be that the University will be better for the changes.
Student responsibilities to the University are quite different from those of the Faculty, and their positions on questions that may greatly affect the University are quite properly and quite likely to be different than the Faculty's.
One of the very real reasons why their positions may differ is that Students are not likely to have the same view of the overall function of a University as that held by the Faculty. For instance, universities long have been charged with the responsibility for placing equal emphasis on research and teaching. In my experience, the majority of students do not understand why this is so. Many of them believe it to stem from selfish motives on the part of faculty. Regardless of the opinions of students, universities cannot lightly abandon their duty
Editor's note: Consistent with the belief that, given equal play, truth will triumph over falsehood, the Kansan presents a non-partisan forum dedicated to the propositions of free speech. Ideas, institutions and issues will be attacked; people will not. The positions expressed in this column will be representative of the author and not necessarily the Kansan. Today's author is William M. Merrill, KU professor of geology.
to advance knowledge through research. Our society expects universities to conduct research and strongly supports them with funds to make it possible.
A second reason why student positions may differ from those of the Faculty is that students frequently do not appear to understand that a university is not and cannot be an agency for action. A university is a community—a word which according to Webster, does not equate with "complete democracy" as is being implied by a few representatives of the student body—a community within which problems are studied. Universities can lay claim to the right of academic freedom so long as they observe the limits of their function. To preserve their freedom, they cannot adopt institutional positions, especially but not exclusively on controversial questions. Although it is completely appropriate for individuals or groups of individuals within a university community to take stands or to take action, a university can lay claim to freedom only so long as it maintains its position as an agency to study and advance knowledge through careful analysis of all sides of questions—controversial or otherwise.
As was pointed out by Dean Heller last year, there are differences which distinguish students from faculty members, and these differences inevitably produce differences in the ways in which the two groups view their university. Faculty members should be the last to forget that their duties are different and their responsibilities to the University are greater than are those of Students.
Faculty members are selected very carefully by their peers. Candidates are required to submit evidence of their fitness for a position with us, and we inquire into their fitness for teaching as well as for research. Especially promising candidates are invited to visit with us and their characteristics are carefully assessed even as they, with equal care, assess ours. Interviews are followed by extended discussions before decisions are made and the successful candidate is invited to join us. When a candidate agrees to come to KU, his acceptance of our invitation means that some of the future of the University is invested in him, even as he has invested his future in us. Because of the import of this relation, however, some freedom of action is retained as he serves for an extended probationary period. He is required to "prove himself"—if I may use that expression—even as we are required to prove to him that we are a worthwhile investment.
Comparable criteria are not applied and a comparabale process is not followed in selecting our students, undergraduate or graduate. Any graduate of a Kansas high school may gain admission as a freshman. Somewhat higher but certainly not strikingly rigorous standards must be met by out-of-state or transfer students. Graduate students are selected on the basis of transcripts, examination scores, and letters of reference which indicate that they show promise. No matter what criteria they meet, they are admitted to a status in the University that is transient in nature.
Students are brought here to be students: not
because they have demonstrated competence, but to help them achieve competence; not because they have demonstrated accomplishment, but to prepare them to accomplish; not because their minds and habits are those of a disciplined scholar, but to help them develop the discipline of mind and habit necessary for them to accomplish their goals. The process of teaching includes, among other elements, the evaluation of student progress; the continuous measuring of the performance and promise against appropriate standards. This process is appropriate to their status in the University. They are apprentices who properly are required to prove themselves capable of attempting the next stage before being admitted to it. Degrees are awarded only to those who satisfactorily meet the standards against which they are evaluated. Under these circumstances, it requires a major distortion of the landscape to see a university as a completely democratic institution.
Students have the same long road to travel that faculty members have traveled in order to demonstrate their competence to take on responsibilities beyond those appropriate to students. Part of competence lies in the maturity necessary to appreciate the need for careful examination of problems before deciding upon the answers. Most students are relatively immature.
As evidence of this, I offer the vociferous group on campus that leads in pressing the questions before us. Its members apparently have arrived at all the answers for all of us without discussing the problems with anyone but themselves. Similar evidence is found in the rationale offered by the College Intermediary Board for several of the positions it has taken.
At the moment, we are faced with questions of how to insure that students are effectively heard so that their problems may be considered as decisions affecting them are reached. What should be the extent of their representation? What should be the extent of their role in the governing of the University? Is the mechanism proposed by the Committee the most effective means of assuring the students of an appropriate hearing? Far more important, will it insure a more effective university, not just a more effectively-expressed student voice? And are there better ways to make sure that students are heard?
The University is too large, too complex, and too meaningful an institution to allow us to answer these questions on any but the soundest grounds that we can find. If we make a serious mistake now, it will be most difficult—if not impossible—to turn back. What is proposed to us is not an experiment—it is a commitment. This is the reason that I urge you to ask the question "why?", not the question "why not?" We can move too rapidly and, later, wish that we had taken another road—or we can move more slowly, extending that which is successful and abandoning that which is not.
For the sake of the University-not just the students, not just the faculty, but the University-we must exercise care. The responsibility to the University which rests upon the shoulders of the faculty requires that it consider these problems and pertinent recommendations in ways that are quite different from and with results that may differ from those favored by the students, for it is the Faculty that will and should be held accountable for errors in judgment.
I hope that we are as successful in our decisions as most of us-Students and Faculty-are trying to be, but we shall not be if the decisions are not taken in a search for what is best for the University rather than what some believe to be best for them alone.
'You mean you don't want to play ball with your ol'd dad anymore?'
THE UNIVERSITY DAYY KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom—UN 4-3864
Business Office—UN 4-3538
A student newspaper serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester. Contact information: www.kansas.edu at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Contact information necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Executive Staff
Mel Adams ... Advertising Adviser
Managing Editor ... Monte Mace
Business Manager ... Jack Haney
Assistant Managing Editor ... Pat Crawford
... Charla Jenkins
... Alan T. Jones
... Steve Morgan
Alisha Winchester
Editorial Editor ... Alison Steimel
City Editor ... Bob Butler
Assistant City Editor ... Kathy Hall
Editorial Assistant ... Richard Lundquil
Sports Editor ... Ron Yates
Feature and Society Editor ... Rea Wilson
Associate Feature Editor ... Sharon Woodson
Copy Chiefs ... Judy Dague
... Linda McCreary
Don Wuesthausen
Sandy Zahradnik
Mark Willow
Advertising Manager ... Mike Willman
National Advertising Manager
... Kathy Sanders
Promotion ... Palam Flaton
Circulation Mgr. ... Jerry Bottenfeld
Classified Mgr. ... Barry Arthur
Member Associated Collegiate Prgms.