For most of this week, we have been discussing the important role the student member of the Board of Visitors plays and how that position can be made more effective. There is, however, another group of people on Grounds who are also profoundly affected by the Board’s decisions, yet have no formal representation on the Board. The University’s faculty should have a permanent non-voting representative to the Board, as students do.
The faculty are currently represented on the Board by a consulting member who sits on three committees: the Educational Policy Committee, the External Affairs Committee and the Special Committee on Diversity. Faculty Senate President Edmund Kitch said he will serve as this representative during the current Board meeting. This position was created in June 2007 to allow a greater faculty voice on the committees that are relevant to the faculty.
Faculty certainly already had some avenues by which their opinions were communicated to the Board. Their opinions hold more sway with the University president, who helps to formulate the Board’s agenda and make recommendations about policies it should pursue. One would also imagine if the Faculty Senate or even an individual faculty member were to take the time to contact Board members in advance of meetings and express concerns, those issues would be taken up at the next meeting. Kitch said he imagined a faculty member could even gain an opportunity to speak with the Board simply by requesting it of the rector.
Still, allowing a consulting member at some committee meetings is an improvement over the past system. The consulting member, however, is not a formal member of the Board. Unlike the student member, the consulting member is a member only of the committees on which he sits. Some members of the faculty are not satisfied with this arrangement. “That’s partly a reaction to the fact there’s a student member,” Kitch said. They feel the interests of the faculty are as crucial to the mission of the University as the interests of the students, and faculty thus deserve the same formal status for their representative.
Students are designated a permanent seat on the Board, which is filled each year by a different student. The advantage to having a full-time member of the Board is that student serves as a sort of moderator. Rather than having students approach the Board directly or having the Board contact student leaders for their opinions, the student member can synthesize student concerns and present them to the Board. A faculty member could do the same for faculty concerns.
In fact, one would imagine a faculty member could be even more effective than a student member. Students have an incentive to see the position of Board member as a resume-padding opportunity. They gain strong connections with influential people in their term, giving them good reason not to make any Board members upset. A faculty member would not have such an incentive, making him perhaps an even stronger advocate for faculty concerns — concerns that often align with those of students. A faculty member would also not be limited to only one year on the Board, making his understanding of the Board and the University community that much more insightful.
More importantly, such a position would send a strong symbolic message that the University recognizes its primary role is in cultivating scholars, whether they are students or faculty. If the University is to attract first-rate faculty, it must take care of the faculty it has.