Polls show hesitance among KU Faculty Senate for vote of no-confidence in chancellor, provost
photo by: Screenshot // University of Kansas Faculty Senate
In the University of Kansas’ Faculty Senate meeting Thursday afternoon, many faculty members expressed hesitation and concern at the idea of a vote of no-confidence in the chancellor and provost.
Though Thursday’s meeting simply involved a discussion of no-confidence regarding the chancellor, Douglas Girod, and provost, Barbara Bichelmeyer, Faculty Senate president Lua Kamal Yuille explained what exactly a potential vote of no-confidence would mean.
“It would be a strong symbolic statement that the voting body deems the subject of the vote — in this case it would be the chancellor or the provost — unfit to hold their position based on their actions,” said Yuille, who is also a professor of Law at KU.
Yuille took two informal polls at the beginning of the meeting to gauge how Faculty Senate members would respond if asked if they were prepared to vote that they had no confidence in the leadership of the chancellor or the provost. Participation in the informal polls was voluntary. Yuille said she wanted to administer the polls so that she could see how the members of the Faculty Senate felt as of Thursday afternoon, and in case not everyone who wanted to speak during the meeting had the opportunity, due to time.
Twenty-seven Faculty Senate members answered the first poll, which was about the chancellor. Of the 27 people who responded, 22 said they would not be prepared to vote that they have no confidence in the chancellor, and five said they would. According to Yuille, there are 39 members of the Faculty Senate, but it was unclear if all members were present at the meeting, which was held over Zoom. The second poll was about the provost.
Specific numbers were not shared regarding the second poll, but of the members who voted, 85% voted that they would not be prepared to vote they have no confidence in the provost, and 15% said they would be prepared to vote that they had no confidence.
Yuille then opened the meeting for discussion. Hossein Saiedian, a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, said he believed a vote of no-confidence would not achieve anything.
“We do not want to burn all the bridges that we have with the administration,” he said. If the Faculty Senate did vote for no-confidence, and the provost, for example, did leave, “Then what?” Saiedian asked.
“Perhaps some of us may get some personal satisfaction but the real problem — this huge budgetary problem, will still remain,” he said. As the Journal-World reported, Gov. Laura Kelly’s budget recommendations include a 5.3% cut to KU’s base appropriation, and KU is currently facing a projected shortfall of $74.6 million due to the COVID-19 crisis.
“Given the sheer volume of the crisis that we are facing right now, in my opinion, the best course of action is to collectively try to resolve it,” Saiedian said. “Help the administration and also ask the administration to hear us and involve us so we can contribute in addressing the critical challenges we are facing.”
During the meeting, faculty members brought up issues they see in the administration, such as a lack of transparency, the lack of consultation prior to changes in KU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging and, largely, KU’s response to a new Kansas Board of Regents policy.
KU is the only public Regents’ university to consider using a temporary policy that gives university CEOs more power to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees — including tenured faculty members — in light of the financial crisis many universities face. Over 1,040 KU faculty and staff members have signed a statement denouncing the policy.
Allard Jongman, a professor of linguistics, said that the KBOR policy, by removing tenure protection for two years, also removes academic freedom.
“By not rejecting the policy, our administration here at KU indicates that academic freedom is not a priority and is dispensable,” he said. “As Faculty Senate, it is our responsibility to question the administration’s position. Anything less would make us look out of touch with our faculty constituents at best and irrelevant at worst.”
Forrest Pierce, an associate professor of music, said he did not want the Faculty Senate to bring the matter of no-confidence to a vote. While he said many administrative decisions during his time at KU have caused him pain or frustration, that didn’t mean he didn’t have confidence in the ability and intention of university leaders. Pierce did call on the administration to make decisions with transparency, shared governance and fair rubrics.
One faculty member, John Hoopes, suggested that instead of a vote of confidence or no-confidence, which he called an “either or situation,” a better teaching strategy would be to give the university leaders a letter grade. Although the anthropology professor’s suggestion received some interest from one faculty member, another expressed distaste at the idea.
“These are not undergraduates or beginning graduate students. These are people with MDs, PhDs, people who’ve been in higher education,” said John Poggio, an educational psychology professor. Poggio said the administration needs to talk to faculty governance.
Geraldo Sousa, a professor of English, said the Faculty Senate should affirm its confidence in the chancellor. He also said the chancellor should send out an “SOS” to donors to help “plug this budget deficit.”
Ultimately, Poggio motioned that the members of the Faculty Senate go out and talk to their colleagues, and return to the next meeting prepared to continue the discussion. The motion was unanimously approved.
KU’s Faculty Senate typically meets twice a month during the spring semester, meaning their next meeting will likely be March 11.
COMMENTS