Shared Governance, Junior Faculty, and HBCUs

Empowering the faculty is proving to be good for all constituencies at Spelman College.

By Beverly Guy-Sheftall

Although there is a large body of scholarship on historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), their governance practices have been underresearched. What little research we have on the topic points to campus climates that are “president-centric” and hierarchical structures that do not encourage faculty governance. Yet my own institution, Spelman College—founded in 1881 and one of only two historically black colleges for women—has made much progress in faculty governance over the past twenty years. For the past eight years, I have served on the college’s faculty council (the equivalent to a faculty senate), first as a member, then as president. During my service, we have probed the barriers or resistance on campus to greater faculty involvement in institutional decision making, and we have created opportunities for more candid dialogue about shared governance. We are also helping to foster a campus culture that encourages junior and senior faculty alike to become more active in their roles as academic leaders. It hasn’t always been easy, and it’s still a work in progress, but faculty members, with support from the administration, are exploring more effective, long-term strategies for institutionalizing a new model of shared governance that we hope will be replicated on other campuses of our size, especially at HBCUs.

Although HBCU presidents have traditionally shared less power than their counterparts at many predominantly white institutions, perhaps there has been some justification for that. As James Minor, an HBCU alumnus and higher education scholar at Michigan State University, pointed out in the May–June 2005 issue of Academe, the less robust governance structures at HBCUs relate to the fact that “strong presidential leadership . . . is partly responsible for the survival and progress of some campuses” in a national climate that has often been hostile to the values HBCUs represent. Faculty governance advocates at HBCUs, myself included, negotiate a difficult terrain in which we respect the best traditions of our institutions and at the same time push to develop more democratic forms of governance, especially those that incorporate junior faculty members into the governance process as early as possible.

On a personal note, I faced a difficult choice in 1976, when I decided, as an untenured faculty member, to join senior faculty members in a protest against the board of trustees over its appointment of another male president of the college. (During the April meeting of the board following the announcement of the new president, several hundred students and a few faculty members kept trustees locked in their board room for more than twenty hours in an effort to persuade them to reconsider the appointment.) The absence of formal faculty governance structures at that point in Spelman’s history made the decision to participate in the protest more daunting and risky for junior faculty members; however, faculty were not punished for their actions. This helped to create a climate, I believe, where junior faculty, in particular, could feel more comfortable about challenging the status quo.

Power Sharing

One of the most unusual aspects of the history of shared governance at Spelman is that Johnnetta B. Cole, shortly after she assumed the presidency in 1987, actually encouraged faculty to pursue the establishment of formal governance structures. Given her own history as an outspoken faculty member at the universities at which she had worked previously, especially with the establishment of black studies, and given her experience with faculty governance, I am convinced that she believed that Spelman would be a stronger institution if junior and senior faculty became more involved in important decision making on campus. Her commitment to sharing power with her senior staff and faculty provided an important catalyst for institutional change that would distinguish Spelman from other HBCUs in the 1990s.

Cole appointed a committee of senior and junior faculty members to explore shared governance, and a faculty council was initiated in 1994. Several other changes, such as the appointment of strong provosts, the rotation of department chairs, greater involvement of faculty in departmental matters, faculty input into the capital campaign, and faculty involvement in significant curriculum transformation, also contributed to the evolution of the college.

As a result of these initiatives, Spelman has been moving from a more president-centric culture to one in which shared decision making about important academic matters—tenure and promotion policies, faculty hiring, the faculty handbook, curriculum review, faculty grievances, and, most recently, program development and review—is more normative. Since the arrival of President Beverly Daniel Tatum in 2002, the faculty council has worked more closely with senior administrators as the shared governance process continues to evolve.

An important recent development has been the formation of a junior faculty caucus, which emerged in 2003 after a faculty member in the English department expressed frustration during her third-year review about insufficient mentoring. She took action by forming a caucus that assumed responsibility for mentoring junior faculty. In addition to functioning as a support group and organizing forums, the caucus has enabled junior faculty to become more involved on campus, although some still feel marginalized in the governance process.

In his Academe article, James Minor reminds readers that “developing an institution-wide definition of shared governance is essential for minimizing misunderstandings about the meaning of and process for decision making. Communication lapses can arise from an institutional culture that discourages the expression of diverse or dissenting views.”

His survey, one of the few studies of faculty governance at HBCUs, revealed that HBCU faculty have significant authority over academic matters such as the curriculum and tenure and promotion policies but less influence over nonacademic matters such as budget priorities, athletics, and the selection of the president. Site visits to campuses in the survey—eighty-eight were included—helped put into context the complex environments in which these institutions have had to operate and the ways their histories have differed from those of predominantly white colleges and universities.

All the campuses Minor examined valued shared governance, but he found a wide gap between faculty and administrators regarding perceptions of the effectiveness of faculty governance. Many respondents indicated that substantive academic decision making took place in faculty standing committees and departmental committees rather than in faculty senates.

As outgoing president of the faculty council at Spelman, I have taken seriously my role as a faculty leader in working with my faculty colleagues to stimulate college-wide discussions about governance. Here are some of the questions we’ve considered and that others might ask at their own institutions.

1. What would make decision-making processes more transparent, especially those related to such issues as faculty lines, budget priorities, and the organizational structure within academic affairs?
2. How might we improve communication among campus constituents so as to promote greater collaboration in addressing academic climate issues? One such issue involves the need to provide more opportunities for junior faculty members to assume leadership roles at the departmental and institutional levels. Doing so at the institutional level is especially difficult because untenured faculty are ineligible for membership on some key committees (the tenure and promotion committee, for example). How can we improve communication between the board of trustees and the faculty?
3. How might we engage in more candid dialogue about the systemic barriers to greater faculty involvement in decision making at HBCUs?
4. How might we make the academic mission more central to the way we conduct business and decide important issues that affect all aspects of institutional life?

Given the limited financial resources of HBCUs, economic imperatives frequently dictate academic decisions such as class size, faculty lines, the availability of particular majors or programs, and the nature of faculty appointments. It is difficult, for example, to secure senior faculty appointments, funds for endowed chairs, or even regular full-time faculty positions for important curricular initiatives. The solution has sometimes been greater reliance on part-time faculty, even with core courses or introductory courses in the disciplines. On too many of our campuses, faculty are excluded from decision making in these matters because they are not involved in budget discussions even at the departmental level.

Faculty leaders at Spelman understand the complexities inherent in tackling these issues. We also believe, however, that high-quality colleges and universities need effective shared governance practices and a palpable commitment to the involvement of faculty in decision making about all aspects of a college’s mission. Because untenured faculty are ineligible for membership on our faculty council, although they serve on other important college-wide governance committees and departmental committees, senior faculty members at Spelman have assumed greater responsibility for ensuring that shared governance is taken seriously. Over the past four years, we have met with relatively little resistance from the administration.

Secret of Our Success

Our success arises from several factors. Over the years, our faculty council has had strong presidents and assertive members who are committed to bringing about long-lasting changes in faculty culture. They have promoted the involvement of faculty, including junior faculty members, in institutional governance. In addition, they have encouraged open discussion of faculty behavior conducive to such involvement, shared with faculty effective governance models at other institutions, and explored how Spelman could become a stronger institution with a more engaged faculty. This project has benefited greatly from the presence of a strong junior faculty caucus and strategic mentoring of junior faculty by engaged senior faculty at the college.

President Tatum reached out to the faculty council when she first arrived on campus in 2002 and continues to meet with the council at least twice a year. When Yvonne Jackson became chair of the board of trustees in 2005, she sought the council’s advice and met with the council president. This past spring, the council met with President Tatum’s senior staff for the first time to share several concerns, attention to which will certainly result in an improved intellectual climate on campus. Perhaps most important, the Spelman faculty has been engaged as a collective in more focused discussions of shared governance because it has been a major priority of the faculty council over the past several years. Without these sustained dialogues and the vigilance of the council, old patterns would undoubtedly emerge, making faculty governance more elusive.

Ivory Paul Phillips, professor of social science education at Jackson State University, wrote a scathing review of HBCU governance in the July–August 2002 issue of Academe in which he said that “on most black college campuses, the budget is considered to be outside the purview of the faculty and the faculty senate.” One of the most promising developments in shared governance at Spelman has been President Tatum’s acceptance of a faculty council proposal for a budget committee. The provost will chair the committee, whose members will consist of both senior and junior faculty, including the president of the faculty council. The council will suggest members for the committee, which will convene in fall 2006 and begin deliberating about how to make the budget process more transparent. The committee will also consider resource allocation for academic programming and ways to increase faculty involvement in budget matters. Through this committee, Spelman faculty will engage for the first time in discussions about these matters with senior administrators. To share our experience with other HBCUs interested in more robust shared governance procedures, the faculty council is considering starting a newsletter that, among other issues, would include information about its evolving governance processes.

Faculty Resistance

It will be important for future studies of shared governance at HBCUs to explore a phenomenon that was apparent at Spelman but has not been alluded to in the literature to date. The “sad state of affairs on black college campuses” to which Phillips refers is mostly attributable to administrative resistance to faculty governance. But faculty can resist change as well. Changes in institutional culture often produce discomfort, even tension, among faculty members who have learned how to navigate hierarchical, president-centered environments by negotiating for their needs on an individual or departmental basis with presidents or provosts. Strong faculty senates or faculty handbooks that have clearly defined academic policies may actually work against certain individual or departmental agendas. Assertive, elected faculty leaders may be seen as threats in institutional contexts in which faculty are comfortable with “business as usual.” Junior faculty members may find it especially difficult to assume leadership positions and participate in shared governance when senior faculty are unwilling to share power or conduct business differently.

Other generational divides can affect faculty culture and governance reform as well. Senior faculty, for example, may be accustomed to tenure and promotion criteria that deemphasize scholarly research. But many junior faculty members, fresh out of graduate school, will expect to focus on scholarship in addition to teaching and service. Senior faculty may even resist new tenure and promotion guidelines (especially for full professor) more strongly than administrators, resenting what they perceive as reluctance among junior faculty to engage in substantive service on campus in favor of establishing a strong publishing record. These tensions are likely to fester if campuses fail to have candid discussions about them.

Through my experience on the faculty council at Spelman, where I’ve taught for thirty-five years, I have learned important lessons about shared governance at HBCUs. First, shared governance is worth struggling for, no matter how strong the resistance. In addition, we need to work harder to ensure the involvement of junior faculty members in governance structures. Their involvement is important for their own professional development and benefits the institution in that faculty members who feel included and empowered are easier to retain. Unlike passive junior professors, assertive new faculty members also make excellent role models for students and are more likely to become courageous, engaged senior faculty. Perhaps it is time for us at Spelman to revisit our eligibility requirement for faculty council, especially since resistance has weakened to the idea that various campus constituents might profitably contribute to campus governance.

In the final analysis, assertive, committed, and engaged faculty members are critical to any college’s well-being and continued growth, while passive, disengaged, or fearful faculty members contribute to an institution’s stagnation and imperil its future. Despite the historical fragility of shared governance at many HBCUs, strong faculty members have helped to make black colleges and universities what they’ve become since their beginnings in the nineteenth century. These capable faculty members have dedicated themselves to making their institutions better; resisted authoritarian presidents and provosts; pushed back against timid, deferential colleagues; and promoted positive change on departmental and college-wide committees and faculty senates. As we move forward, the ability of HBCUs to retain talented junior faculty will depend as much on our commitment to developing strong faculty governance processes as on our willingness to reduce teaching loads and increase salaries.

Beverly Guy-Sheftall, an alumna of Spelman College, is the founding director of the college’s Women’s Research and Resource Center and Anna Julia Cooper Professor of Women’s Studies. She is also an adjunct professor at Emory University’s Institute for Women’s Studies, where she teaches graduate courses. Her e-mail address is bsheftal@spelman.edu.

Comment on this article.

 Printer-Friendly Page