Dear Colleagues involved in post-tenure review (copy to my law faculty) (and yes, Peter Gilkey, you may post),
I have finally found the time (at 5:00 am here in the Republic of Moldova, between Ukraine, Romania, and the breakaway Trans-Dniester Republic) to read most of the recent correspondence on post-tenure review, since last week's Senate meeting. (I may be seeing only a slice, but at least it is a meaty slice.)
The thoughtfulness of messages like those of Charly Wright, Peter Gilkey, Suzanne Clark, Mike Russo, Norm Savage, and others has impressed me no end (apologies for not going back to list the names of ALL the letters that impressed me).
It has been a long process, with some twists and bends in the road, but I have the impression that we are now finally in a phase of true faculty governance in our post-tenure review deliberations. The reality, not merely the appearance, of participatory faculty governance gives me great hope that what may evolve out of a year's work of various committees -- ad hoc, ad ad hoc, and ad ad ad hoc -- and various Administration inputs (from Provosts, legal counsel, and others) could be both beneficial to our beloved (although sometimes irritating) University and "legitimate" in the way that only thorough airing of ideas and "buying into" solutions can guarantee.
President Frohnmayer has often conducted meetings (at our Law Faculty and elsewhere) by referring to "Frohnmayer's 10 Rules." Among them have been "no personal attacks" and "own the solution." There has never been, and never should be, a rule saying "no passionate debate on either merits or process" -- although sometimes passionate debate on merits or process may be taken to be a personal attack. To the degree that this may have happened, or that any of our words (certainly including mine) have been understood to be a personal attack when they were not intended as such, a deep breath is beneficial, and some sort of apology helpful (which I certainly offer).
But the merits and the process ARE important. I believe we are moving in a healthy direction on both. Good process will produce good substance, I believe. And that is the key to President Frohnmayer's rule: "Own the solution."
He does not say "Own the problem," although that is implicit. And I am sure that he does not mean "Knuckle under to solutions that you find unacceptable." He does not say "Own any solution that comes along," but simply "Own THE solution." To me, this means that if we don't like the solution that is on offer, we have a duty to keep engaged in the process, so that the ultimate solution is one that we who care can, indeed, "own" because it emerges not from thin, one-vote majorities but from a process of collaboration and consensus.
Oregon prides itself on its "Open Meetings Law" (sometimes called the Sunshine Act). Sunlight in proceedings is a great disinfectant. The US Congress in recent years adopted an "Electronic Freedom of Information Act" for federal agencies, recognizing that what used to be in printed form now often takes place in e-mail, and also recognizing that distribution of materials on the World Wide Web can add another window of transparency to what is happening inside "governing bodies." (By the way, I participated yesterday in a workshop of people from about 15 countries of Eastern Europe, former Soviet states, and Western Europe here in Moldova on this topic of enhancing access to information and public participation through electronic means.)
Along this line, the University of Oregon Senate, the Senate Executive Committee, and various ad hoc committees are "governing bodies" in Oregon. In my view it is essential that the e-mail discussions of members of the Senate and the Senate ExCom be accessible on a real-time basis by others of us in the University faculty who have an interest in faculty governance. But in the meantime, Peter Gilkey should be saluted for his yeoman work in making materials including much of the discussions available on Web pages. I venture to say that no university in the US has created such a publicly accessible documentation of its deliberations on post-tenure review and someone in the social sciences or computer sciences might well consider analyzing what went on here in Oregon, for scholarly publication, after our current debates and policy development is complete.
I have some substantive comments, but will save them for another message.
John