Search News


Browse Archives

News

Kingsville Democracy

October 10, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The president of Texas A&M University at Kingsville has "suspended" the Faculty Senate on his campus -- a move that Senate leaders say amounts to killing the independence of the faculty governing body.

Professors have been invited to elect faculty members to draft a new constitution for a new Faculty Senate, but they have been barred from voting for 15 professors who held senior positions on the old Faculty Senate. The president at Kingsville, Rumaldo Z. Juárez, says that the old faculty body was not cooperating with necessary changes needed to improve the university.

But faculty members say that the real reason Juárez killed the senate was that it opposed his efforts to change the tenure system. Those changes generally increased the emphasis on publications and winning grants -- changes that many professors say run counter to Kingsville's traditional role as a teaching institution.

"What the president has done is to tell us, 'If you aren't going to tell me what I want to hear, then I'm going to get myself a new senate,' " said Jim Phaup, a professor of political science who has taught at Kingsville for 35 years, holding numerous elected positions in the Faculty Senate. He is among those the president disqualified from future faculty elections.

In an interview, Juárez said that changing the senate provided "an opportunity to have some new faculty players involved, those who haven't been involved in all of this controversy." Asked if it might be un-democratic to exclude some professors from a faculty election, he said, "I guess it can be perceived that way," but added that outside reviewers have found that the Faculty Senate was not functioning well and it was "important to do this."

Juárez became president at Kingsville in 2002 and one of his first efforts was to overhaul the tenure system. He asked for faculty input and various committees of the Faculty Senate went to work on the issue. Several faculty members said privately that the president and most professors were in agreement on making tenure reviews more rigorous and on placing some additional emphasis on research.

But faculty leaders balked at the extent of the changes, and amid continued debate, Juárez started applying his standards. As he did so, he rejected 16 of 20 tenure and promotion decisions that had worked their way through the system -- even though many of them had strong backing not only from departments but from university committees and administrators. Faculty votes of no confidence have followed.

John Thompson, a professor of chemistry who has been a Faculty Senate leader, said that there was nothing wrong with tenure and promotion standards evolving. "Historically, this campus has been a teaching institution. That's how it started out, but over the years, and long before [Juárez] got here, we have been turning more and more to research," Thompson said.

But when the president changed the rules unilaterally, and without adequate warning, he said, "he pulled the rug out from under people."

Thompson also questioned whether Juárez was being realistic in expecting research publications and grants from scholars in all departments. "In some departments, it's difficult to get a lot of research money -- it's not there," he said.

Faculty leaders say that the shifting standards and de-emphasis on teaching have hurt morale. Many of those speaking out are senior professors, but the Faculty Senate has published on its Web page accounts of other professors' views. One letter from an anonymous junior faculty member said that the new tenure philosophy appeared "punitive" and that the university did little -- aside from rejecting people for tenure -- to promote a better research environment.

This professor went on to say that new faculty members were being held to standards completely different from those on which previous generations of professors had been hired and promoted.

Juárez said that when he arrived at Kingsville, many faculty members were being promoted in violation of "existing criteria" requiring evidence of quality in research, teaching and service. He also said that requirements were vague and inconsistent, and that the tougher stance he took followed extensive discussion with faculty members.

He makes no apology for requiring more research, noting the Kingsville is classified as a "research intensive university" and has 52 master's programs and 6 doctoral programs. An emphasis on research "really should not be a surprise" to anyone, he said.

Anger over the abolition of the Faculty Senate at Kingsville extends beyond that campus. The Texas Faculty Association issued a statement Thursday saying that it was "positively Orwellian" for the university to say that it was replacing one faculty body with another to improve governance. The statement also said that Juárez's ban on some faculty members being elected to the new committee was "tantamount to the act of a despot."

Juárez said that many faculty members support the changes his is making, and cautioned against talking to the leaders of the old Faculty Senate (who were elected) to evaluate faculty attitudes. Asked for the names of any faculty members who are pleased that he abolished the Faculty Senate, Juárez declined to provide them. "I'm not going to put them on the spot," he said. "That's what I'm here for."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Kingsville Democracy

  • Faculty senates
  • Posted by Steve Finner on October 10, 2005 at 8:29am EDT
  • While a sad story , it comes as no surprise in this day of corporate style "management" of higher education, and such presidential attitudes have been one of the principal reasons why a majority of public sector faculty, in those states that permit public employee collective bargaining (Texas NOT being one of them, but that is no surprise either), have voted to unionize.

    On the other hand, the majority of faculty senates are little more than powerless debating societies.

  • Kingsville "Democracy"
  • Posted by Bill Harris , Chairperson/English and Communication at University of Texas at Brownsville on October 10, 2005 at 9:22am EDT
  • As a faculty member "just down the road" from Kingsville, in Brownsville, Texas, and a former Senate President myself, I find this entire business deplorable. However far apart the parties may be, there is always "common ground" for people of goodwill. That said, the President's actions in this instance leave me in little doubt as to where reason lies in Kingsville. Rule by decree is not "ahared governance" in any sense that I understand. I have little doubt that the President means well (in a misguided sort of way), but actions such as those described in this article lead me to believe that the A&M system needs to do some administrative housecleaning in Kingsville. Other institutions are confronting the tensions between teaching missions and scholarly output everyday. Some of them (sadly, probably a pronounced minority) are finding innovative solutions to these and other problems by getting the whole campus community to work together, through shared governance, rather than over its bleeding corpse (pardon the hyperbole).

  • A problem of identity
  • Posted by huntly on October 10, 2005 at 5:01pm EDT
  • This looks like another instance of a university president with delusional ambitions, probably encouraged by corporate board members, of moving up in the rankings by decimating the quality teaching faculty and replacing it with some of the countless formulaic article-churning scholar-clones that are currently being mass-produced by our graduate programs. It doesn't seem to matter to him that this philosophy is in direct conflict with the needs, goals, or philosophies already developed and cultivated by the faculty, and sought-after by those students who choose to enroll there. Those faculty who were recently denied tenure were no doubt hired with certain expectations and demands placed upon them, and which, according to the departments and committees evaluating them, they have successfully met. Rather than punishing those who have already put in their time, why not apply the "new philosophy" to new hires? Why not seek a gradual balance of teaching experience and scholarly output by offering incentives to current faculty to increase the amount and quality of their scholarship? Why not cultivate the resources that you already have by seeking outside funding for projects that some of these older faculty are uniquely qualified to pursue--studies of teaching and pedagogy, the history and development of their respective disciplines, public education projects, community outreach programs, mentoring programs, etc.? Rather than trying to forge a new identity, why don't these universities work on refining the identity that they already have--moving forward in a natural and productive way, rather than through a kind of "slash and burn" method of change. How can that not create resentment and resistance? The new crop of scholars aren't going to benefit from being hurled into an atmosphere of angry resentment and hostile tensions. It's a mutually destructive scenario.

  • President Juarez and Texas A&M-Kingsville Faculty Senate
  • Posted by Cecilia Aros Hunter , University Archivist at Texas A&M University-Kingsville on October 14, 2005 at 9:26am EDT
  • Dr. Juarez has shown courage and strength by finally stopping the tyranny of a faculty senate that has worked at humiliating the past three presidents and embarrassing our very proud little University. The Senate does not represent a majority of this Faculty. The same people continuously get themselves re elected because no one else wants to serve with them. They express only opposition to anything suggested by the administration. They have only negative suggestions. Many of us, and I have surveyed the faculty, are opposed to many of the Faculty Senate's actions.

  • Developments in Kingsville - Home of Autocracy
  • Posted by J. D. Phaup , Professor at Texas A&M University-Kingsville on December 7, 2005 at 11:29am EST
  • A&M System Chancellor Bob McTeer trashed the TAMUK faculty senate and its leaders in an October speech to Texas Council of Faculty Senates. TCFS went on to pass a resolution supporting the faculty senate. The newly formed Committee to Save Shared Governance issued a point-by-point response to McTeer's speech and a related document entitled "Rumors and the Truth.+ "Rumors and Truth" contained plenty of the former and little of the latter. Other organizations have also passed resolutions in support of the faculty. The local Texas Faculty Association chapter found through an open records request that a presidentially-sponsored and administration-run election for a "constitutional conventon" to write and new and APPROVED faculty constitution was seriously flawed and its turnout misrepresented by the Administration. The turnout was 49%, but the Administration had claimed 62%. Chancellor McTeer issued a public correction to TFA's report which was itself factually incorrect. TFA was right in what it reported!

    TAMUK President Rumaldo Juarez claims that state law does not allow him to share ANY decision making with faculty or anyone else -- but only to accept "advice." Yet he says he is trying to bring about "improved" shared goverance at TAMUK. State TFA Director was quoted in a news article as saying that Juarez's claim was "Orwellian."

    A&M system policies don't even mention shared governance. It appears that in spite of monumental efforts in some areas to bring itself into the national mainstream, the A&M system has little use for such nationally accepted practices as shared goverance and academic freedom.

    What the TAMUK senate did wrong was that it stood up for faculty and said they disagreed with the president on several university issues. The senate had no power to block the president's initiatives. This is all about the right to have a different opinion. It is about attempted suppression of free expression on our campus. And it has been building for some time. President Juarez and Chancellor McTeer, and evidently A&M Regents, don't tolerate dissenting opinions. It is not enough to override such opinions. Evidently they must be snuffed out completely. They are pulling out all stops to silence any opposition or dissent at all, saying that thesenate's actions were out-of-bounds IN THE A&M SYSTEM. A strange stance for a system that aspires to be considered "world class."

    To follow events at TAMUK go to http://savesharedgovernance.org

    J D Phaup
    Temp. Chair Committee to Save Shared Governance