Towards Meaningful Participation in Shared Governance
Joint Statement from the Ad Hoc X-Divisional Covid-19 Committee and the AAUP-The New School Chapter on the Convening of the Task Force to Explore New Models for Liberal Arts at The New School
August 23, 2020
To the faculties of CoPA, Lang, NSSR, Parsons, and SPE, and Members of the UFS:
On August 14, the Provost’s Office (PO) and the deans of the five divisions announced the establishment of a “Task Force to explore new models for Liberal Arts at The New School.” While no intellectual or curricular rationale was provided for the framework of “liberal arts” to cover the range of disciplines and practices across the University, it appears that the Task Force was a response to faculty concerns regarding issues of transparency and faculty representation on bodies devising the restructuring of The New School.
Full transparency regarding the financial assumptions informing decision making has not been forthcoming. In keeping with the demands outlined in an earlier letter endorsed by faculty in each division, and sent to the PO through our respective deans, we urge that divisions instruct their representatives on the Task Force:
1. Request full financial information from the Administration necessary for the effective development and evaluation of restructuring proposals, including all information provided to Huron and reports received from Huron. Proposals for new formations cannot be created in the absence of complete information especially in the light of the economic argument that has been primarily proffered for restructuring.
2. Establish criteria for the development and evaluation of restructuring proposals. Such criteria should include examination of the degree to which the proposal:
relies on faculty expertise regarding curriculum and academic programs (for instance, does the proposal stem from sound intellectual and curricular premises? Does it involve and represent a range of faculty voices, scholarship and practice?);
addresses differences of student bodies across divisions (for instance, how does the proposal address both student bodies wherein most predominantly work full-time vs. those where they do not? How does the proposal deal with the needs of international students? How does the proposal engage with the various requirements of studio, practice-based, or community-engaged classes, vs. seminar and lecture formats?);
promotes faculty and student diversity (for instance, what will be the impact of the proposal on hiring and retention of faculty of color? On the recruitment of BIPOC, queer, and working-class students?);
advances goals of social and racial justice (for instance, does the proposal disproportionately affect programs that are in active dialogue with current social, political, environmental and racial issues? How does the proposed new formation actively encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to these issues and goals?);
addresses impacts on curriculum development, pedagogy, research, creative practice, and service (for instance, is the proposal attuned to the diverse scholarship and practices and their intersections across the university? What are the proposed administrative formations to support research and teaching? What implications does this organization have in terms of course and service loads as well as the support of research and creative practice?);
works to ameliorate the lack of parity among various employment categories (for instance, how are the University’s various faculty categories—full-time, part-time, RTA, RTA-OARS, EE, tenure, tenure-track—positioned in the proposal? Does the proposal reinforce existing labor and resource inequities such as service, research leave, annual and renewal assessment criteria?);
analyzes the impact on faculty—full and part time—and staff positions and conditions of work (for instance, how many people are adversely affected by the new proposal and in what ways? Who loses their jobs?);
works against competition among divisions and toward greater community solidarity (for instance, does the proposal primarily take into account the concerns of one division? Does the proposal have an expansive vision of how the new formation will contribute to the University at large?).
Assessment of the work and success of the task force—as a representation of meaningful faculty/staff participation and governance in a consequential process of university restructuring—should rightly depend on the fulfillment of the criteria outlined above.