Faculty and Administrators, Administrators and Faculty

I have, for almost four years now, been trying to crack the nut of the origins of, and solutions to the multitude of tensions/misunderstandings/etc. between administrators and faculty members. There is something, I suspect, both particular and universal about this relationship. I have listened and watched and felt frustrated at some entrenched attitudes on both sides of the equation. I have been in high-level meetings where I feel someone in room simply had a kind of knee-jerk skepticism about faculty (whether laziness, cluelessness, primadona-syndrome and the rest) and among faculty who have really un-reconstructed notions about administrators; in other words, faculty who claim that their administrator colleagues are in it for the power grab or that they are simply (and simple) bureaucrats who could never understand what “it is like” to be a faculty member or are wedded to metrics and just “don’t get it”. Both. And more. Never mind that many of our administrative leaders are also faculty members (and active in their research and mentoring) or that faculty is not and will never be a uniform category, in any sense. What do I mean? Well. Perhaps the only way to explain is by way of example.

There is a new emphasis on teaching excellence, on teaching & learning and on student success across the university and indeed the country and world. Some colleagues who tend toward cynicism will scoff at this notion. Why? Because there is nothing new here, nothing to look at or because they may be skeptical about the intentions of new mandates coming down from on high, even if they reflect their own values.  Some of that is fair enough. Many of us have long worked hard to be excellent teachers, put our students first and many department chairs have taken seriously annual evaluation of teaching and departments have considered a faculty member’s classroom performance and student learning centrally during their tenure and promotion and promotion deliberations. But not all.

And, too, the category of faculty members has widened in the past five to seven or more years, and some of that weighs on the emphasis on teaching. We now have many more instructors, whose primary assignment is teaching at the same moment that student success has been emphasized and elevated.

There is really no way to have missed this. There are many signs and programs and resources that have been created and devoted, and no doubt many reading this blog have been involved in the various processes over time. There is the Teaching Evaluation Project, which began well over two years ago, that has many departments and colleges strategizing about the best ways, in their home disciplines, to evaluate excellent teaching and student learning. Countless faculty members have worked with countless administrators over countless hours to devise plans and projects that will serve the needs of our students and create rewards for those faculty members who show results. Language in the Tenure and Promotion manual is being revised to reflect this new emphasis and faculty now, for years, have been asked to look out for their most vulnerable students, give them a hand and some extra attention to be sure they have all the support that they need to stay in school and to graduate in a time manner (“focus on four”). Numerous “pathways” have been created to: 1. Be sure that with raised expectations vis a vis test scores and GPAs, the most vulnerable still have an opportunity to study and have access to the tools for social mobility through education; 2. Support our most academically advanced students to move through their programs efficiently; 3. Help with the state metrics and thus overall institutional reputation and resources.  Too, there are now Top Scholar Awards in Teaching and Mentorship, a change that was not universally well received by all faculty members. The intent was to emphasize the fact that teaching and mentoring are valued at FIU and seen as an accomplishment right alongside research and creative production. The Provost himself has said this and has formed committees and charged individuals to oversee all of these changes and new emphases to help bring FIU into the Top 50 Public Institutions in the Country (US News and World Report).

What does this have to do with where I began? Faculty and Administrators and Administrators and Faculty. Well, administrators are seemingly uniformly behind this new emphasis. The why is multifaceted, from state metrics to empathetic commitment to professional satisfaction. Faculty, on the other hand, while by and large teaching enthusiasts, in some instances resent the administration interfering in their classrooms and others altogether reject the notion that teaching and mentorship are on par with research and creative activities. Others still insist on the close relationship between research and teaching.  We have a large faculty, one with a variety of values, most often well-grounded and well-argued. Some feel there is a “cultishness” to the embrace of these new teaching values (cultural sensitivity, flipped classrooms, hybrid environments and the rest); others hold on tightly to their authority and “sage on the stage” status (after all we faculty members are the ones with the PhDs and years of training).

Yet, other faculty members are delighted and celebratory and embracing of the new expectations and systems of values and evaluations and rewards. Some simply feel their work in the classroom and mentorship with their students is truly valued for the first time. Our institution has embarked on a culture change, a sea-change of values and that type of change takes time and involves fear and push back. That is part of the process. But and still, perhaps, relying on hackneyed dichotomous notions serves no one.

I guess my main point here, my only point in these words, is that by and large administrators are not in cahoots with larger state power brokers or simple-minded, narrow-thinking bureaucrats. And, most faculty members are not entitled or feel superior or lazy and living carelessly off taxpayer dollars. No, not at all. Let’s not “look down” on one another. Let’s respect each other’s individual and collective roles and let’s have faith that, in fact, there is no invisible hand guiding policy or army of cantankerous professors spreading ill will. Instead, most of us, if not almost all of us, believe that we are, in fact, in this together, have the same overarching goals and let us see past the often invisible divides of our own creation. There is no one faculty and there is no one set of administrators. So, let’s not create false enemies, straw men (and women). Rather, perhaps, we should express our displeasures when they arise, ask for solutions and ultimately work together to teach our students, perform our research, help our communities confront challenges and become Top 50. It benefits us all.

I intend no Pollyannaish-ness.

What do you think?

Rebecca