Why Harvard Faculty Should Reject a Faculty Senate | Opinion

For many of us faculty members, the past few months have culminated in a series of superlative highs, combined with a wave of seemingly endless lows.

We have endured the intense experience of the high hopes for Claudine Gay’s presidency, the fierce controversy over addressing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on campus, the daunting political quagmire of Congressional hearings, Gay’s eventual resignation and a series of targeted plagiarism charges against high-ranking politicians. profile faculty and senior staff, particularly Black women. Even today, we continue to grapple with ongoing student protests against Israel’s behavior in its war against Hamas.

In light of these issues, two common threads characterize my discussions with educators in the social sciences and humanities. First, there is an acute sense that Harvard has not advanced an effective narrative about the real scope and nature of scholarly activity, education, or the vibrant character of daily life on campus. And second, many are deeply concerned that too many important university decisions are made without faculty understanding or input.

The faculty have made their message clear: governance at Harvard must change. I wholeheartedly agree. But I reject the idea that such a change should involve the formation of a faculty senate.

I say this as someone who has had tenured faculty appointments at three other institutions with longstanding faculty senate structures, and who has served in two of them.

Let’s be honest about three points: First, no one joins the Harvard faculty to spend their time serving on a bunch of faculty Senate committees. Secondly, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences enjoys a privileged position in university life, with the College as the recognized heart of the institution. It was impossible for me to imagine that this status would be maintained under a university-wide senate structure. Finally, Harvard’s selectivity has historically been a crucial element in its incredible vitality and preeminence. In my experience, structures such as a faculty senate seek consensus and prioritize eventual regression to the mean, rather than fidelity to the search for true excellence.

In our current moment of apparent crisis, FAS faculty understandably want and deserve three things: a greater voice in key policy decisions; greater transparency in the processes and rationale behind key policy decisions; and increased accountability of top management, especially the Corporation, Harvard’s highest governing board.

It is not clear whether these goals would be well served by a faculty senate. There are more effective ways to achieve these goals without the need for a huge bureaucratic structure that would take up a huge amount of already taxing teacher time.

Many alternative changes to current rules and practices are worth considering. First, now that the dean of FAS—and not the president—chairs FAS meetings, faculty can more effectively articulate their concerns within these meetings. We must seize this opportunity to make our voices heard.

In lieu of a faculty senate, the Corporation should formalize communication options with faculty by ex officio adding several positions for them in the Corporation, with FAS always ensuring at least one such seat. The Academic Leadership Council – a body of Harvard’s academic deans and other university leaders – should also be given the power to call for the resignation of one or more members of the Corporation by a three-quarters vote.

We cannot let the trauma of the past few months lead us down an unnecessary, ineffective and potentially counterproductive path. The basic structure of this university’s governance has served its stakeholders—faculty, students, staff, alumni, the surrounding community, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and indeed the nation and our richly diverse world—very well over a remarkably long period of time.

We must reluctantly and after very careful deliberation tamper with that proven structure. Broad internal consultation, careful reflection and caution are crucial. As we embark on such a process, we must insist on a laser-sharp focus on the results we want to achieve.

Unlike some of my fellow faculty members, whom I deeply respect, I do not believe that a faculty senate, however designed, is the surest path to achieving the outcomes that matter most in light of recent troubling events . A variety of intermediate steps could better promote the transparency, leadership accountability, and faculty voice in the decision-making we want and deserve.

Let us not be seduced by a slogan or a model for which there is at best weak evidence of general effectiveness – let alone any evidence of clear suitability for an institution of Harvard’s well-deserved and proven superiority.

Lawrence D. Bobo is Dean of Social Sciences and WEB Du Bois Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University.