In 1964, students at the University of California at Berkeley clashed with administrators in what became known as the Free Speech Movement. Students wanted more autonomy in their collegiate lives. The movement grew into large scale protests and sit-ins when the Berkeley administrators tried to expel a handful of student leaders. The conflict between the two parties virtually shut down UC Berkeley.

Eventually the university administrators backed down. One of the primary reasons for this was a vote by the faculty in support of the students. Once the faculty came down on one side of the conflict, and the issue was decided.

Berkeley administrators understood that the faculty of a university is the lifeblood of the institution. Students attend universities to study under the faculty. Administrators run universities to facilitate the research and teaching of the faculty. The faculty, more than any other group, exemplifies the values and traits of an institution and is the personification of academia.

When the faculty speaks, the institution speaks.

The recent petition by the tenured faculty of Wash. U.’s engineering school, while not unanimous, is a powerful statement that something is wrong. Almost two thirds of tenured professors supported the measure calling for the removal of Dean Sansalone. Additionally, many undergraduate and graduate students are very displeased with the dean’s conduct.

The central issue is not the dean’s Plan of Excellence. Dean Sansalone laid out this plan to address the fiscal and academic challenges facing the engineering school. Arguably, she was hired for the express purpose of executing such a plan, which calls for sweeping reforms and reorganizations within the school.

Rather, the center of the controversy is the manner in which the dean conducts herself. She has failed to effectively communicate with the community and has taken unilateral action without sufficient consultation with others. As a result, after a little more than a year into her new position, Dean Sansalone has lost the trust of the faculty and students of the engineering school.

Dean Sansalone’s attempt at leadership is a failure. While the Plan of Excellence may or may not be the right course for the school, it is overshadowed by the dean’s inability to communicate its importance and by her unilateral decision making.

Someone who builds trust and persuades the group to make the right choices is a good leader. As an administrator, the dean’s role is to serve the interests of the school and satisfy its needs. The onus is on Dean Sansalone to convince the faculty and students that the Plan of Excellence is in the best interest of the School of Engineering. It is not acceptable for Dean Sansalone to govern the school by edict.

We are not calling for Dean Sansalone’s removal, for two reasons. The first is that we do not feel that it is appropriate for us to dictate how Chancellor Wrighton or the University administration should act in this complicated situation at this time. The second is that we believe that such a call would be a waste of ink. The University cannot simply get rid of Dean Sansalone so quickly and under such circumstances without tarnishing its image. Her removal is not on the table right now.

However, we do feel that Dean Sansalone is damaging the integrity and future of the School of Engineering. Because of her, promising faculty will not want to work here and prospective students will not want to attend here. Furthermore, it is distinctly possible that research dollars and alumni donations could dry up as well.

For this reason will feel that it is imperative that steps be taken to address the grievances of the faculty and students. One way that this could happen is for Chancellor Wrighton to become more personally involved in the events unfolding within the engineering school. He could act as a mediator and work to diffuse the explosive situation by meeting with faculty and students in open forums, either with or without the dean.

While a petition from his faculty should be a clear signal that something has got to give, the surefire way to get the Chancellor’s attention is through a letter writing campaign from disgruntled parents and alumni. They sign the checks; he will listen to them.

In the end, it is in the best interests of everyone-students, faculty, the dean and the chancellor-to find a constructive, diplomatic solution to this problem. We are all members of Washington University and the reputation and quality of the School of Engineering reflects on all of us. The conflicts in the engineering school have been allowed to fester for over a year; it is time to address the problem directly before the situation deteriorates further.

The faculty have spoken and they say things need to change. Are we listening?

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, November 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.