Shared governance at San Diego State took a giant leap backwardlast week.
What started as a resolution of no confidence in Provost NancyMarlin by the Associated Students Council became a mudslinging matchbetween the two most important governing bodies on campus — A.S. andthe University Senate.
The A.S. Council passed the resolution nearly unanimously on Feb.27. They criticized Marlin’s management of the Division of AcademicAffairs, specifically with the availability of classes, theuniversity’s new admission policies and faculty diversity. Membersfeel crucial decisions are being made without student input andstudent opinion isn’t taken seriously.
The University Senate retaliated last Tuesday when they passed anearly unanimous resolution of their own in support of the Provost.However, members of both groups embarrassed SDSU and theirconstituents by the way they handled the situation.
A.S. President Ron Williams began the meeting by suggesting theA.S. report — which typically falls near the end of the agenda — bemoved up after a report that Marlin usually makes. His reasoning?A.S. needs to be taken more seriously and should be given a priorityat the meeting.
Although Williams’ intentions were good, The Daily Aztec feels hehandled the situation improperly. To suggest the A.S. report be movedup because of the A.S. resolution would have been plausible, butrelentlessly asserting student precedence in a meeting already fullof hostility and anger only minimized the concerns of studentsreflected in the vote against Marlin.
At the A.S. meeting last week, a councilmember motioned to placethe University Senate report at the end of the agenda, which Williamsdidn’t endorse. Instead of focusing on ways to improve sharedgovernance on campus, this councilmember used his representativepower to act like a 4 year-old who wasn’t getting his way.
Before the meeting began, dozens of A.S. representatives crowdedinto the senate meeting to proclaim their dedication to “sharedgovernance,” but by the end of the three and one-half hour meeting,only about a handful remained. What message does that send touniversity decision-makers? How can they take students seriously whenwe can’t even practice what they preach?
University senators also humiliated the process of sharedgovernance by the way they handled Williams’ defense of the council’svote. While he stated the reasoning behind the resolution, senatorsgiggled, made snide remarks and snickered. The Aztec overheard onesenator calling Williams “an asshole.” They diluted the authority ofthe A.S. representatives by blatantly undermining their concerns setforth in the resolution.
Not once during the meeting did senators discuss ways to improvethe relationship between students and Marlin’s department. Not oncedid they brainstorm ways students could feel more involved in theprocess. Instead, groups flung resolutions, accusations andderogatory comments at each other.
University President Stephen Weber — whose job is to listen tothe concerns of both students and senators — also picked sides tooearly. Immediately after the A.S. vote, Weber released a statementcalling the resolution “confrontational” and “lacking in foundation.”A few days later, he sent an e-mail to faculty and staff calling thevote “ill-informed and mean-spirited.”
The only person to keep dignity throughout this situation isMarlin. A statement she released following the A.S. vote did notcondemn the resolution. Instead, she defended the decisions ofAcademic Affairs regarding enrollment policies and said she wanted towork to address the concerns of the students.
At the University Senate meeting, she respectfully listened toeach of the speakers and did not comment on the debate at any time.She kept her personal distance but still made it clear that she wasinterested in hearing all of the comments.
Perhaps Marlin can teach university senators and A.S.councilmembers a thing or two about shared governance.
