Apathy Spurs Faculty Changes

Last Tuesday's decision by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) to make it easier for faculty to be elected to the Faculty Council comes largely as a result of two decades of declining interest in administrative policy issues.

With questions raised about the effectiveness of the Faculty Council, it is not surprising to see that in recent years Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles has had to invite faculty members to run for election due to lack of independent interest.

The new policy easing nomination requirements was designed to "ensure in some form or other an elected Faculty Council and not an appointed panel," says Baird Professor of Physics Gary J. Feldman.

But the amendment alone may not encourage faculty to take interest in the council.

Many faculty members say they are busy with matters they believe are more important than participation in governance issues.

"Harvard faculty are very busy, and it's easy to give up," says Professor of Government and Sociology Theda Skocpol, who is in her second term on the council. "The agendas [of Faculty Council meetings] are often full of things that a lot of people don't find that significant."

Feldman says he believes many faculty have difficulty finding time aside from their teaching and research schedules.

"Though obviously university governance and committee work is necessary, people naturally like to avoid it," he says.

But Professor of Government Kenneth A. Shepsle cautions against reading too much into the lack of faculty interest in serving on the council.

"It could mean a terrible thing like apathy or it could mean that people are quite content with the present situation," says Shepsle, a former council member. "I think we find ourselves somewhere in between the two."

A Relevant Council?

But the amendment also raises the question of the relevance of an organization that many faculty see as little more than a time-consuming layer of Harvard's bureaucracy.

Feldman credits the lack of contentious issues for his colleagues' reluctance to serve on the council.

Administration Relationship

Perhaps fewer contentious issues have risen recently because of the close relationship between faculty members and the administration, Shepsle says.

"Today, there's a considerable bond of trust between the faculty and the dean," Shepsle says. "Certainly it's a far cry from the 1960s when the faculty and administration often found themselves at odds, with each other."

Skocpol says she understands why some of her colleagues criticize the effectiveness of the council.

"I think the Faculty Council is seen as not exactly the most straightforward way to bring up issues," Skocpol said.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53, in particular, questions the impact of an administrative body that almost always votes unanimously.

"It is surprising to find an institution of the faculty that always votes 17 to nothing at a university that prides itself on its diversity," Mansfield says.

But unanimous votes do not necessarily imply unanimity, says Feldman, who is a current council member.

"That doesn't mean they've rubber-stamped it," he says.

Despite the fact that few faculty want to serve on the council, Shepsle says he believes most faculty are satisfied with the Faculty Council's performance.

"I think most faculty are comfortable with the current structure," he says. "But comfortable does not mean the system is optimal.

"Though obviously university governance and committee work is necessary, people naturally like to avoid it," he says.

But Professor of Government Kenneth A. Shepsle cautions against reading too much into the lack of faculty interest in serving on the council.

"It could mean a terrible thing like apathy or it could mean that people are quite content with the present situation," says Shepsle, a former council member. "I think we find ourselves somewhere in between the two."

A Relevant Council?

But the amendment also raises the question of the relevance of an organization that many faculty see as little more than a time-consuming layer of Harvard's bureaucracy.

Feldman credits the lack of contentious issues for his colleagues' reluctance to serve on the council.

Administration Relationship

Perhaps fewer contentious issues have risen recently because of the close relationship between faculty members and the administration, Shepsle says.

"Today, there's a considerable bond of trust between the faculty and the dean," Shepsle says. "Certainly it's a far cry from the 1960s when the faculty and administration often found themselves at odds, with each other."

Skocpol says she understands why some of her colleagues criticize the effectiveness of the council.

"I think the Faculty Council is seen as not exactly the most straightforward way to bring up issues," Skocpol said.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53, in particular, questions the impact of an administrative body that almost always votes unanimously.

"It is surprising to find an institution of the faculty that always votes 17 to nothing at a university that prides itself on its diversity," Mansfield says.

But unanimous votes do not necessarily imply unanimity, says Feldman, who is a current council member.

"That doesn't mean they've rubber-stamped it," he says.

Despite the fact that few faculty want to serve on the council, Shepsle says he believes most faculty are satisfied with the Faculty Council's performance.

"I think most faculty are comfortable with the current structure," he says. "But comfortable does not mean the system is optimal.