The recent decision by Auburn University's board of trustees to dissolve the faculty senate and centralize power over curriculum has sparked a heated debate on campus. This move, which places the university president at the helm of faculty appointments and policy, has left many professors feeling disheartened and concerned about the future of academic freedom and shared governance.
The Impact on Faculty Morale
One of the most striking aspects of this story is the impact on faculty morale. Professor Elijah Gaddis, a nine-year veteran at Auburn, describes a campus where morale is at an all-time low. He attributes this to a series of what he calls "attacks on faculty and our voices." The dissolution of the faculty senate, a body that provided an independent platform for faculty concerns, has left professors feeling silenced and marginalized.
"Morale on campus is as low as it's ever been," Gaddis said. "It's a real concern when you feel like your voice isn't being heard, especially when it comes to the very essence of our work: teaching and educating students."
Eroding Trust and Shared Governance
Professor Lisa Kensler, who served as faculty senate chair in 2023, echoes these sentiments. She worries that the change in structure will erode trust between faculty and administration. The decision to bypass faculty leaders and other faculty members in reviewing this policy has left a bitter taste, challenging the very foundation of shared governance.
"Trust goes both ways," Kensler said. "This decision apparently did not include our faculty leaders or other faculty across campus. I have yet to meet a faculty member who was included in the review of this policy. That's really challenging."
The Broader Context: HB 580 and Anti-DEI Compliance
This move by Auburn's board of trustees comes in the wake of HB 580, a bill signed by Governor Kay Ivey earlier this year. This bill limited the power of faculty senate groups and gave boards of trustees more control over curriculum. Additionally, Auburn faculty have been subjected to additional scrutiny in recent years, including mandatory anti-DEI compliance forms, which require professors to demonstrate compliance with an Alabama law prohibiting state funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The New Council and Its Implications
The new "presidential academic advisory council" gives the Auburn administration more power over faculty leadership, including curriculum, educational quality, and faculty affairs. This shift from an advisory faculty senate to a top-down, administration-controlled model has raised concerns about the erosion of academic freedom and the potential impact on the legitimacy of Auburn degrees.
"If I were a student or a parent whose student was considering Auburn, I would be very concerned about the legitimacy of their degree in the future," Gaddis said.
A Call for Collaboration and Shared Governance
The Auburn chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has criticized the change, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, shared governance, and strong academic freedom protection. They argue that faculty are not corporate employees to be managed through top-down authority but experts entrusted with educating students and advancing knowledge.
"Faculty participation is defined, directed, and controlled by the administration," the AAUP stated. "This is a far cry from the advisory, independent role that faculty should play in university governance."
Conclusion: A Troubling Trend
The events at Auburn University are not isolated incidents but part of a broader trend of centralizing power and eroding academic freedom. As we reflect on these developments, it's crucial to consider the long-term implications for higher education and the role of faculty in shaping the academic landscape. The future of Auburn and other universities hangs in the balance, and the decisions made today will have repercussions for years to come.
