Members of Faculty Senate debated academic freedom and the presidential selection Monday night.
Faculty Senate failed to pass its transparency in the presidential search resolution, though it did pass the resolution for protection of academic freedom Monday.
Resolution 317, “A Resolution for Transparency in Selecting a New President for the University of Wyoming,” called for making the names of the candidates public, in addition to having more input from faculty senate regarding the search.
This resolution is in response to the recent lawsuit in which The Casper Star-Tribune, The Wyoming Tribune Eagle and the Associated Press sued the university to have the names of the presidential candidates released. The judge sided with the media.
Some faculty members felt that while the media is now closer to getting the names of the presidential candidates, faculty senate still has not had much involvement with the presidential search.
“The bylaws of the faculty senate state that it’s in the authority of the faculty senate to advise the trustees on the selection of the new president. And I wonder if that should not be acknowledged,” Scott Shaw, a senator from ecosystem science and management, said.
One of the concerns with making the names public is that some candidates will withdraw from consideration, as many of them are still employed at other universities.
“It’s believed that we will lose half our candidates if the names become public and that’s not true,” Donal O’Toole, senator from veterinary sciences said. “We’re not seeking to hire 12 presidents; we’re seeking to hire one good president.”
While some members of the senate believed that the names of the candidates should be made public, some still believed that confidentiality is important in the search.
“I am not going to support this resolution,” David Anderson, a senator from the chemistry department said. “I think that one of the big things in trying to attract a president is for it to be confidential so that they know that when they put their names in the ring, it’s not going to be public.”
Following the senate’s debate, Resolution 317 failed to pass with a vote of 21-33.
The senate then moved on to Resolution 318, the “Resolution for Protection of Academic Freedom at the University of Wyoming.”
The debate began with a brief presentation from Alexandre Latchininsky regarding the removal of the Carbon Sink.
“Basically it’s an artwork composed of beetle-filled pines and coal and it intended to underline the significance of connections between fossil fuels and climate change,” Latchininsky, a senator from ecosystem science and management said. “To my knowledge this installation was on loan from the artist, but at first it was not decided how long it would be there.”
Latchininsky then said it was decided that all sculptures at the university would be here for two years. The sculpture then came under scrutiny by the energy industry and the government and was removed 15 months prematurely, he said.
While Latchininsky said the sculpture was removed early due to outside pressure, some faculty members said it should have been removed earlier.
“I’m not in favor of censorship or infringing on academic freedom, but I don’t think that’s the issue here,” Sen. Brian Towler from chemical and petroleum engineering said. “I think the issue is that a piece of artwork was installed at the university which many people in the state found offensive. I personally found it offensive. I don’t think it was removed prematurely, I think it was removed a year too late.”
Towler then argued that artwork found to be offensive should be removed.
“If we put up a piece of artwork that is offensive to gays, women, the military or any section of our community then it should be removed,” he said.
However, Sen. Jason Lee from the Department of Criminal Justice said that one of the purposes of a university was to have opposing ideas to create discussion.
“What is really the point of a university if we are not to have occasionally unpopular ideas expressed?” Lee said. “Universities are not supposed to reinforce the status quo, we are supposed to challenge it and show people that there’s more than just one narrow point of view.”
Resolution 318 was passed following the debate.
