The divide that’s erupted on campus recently between a significant portion of the faculty and higher-level administration may be one step closer to being solved today, with President Seidel releasing a statement calling for more communication between higher admin and faculty, and the faculty recently calling and voting on a vote of no confidence against the President. In addition to this, further clarification has been obtained regarding what the dispute was initially caused over, and what might be needed to mend it.
Dr. Gregg Cawley, a professor of Political Science at the university and a member of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, was able to provide his thoughts on the issue in a long-form interview. While he stated that his opinions were not representative of the faculty senate, he shed some light on the disagreement currently ongoing, stating, “This controversy is not about any specific incident . . . While the firing of Dean Wright may have acted as a trigger event, the issue itself is much broader . . . We have a university regulation that talks about the process by which the administrative officers of the university can be appointed, evaluated, and terminated. A key provision of that states that there should be extensive faculty participation. Now that’s the complaint we’re raising, we’ve had a whole bunch of administrative officers at the university that have been fired without any real faculty participation.”
Dr. Cawley’s concern was repeatedly outlined throughout the interview to be the process by which these administrators were fired, not the specific firings of anyone. He stated that it needs to be made clear that, “The movement by the executive committee of faculty senate is not actually about challenging any of these decisions that have been made. Our complaint is the lack of information as to why these decisions were made . . . I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if we’d been given appropriate information, we might even find that the situations are perfectly appropriate.”
This disagreement over the amount of information related to the faculty seems to be the crux of the issue and one that thus far President Seidel has not backed down from. In a statement emailed to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Seidel reaffirmed his inability to talk about the reasoning behind the firing of Dr. Wright, stating, “On the first topic that seems to have catalyzed your letter, I am bound by law, and out of respect for former CEPS Dean Wright, not to discuss any specifics on the Board of Trustees action that removed him from his role as Dean. It is completely within their authority to take this action, it was deeply considered, and even if I would like to highlight other sides of this story that are not public, I cannot comment any further.”
When Dr. Cawley was asked what there was to be done if the information was legitimately legally protected, he responded with the following; “The chairman of the board of trustees . . . Kermit Brown did in fact say that the reason the engineering dean was fired was because one of the goals of the Tier 1 was to move our engineering school up into the top 25%, and Brown said he didn’t meet that . . . and therefore that’s why he got fired . . . Well, I’m not a lawyer . . . but if he says that was the cause, then it is possible to talk about why the decision was made.”
Going forward, both perspectives also gave their takes on what was to be done. In the same statement mentioned earlier, President Seidel defended his commitment to shared governance, while also defending his actions. He stated, “An overarching theme of your letter regards shared governance, which I understand is a deeply held value for faculty at UW. While I recognize that I, and my leadership team, can improve, I would like to point out a number of actions I have taken already. About two years ago I took the action to add faculty and staff senate leads to my cabinet, so that faculty voices are heard on every item that comes before the cabinet, and items may be brought to cabinet by the Faculty Senate Chair. I have created a faculty sounding board (on which Senator Cawley serves), where any topic can be brought to my attention.”
Dr. Cawley, when asked if the letter was a possible first step to reconciliation, stated, “It could be interpreted as the first step to a resolution. My personal complaint in reading the letter; it doesn’t address the issues we’re raising . . . who was it that fired the dean of engineering? Was it the president, or the board of trustees? I mean ultimately the (board) has the ability to hire and fire people, but we don’t know. Were they? . . . He also talks about this faculty sounding board that I’m a member of, but you see when he first came up with that idea, he said we were going to be meeting once a month. It’s been two years now, and over those two years we’ve met five times.”
Recently, on April 7, President Ed Seidel lost his vote of no confidence in the faculty senate 43-11. While the faculty senate has very little teeth in matters of hiring and firing, their marked disapproval represents an increasingly difficult challenge for him. In addition to this, the board of trustees is meeting tomorrow, April 8, to discuss the vote. Whether they’re still backing him is currently unknown, although it has been indicated that they’ve played a strong hand in many of the firing decisions President Seidel is facing backlash for.
In regards to his vote of no confidence, President Seidel released a statement via campus-wide email. It read, “I am disappointed in the outcome of the Faculty Senate’s vote but acknowledge the concerns it reflects. I recognize that my existing structures to involve faculty in university decisions have not adequately addressed their concerns. As I said previously, I deeply respect our system of shared governance and the vital role our faculty plays in the university’s progress. I am committed to reassessing and strengthening our shared governance practices, as well as rebuilding trust and improving communications, to make our university the best it can be.”
Seidel’s response seems to indicate that he does intend on remaining president of the University, but only time will tell. In the end, the core of this conflict is not about who was fired, but how those decisions were made. Faculty want transparency and a voice in governance, while higher administration insists some matters must remain confidential. President Seidel’s recent statement may be a gesture toward compromise, but some faculty members still feel unheard. If both sides hope to move forward, they will need more than polite words, they’ll need open dialogue, shared trust, and a commitment to follow the very regulations that are now in question.
How can people vote to replace the board of trustees? Apparently they and the president are absolved of all accountability and responsibility when it comes to the students and faculty. The reality is that UW engineering is moving toward the tier 1 goal.