Faculty Representation at a Catholic Institution

In the past a group of faculty sought to form a faculty senate but were blocked by the administration. The Vice Provost said there was no ‘blockage.' The issue had to be put before the Board of Trustees. Now as a union chapter [the AAUP] but of fledgling size and age they [the faculty] seek same. At what point the minority of faculty develops so to enjoy further status is another matter? At what point does the voluntary become representative?

Since there is a complication of the status of a ‘union' at a religious school the issue needs discernment. Unlike full-time faculty (managerial class), adjuncts fall within the scope of the NLRB. Since the religious nature of a school controls entry of this type union it is subject to the Trustees (NLRB, Manhattanville College. Earlier, fulltime faculty at Manhattan failed upon petition to NLRB.). But the religious nature is still of significance for in a matter of policy at Belmont Abbey College (N.C.) the NLRB (contraceptives) ruled against the school.

Let the provost form a committee to seek opinions. Permit the union to submit documents of standing in the library (Constitution, Survey-Responses, Faculty Senate, Communications) for a comment period.

There is question of [faculty] representation evident upon termination of 2009 Bill Ayers visit. Ayers, the founder of the Weather Underground (violence restricted to property), offered no apology for the killing of a Brighton police officer by a member of his group. Granted merit in "education studies," there remains the question, why invite him at all?

The school acted responsibly for the common good.

The response is noteworthy. For successive days, the first by faculty, the second by Americans for an Informed Democracy (AID), the event brewed hostility. The primary impetus came from the sociology department. This was evident for AID said this department was not motivating them. A member of the sociology dept testified, "This has been going on for twenty years." The ACLU made a point of irony about the "world class player."

That this group was there upon what is a discretionary judgment of the school raises questions about an orchestrated event.

The conclusion is lack of ordered responsibility. The grievance is inexplicable for it overshadows moral responsibility to the young, and undermines it. In anticipation, is the school to follow than lead? ‘Shared governance' knows discretion and not dictates from below. Is there a vote? Many of the administrators are certified faculty, some teach a course, and many do research on academic subjects. The relation of the managerial class to faculty is faculty riven. They have much in common.

BC is apparently without record of violation of academic freedom in respect to subject matter, whether it be teaching or research? Beyond that, what is legal is discretionary entailing ‘shared governance'.

So what to say of sponsored talks?

Look at it from the other side. At a panel evaluating the Vagina Monologues (2009) the chair refused to let an alumnus speak. But others insisted. When it became apparent his view was critical, the women on the panel started to hoot, with one exclaiming, "Sexual revolution and liberation!"

A student stood up and cried out, "Shut up! Let the man speak!" And they shut up. It was astonishing. The unadorned effect is academic freedom was null and void.

Is it a matter of whose axe to grind?

In principle, I have no brief against unions. But the real issues do not concern faculty as faculty. They are secondary to the guidance of students in respect to moral ends. This is expected at a value-oriented school with a philosophical base. And thus enters the claim of reason.

There is a common good which eludes the specialized.

Faculty should reflect the freedom at issue is measured by competence, and for the case, of a context that calls upon the allocation of a value judgment by the authority whose moral responsibility is to make that judgment. Only that authority is competent to make the judgment.

The rulings of the NLRB on Belmont & Manhattan should alert the school. For the latter, a union petitioned for representation at Manhattan. The school claimed it had no standing given its religious nature. The ruling said it was only religious in name. It did not deny the claim, just its merit.

Boston College should assess the place of religion relative to reason at the school. It has a tradition whose scope is relevant, namely, the "catholic intellectual tradition." Union professors indicate a gulf between what the school teaches and what the the faculty conceive. Their free speech rights (their words) grant theirclaim to criticize, esp. catholic teachings.

Two of the best and brightest of the century, however, agree on matters of concern of the school (contraceptives). One of whom is Elizabeth Anscombe (Oxford), acclaimed to be the greatest postwar philosopher. The philosophy department now moves to assimilate the tradition of Analytic philosophy.

But there is another way to meet the standards of the NLRB that also makes clear the presence of religion to students. To return to the not distant custom of ‘voluntary prayer.' At a meeting of the Abram women's group on the topic of prayer, they were pleased this once existed. And would like it returned. (This would be phased in).

My question is, would the union oppose this? This simply means they would advocate their members lead the prayers provided no personal objection; or simply delegate.

In respect to Ayers, union officials said 185 faculty were ready to sign a petition along with backup of the main union. The number furthers the point the event was, if not calculated, measured. They had a weekend for preparation. For a body in formation to consider such raises questions of its willingness to solicit "shared governance," and yet be welcome for tenure at the school.

It raises the question whether the school is ready to have a union?