Drama and internal conflict dominate the headlines at Texas A&M University once again. Tuesday night, the A&M Faculty Senate declared “no confidence” in A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney by a vote of 55-9. In addition, a survey of over 1,300 faculty conducted by the Senate revealed 83.5 percent of faculty members have no confidence in McKinney’s leadership.
The vote is another chapter in the unfolding story of internal conflict in leadership at A&M. Just over two weeks ago, then-president Elsa Murano resigned from her position after clashing with McKinney over the poor performance review he gave her following her first year as president. In his review, McKinney said Murano took too long to make decisions because she sought to include faculty opinion and influence in her command of the university, stating she should “work WITH Faculty not FOR (sic).” Murano contemptuously responded by asserting a strong faculty voice is essential when deciding the future of a university, and that she has her own questions about McKinney’s concept of leadership. But McKinney’s relationship with Murano wasn’t always tumultuous. In fact, McKinney initially suggested Murano as president of A&M during the search in 2007, ignoring the original suggestions of entities like the Faculty Senate within the A&M system.
The fact that McKinney didn’t listen to the faculty then either isn’t much of a surprise.
McKinney’s comments about the faculty of A&M suggest he’s never had a symbiotic relationship with the people closest to the university’s work. He’s said on multiple occasions that he answers to the A&M Board of Regents when considering the future and well-being of the University, not the faculty.
Comments like these are the catalysts for faculty movements showing “no confidence” in McKinney as a leader. Expanding upon why the faculty decided to vote no confidence in a chancellor for the first time in its history, Robert Bednarz, speaker of the Faculty Senate, said, “I think his statements about the nature of shared governance and how decisions are made are in opposition to what most faculty think is the most productive way to make decisions,” according to the Austin American-Statesman.
Though the vote certainly heightens tensions between those who control A&M — the chancellor and regents — and those who actually lead A&M — the faculty and students — it is an extremely important step in asserting the need for all the voices coming from the university to matter, not just nine governor-appointed regents and their exclusively appointed chancellor. Though the faculty grew to strongly support Murano because of her inclusive style of leading, McKinney’s questionable evaluation was enough to force Murano to resign.
Next to students, the faculty make a university what it is; the best faculty inspire the best education. Unfortunately, the way leadership in public higher education works in Texas, students and faculty have nothing more than a muffled voice when discussing the future of a university. In essence, the A&M Faculty Senate’s vote is little more than a symbolic gesture, another voice thrown into the melee of input the Board of Regents ignores. Not only does the vote have no influence on McKinney’s status as chancellor, but it didn’t even evoke a comment by McKinney or the A&M University System Board of Regents.
While it’s easy to simply sit back and comment on the rocky times at A&M, the truth is UT has similar kinks to work out. Despite consistent cries for more student representation in the regents’ decisions, UT still only has one governor-appointed, non-voting student regent to represent an entire university system. Though the student has access to the rest of the regents, his voice is no louder than, say, 1,100 displeased faculty members, or the resolutions of Student Government, the Faculty Council and the Graduate Student Assembly.
Currently, the UT System Board of Regents is mulling over what to do with the Brackenridge Tract. While the average person would probably assume the first voices the regents should hear are those of the faculty and students, the board instead hired a New York-based development company to determine the best ways to develop and make money from the land. Though the regents are far from a decision regarding the company’s proposals, the fact that the structure of leadership in higher education allows for essentially no faculty or student control is frustrating and senseless.
Like A&M, UT has a form of leadership that can easily disregard outside input. However, that does not have to be the case. The opinions of those that truly make a university what it is — the faculty and students — still have a place in the meeting rooms and offices of the select few privileged with guiding the future of the university. Regents at both UT and A&M would be wise to open their ears to the voices that give these institutions such fine names.
