Statement from James Morley, SSHS on Academic Structure Posted 12/02/03

Renovation not Demolition

Dear Colleagues

As a relatively new faculty member, I would prefer to defer to the experience of my more senior colleagues in these matters of institutional restructuring. But, then again, my status gives me a considerable stake in the future of this institution. So please accept the following thoughts in this spirit.

May I begin by posing these sincere questions to the committee?

1. Does ‘restructuring’ just mean ‘moving furniture’ and giving things new names?
2. Or are we addressing a desire for authentic culture change?
3. If it is indeed ‘culture change’ that is wanted, then who wants to change the culture?
4. What is wrong with the present culture?
5. And what is the new culture that is desired?
6. Can external restructuring change an internal subjective culture?
7. Finally, is restructuring really the issue? Over the last 5 years Ramapo has increased enrolments without appropriate increases in faculty numbers. Might this resource issue be the essential challenge to our present structure and could we be making what logicians call a ‘category error’ by invoking a restructuring process at this point?

Hierarchy vs. Decentralization

Institutional hierarchy is not synonymous with order and function. There is considerable research demonstrating how overly hierarchical institutions induce an atmosphere of anxiety and its corresponding symptoms: demoralization, distorted communication, dysfunction, and even sabotage. Those of us who have served in the military, an organized religion, or the corporate world understand this issue full well. But one need not swing to the anti-hierarchical extreme. A coherent and transparent line of authority can be much more wholesome than an invisible oligarchy masquerading as democracy. Hierarchy has merits, but its drawbacks are very real.

Decentralization is not synonymous with disorder. Many of the world’s most celebrated educational institutions, such as Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, (actually George Potter’s models for Ramapo) have successfully followed a decentralized structure for well over a thousand years. Their decentralized formats offered them the flexibility to adapt to changes over this great span of time. Most People perform at their best when directly engaged with the governing of their institution. People like to feel part of a community and this has been one of Ramapo’s greatest strengths as an institution. Turning Ramapo into just another conventional land grant college would be tragic.

Instead, I would wish to see Ramapo become more of what it supposed to be, i.e. to better self actualize itself in form and function. At this time and date, the original Potter model is more innovative and visionary than it ever has been. Restructuring should be a process of renewing the vision of an active engaged democratic faculty culture that offers a high quality yet affordable, and accessible, education. Restructuring should renovate the Ramapo vision — not demolish it.

Abolish the Faculty Assembly?

True, large assemblies are sometimes unwieldy - the streets are not always clean and the trains do not always run on time. Yet, if I recall my John Dewey correctly, the purpose of American higher education is to prepare ‘citizens’ and we need to practice democracy to be able to teach it. Beyond departures from Roberts’s rules of order and speaking limits, there is nothing wrong with the faculty assembly.

Representative government is only necessary when vast numbers do not permit direct government. Otherwise, direct assemblies are always superior to representative authority. The further people get from the transparency of face to face relations, the higher the likelihood of miscommunication, distortion, and shenanigans. Does the size of our faculty prohibit direct government? I hardly think so. Finally, does not ARC already serve the function of a representative Senate?

Faculty community is the lifeblood of a small college. If we did not have a faculty assembly we would still need to invent some town meeting forum to take its place. Abolishing the faculty assembly is quite a bad idea, irreversible, and one which we would very quickly regret.

Concrete suggestions:

1. We seem to require a more streamlined flow of communication and authority between Conveners, Deans, and the Provost. This is a natural and functional hierarchy, if you will.

1. Provosts should have full autonomy in all academic matters - comparable to an "internal president". This would liberate our president to represent the college for external fundraising and overall administration while granting the Provost the full authority necessary to administer scholastic affairs.
2. Democratically elected Deans would serve the functional role of intermediary between faculty and administration. Deans are empowered through election to sincerely represent and advocate faculty interests. What could be stronger?
3. Distinctions must be made between conveners of small and large majors.
Conveners of large majors really do require resources (such as budgets, secretarial staff, and release time) appropriate to their greater student numbers. (Psychology and Communications have 500-600 students each!) Please don’t build any more administrative positions without first strengthening the conveners.

1. Teaching at Ramapo means more devotion to faculty governance than many other research institutions. This does take a toll on younger scholar’s external academic careers and such a weakness needs to be addressed through investment in overall faculty development, affordable housing plans, childcare, and travel funding.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Morley