Hamilton faculty propose voting rights for lecturers

Amendment to be reviewed in May

Bradford Auditorium – A group of 26 faculty members has signed in support of an amendment to the Faculty Handbook giving Lecturers and Senior Lecturers voting rights on faculty governance matters. Last night at their monthly meeting, the Faculty Assembly voted to commit the proposal to an ad hoc committee to address some concerns before returning for review in May.

“Limits on enfranchisement are a signal that the voices of our colleagues in these positions don't matter as much as those of the rest of the faculty,” said Associate Professor of Literature and Director of Cinema and Media Studies Pavitra Sundar. Also Vice President of Hamilton’s American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) chapter, Sundar explained the amendment’s rationale to over 100 faculty present in person and on Zoom: “What this motion seeks to do is create more room than the Faculty Handbook currently allows for [views from the margins, i.e. lecturers] to shape our institutional culture and decision making practices. Enfranchisement is not a zero-sum game.”

Associate Professor of Art History and AAUP chapter President Susan Jarosi pointed out, “The only category of faculty in the handbook and on our rosters as faculty without voting rights are Lecturers and Senior Lecturers.” She called on her colleagues, “this is an inequity that we would do well to fix today.”

The Assembly plays an important role in setting the College’s academic requirements, faculty personnel decisions (including those that systematically and individually impact lecturers), and a variety of other governance functions through committees.

Over almost an hour and a half, faculty members discussed and debated the amendment, proposed next steps, and tediously navigated parliamentary procedure. While there were moments of tension, the amendment generally received support in principle. Some faculty raised concerns that the language would potentially burden lecturers to attend all monthly faculty meetings despite being part-time employees, and that it may offer some employees who report to administration, rather than the faculty, a vote in faculty matters. The faculty overwhelmingly voted to form an ad hoc committee composed of Jarosi, Sundar, and Assistant Professor of German Studies and AAUP chapter Secretary Franziska Schweiger to address these matters.

Lecturers and contingent faculty’s role

Lecturers and Senior Lecturers comprise about 15% of the faculty this year, totaling at 46. Of them, 27 are returning lecturers. As part-time employees, they usually only teach one or two courses a semester. Still, they are subject to review of their work and are impacted by personnel and policy decisions made via the Faculty Assembly or committees which it elects.

What role lecturers could play in voting on the amendment itself was also debated. Citing precedent for votes in previous years, Sundar introduced a motion to permit lecturers to vote on the specific amendment. Faculty Assembly Chair and Professor of Philosophy Russell Marcus, responsible for facilitating the meeting, was initially inclined to rule the motion out of order according to Roberts’ Rules, viewing it as an attempt to circumvent the 2/3rds requirement for handbook amendments and a request to vote on the same matter twice in one meeting.

“Loathe to act unilaterally when a motion has been brought,” Marcus put the question of whether the motion was in order to a vote. After discussion, the faculty voted 71 to 66 not to rule the motion out of order. Soon after, they voted 76 to 66 in favor of permitting lecturers to vote on the proposed amendment.

Kevin Grant, Professor of History and former Chair of the Faculty Assembly, also spoke in opposition to the amendment on the grounds that lecturers do not have sufficient experience and knowledge of faculty governance to adequately participate. “My own perspective on voting on personnel policy and procedures has changed dramatically since I was a contingent faculty member, not due to my role in the curriculum, but due to my service on elected committees and as a department chair.” He continued,  “For all of their talents, lecturers do not and will not have the experience of community service and chairing departments to inform their votes on personnel policy and procedures over time.”

Notably, Visiting Professors have a similar relationship with the institution yet still have the right to vote. Visiting Assistant Professor of Physics Megan Marshall Smith told the crowd, “where we're talking about experience or participating in service, Visiting Professors don't have that either. I was allowed to vote on committee memebers, motions, whatever else I felt like voting on, like a month after I got out of grad school.” Yet, “then as I got experience with that I became a Lecturer and lost that ability to vote.” Smith supported the amendment to address that inconsistency.

“We know that contingent faculty are the most precarious in terms of their position and employment and protections within an institution around due process and contract renewal,” said Jarosi in an interview. “But we also know that contingent faculty tend to be the most diverse group of faculty.” She explained that “more inclusive voices in governance means a more diverse set of voices.”

Some faculty agreed in principle but wished to amend the proposal. Professor of Literature and Director of Medieval and Renaissance Studies Margaret Thickstun found Sundar’s presentation “compelling” but raised two issues. Thickstun, who was the previous Chair of the Faculty Assembly, pointed out that the language would say lecturers “have the right and are expected” to attend meetings, and that some individuals may teach a course but report to other administrative divisions of the College.

“I don't think that we should vote onto people who are only teaching a course the responsibility to attend meetings,” Thickstun said. She continued, “I'm not comfortable with having administrators enfranchised to vote on faculty issues, even if they teach courses and have PhDs. They have other places where their loyalties lie.”

Moving forward

Thickstun’s call to alter the amendment language prompted discussion on the subject for the remainder of the meeting. Several proposals, including amending the language during the meeting, and sending the proposal to a variety of committees for revision, were entertained.

Finally, Professor of Music Lydia Hamessley motioned to commit the amendment to an ad hoc committee of Jarosi, Sundar, and Schweiger. The motion passed 106 to 16, and the three will return having addressed the two issues in the first meeting of May.

“I'm really glad this faculty body has considered this motion that came from all 26 signatories in good faith, and I appreciate that,” said Sundar before the vote.

Marcus emphasized he was satisfied with the faculty’s ability to navigate the subject productively despite the length and complexity of the meeting. “We were able to think out the various complications collaboratively, collectively without too much pain and suffering.”

Reflecting on the meeting, Jarosi was hopeful for the proposal. “My sense was we're close and that with a few minor adjustments that we'll get this done.”