The Saint Louis University News last Thursday (04/25/2012) carried an account of SLU President Lawrence Biondi’s appearance at the SLU Student Government Association meeting the day before. That account, which unfortunately doesn’t appear online at present, mentions that faculty members were asked to leave the meeting (as reported first by SLU Students for No Confidence, then by local media and The Chronicle of Higher Education) but also provides the only detailed summary of the President’s remarks I have been able to find.
According to the University News it seems fair to say that Biondi defended the faculty evaluation scheme that sparked no confidence votes last fall, defended ousted VPAA, Manoj Patankar, and had this to say about students and faculty who participated in the public protest outside last December’s meeting of SLU trustees:
This got out of control. I think some of you were manipulated by the faculty. Especially when there is a demonstration on the mall. Isn’t it curious that some of the students are related to the faculty member who is giving them a grade? Is there some kind of conflict of interest
The University News story also reports Biondi to have aasserted that:
[S]hared governance at SLU has always been in place, as student and faculty voices are always taken into account, but not every proposal can be accepted. Shared governance is voicing your ideas and opinions and letting discussions take place. Just because we reject some ideas does not mean there is no shared governance . . . There is no climate of fear. I’ve asked every faculty member on various committees if they feel as though they can’t speak their mind, and they say ‘no.’
In the past, Biondi has been fairly successful in constructing faculty echo chambers for his ideas, opinions, and ambitions. But in this instance faculty were quick to react negatively, with votes to censure the president taken in the Arts and Sciences Faculty Council and the University Faculty Senate. Senate President, Mark Knuepfer, has released a statement demanding Biondi’s resignation, and the Faculty Senate has released a report that includes these observations:
. . . [B]ecause of well-known cases of retribution and the President’s tirades about particular deans and faculty, deans often are reticent. It feels risky for them to openly express opinions that contest those of the President or the former VP for Academic Affairs. Some have said they worry about the well-being of their schools and their budget and personnel requests.
The penalties for dissent take many forms . . . : raises denied, laboratory resources restricted, highly-regarded deans and department chairs fired or forced to resign, lawsuits filed or threatened against individual faculty. Others fear retribution against their academic departments, programs, or schools through budget cuts, frozen hiring, or appointment of an unqualified dean over the objections of faculty.
This systemic dysfunction hinders the ability of faculty and academic units to further the University’s academic mission. Indisputably, such a culture of intimidation is incompatible with the principle of academic freedom, the bedrock of all other academic values. It is also morally and intellectually incompatible with our identity as a Catholic, Jesuit University.
None of this is new, as many have pointed out at the SLU Students for No Confidence Facebook page. The culture of intimidation is palpable and goes back decades. What is new is that it is being exposed—in the past the SLU central administration has been able to prevent public exposure of its cruelty and cynicism. And it is also new that SLU faculty have been able to find a unified voice in opposition. In the past it has been fairly easy for the SLU central administration to punish dissent for reasons the Faculty Senate report makes clear. Now, perhaps, the worm is turning. One can only applaud.