Dearborn Faculty Congress rejects proposal to add a voting lecturer seat to Faculty senate

On March 29, 2021 on the Dearborn campus, all governing faculty were invited to attend the Faculty Congress meeting via Zoom, and vote on a number of bylaws proposals. One Proposal, in particular, was important to the recognition of lecturers as members of the faculty, and for expanding voting rights to eligible lecturers.  The proposal sought to add one seat to the Faculty Senate for a governing-eligible Lecturer to also be able to vote as an elected Senate member. 

Lecturers on the Dearborn campus teach almost 58% of all undergrad student credit hours and 67% of first and second-year students, but at this time only 36 out of 245 lecturers have voting rights in their departments and are therefore considered governing faculty. 

Currently, lecturers can only vote in the Senate if they are elected as reps for their colleges, a situation which happens occasionally but not very often, in part because there are so few governing lecturers to serve in Senate and so few who can vote for those lecs who run.

Unfortunately, the proposal did not pass (50 Yes votes and 64 No votes with 3 abstentions), but it has opened a conversation about lecturer governance on campus that we haven’t seen previously. And although only 117 faculty were in the meeting to vote, out of over 300 governing faculty, it was nonetheless historic in terms of attendance at a Faculty Congress meeting. So the failure of the proposal also marks an important potential for lecturers and Tenure-Track (TT) faculty to move further in conversation about Dearborn campus and UM-wide issues.

And a few TT faculty spoke out loudly in favor of expanded governance for lecturers, citing the need for greater equity and inclusion, and the necessity of access to representation via voting rights, not only on campus but also drawing on examples from democratic systems across the world.

In an email to governing faculty after the proposal was defeated, Cam Amin, Professor of History in Dearborn wrote: 

I’ve been around long enough to see some of us tenured faculty oppose the unionization and representation for lecturers.  Why do we do that?  I’m not sure, but I worry it is because some of us feel that it is a zero-sum game - that we need to keep them down, or in their place, to preserve our position as tenured faculty.  I see specific proposals, like Proposal 4, get shot down on principle or technicality by colleagues who claim to value the vital contributions of LEO faculty … We are not talking about temporary appointments, but permanent instructional staff whose responsibilities overlap with many of ours as tenured permanent instructional staff.  We need to recognize and support the careers of our LEO colleagues better than we do now.

So, for those who voted against Proposal 4:  what’s it going to take?  What would be an acceptable proposal?  I’m confident there is a solution out there and I’m confident that a room full of PhDs can figure it out and finally produce a fairer outcome the next time we take up this issue.

Before the Faculty Congress meeting, Dearborn campus council lecturers reached out to governing faculty--lecs and TTs--to encourage them to attend and vote. The proposed change seemed small but would have an important impact on lecturer representation in campus-wide matters. And although we have a lot more work to do for a greater voice at Dearborn and on all of the UM campuses, we have a bit more visibility as faculty and as professionals than we did before.