The Faculty Senate Should Have a Say

The faculty may have a voice — but there’s still more to be done to make sure they’re heard.

A planning body recently proposed bylaws for the creation of a faculty senate which would play a deliberative — but not legislative — role in the proceedings of the University. The current plan recommends a 43-member senate to advise Harvard on issues that affect affiliates across campuses and schools.

The effort to create a faculty senate is a noble endeavor. It would formalize avenues for faculty to share their perspectives, foster collaboration between schools, and create direct channels for the University president and administrators to receive representative feedback. Still, the current plan leaves us with one worry: Why is the proposed body so toothless?

Calls for the formation of a faculty senate have been numerous over the years. The current campaign began in the wake of former Harvard President Claudine Gay’s resignation after only six months in office. Citing the turmoil of University governance, prominent faculty members drafted a proposal for the body last year.

Our long campus nightmare has only grown longer since. Harvard faces a maelstrom of attacks from the federal government, many of which have prompted difficult questions that demand swift, decisive answers: Should we strike a deal with Trump? What should be the future of DEI? How best should we protect international students?

As the assault on higher education escalates, so does the need for a faculty senate. At its best, the senate would represent the interests of educators, administrators, and workers far better than the current hodgepodge of task forces and working groups. Rather than resorting to op-eds in The Crimson or The New York Times to express their views on Harvard issues, faculty would have a formal, deliberative way to reach administrators directly and offer expert input from the frontlines of the academic project.

However, as currently envisioned, this body may only add to the bureaucratic malaise that encumbers Harvard. A faculty senate should not become yet another box for Harvard policymakers to check off their list — slowing down meaningful action in the name of shallow proceduralism. Rather, a faculty senate must be able to influence decisions directly, especially when policies pertain to faculty themselves.

Contrary to the recently outlined bylaws, we believe that any faculty senate at Harvard should wield a greater degree of legislative or decision-making power. Without that level of influence, a faculty senate is ill-suited to ensuring that our professors’ voices carry weight. An ornamental faculty senate is barely better than no faculty senate at all.

Through the storms the next few years will surely bring, we hope Harvard lets our educators get close enough to the wheel to correct course when it is needed.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.