Many fewer supporters in undergraduate units.
Re-boot of reputation desired.
I attended the Wednesday meeting of the Faculty Senate of the University of Louisville where the most anticipated topic on the agenda was the upcoming vote of no confidence in the leadership of James Ramsey by the Board of Trustees. At an earlier meeting, individual senators were asked to discuss with their fellow unit faculty how their representatives – and in particular their faculty appointee to the University Board of Trustees – should cast their official votes. In summary, only 24% of the faculty whose votes were reported recommended that the faculty trustee oppose a vote of no-confidence. Reciprocally, 64% overall recommended a vote of no confidence, and 11% abstained from giving an opinion..
The discussion of a vote of no confidence was originally planned for a closed session limited to only senators and from which from which both news media and other faculty were to be excluded. Apparently because of objections from the American Association of University Professors and number of faculty members (including me), the discussion was held in public in front of at least three or four television cameras and an unknown number of reporters. Approximately 50 of the 64 Senators were in attendance and about 28 guests also signed in. In the time available, only senators were recognized to speak. There is no doubt that the public nature of the discussion altered its conduct and content. A few senators noted they were uncomfortable speaking before the cameras, and concerns about retaliation were in evidence. Most senators present remained silent during general discussion. Those that did speak were polite, respectful, and earnestly honest. Most of their comments have been rather fully quoted elsewhere, some with video, and I will not repeat them here. (I recommend the Courier-Journal. WDRB-Television . Insider Louisville. WLKY-Television.) Individuals spoke up both for- and against recommending a vote of no-confidence. A minority of commenters were supporters of President Ramsey, a handful ardently so. In my view, the more convincing arguments were made by those who believe that President Ramsey has been unable to reverse the cascade of worse-than-unfortunate events that is dragging the University down, and would be to unable to turn things around and take us into a better future.
Senators were first asked to report the results of their “discussions” with their constituents, and to consider whether the Senate itself should cast a formal vote of no confidence in President Ramsey. A sequence of senators representing various academic units gave oral reports of their faculty’s opinion on the matter. In the following table, I assemble my best summary of those results. Because there was no uniform structure to these reports, it is possible that (hopefully) small errors have crept in which I am willing to correct or if an “official” tally is prepared. [Click here for expanded Table.]
Virtually all senators reporting gave some indication of the number of faculty actually “voting” but not what percent of all faculty. Many of the results were expressed only as a percent of votes, not the actual numbers of raw voters. In an effort to aggregate votes across the University, I calculated the number of raw votes from the number of responders. In this University-wide aggregate, of 757 faculty whose opinions were reported, 64% supported a vote of no confidence in the leadership of President Ramsey, 24% supported confidence, and 11% abstained from giving an opinion.
In only three of these reporting units did a majority of faculty vote in favor of the President. These were Engineering, Business, and Public Health. In the four units reporting more than 100 votes, the percent of faculty recommending no-confidence was: 82, 75, 60, and 78%. The percent of faulty in these four units supporting the President was, 9, 15, 20, and 14% respectively. The number of faculty abstaining overall ranged from 5 to 24%, averaging 13%. It is clear that not voting for no confidence did not reciprocally imply that a faculty member supported the president. In general, the large units involved in the undergraduate experience expressed the least confidence in the President. The professional schools of engineering and business were most supportive of Ramsey. It might be argued that these latter units have done well in Ramsey’s model of commercial research and political engagement.
Not the best designed poll.
This was by no means a perfect poll. Faculty participation in some units was very low or unstated. No single approach to gathering opinion was used. The Arts and Sciences faculty approached the matter systematically using an online system and achieved very good response rates. However, in some units an unstructured ad hoc system was used that may have allowed bias to intrude. The School of Medicine was essentially un-polled. For example, the very large Departments of Medicine, Surgery, and Pediatrics appeared not to be polled at all. One medical school senator reported that his chairman told him “not to participate.” In one clinical department with 40 faculty, the senator spoke only to two persons. Some units appear to have polled only tenured faculty. All part-time faculty were polled as a group irrespective of their academic department ignoring the considerable differences between the roles of part-time faculty across the campus.
I suspect the confusion expressed in the reports was built into the system. Senators were told to discuss the matter with their constituents but were given no guidance on how to do so. Some senators even noted they were still waiting for instructions. Senators reporting for their units said little about how the information was collected or to what degree anonymity was preserved. The issue of anonymity is important given the widespread perception of possible retaliation.
Senate itself to take vote of no confidence.
Perhaps the major formal result of the meeting was a decision for the Faculty Senate itself to take its own vote of no confidence in the President. The intention is for this vote to be cast before the next meeting of the Board of Trustees, or at least the meeting in which the trustees will address the matter again. (What may have been perhaps a slip of the tongue suggests this meeting may be in May.) In the Senate’s own vote, it was again emphasized that this is not a vote of the constituents, but a vote of the individual senators who were given explicit permission to vote their own conscience.
Votes taken. Now what?
Chairperson and Trustee Pamela Feldhoff has not revealed how she will vote but promised to do so ahead of time. I think that has been a defendable position given that faculty opinion had not been, indeed is not now fully collected. She has not committed to voting the will of the faculty. When one speaker offered impassioned comments that faculty opinion has not been held in highest honor by the current administration, Dr. Feldhoff replied that “we will be doing that.” Doctor Feldhoff’s trustee vote will likely be critical (should the matter actually come to a vote) and therefore her comments are followed and parsed closely.
Specific comments from the floor.
When the floor was opened to general discussion, things were slow to get going but quickly picked up steam. The large majority of Senators remained silent. I could not tell if any non-senator guests spoke up. Specific comments have been reported adequately elsewhere and links were provided above. I recommend those sources to you. A few things stood out for me.
Several folks expressed embarrassment when they were representing University elsewhere. The litany of things illegal, unethical, or just plain unfair that have occurred over the past few years was repeated several times. Ramsey’s supporters focused on the “transformative things” that have happened under Ramsey’s tenure and urged other senators to “look at the big picture.” It was suggested that what has happened could have happened to any president. Senators were were advised by Ramsey supporters to worry about “what comes next.” “Would anyone want to come here?” Others countered with pride, assuredly yes.
A common concern was perceived hostility, indeed anger and bullying responses by the President to the press and other critics. It is widely perceived that faculty opinion means very little to this administration. The School of Education in particular has not gotten over President Ramsey’s (vulgar) dismal of their own vote of no confidence in their former recently-out-of-jail Dean: “President Ramsey supported him until the day the FBI came in.” I could not help but wonder if we have not had a rerun of this hands-off approach at the Health Sciences Center.
A constructive unifying theme emerged that seemed to gather in the positions of most of the senators who spoke. They did not want to be seen as judging whether President Ramsey is guilty or not of some offence, but that the issue before them is whether he can be effective going forward into the future. “Can he turn it around?” Can he “give us a fresh start?” “Can he re-boot our reputation?” “Can he lead us to fulfill our potential?” My assessment of the afternoon’s events was that most of those who spoke did not believe these things are possible. Individuals were concerned that the entire University is caught up in a swirl that is was taking a toll and is distracting all of us from things that needs to be done. “We need a new President.” I agree with them.
Peter Hasselbacher, MD
Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
8 April 2016