Reply to comment

Among college administrators, it is often assumed that (because they are subject to review) "you can expect staff members to do what they are told," while (because they have tenure) "you cannot tell faculty members to do anything." Jerry and Kim have been experimenting with a different presumption: that things work better when faculty and staff are treated the same, with everyone included in the decision-making processes that most affect them. In working together to reach institutional goals, the presumed differences among us, in terms of rank and role, should not matter. Decision-making should be as transparent as possible (although that word has been overused), and Bryn Mawr's long habit of "conflict avoidance" can be countered, as reasonable people are helped to see broader views, to take positions "beyond their own planet."

The group spent some time talking about both our perceptions of and blindnesses to the gradations among us. The often-quoted quip that "if the college were a rock band, the faculty would be the lead singers, and the rest of us the roadies," blurs many of the class and status issues which separate us from one another. Adjuncts, for instance, might be thought of as long term members of the band, who never get to take the lead. Staff are often unaware of the status distinctions which mean so much among faculty members; they may be disturbed to know how much faculty can be intimidated by the structure within which they work. Conversely, faculty may not be aware of the division of staff into the categories of service/craft, clerical/technical, and academic/professional. They also might not be aware that, because perceived status means more than money, how highly sought is the move from hourly pay to a salaried position. Is freedom of choice and movement one index to the hierarchical distinctions among us?

We reflected about the ways in which such divisions among us "get in the way of good education." Can we find a mode of education in which we are all subjects? Learning to see past one another's roles--to "value each others as people, not as positions"--might facilitate the education of us all. Students might learn, for instance, not to cede to faculty members judgments about the quality of their work. The anecdote was told about a ropes exercise, in which the people who were blindfolded "had the best answers, but were not heard"; we often devalue the ideas of people who have a lower status in the hierarchy. We might all work towards learning to recognize all the different kinds of knowledge that is shared among us, although to do so would mean a deep challenge to Bryn Mawr's sense of itself.

Discussion then turned to ways of including staff members in decision making. It can be empowering to give imput into the process, to have a sense that your opinions are being valued, although doing so might also raise expectations of inclusion that can not be met institutionally. We closed by imagining ways in which, after tenure, faculty members might be encouraged to be "increasingly invested in Bryn Mawr"; getting to know members of the staff might be one step in that direction.

We will meet again in two weeks, when Betsy Reese and Darla Attardi will lead further discussion about "Re-mapping The Space & Re-envisioning the Place that is Bryn Mawr."