In the commentary piece signed by University President Dave Frohnmayer (ODE March 29), the president offers his support for shared governance at the University. Students, faculty and staff have been advocating for a role in decision-making at this University in a variety of forms for a long time — whether it was in opposition to the president’s unilateral endorsement of the Riverfront Research Park, his rejection of the PRIDE Hall proposal brought to him by students last winter or his refusal to support the rights of farmworkers in our community by endorsing the PCUN-led boycott of NORPAC foods. Neither students, faculty nor staff oppose shared governance; rather, the conflict is over what exactly is meant by the ideals of democracy or shared governance within our University.
Given the baggage associated with the term “democracy,” it seems appropriate to return to the Greek origins of the word. Demos means “the people.” In Greece, it was the body politic, that is, the individuals who could participate in decision making. Kratia is the second half of the word, meaning “rule by” or “power.” In English, then, democracy means “power of the people.” In practice, it implies participation and a certain level of control over decision-making by the people who are directly affected by those decisions.
The shared governance process in place at the University is far from democratic. The people who are affected by University decisions — students, faculty, staff and citizens of the state of Oregon — must rely on the sole decision-making power of the president. A more democratic system would have all members of the University community participating in decision-making roles at the University. Students are currently excluded from the most important decisions at the University, including where our money goes, and the social and environmental standards by which the University conducts itself.
The president mentions, correctly, that state law grants him power to govern the University. He does have the ability to divest himself of that decision-making control, and he has done so in several instances. For example, he plays no role in decisions around animal testing at the University. It is in the interests of the entire University community that we all share a greater role in decision-making and that the University become a more democratic institution.
In early March, students voted in ASUO elections for the University to join the Workers Rights Consortium, a monitoring group that prioritizes worker empowerment and public disclosure of workplace conditions. In the absence of democratic decision-making in other venues at the University, the results of this election become even more meaningful.
The ASUO elections reinforced the students interest in taking a participatory role in larger issues of social justice, and we are hopeful for the prospects of shared governance at our University. Working together, we believe we can find solutions that empower the entire University community with a true shared governance system by which all members of the University community will have access to the decisions that affect all of us.