The protests in front of Johnson Hall have inflamed passions that may seem slightly confusing at first sight. People have gotten arrested for demanding that University President Dave Frohnmayer immediately sign the University’s membership into the Worker Rights Consortium. Yet is must also be noted that the president has repeatedly said that he is on the “same side” as students and has pledged to sign the issue as soon as the University Senate has officially produced its recommendations.
From one viewpoint, the president is respecting due process outlined by state law and the University charter. Further, it seems that he is prepared to respect students’ demands, with the only difference being the timing. A fair question to ask is whether the protests over what essentially appears to be a timing issue are justified. Why all the fuss?
With respect to the WRC, the issue extends further than simply joining it. Our demands also include a commitment on the president’s part not to join the Fair Labor Association (FLA), which we believe will undermine our basic goals with regards to fair labor. The issue of the WRC is of great importance, but there are also other issues that have been brought to light.
The students, faculty, staff and administration do not have a significant influence over shaping University policy. Currently, the president has ultimate authority over University legislation and policies. All too often students have felt that the president has not communicated well with us. Our concerns with respect to the WRC may soon be addressed, but only after a long and laborious process that could have been avoided if the president had taken action on the overwhelming support for the WRC expressed by students in the recent ASUO elections.
The way the current system works, student voices are marginalized on the committees they sit on. These committees only have an advisory function, rather than any decision making authority. Frohnmayer has the power to delay action on the wishes of the students. Whether we have a president who tends to students’ needs or not, the problem is that the University lacks institutionalized structures that provide a formal decision-making voice for students. The channels of the University administration must be opened to students. This issue is as important as the WRC. The student electorate voted by more than a 75 percent majority to join the WRC, yet this number does not bind university policy in any way. Frohnmayer must listen to the student voice expressed in the ASUO elections.
The concept of shared governance ensures that students, faculty, staff and administration have a shared formal voice in shaping University policy, rather than a symbolic one. At this time, existing governing bodies at the University do not have a significant equal voice in the decision making process that is outlined in our charter. We hope to change this, and we demand that Frohnmayer commit himself to exploring the option of shared governance on a formal level. So far, he has not made such a commitment.
Though he has offered his tentative commitment to the WRC, Frohnmayer has made it clear that he intends to offer this commitment only on his terms. We recognize that he is perfectly within his rights as president to do this, but we believe that this presidential right undermines the best interests and the ideals of the University. It is our hope that Frohnmayer will recognize our concerns and offer his formal commitment to the issue of shared governance.