TO: Carol Folt
FR: Concerned Faculty of USC
RE: Shared Governance
August 9, 2019
Welcome to USC. The many members of Concerned Faculty look forward to joining you in
strengthening shared governance on campus. Our group first came together over a year ago to
demand accountability at USC and to address the many issues that have so damaged our
community over the past few years. We firmly believe that these scandals would not have
occurred if a stronger system of shared governance with faculty were in place. We write today to
share several ideals for a more balanced approach to governance and look forward to working
with you to return to the core values of the university and to help realize USC’s great potential.
Shared Governance
There are many definitions of “shared governance,” but our understanding of the term is rooted
in the American Association of University Professors’ Statement on Government: “The faculty
has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods
of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the
educational process.” Faculty governance flows from this fundamental responsibility for
academic affairs and for aspects of student life that relate to the educational process. The faculty,
through the Faculty Senate (now called Academic Senate) and Faculty Committees, should set
policies and procedures regarding faculty status (including appointments, reappointments,
decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal), curriculum,
admissions, and programs. In other realms of university government, the President and her
administration bear primary responsibility, including budgeting, development, facilities,
athletics, and many aspects of student life. On these matters, the faculty should have a
substantive advisory role. Other constituencies, including students and staff, should also have a
meaningful voice in decision making, in an advisory capacity.
A) The current USC system
Currently at USC, there is no statement whatsoever in the by-laws regarding the authority or
powers of the faculty. The by-laws provide that the faculty shall be organized into committees,
appointed by the President and other administrators, to do certain discrete tasks. Furthermore, the
by-laws provide that the Academic Senate, “as from time to time elected or designated by the
faculty, shall be a deliberative and consultative body, with power to make studies, reports, and
recommendations to the President of the University in any and all matters pertinent to the wellbeing of the faculty.” The by-laws do not recognize the faculty’s authority over academic matters
or student affairs relating to the educational process, but only the faculty’s advisory power in
matters relating to their own well-being. This is an unfortunate and constricted version of faculty
governance at odds with AAUP recommendations.
Furthermore, USC has a confusing web of Senate committees, Provost’s committees, and joint
Senate-Provost’s committees, with unclear and overlapping responsibilities. The perception is

1

 widely held that not only do Senate committee reports and recommendations go largely
unheeded but even Provost’s committee reports and recommendations will be ignored at the
whim of administrators. For instance, following a surreptitious and appalling revision to the
“Minors on Campus” policy in summer 2018, a Provost Advisory Committee on Minors on
Campus was convened, chaired by Professor Hanna Reisler. The Committee produced a detailed
report with several recommendations and submitted the report to Elizabeth Graddy in November
2018. Despite ongoing follow-up from Professor Reisler, the recommendations have gone
unheeded, and USC’s website currently lists an outdated policy. Several former committee
chairs report similar experiences, and the cumulative effect of this disregard for faculty input has
been an increase in faculty disengagement and cynicism.
Your support for reform will help renew faculty participation in governance. If USC truly wants
to be a top university, that can happen only when the faculty are partners of the administration in
setting the academic policies and practices that govern the university.
B) The example of the University of North Carolina
At the University of North Carolina, by contrast, the Faculty Code specifies exactly the powers
of the faculty:
The General Faculty has power:
1) to establish the policies governing the educational activities of, and the award of
academic degrees by, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and to promulgate
such regulations as are necessary to implement established policies;
2) to request information and reports from and to give advice to the chancellor with respect
to any matter affecting the life of the University;
3) to act upon reports from and to make recommendations to the Faculty Council, faculty
committees, colleges, schools, institutes, and other units of the University;
4) to discuss and resolve upon matters relating to the life of the University;
5) to join with the chancellor and other officers of administration and the student body in
regulating student conduct and discipline; and
6) to delegate its powers, except the power to establish or amend this Code, to such officers
and bodies as may be established herein.
The General Faculty at UNC delegates its legislative authority to a Faculty Council (like our
Academic Senate), and to 26 committees, 12 of which are elected, including some of the most
important ones, such as the equivalent of our University Committee on Appointments,
Promotion, and Tenure (UCAPT). At USC, the lack of faculty-wide elections for committees as
well as for the Senate Executive Board contributes to the lack of faculty engagement in
governance activities.
C) Recommendations for Reform
In order to improve governance at USC and to bring our university into better alignment with
peer institutions, we have five recommendations.

2

 Recommendation 1: Revise Committee Structures and Election Processes
The President should charge the Senate Task Force on Shared Governance, which has been
working on these issues for a year already, to propose amendments to the by-laws and faculty
handbook. These changes would include a new, streamlined standing committee structure that
places the authority for academic affairs squarely in the faculty, as well as forming advisory
committees on important aspects of student life, such as admissions and athletics, where the lack
of faculty governance has sorely harmed the university. The Task Force should also propose
reforms to faculty elections to make the Senate and its committees more democratic and to
engage the full faculty in governance, without sacrificing diversity of representation in all its
aspects (schools, rank, status, race, and gender, among others).
Furthermore, we have proposed to the Academic Senate Executive Board, and ask your support
for, revisions to the current Senate structure, especially the election of the Senate Executive
Board, and also the strengthening of the faculty councils across schools. If the Senate is to take
on a much stronger role in faculty governance, it must be, and be seen to be, truly representative
of the full faculty, and to involve the faculty in elections.
While our focus is on shared governance, we deem it essential that the Academic Senate provide
opportunities for the senate to discuss issues openly and frankly. This means that members of the
central administration be present only at the express invitation of the President of the Senate.
This is particularly important at meetings of the Executive Board. When the President of the
Senate deems it useful to benefit from the consultation and expertise of a member of central
administration, a request will be made for the attendance of those administrators.
Recommendation 2: Proposal for a new body, the University Council.
This past year the administration and the Academic Senate held a Forum that provided a valuable
opportunity for members of the university community to express their concerns. This was seen as
a success, and as an experiment that should be continued and even expanded under the incoming
administration. We applaud this effort to communicate more effectively but urge that you go
further than merely providing a forum for communication among the various communities within
the university.
We are proposing the creation of a formal body, the University Council, that would incorporate
the benefits of this experiment within a more elaborate structure, modeled on those found at
many peer institutions (e.g. Columbia, Cornell, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, among others).
The basic principles of the University Council include the following:
·
The Council includes the president, provost and other senior administrators; the leaders of
the Academic Senate; the leaders of the undergraduate and graduate student governments; and
the leaders of the Staff Assembly. Thus, the Council is able to reflect the interests and concerns
of all sectors of the university.

3

 ·
The Council holds regularly scheduled meetings that are open to all members of the
university community.
·
The University Council is a deliberative and broadly representative body that exists to
consider the activities of the University in all of its phases, with particular attention to the
educational objectives of the University and those matters that affect the common interests of
faculty, staff, and students. It may recommend general policies and otherwise advise the
president, the provost, and other officers of the University. It is authorized to initiate policy
proposals as well as to express its judgment on those submitted to it by the administrative
officers of the University and its various academic divisions. It is also empowered to request
information through appropriate channels from any member of the University administration.
Every significant new policy or change to existing policy under consideration by the
administration should be discussed by the University Council and the views presented there
should be seriously weighed before a final decision as to adoption is made.
·
The proposed Council relates to the Academic Senate in several important ways. The
faculty representatives on the Council are drawn from the leadership and members of the
Academic Senate, and the Senate President is the Chair of the Council Steering Committee.
We are appending a detailed description of our proposed University Council, which can serve as
the starting point for consideration and, we hope, will be useful to the group charged with
developing and supporting the creation of such a body. This proposal also includes a list of
Council Committees, a topic that should be coordinated with the general consideration of the
structure of university committees that we are urging.
Recommendation 3: Faculty representation on the Board of Trustees
This year for the first time, non-voting faculty representatives on Board of Trustees committee
were allowed to speak and interact with Trustee members. This is an excellent first step to better
incorporation of faculty voices in Board deliberations. We propose that there also be a nonvoting faculty representative on the Board Executive Committee, as well as one voting member
on the full Board of Trustees. Faculty representatives on the Board and the committees should
be selected by the Academic Senate. Again, these changes better align USC with AAUP
recommendations, including those found in the “Faculty Communication with Governing
Boards: Best Practices” report.
Recommendation 4: Review Board of Trustee By-Laws
We urge a complete review of Policies and By-Laws by the Board, with faculty on the
committee.
Recommendation 5: Increase Oversight of the Athletic Program
Our Subcommittee on Athletics and Admissions is focused on improving oversight of athletic
admissions and on deepening our ethical commitments to our student athletes. Central to this
process are several core principles:
·

The educational mission of the University must come first, before winning games.

4

 ·
Our paramount concern is to support and promote the education of student-athletes. Their
education should come first.
·
Student athletes should have access to the entire educational experience, including the full
range of majors and study abroad.
·
Faculty must have oversight authority over the admission and education of student-athletes.
A reconstituted faculty athletic oversight committee should meet with head coaches and the
athletic director, and discuss each team and each athlete from the moment of admission to the
moment of graduation.
·
Faculty should set academic policy regarding all students, including student-athletes.
·
Faculty should participate in setting, and steering a broader discussion of admissions policy,
including:
·
The side door – whether there should be a separate route for athletic admissions that
turns coaches into admissions officers.
·
The back door – whether we should allow people to “buy” admission to USC
through donations.
There must be a faculty-led, transparent investigation of the recent admissions scandal, with
accountability to the USC community and the public, so as to rebuild trust in the integrity of our
process, including a frank admission of where we went wrong. The changes we propose to
athletic policy are not radical but rather re-emphasize each faculty member’s core responsibility:
to see that every student admitted has the opportunity to pursue the best education and the “right”
education suited to her or his aspirations.
Recommendation 6: A commitment to transparency
The greatest casualty of the preceding years of scandal has been a sense not only of corruption
and harm to students and faculty, but a sense that the university has not yet come to a full
reckoning of the costs and consequences of past actions, including the failure to hold university
members, such as Dr. Puliafito, Dr. Tyndall, and Dr. Kelly, to account. Reports that are available
to the higher administration should be shared widely across the USC community. While
members of the Concerned Faculty understand the need for confidentiality, we are all too aware
of the ways that “privacy” and “non-disclosure agreements” have kept the community from
understanding and learning from past mistakes and beginning a new era together. A continued
series of reports from the President and Provost, including the results of external investigations,
and open conversations about both the mistakes and the missed opportunities of the past few
years, will help to renew faith in the university’s core values of free inquiry, respect for others,
and care for faculty, students and staff.
Conclusion:
The past few years at USC have not been easy ones. We firmly believe that many of the
university’s troubles could have been avoided had strong systems for faculty participation been
in place. We are encouraged by your commitment to shared governance and look forward to
collaborating with you on substantial changes to the university’s structures of governance. We
look forward to discussing these proposals with you in greater detail.

5