The COVID Wars Continue at Penn State--A Tale of Two Senate Resolutions. . . and the Administration's Counternarrative

 

 

I have been following the sadly patched up disaster that has been the lurching progress toward what passes for policy at Penn State relating to the COVID pandemic (Pandemic and the University: "An Open Letter from Penn State faculty to the Penn State Administration and the Board of Trustees").  Not that any of this could be helped.  All of the actors in this drama have been prisoners (and happily so) of the logic of the positions they occupy since the start of this pandemic, and they frankly know no better than what they are are doing.  But a century from now that will be the epitaph of the first part of this century: here lies homo adminstratus incapable of agency other than to perpetuate the structures of power and culture into which they were willingly thrust. But administrators are not the only university actors trapped within the logic of the structures that they populate.  University faculty also perform to type. That is especially the case for the faculty representatives in its University Senate.  All people of good will--to be sure.  But also all necessarily trapped within the logic of their position and discourses of power and legitimacy which binds each to the other. Faculty also may merit an epitaph of their own: here lies homo complicitus who is trapped by the logic of Esau, famished and willing to sell his birthright to the administrator Jacob for a pot of stew (Gen 25-34).  

The Penn State Administration's choice to privilege the un-vaccinated using the discursive tropes of contemporary anti-discrimination for atmospherics, has produced something of a backlash. That backlash has been strengthened in part because Penn State leadership choices (unlike their usual cautious efforts to fall somewhere hidden in the middle of bench marked decision making) put them somewhere on the right side of the outlier curve. 

That has provided an opening for the University Senate, which to some extent has been formally marginally in the process of developing administratively "sound" policy, within the meaning universe of the university administrative community. The Senate has rushed through that opening.  It has called a special meeting of that body to vote on two resolutions, aptly named Resolution A and Resolution B--offering up of two related versions of a counter narrative, and plan of action, to that marketed by the university administration. 

Resolution A offers a counter approach to the administration's COVID planning for the Fall 20201 Semester. It calls for  an immediate vaccination mandate for eligible Penn State students, faculty, and staff and and demands that, until full vaccination can occur, that the university impose rules for universal mask mandates; twice weekly COVID-19 testing for individuals without proof of vaccination; and adherence to CDC recommendations.  

Resolution B serves the purpose of condemning the current administrative approach. It os based on the obvious--the faculty was cut out of the process of decision making. It then seeks an affirmative vote of NO CONFIDENCE  in the University’s COVID-19 Plan for Fall 2021. That s followed by a more meek request to be included in whatever revised decision making process might be triggered as a result of the vote.

That the university's leadership core takes this serious might be evidenced by a last minute appeal to the faculty in the form of an "open letter" signed by the University's president. It s a marvelous statement of its kind.  At the same time its discursive allegiance to the forms and sensibilities of the administrative milieu evidences both the increasing gap that is now apparent in the way that faculty and administration approach an issue, and as well the differences in the way that risk is valued by those who bear the risk but have no control over risk versus those who control the risk but effectively can avoid bearing the risk. 

The Presidents narrative is detached (though the words are meant to suggest caring, at least form a distance)  and Olympian.  It speaks from above conveying the sense of those burdened with the balancing of factors in a "greater game" of which the productive forces of the university (faculty, staff, buildings, services) play a role. The Senate narrative is risk based as well, but from the perspective of risk bearers the discursive form is more personal and more immediate. The Senate balances risk on their bodies; the administration bases its risk calculus on abstractions--important abstractions to be sure, but bloodless, ledger entries within ideological structures of compliance and accountability regimes.  That remoteness, of course, diminishes the micro risks of those who must bear responsibility for the operation of the ecologies of principles that the administration seeks to advance.  And it ignores the anger of a professional caste once central to the running of the university that increasingly is recast in hyper technical functionaries and transformed into live ingots that serve as one factor in the production of university welfare. 

But decide for yourselves. In the immediate term the issue is simple enough--what and how does the university value most among the factors the university administrators balance, ad whose voices count (and how) in that balancing. 

The text of the two Senate Resolutions. along with the text of the Presidential Open Letter follow.

Implementing the Affordable Care Act at Penn State, Employer Responsibility and the Part Time Employee; The AAUP Speaks, the IRS Regulations Are Released

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2014)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ― also known as the Affordable CareAct or ACA ― is the health reform legislation passed by the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010. The so-called employer responsibility provision of ACA (ACA § 1511 et seq.) must be implemented by all large employers, including Penn State, in 2014. The employer responsibility provisions primarily affect part-time faculty and staff. Employer penalties will be assessed if Penn State does not offer affordable health care to 95% of its employee population who meet the "full time" employee criteria of ACA.

The issue of calculating hours for part time employees, and the determinaiton of the provision (or no provisions) of benefits for part time employees remains very much a work in progress at Penn State, as it does for most large educational institutions across the nation. Penn State, in concert with its sister universities have chosen to adopt similar approaches for the determination of part time status, and for the benefits no longer available to that class of employee.

In the spirit of shared governance, university administrators determined that it would be useful and appropriate to solicit the input of faculty and others affected by the policy determinations that Penn State would be making with respect to these ACA requirements. The Penn State University faculty Senate obliged with a forensic discussion at its January, 2014 meeting (Implementing the Affordable Care Act at Penn State--Employer Responsibility Provisions and the Part Time Employee).

Here is a link to last month's Senate Record of the forensic discussion, conducted by Profs Larry Backer (previous Chair of the Senate) and Ira Ropson (Chair of Faculty Benefits Committee). The session may be accessed here: http://senate.psu.edu/record/13-14/012814/012814record1.pdf

At session's end, all interested stakeholder were urged to contact our Human Resources personnel and the Senate Faculty Benefits Committee to provide necessary inpiut to help guide the administraiton in choosing the approach it would take, within the limits of its discretion under the ACA, with respect to Part Time Employees.

Among those important stakeholders who have sought to contribute to the discussion has been the Penn State Chapter of the AAUP. This post includes the letter sent by Brian A. Curran, Professor fo Art History at the University Park campus, and president of the new AAUP chapter to Lori Miraldi, Lecturer in Communication Arts and Sciences, and forwarded to Dr. Ropson.

It also includes the gist of the new Treasury Regulations that permit much harsher treatment of part time faculty employees.

If the University chooses the easy path, it might wrap itself in the protections of the Treasury regulations and  create a substantial class of exploitable academics who would contribute to better operating margins for the benefits of students being outfitted for maximizing their value to wage labor markets.  But it might be possible for the University to protect its financial position and deliver quality sustainable instruction without the need for the sort of exploitation the state now would permit. It is to be hoped that Ms. Susan Basso, Penn State Vice President for Human Resources,  and her colleagues at other large public institutions, would take the higher road.  But that remains to be seen.

"The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women responds to Penn State's discriminatory violations of privacy rights" -- Wellness and Human Rights

Set out below in its entirely is the letter from Hilde Lindemann, chair of The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women, writing for that Committee, and delivered on September 16, 2013 to David Gray, Senior Vice President for Finance and Busines and Susan Basso, Vice President for Human Resources, of the Pennsylvania State University.  It is entitled: "The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women responds to Penn State's discriminatory violations of privacy rights."

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer)

 

The letter is notable for suggesting highlighting what had received less attention in the debate over the substantive and procedural missteps and errors that have come to be asserted against the Penn State Wellness program:  that of its particular burdens and intrusions on the privacy rights of women. These may raise not just the issues of violations of human rights (some recognized in law in the United States, others comprising part of an emerging international consensus on rights of personal autonomy and constraints on intrusion) but also core issues that may touch on the constitutional protections of the rights of women. The later issue and one that lies at the core of international efforts like those of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, is that in their quest for financial advantage, business enterprises, including universities, have a responsibility to respect human rights, one which includes a duty to undertake the sort of human rights due diligence, especially when their actions may produce detrimental human rights effects, that Penn State has not shared yet with the University community. (E.g., More Penn State Wellness Programs in the News and From the Bottom Up; ICMM, Integrating human rights due diligence into corporate risk management processes, March 2012; and my own work, HERE, HERE and HERE)

Penn State, Wellness and the Relationship With Third Party Service Providers

The Penn State University faculty Senate is moving toward its special meeting to vote on a resolution relating to the suspension of the Penn State Wellness program and the institution of a more robust engagement basis for structuring any future program,. (e.g., Special Faculty Senate Meeting to Consider Penn State Wellness Program: Announcement of Meeting of Senate Council to Review the Petition Along With Petition Text).  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

In that connection, it may be useful to consider not only the relationship among university stakeholders, but also between the university and its external partners, particularly Highmark.  To that end this post republishes the 2007 announcement of the current basis of that relationship and its collateral effects.  Further detail may be useful in judging this relationship and its consequences for the way in which the Wellness Program was developed, structured and operationalized.

Agenda for Upcoming Senate Council Meeting of April 9 2013

The agenda for the Penn State Senate Council meeting scheduled for April 9, 2013 has been finalized. It is set out here.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The agenda includes consideration of a number of important informational reports.  In an effort to make our work more transparent I have included many of them here as well, or will posy them shortly.  It would be useful for stakeholders to read these before our meeting and send comments either via this post or directly to the Senate officers (www.senate.psu.edu ).

 

Informal Notes and MInutes of the February 19, 2013 Senate Council Meeting

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I thank to Tram Turner for excellent note taking.

Agenda for Upcoming Senate Council Meeting of February 19 2013

The agenda for the Penn State Senate Council meeting scheduled for February 19, 2013 has been finalized. It is set out here.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The agenda includes consideration of a number of important informational reports.  In an effort to make our work more transparent I have included many of them here as well, or will posy them shortly.  It would be useful for stakeholders to read these before our meeting and send comments either via this post or directly to the Senate officers (www.senate.psu.edu ).

 

Agenda for Upcoming Senate Council Meeting of Jan 15 2013

The agenda for the Penn State Senate Council meeting scheduled for January 15, 2013 has been finalized. It is set out here.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The agenda includes consideration of a number of important informational reports.  In an effort to make our work more transparent I have included many of them here as well.  It would be useful for stakeholders to read these before our meeting and send comments either via this post or directly to the Senate officers (www.senate.psu.edu ).

Upcoming Forensic on Fixed Term Faculty Policy at Penn State

The issue of fixed term faculty--nontenured faculty working under contracts of fixed duration-- has proven to be among the most stressful in shaping the contours of shared governance at many institutions, including now Penn State.  That was recently suggested at the November 2012 Senate Council meeting, at which even a fairly generic effort to begin an engagement in policy discussion suggested the sensitivity of issues of faculty composition, the relationship between contract and tenure faculty and the balance of authority to participate in the elaboration of policy with respect to these issues  (e.g., Informal Notes of November 13, 2012 Senate Council Meeting).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

At its root, perhaps, is a misguided application of a powerful insight developed in recent academic study of the issue of faculty composition.  That insight has suggested that the current patterns of faculty mix, between tenured and contract faculty, are determined by market forces that exceed the ability of any single university to control, though perhaps they may manage the effects at the margins.  See, e.g., Monk, David H.; Dooris, Michael J.; Erickson, Rodney A., "In Search of a New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education's Changing Faculty Composition," Education Finance and Policy, v4 n3 p300-318 Sum 2009

(Abstract: This article examines the interconnected phenomena of recruitment, retention, and utilization of faculty at research universities, with special emphasis on the changing mix of tenure track and contingent (i.e., fixed term) faculty members. The authors argue, based upon both national data and detailed information from a particular institution, that powerful economic forces are prompting research universities to rethink fundamental strategies about the core academic workforce).

But assuming the validity of these findings, it does not follow that the only appropriate response is to do nothing.  More troubling would be to cede authority over faculty composition to mid-level administrators, deans and chancellors, by characterizing it as nothing more than a budgetary issue--a technique that increases the temptations to end run shared governance. Instead, the insight of the power of markets to control the character of faculty hires suggests most powerfully only the context and constraints within which decision making must be made--it does not suggest limits on the institutional stakeholders who ought to be engaged in decision making relating to the character of faculty composition. Thus, in an institution committed to deep shared governance, even were external forces substantially affecting the changes in the landscape of the character of faculty hiring, the faculty ought to have a voice in considering both the shape of those changes and the responses, even at the margin, to the these forces as they shape the character and hiring patterns at the university.

To that end, the Penn State University Faculty will be sponsoring a forensic discussion.  This post includes a short discussion of the forensic, the forensic report, and a call to engage in the discussion about fixed term faculty in advance of the December 3, 2012 University Faculty Senate meeting at which the forensic will be conducted.

Informal Notes and MInutes of the November 13, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On November 13, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative.  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)

I was unable to attend and Chair Elect Brent Yarnel chaired in my place (my thanks to him!). My Thanks to Tram Turner for excellent note taking.  Most interesting was the discussion on the report by the Intra University Relations Committee on fixed term faculty--a topic that continues to be sensitive.  Most interesting in that regard is how sensitivity appears to affect a willingness toward open discussion of issues. But the issues are important and could profit from a wider engagement by interested people.  Please send in your comments.  If there is sufficient interest I will circulate the report.  

Informal Notes of August 14, 2012 Senate Council Meeting

On August 14, 2012, the Penn State Faculty Senate Council held a regularly scheduled meeting.  This post provides an informal summary of the meeting.  In the event of conflict the formal minutes will be regarded as authoritative. 

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012))

My thanks to my colleagues for the great job of organizing the informal notes from which this summary was prepared. The slides of the PowerPoint Presentation made by Chair Backer at the meeting may be accessed HERE.