NY Times, June 5 2015
Unions Subdued, Scott Walker Turns to Tenure at Wisconsin Colleges
By MONICA DAVEY and TAMAR LEWIN

CHICAGO — Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who began building a national 
profile four years ago by sharply cutting collective bargaining rights 
for most government workers, has turned his sights to a different 
element of the public sector: state universities.

As Mr. Walker takes steps toward announcing his candidacy for the 
Republican presidential nomination, he and leaders in Wisconsin’s 
Republican-held Legislature have called for changes that would give a 
board largely picked by the governor far more control over tenure and 
curriculum in the University of Wisconsin System.

Critics said the proposal, which is championed by Republicans in the 
Legislature, would burnish Mr. Walker’s conservative credentials as he 
is scrutinized by likely primary voters.

Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, signed legislation on Monday that made 
Wisconsin the 25th state to prevent organized labor from requiring all 
workers to pay union dues or fees.Unions Suffer Latest Defeat in Midwest 
With Signing of Wisconsin MeasureMARCH 9, 2015
As a new and unknown governor in 2011, Mr. Walker quickly drew national 
attention by announcing legislation to limit collective bargaining 
rights for most public-sector unions and require workers to pay more for 
their health care and pensions.

He followed that battle — which included surviving a recall effort — by 
signing other measures that attracted notice from conservatives 
nationally: new limits on early voting, the expansion of school vouchers 
and, this year, legislation barring unions from requiring employees in 
private workplaces to pay the equivalent of union dues.

Republicans say the new proposal will give university leaders more 
autonomy and encourage savings and efficiency at a moment when the state 
is aiming to cut spending to balance its budget. But the plan has caused 
professors to express alarm.

“It’ll be impossible for us to attract and retain people if we’re the 
only one that has such a weak protection of tenure,” said Donald 
Moynihan, a professor of public affairs at the University of 
Wisconsin-Madison, who has been at the institution for 10 years and was 
among hundreds of faculty members in recent days to sign a letter 
opposing the changes.

A committee of lawmakers last week approved along party lines a proposal 
that would remove the notion of tenure in the university system from 
state statute, leaving the sensitive matter to the state’s Board of 
Regents, which oversees the system’s 13 four-year universities and some 
180,000 students.

Under the proposal, the board’s 18 members — 16 of whom are appointed by 
the governor subject to the confirmation of the State Senate — would be 
permitted to set a standard by which they could fire a tenured faculty 
member “when such an action is deemed necessary due to a budget or 
program decision requiring program discontinuance, curtailment, 
modification or redirection,” not only in the case of just cause or a 
financial emergency, as permitted previously. Critics deemed it tenure 
with no actual promise of tenure.

“The reality is that we are not eliminating tenure,” said Senator Sheila 
Harsdorf, a Republican, adding that she believed the effort had been 
misunderstood as a broad condemnation of tenure.

Wisconsin is rare for including tenure provisions for professors in its 
statutes rather than in policies set by regents or similar boards. “We 
are directing the Board of Regents to develop a policy, just as there is 
in so many states,” Ms. Harsdorf said. “It’s just a matter of 
recognizing the ability for chancellors and campuses to administer and 
manage their operations.”

Along with tenure, “shared governance” has been a central feature of 
academic life in universities generally, giving faculty members the 
primary responsibility for decisions about matters like curriculum, 
choice of subject matter, instructional methods, faculty status and 
research. Under the proposed changes in Wisconsin, faculty members would 
still advise leaders on academic and educational activities, and on 
personnel matters, but that advice would be “subordinate” to the powers 
of the board, president and chancellors.

All of the changes still require a vote by the state’s full Senate and 
House. The proposal is expected to come to the full chambers later this 
month as part of the state’s budget for the next two years.

Education experts are calling the proposal significant.

“This is monumental in my opinion,” said Barmak Nassirian, director of 
federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of 
State Colleges and Universities. “My reading of the changes suggests 
that whatever the Board of Regents adopts as its policy on tenure and 
shared governance can’t possibly be as robust as what has been on the 
books thus far.”

Mr. Walker has called for still more sweeping changes to the state 
university system. As part of his budget proposal in February, the 
governor said he wanted to shift the entire university system out from 
under direct state oversight. He called for the creation of a 
“quasi-governmental” authority that could act on its own on issues of 
personnel, purchasing, capital projects and tuition. He also wanted to 
cut state spending on the system by about $300 million, or 13 percent, 
as part of his answer to an anticipated budget shortfall.

Wisconsin has hardly been the only place where public universities have 
struggled in relationships with their states, and leaders elsewhere have 
been closely watching the events unfold in Wisconsin. As state funding 
for higher education has dwindled in recent years, public universities 
in several states have been involved in discussions over cutting, or 
loosening, their ties with state government, so they would not have to 
comply with state regulations governing areas like purchasing and 
construction.

In negotiating over the budget in recent days, Wisconsin lawmakers 
rejected parts of Mr. Walker’s plan, including the creation of a 
separate authority to run the university system. They reduced to $250 
million the cuts to the system. But they accepted other of his ideas.

A legislative committee voted on Friday to “keep several of the 
flexibilities Governor Walker originally proposed, including the 
specific proposal regarding tenure,” said Laurel Patrick, Mr. Walker’s 
spokeswoman, adding that Mr. Walker’s law limiting public-sector unions 
in 2011 had also eliminated tenure requirements in the school system. 
“Today, graduation rates are up, third-grade reading scores are up, and 
A.C.T. scores are second-best in the country.”

For years, Mr. Walker has been interested in changing the structure of 
the state’s public university system. Mr. Walker, who did not complete 
college and has a son who attends the Madison campus, is expected to 
announce his presidential run shortly after the state’s budget is approved.

On Thursday, some leaders of the Board of Regents, meeting in Milwaukee, 
said the board was committed to tenure, and had already planned a task 
force to examine how to proceed if the proposals are enacted.

“We are as a board and always have been and always will be supportive of 
tenure,” Regina Millner, the regents’ vice president, said in an 
interview. “Our commitment to tenure, our commitment to academic 
freedom, our commitment to a strong faculty with secure support for the 
work they do, it’s absolute.”

Yet in academic circles nationwide, there was concern this week that the 
proposed changes in Wisconsin could bolster the forces pushing 
universities to operate more like businesses, eliminating departments or 
courses that do not attract many students or much research money.

“Increasingly, the excuse of financial difficulty has been used as a 
reason to overpower the faculty, with a lot of people in administration 
saying we need to be flexible,” said Henry Reichman, vice president of 
the American Association of University Professors. “If you just took the 
Wisconsin language on eliminating tenure, and moved it from the statute 
into board policy, you could argue that there would be no problem. But 
the shared governance change seems to undermine the whole structure.”

Monica Davey reported from Chicago, and Tamar Lewin from New York. Dirk 
Johnson contributed reporting from Madison, Wis.

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to