|
Public
Perception
Because of preoccupation with image, management
is prone to build extensive facilities for the performing
arts and art museums without corresponding increase of funds,
facilities or space for instruction in the arts. This shortcoming
is perhaps more so for the visual than for the performing
arts. Students in the performing arts benefit from facilities
through both observation and participation. It is extremely
rare to find a university museum that exhibits faculty or
student work or has a structured working relationship with
Art History faculty and students. Where faculty and students
in drama, dance and music have opportunities to perform for
the public, visual artists and art historians are denied the
same privilege with university art museums.
Management
values the public perception of the university as a center
for the arts to a greater extent than it does the quality
of instruction in the arts. This observation in no way implies
that universities should not be a cultural resource for the
community through performing arts programs and museum exhibitions.
It is only that it should not be done at the expense of instruction
in the arts.
Some
part of the present situation traces to the fact that Trustees,
Regents and Legislators have contact mainly with management,
and they seldom meet with those who are actually working directly
with students in the classroom and studio. What boards hear
is often only a pragmatic view of education based on managerial
factors. Perhaps Boards should hear from faculty what would
be ideal as well as what is practical from administrators.
Present
channels for representation and communication do not work
well for faculty. An ongoing problem is illustrated by a faculty
member going to his or her immediate supervisor with a request
or problem. If resolution is beyond the authority of that
office, the supervisor might or might not, take the request
to the next level. However, they seldom aggressively pursue
the matter for fear of provoking or antagonizing their supervisor.
They do not wish to risk themselves being viewed by superiors
as boat rockers. Although the request might be accepted
at one level, it can be ignored at the next one. It has been
my experience that very few faculty requests or concerns ever
reach the offices where decision-making or implementation
take place.
I
have provided only a few instances to illustrate where and
how the conflict of values and objectives between operation
and instruction occur. It is acknowledged that at many institutions
some degree of balance between operational and instructional
efficiency has been struck. However, there are still problems
arising from how balances are weighted or which priorities
receive the most attention. There are exceptions to the distinctions
made regarding faculty and administrators or managers and
leaders. However, my concern is with what is the norm and
not with the exceptions.
I
think the public views universities as monolithic organizations
composed of trustees, president and administration, faculty
and students all working toward common goals. In reality,
each group have there own agenda and there is a duality between
educational and operational functions, and it affects faculty
effectiveness as teachers. This is especially so as administrators
and faculty are not playing on a level field. Administrators
control the funds, make key decisions, establish policies
and have direct communication with governing bodies.
While
operation is essential to mission, it should never have the
higher priority, but I think that is what has happened since
the 1970s. State universities today appear to be involved
in too many peripheral programs and activities, administrations
are too large and academic areas are improperly as well as
over managed. Trustees, Regents or Legislators need to recognize
that there are problems because of the schism between operational
and educational functions. It is necessary to first identify
a problem before it can be addressed. Governing bodies must
understand the differences between administrative efficiency
and instructional effectiveness. Where necessary, Boards should
establish new job definitions, institutional procedures and
policies that result in a balance between the two, with each
having its own integrity and priorities, but making certain
that both are working toward common goals.
|
