This past Friday, the Middlebury faculty met for its monthly session to discuss the AAL requirement and whether or not to renew the pass/D/fail option. Representatives from the Campus and the SGA were present, as is sanctioned by the College’s bylaws. When the conversation turned to student stress, members of the faculty expressed discomfort with having students in the room. A vote to move into an executive session was called. After a close vote of 45 to 33 in favor of the executive session — which has only happened a few times in the past two decades — all students as well as the non-voting faculty were asked to leave.
The editorial board, in addition to the SGA, strongly disagrees with the faculty’s decision to go into executive session. We believe that it violates the ethic of engagement that President Patton has called for. The decision also reflects a lack of respect for the student perspective. It was clear that students were not wanted at the meeting even prior to its onset; the SGA faced pushback when they informed the faculty that they would be attending. They were only allowed to attend after pointing out that student bylaws explicitly offer a standing invitation to the newspaper and student government. However, instead of engaging with the student perspective, professors voted to have them leave all together. When the faculty is meeting to discuss issues that primarily affect students, the active choice to not have student representation in the room is nothing short of paternalistic.
One of the faculty’s primary apprehensions expressed at the time of the vote was for student confidentiality. Professors were sharing anonymous stories about students to illustrate their arguments on pass/fail and were concerned that it would be easy to decode which students were being discussed. Certain members of the faculty wanted students to leave out of deference to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which protects the privacy of student educational records. The reality that student records were not involved and, even if they had been, sharing them with the rest of the faculty would also be in violation of FERPA, precludes that justification for executive session. Moreover, students are frequently trusted with confidential information, such as on the judicial board, and are capable of behaving in a professional manner. It is concerning that the faculty does not extend this confidence to the Campus and the SGA.
One of the 45 faculty members in favor of the executive session questioned whether the Campus should have access to these meetings at all. Senior administrative meetings and the Board of Trustees are not subject to this greater level of scrutiny, so why should the faculty meetings be any different? We strongly disagree with this analysis. Our goal should be to work towards more student engagement rather than eliminate all engagement for the sake of consistency. Professors should not see this as “scrutiny.” The Campus is not looking to make the faculty look bad in order to get a good story; we are not interested in blindly sensationalizing sensitive information and complex arguments for publicity’s sake. Though students and faculty bring decidedly different perspectives to the table, we have one thing in common: we want what’s best for Middlebury. The Campus can engage productively with the faculty on important topics. If a multiplicity of perspectives are taken into consideration, better and more inclusive decisions can be made.
We see potential for this incident to be constructive. While we do not agree with the faculty’s decision, we understand that a lack of clear guidelines may have caused some uneasiness with having the press in the room. Moving forward, we propose that there is a specific policy regarding what is on the record and what is off the record so that members of the faculty can express their opinions without fear of publication.
Faculty members teach their students how to approach complex arguments and situations with care. They must trust their students to apply these very skills in settings like faculty meetings. It is essential that the students’ publication and its government are present for these important conversations. It is important to give students a voice, and allowing students to speak at faculty meetings is the most effective and efficient way for students to share their insights. That said, we still understand and support the need to use executive sessions in compelling circumstances, but that decision should be made thoughtfully and not gratuitously. Students and faculty must find a way to work together and live up to our community’s goal of transparent governance.
