Consensus process needs to be transparent

by Tracy Perkins-Shmittler

This is the third in a series of campus interest pieces with a strong emphasis on Earlham’s Pinciples and Practices. These opinions do not reflect the position of the Word.

In a call for “data transparency,” President Doug Bennett said, “Colleges and universities have an obligation to present their data in an easy access format.” But what about transparency in the consensus process that this college values so highly?

In Earlham’s Principles & Practices in the section labeled “Consensus Governance” it states, “To make [reaching a decision] possible, we take care that all may know what matters are being considered for decision and what process will be followed, we share information broadly, and we provide opportunities for all to contribute their concerns and best thoughts.”

But this has not been the experience with many frustrated students and faculty who are saying they have been kept in the dark regarding many recent issues like the non-renewal of a visiting professor’s contract,  endangering the future of a language department and spurning the future of a sexual assault peer counseling program. In a community that values consensus and any of these concerns, there should be no one single person where “the buck stops.” That means that one administrator should not be able to make arbitrary decisions by shooting down a recommendation by a committee that was reached by consensus, Earlham’s “due process.” How could even a whole group’s voice count in this procedure when their efforts are vetoed?

Earlham College is not a congress or a parliament, or a monarchy, for that matter. The Principles & Practices document also states, “Consensus-seeking is a way of reaching a decision in a group or committee through thoughtful speaking and careful listening to the ideas and concerns of all, so that one idea emerges from many.” But how can one idea emerge from many when most of the community is not permitted to contribute or have a say in the process of making a decision? If democracy were the standard procedure for important decision-making at Earlham, then perhaps the community would come much closer to reaching consensus than an ad hoc committee whose decision may be completely undermined anyway.

When asked about their thoughts on these recent issues and the way our governance system operates, three students had much to say on the matter.

Sophomore Justin Mullen said, “It defeats the purpose of telling students they have to follow these principles when they aren’t even following them themselves.”

In the same vein, freshman Guy Gastineau stated, “I understand the president of our college is in a difficult position because he has to make a decision — but he has to realize that when there is widespread discontent among the student body, and sees there is division among the faculty who are the core of the institution, that he must take this into consideration, because if you do not use your power properly, you lose your influence.”

Senior Molly Kistin is very concerned about this issue on campus, even though she is leaving soon. Regarding arbitrary unilateral decisions, she had this to say: “Things are good on paper, but the question is, is the spirit of the consensus process being honored by using review committees to make ultimate decisions when their decisions are not being treated with proper weight?”

She spoke for a large group of students who have recently organized to deal with this encompassing issue so voices may at least be expressed. Kistin continued, “Student voices are overlooked when we put so much emphasis on community. This system is set up in a certain way so voices can be heard, but over time people have become less vigilant with it.” She summed up the entire matter with the query, “Does the theory match the practice?”