COLUMN: Penn's modern-day oligarchy

From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98 From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98 Often, when I complain about the University's "top-down" governing structure, students respond that "Penn's a corporation and must function in this way to get things done most effectively." The problem with this notion is that corporations are widely turning away from an oligarchic approach since it has proven much less cost-effective than a far more democratic one. An article in the January 30 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education noted that the concept of shared governance is "under siege" at many universities. Faculty members and students are being "sidelined" as a select few top administrators and trustees are usually deciding the big issues. University administrations are inclined to adopt the top-down approach because they, like so many students, view it as a means to facilitate change, to bypass bureaucracy and to avoid controversy. Unfortunately, this faulty perception makes it extremely difficult for students and faculty simply to "trust" the administration on issues that are decided without their input. Consequently, students and faculty members feel separated from the entire process and often claim that they are consulted only out of convenience or for purposes of conferring legitimacy. Administrators often boast that the 21st Century Project fosters "a Penn community" by increasing the interaction of students and faculty beyond academic course work. Community, however, is not generated simply by creating a college house system or by increasing the amount of student and faculty research work. Community is created as students, faculty, administrators and Trustees all share a stake in the University and have an opportunity to influence decisions at every stage of the process -- not simply in the implementation stage. Obviously the administration would still have the final say. But, finally given a voice to influence decisions from the initial stages, faculty members and students would be more likely to "trust" the administration. The decision-making that characterizes Penn seems to follow a pattern: big decisions to move forward with large scale projects, such as the Perelman Quadrangle and Sansom Common, are made without significant student or faculty input. Many key student leaders and faculty members read about these major decisions in The Daily Pennsylvanian without having been consulted beforehand by University administrators. Once such decisions are made, students are incorporated into the planning process and help with the implementation. But it is often a case of too little too late. Students participate to preserve their own stake, but do not become more receptive to the proposed project. For instance, when the administrators "announced" that they would replace plans for a centrally located student center -- the former Revlon Center project on Walnut Street -- with the Perelman Quad, the Undergraduate Assembly chairperson, as well as several other student leaders, was "shocked" and "disappointed" ("Perelman Quad stuns UA, PAC," DP, 1/26/95). Since its announcement, the Perelman plan has been met with continued dismay by many students who felt entirely isolated from a decision that so directly affects their performing arts, study and office space. I often hear students say that the entire project is a "waste" and will simply be a costly disruption. While the Perelman project could indeed be better than the Revlon Center, the main issue is that the manner by which the administration went about "selling" the plan to students failed. University President Judith Rodin and former Provost Stanley Chodorow would have achieved "buy in" to the plan more readily if they had consulted with students and faculty before "the announcement," allowing them to feel a part of the process, even if they were not fully in agreement. Admittedly, the administration responded impressively to students' initial overwhelming opposition by empowering all major student leaders to decide collaboratively how space will be allocated within Houston Hall. Several other committees have also formed to allow direct student involvement in the implementation of the project. These committees are definitely a step forward and an avenue toward fostering that "community" we all want. Still, they are not enough. If students had been incorporated into the decision-making process from the beginning, widespread disapproval of the project would likely not exist today. The University has an opportunity to change its approach to evoking institutional change with several upcoming issues, such as the decisions about closing the Faculty Club and whether to outsource Dining Services. With these issues, administrators are attempting once again to unveil new plans with little effort to seek input from faculty, students or Trustees. Provost Emeritus Jonathan Rhoads denounced the decision to move the Faculty Club from its present location to the new inn at Sansom Common, saying, "The proposed change seems to me to deal unfairly with the old Lenape Club, unfairly with President Harnwell, who had the vision to build the Faculty Club that all could belong to and an affront to the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania." Thus, the administration's decision-making practices are not only disturbing students, but also upstanding faculty and staff. It must slow down a bit in its planning for the new faculty club and, out of common courtesy and logic, at least consult with those who are expected to use the facility most: faculty. In the future, administrators should use forums such as University Council to include members of the University community in discussions before decisions are made. Trustee committees and other groups, such as the Dining Advisory Board and the Tangible Change Committee, which include representatives across the University, must be empowered to discuss and influence major decisions. Administrators should also approach and consult student leaders sooner, providing them with adequate information so their participation will have greater impact. If Penn is really to function as an effective and efficient corporation, then it must allow students, faculty and Trustees to be more than bystanders waiting for the next issue of the DP before they learn, for example, about the status of the Faculty Club or whether Dining will be outsourced. Rodin and other administrators must stay true to the Agenda for Excellence, which calls for "a deliberative, consensus-driven planning process" and an end to the days when "one or two leaders at the top could amass enough information to build an institution's agenda." They must quickly realize that "trust" is fundamentally created through active involvement in decision-making, not simply through participation in implementation.