Shared governance

Jacob Lefton says,

"This is a rather inarticulate way to say what I've been thinking about for several months, but the conversation has to start somewhere:

Recently, the idea of 'shared governance' has come up in various conversations. It may have been introduced by the 2007 Re-accreditation committee, but it is possible that it could have been used before. The committee encouraged Hampshire to move to a system of more shared governance. The meaning of this phrase was left undefined, probably intentionally.

Recent events over the last two years (or thirty-eight, if you want to take the broad view) have reinforced the stratification of power, authority, and responsibility at Hampshire. There are some who believe student voices should be involved in a more than advisory capacity on all levels of the college, including major financial, hiring, and academic decisions.

Various administrators argue that students sit on committees and have voices in these various areas. Unfortunately, student voices are usually ignored.

I want to have a discussion about what 'shared governance' means. President Hexter and Chair Ladd believe shared governance to be tiered accountability, at which the Board is the ultimate tier, the president the next, etc. It's clear however that tiered accountability has no resemblance to anything 'shared'. It is not the intention of the president or chair to allow students to have any actual power in making governance decisions.

For a school that wishes its actions to be examples for its students, Hampshire is doing a poor job of leading by good example. Furthermore, a seriously experimental pedagogy would be to work educational experiences throughout the entire college system. Allow students to learn from every level instead of shunting them off. Invite them in."

Any further comments on the shape of Hampshire governance would be greatly appreciated.