This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: As a stubborn winter hangs on into early spring, the board of trustees at Saint Louis University wants to get a reading on another kind of climate – the mood among faculty, staff and students on a campus racked by controversy in recent months.
Based on comments by the president of the university’s Faculty Senate on Tuesday, the answer is likely to be: lukewarm, at best.
With many of the faculty members attending wearing the orange buttons or bracelets that have come to symbolize the no-confidence votes taken last year against the Rev. Lawrence Biondi, president of the university, questions arose about the opinions sought by the survey that was put together by an outside firm and mailed electronically to about 14,000 members of the university community this week.
Mark Knuepfer, presiding over his final meeting as president of the senate, acknowledged difficulties with the survey – including spam blockers that have kept it hidden from some of its intended recipients – but he said there was time pressure to get it out, then get the answers back to the trustees before their final meeting of the school year on May 4.
He said he believes the responses will make clear to the board that faculty members are not backing down from their position: Biondi should leave his position after 25 years.
“There’s only one group of people that needs to be convinced of what we believe,” he said, “and that is the board. The board has sanctioned this survey to get this information.
“I would agree that the wording on this was far from perfect, but we fought to get what we got, and I think the message will be clear.”
Biondi and Thomas Brouster, president of the SLU board of trustees, are scheduled to attend and address the Faculty Senate’s meeting on April 30.
Questions on the faculty version of the survey let professors respond to views about issues on campus ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with an additional option of not applicable or no opinion. Sections of the survey deal with issues such as communication, campus climate and the perception of faculty by university officials; each section allows for comment by respondents at the end.
Responses will be gathered through April 5. A statement from the university explained that the survey was being conducted as part of a six-point plan announced by the trustees in December to “provide the board with a holistic understanding of the interests and concerns of the faculty, staff and student communities within the university.”
The statement added:
“The survey seeks to provide the university’s Board of Trustees with a broad overview of three primary areas of interest and concern that have been expressed: communication, climate and voice (the ability to make suggestions for change).
“As noted, the survey is intended to be an annual assessment. Because of the tight timeline, the initial survey for this academic year is more limited than what is expected in future years. During the next academic year, for example, it is envisioned that a more detailed survey would be conducted that will explore more global issues, as well as particular areas that may be specific to the various academic units and administrative divisions at the university.”
On the faculty survey, specific areas where opinions are being sought include:
- “Faculty members have adequate opportunities to communicate their concerns to the university.”
- “The university regularly communicates with faculty members regarding important university matters.”
- “The university responds to faculty concerns.”
- “The university appreciates the contributions of faculty.”
- “The university fosters an atmosphere of trust.”
- “The president is effective in leading the university.”
- “Across the university, morale is high.”
- “I would recommend Saint Louis University as a good place to work.”
- “The faculty is able to express dissenting views on university matters without fear of reprisal.”
- “A collaborative decision-making environment exists between the faculty and the university on academic matters.”
The last two areas have been particularly contentious during the months of strife between the Biondi administration and faculty, staff and students. A lack of shared governance, as called for by university bylaws, prompted the votes of no-confidence in Biondi and his former academic vice president, Manoj Patankar, and professors and students have said there is a climate of fear on campus.
Patankar, whose call for changes in the tenure rules at SLU fueled faculty opposition to the administration, resigned during the December board meeting, but his departure has not eased calls for Biondi to leave his position as well.
In addition to the standoff with the president’s office, turnover at the top of the law school has also caused controversy on campus. At the start of the school year, Dean Annette Clark left, firing a parting shot at Biondi for what she said was a failure to deal with her in good faith.
Her interim replacement, Tom Keefe, left earlier this month amid allegations that statements he had made amounted to political incorrectness at best and sexual harassment at worst. He has been replaced by former Missouri Supreme Court chief justice Mike Wolff, a long-time faculty member at the school.
Against that backdrop, the survey sent to faculty, staff and students is an effort to restore a sense of collegiality to the campus. But based on questions at Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting, that task may be difficult.
Asked about whether the administration and the trustees will be able to match responses to respondents in a survey that is supposed to protect the identity of those who take part, Knuepfer said the firm administering the survey, Psychological Associates, will have the ability to trace things. But, he added, it won’t be easy.
“It is confidential,” he said. “It is not anonymous. But they are the only ones who will have identifiers on their survey, and once the information is downloaded, those identifies will be erased.
“I’ve been assured by them that if they did want to track anybody, it would be a lot of work for them.”
Knuepfer said negotiations over the content of the survey almost broke down, so he was pleased with the fact that the work got done, even if the results are not 100 percent satisfactory.
“None of us were happy with the final product,” he said. “I was the one who proposed a compromise. I know that’s very ambiguous, but I hope the message is still clear, and I believe it will be.
“Without an answer to the board, I’m not sure they’re going to do the right thing.”
He urged faculty members to air their opinions in the open-ended sections and make clear what their views are on the issues at hand.
“We’re not dealing with academics,” he said. “They’re not going to tear things apart like we do.
“The board is going to look at this survey. They’re the only people we’re talking to.”
Psychological Associates declined to discuss how the survey was put together or the issues it was trying to analyze.