Clock photo by Nina Weinstein
Although last week's vote was devastating for many of us, few can deny that the faculty spoke decisively in an election that had a higher turnout (95%) than any faculty election in recent memory. It may seem like cold comfort to union supporters, but I really do believe that we can be proud of the positive campaign we waged--in forums and on the listserv, we refused to make accusations, ascribe hidden motives, or question the character/abilities of our opponents. Instead, we tried to direct the conversation towards what a union could accomplish for faculty and for PSU, and to respond to questions/accusations (even when the answer was ignored and the question repeated many times).
In the last weeks of the campaign, the organizing committee assumed the attacks and accusations ("secret agendas," "retaliation" and the constant refrain that excluding contract faculty from the bargaining was somehow "dirty politics") of the most vocal anti-unionists would only resonate with those of like-mind and would either fall flat with undecided faculty or possibly even nudge a few in our direction (and, anecdotally, we did hear from three or four who were persuaded to vote YES in reaction to those tactics). In fact, we assumed that even responding to some of the most outlandish claims would make us seem as vehement (and thus irrational) as those most vocal opponents. However, if we lost as many supporters in the final weeks as it appears, we may have been wrong on both counts.
From the beginning, we certainly knew we would lose if we failed to convince our colleagues that a faculty union was right for PSU. Had the debate centered more on the merits, necessity and efficacy of unions, I suspect the loss would sit easier on many of us--we made our best case, they made their best case, faculty weighed both and decided. But that is where the takeaways from the election are unclear -- at least for me:
- if we believe that our colleagues voted against a union in spite of the differences in tone and focus, then perhaps we need to rethink our position.
- if, as seems to be the case, their tactics did persuade faculty who had otherwise been open to considering a union... well, how are we to react to that?
Forming a faculty union will not happen--at least not in the near-term. Rehashing what we might have done differently is useful, to a point, but only if we have the distance and perspective to question every assumption we made (and the assumptions we may be making in hindsight). That doesn't mean we can't work to make positive change, though. If we are up to it, perhaps our real challenge is finding a way to raise the level of discourse among faculty.
I had a long (and restorative) conversation with a friend who teaches at Eastern Kentucky last night. He pointed out that such tactics (even obviously fallacious tactics), and susceptibility to those tactics, are not only not rare in university discourse, but they are almost as much the norm here are as they are in the wider society.
The union discussion became mostly ugly. While I didn't exactly lose friends over it, I have less regard for a few than I once did. But attacking (or making insinuations about) the character of opponents isn't new behavior for PSU and we all share some of the blame. Every few years the faculty is called on to make some seemingly important decision: gen ed, four-credits, attendance policy, unionization.... Each time, in the midst of the more intelligent conversation, one faculty member or another rises to argue that they support position-X because they are compassionate towards students (and thus, those who hold any other position are NOT compassionate), or they oppose position-Y "because I, personally, enjoy teaching," (and thus, those who hold any other position do NOT enjoy teaching). When we simply move on to the next speaker and allow such manipulations to pass without remark we are complicit in what amounts to a discourse foul. When enough of those fouls pile up, we lose the ability to have real debate, much less dialectic (a concept that was, ironically, much invoked early in the union discussion, but mentioned more rarely when anti-union folks developed an offensive strategy).
If just one of us chooses to confront colleagues when 
they commit such fouls, they will almost certainly be dismissed as a sort of crank. But if enough of us make it a point to call out fallacies when we see them...well, we'll probably still be ignored by many, but we may actually create a PSU culture that encourages more colleagues to argue the merit of ideas...and to question those who rely on emotional manipulation.
And in the end, maybe THAT's one way to improve faculty engagement in governance -- more people may be more willing to do more work on more ideas if they are less likely to have their character attacked in the process.
So true, Scott. We need to hold ourselves, and each other, accountable, and often that's the hardest thing to do. Thanks for your excellent efforts with this movement.
I think you make a great point. I second Ann -- if we took the time to really hold ourselves and one another accountable for our (failed) rhetoric and (flawed) logic, we might make some good steps RE: self-governance. It is helpful to be reminded that, for instance, straw person fallacies aren't just rampant here, in this conversation, but across academia. Discouraging but helpful at the same time. In the end, I voted to organize because I felt the potential benefits outweighed the potential pitfalls. Thank you for devoting so much of your time and spirit to the effort.
Straw man, yes. Don't forget false dichotomy, equivocation, red herring, false authority, fallacy of composition, and, of course, ad hominem. I need to re-learn the Latin names for these and make a faculty-debate bingo game.
Yes -- but it was the straw person that stood out to me the most. 🙂 Learn your Latin!
Thanks for these thoughts, Scott. I second everything you've said. The PSU faculty in the past year, and especially in the past few weeks, has been a microcosm of what has happened at a national level. I've been trying to figure out why I'm so surprised by that. I have definitely had my faith in the possibility of intellectual discourse shaken and now need to figure out how to move forward. There were a few bright spots (like the thoughtfulness with which Liz approached the decision) and so I'm trying to hang onto those.
You articulated this so nicely. It reminds me how much I like the measured and thoughtful approach you took throughout this process. We all have so much passion and emotion, and though I think that stuff is valid, it was important to try to lead with intellectual questions related to the practical impact of a union on PSU faculty and students, and on the changing shape of higher ed. I wish the union had passed, since I have concerns about the lack of protections on campus for faculty in difficult situations (such as in a P&T process within a dysfunctional department), the lack of equity and transparency in certain areas related to faculty (such as teaching load across departments), and (most crucially) the role of faculty in determining how PSU will evolve as we try to adapt to a shifting economic and cultural terrain. But I look forward to having some of these concerns explored now that the union effort has helped to bring them forward. Thanks again, Scott, to you and to other leaders who stepped up to make a difference.