The Eroding of Shared Governance

[eigen]

Personal attacks are not OK, no matter how heated things get. I've removed the offending post, and am hoping people can adjust their behavior without the thread needing to be closed.

[Cheerful]

From what I have seen, faculty avoid all service (or at least do the absolute minimum) to the greatest extent possible (including governance) until such refusal to serve comes back and bites them on the arse. 

From what I have seen, faculty avoid service in "shared governance" because it is essentially powerless. Great amounts of energy are expended in arriving at some kind of consensus on what a resolution should say, and then the administration ignores the resolution and does what it wants. Then great amounts of energy are expended on issuing a statement protesting the administration's diktat. Then the administration continues doing what it wants. Occasionally new faculty come in all fired up to change things. Great amounts of energy are expended trying to get the administration to give the faculty more administrative decision-making power. Statements are issued. The administration replies that the faculty already has shared governance, so no change is needed. A statement of protest is issued. Etc. Almost all of the decisions the faculty have power over are decisions that don't really count.

I have seen similar.  Among faculty, there are the "regulars" who do and say the same things ad nauseam.  There are also some dedicated, level-headed faculty who try to engage and mobilize on meaningful matters and often give up after they conclude that it's probably futile.

Many of the responses here focus on faculty.  Perhaps shared governance can work and this depends largely on the personalities, styles, collegiality, and priorities of admin.  I've seen shared governance fare much better under some admins than others.