The abruptness with which the regents pushed this change through has strained relations between the faculty and administration. The Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs wanted the vote on this matter to be delayed for faculty discussion, and they complain that not enough time was given between their being informed of the possible change and the regents voting on it.
All Medical School faculty, whether tenured or not, will now aid in academic decisions that affect students' classroom and real-world experiences at the University's Medical School. But changes that affect faculty, administration and students alike need to be handled with more compromise from both sides.
Even though this change only affects the Medical School, the regents' bylaws apply to the entire University. SACUA is concerned that the bylaw change will give the University leave to decrease the number of faculty granted tenure. This is not the aim, nor would it be advantageous for the University to do so.
Executive faculty arguably have as much to offer the University as do tenured faculty. This is true of most departments but especially so in the Medical School, where both clinical-track and research-track faculty are untenured. Both of these groups have the clinical, hospital-oriented research experience essential to benefit the Medical School's curriculum. In comparison to most tenured faculty members, these types of faculty may often have more knowledge of current, up-to-date practices and the ability to apply theoretical knowledge to the field more readily.
In addition, it is beneficial for the administration to endow faculty with a stake in the University's future. Faculty, whether tenured or not, teaching, practicing or researching, contribute to the University's academic mission. As contributors, it makes sense that all faculty be allowed to vote in matters that involve them, regardless of tenure status. Possessing the power to influence any or all of the issues will more than likely result in a more dedicated and involved group of untenured faculty.
These faculty members contribute to the University whether given a vote or not; if voting privileges would give them a more vested interest in the University, the contribution would be even more beneficial and would satisfy both the faculty and the administration. While the change is good, both faculty and administration should have been working together to facilitate its proceedings. The tension that the abruptness of the change created does no good for University officials' relations with professors or for the University as a whole.