| As nearly omnipresent as they are misunderstood, faculty senates are a permanent feature of higher education institutions. At bottom, the analysis, done nearly exclusively through study of the minutes of the senate at Washington State University, will explore (a) the apparent disparity between the Senate's actions and its constitutional mandate; (b) the reasons for the apparent "failure" of the Senate to live up to expectation; and (c) the theories that will shed some light upon or rationalize the behavior of this body.;Hardly a day goes by without a speech praising the blessings of "shared governance" or bemoaning the lack thereof. This qualitative study, based upon actual votes taken in the University (later the Faculty) Senate, situates the Senate in its organizational niche in higher education; provides alternative explanations to behavior overlooked in various other theories in higher education; and offers confirmation for a number of criticisms of the Senate.;This historical/critical study of the minutes not only provided a snap-shot of the Senate over time, but also elicited the way the senators, through their actions (votes), saw the senate's mandate. The Senate has been shown to be a body nearly exclusively concerned with curriculum, program, and maintenance functions, to the veritable exclusion of budgetary and other interests. The study concluded that the Senate, through the self-selection of its members, its members' unitary preference schedule, and its function as an arena for rent seeking, plays the "reactionary" role it is often accused of, neglecting many popular issues; however, its actions center about, and are directed to, benefiting the faculty. The Senate also serves most fittingly as a symbol receptacle for such ideas as "academic freedom" and "shared governance," and a focus of faculty interest to preserve these notions. |
