I would like to register some of my reasons for opposing the proposed package of amendments to the university constitution. I have elected not to spend my efforts on praising (the suggested changes that would be positive), as they are only the expected conditions at a university that aspires to be a community of scholars. I make the effort (to criticize deleterious changes) because of my persistent belief that the faculty of NIU is worth it.

The constitution and by-laws must be adopted at the same time to make any sense. Given the drastic nature of the revisions in committee structure and responsibilities in the proposed by-laws, and the extended debate they would arouse in the University Council, there is an excellent chance we could adopt a new constitution and take years to achieve a matching set of by-laws—and end up with by-laws that make a mockery of the constitutional reforms.

The due process clause as initially proposed by the task force (has been) modified on the advice of University Council. It now provides simple-minded generality and no substance. A due process clause should contain specific provisions for the appellant to hear all testimony, to cross-examine and to have copies of all evidence. Without these guarantees, appeals at the college level will continue to be kangaroo courts. The isolated and limited references in the by-laws do not establish a general principle, are extremely limited in scope, and fail to proclaim this basic right. To relegate these rights to the by-laws is to declare that due process is of secondary importance in governance considerations, subject to easy change. Any collective bargaining agreement or the AAUP “red book” could suggest more useful language.

The constitution does not recognize and define academic departments. Many of our finest departments have constitutions and by-laws of their own. The university constitution must recognize their importance in setting standards of instruction, research and service, within the multiple disciplines of a university. The constitution should require that all departments establish by-laws for internal governance and set minimum standards for such by-laws to guarantee due process at the departmental level for each faculty member.

Much of the material proposed for by-law 14 belongs in the constitution to recognize the colleges as important parts of the university structure. This material should require that colleges establish constitutions or by-laws to govern their activities and set some minimum standards, especially in areas of elective processes and due process. Colleges are too important to the existence of the university to be relegated to the by-laws. By-laws are appropriate for details that can be easily changed. The constitution is the place for major definitions of structure and policy.

The task force has created the conditions for administrators to make up their rules as they go along; precisely the conditions that led to pressure to institute a constitution in the first place. The administratively dominated task force (8 administrators, 6 faculty, 2 students) has produced what was intended: a document by deans—for the administrative convenience of deans. They have labored long and hard to produce a document intended to distract the faculty from the real issue of collective bargaining. If adopted, it will take the faculty five to ten years to discover the abuses it promotes and again demand collective bargaining as a remedy. Meanwhile, several generations of administrators will have a whole new set of freedoms at faculty expense.

The only really useful revision to the existing constitution would be a collective bargaining agreement. Such an agreement would be binding upon administrators, president and the Board of Regents as well as on the faculty. Such an agreement cannot, in the end, be worked out by a “task force”; it can only be NEGOTIATED between two groups that clearly understand their interests, goals and responsibilities.

Jack Bennett

professor of biology