This past Monday, some faculty of the arts and sciences raised concerns over a proposal which would have allowed professors to publicize their past course evaluations with students. Although the meeting was poorly attended by faculty members and thus the concerns expressed may not accurately reflect views of the broader faculty, a few faculty members were quite vocal in expressing not only concern, but flat out disapproval for the proposal. I find it concerning that there is such disagreement. Whereas the Board of Trustees, the Student Assembly Academic Affairs Committee and the Committee on Instruction (which should, in theory, reflect faculty opinion) support the proposal, several faculty members remain resistant. Apparently, though students are graded, it seems that some of the faculty are less keen on the idea of sharing their own evaluations.
Let me emphasize that the same proposal which the faculty would not even bring to a vote received unanimous support from the Student Assembly committee from which it came, as well as unanimous support from the Committee on Instruction, and came in part, as Dean of Faculty Michael Mastanduno mentioned during the meeting, from the Board of Trustees’ desire to increase transparency. The product presented before the faculty of the arts and sciences was a well-polished proposal, the result of many months of hard work and collaboration between Student Assembly and the Committee on Instruction.
Some professors voiced particularly ironic responses to the proposal. English professor Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina and English and African and African American studies professor J. Martin Favor both expressed concern about the social implications behind course evaluations. Environmental sciences professor Richard Howarth stated a concern that the “opt-in” component of the proposal, which allows professors to decide whether or not to publicize their own evaluations, could become coercive if publicizing became the expectation. Being given the personal freedom to choose whether or not to make one’s course evaluations available would allegedly be too coercive. Instead, it would seem these professors believe it is less coercive to cast a vote which effectively says “I don’t want to make my course evaluations public, and I am going to take away from my colleagues their choice to make their evaluations public, regardless of what they want.” The irony is that they argue in favor of the most coercive measure which could have been taken — the removal of the choice and free will of their colleagues to opt in at their own discretion.
I do not mean to suggest that all professors raised claims as contradictory as theirs. Several professors raised important and meaningful issues with the proposal. Religion professor Susan Ackerman pointed out that if students can view this information, then the faculty should as well — a proposition in keeping with the underlying goal of increased transparency. Government professor Deborah Brooks also correctly pointed out that perhaps the way in which evaluations are conducted may be antiquated in several years time.
Regardless, the fact that both the Student Assembly and Committee on Instruction unanimously supported the proposal put forth to the faculty of the arts and sciences speaks of its quality. When Mastanduno said that students asked him how long it might be before evaluations were available, he told the audience of faculty that he had responded along the lines of “not knowing, these things take time.” This solicited a roar of laughter from the crowd. It is unfortunate that the faculty is stalling on this measure, because opening the course evaluations is a move clearly supported by the trustees and students alike. Despite resistance, we must continue to push an agenda of transparency.
