\n\tBy SHANNON O. WELLS<\/p>\n
\n\tWhen a new Pitt draft policy comes up for a vote at a monthly Faculty Assembly or Senate Council meeting, it\u2019s usually approved with little-to-no fanfare.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIt\u2019s virtually always unanimous, and there\u2019s virtually never any discussion,\u201d noted Senate Council President Kris Kanthak. \u201cAnd the reason for that is the voices have been taken into account before it ever gets there.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThose \u201cvoices\u201d are those of faculty, staff and student members who serve on University Senate committees<\/a>. Often known colloquially by inscrutable acronyms like CUPS, SAAA, EIADAC \u2014 covering, respectively, matters of campus safety, student affairs, and equity\/inclusion \u2014 or by more straightforward titles such as Benefits and Welfare, Senate Research or Educational Policies, committees consider a broad range of topics that collectively affect nearly every aspect of University campus and academic life.<\/p>\n \n\tThis thoughtful, multi-leveled, multi-voiced, usually more deliberate rather than rushed process is at the heart of Pitt\u2019s shared governance structure. Faculty, staff, students and administrators share concerns, potential problems, new ideas and approaches. From individual committee level to Senate Council, the discussions often manifest as new or amended University policy.<\/p>\n \n\tIn recent years, the traditional concept of shared governance in higher education finds itself under increasing scrutiny or threat. Factors include control-grabbing legislation, federal political interference, unionization, executive board overreach, or sometimes simple neglect or erosion of academic traditions. \u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tIn early June, the Auburn University Board of Trustees gave itself complete control over course offerings, curriculum, degree requirements and academic credentials while eliminating shared governance at the Alabama land-grant university<\/a>, according to Inside Higher Ed<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n\tAuburn\u2019s existing Faculty Senate, which already held an advisory-only role, was dissolved. Its replacement \u2014 the Presidential Academic Advisory Council \u2014 \u201cis a shift from faculty-led governance to administratively controlled consultation,\u201d the Auburn American Association of University Professors chapter wrote in a statement.<\/p>\n \n\tFaculty and shared governance-based decision making also has been bypassed, altered or eliminated in recent years at institutions such as the University of Alabama, Duke University and the University of Kentucky.<\/p>\n \n\tPitt\u2019s shared governance system is not immune to outside pressures, and has, in fact, experienced growing pains in the face of faculty and staff unionization. However, leaders from the University Senate and the administration \u2014 including a relatively new chancellor \u2014 express faith that, in Oakland, the shared governance concept remains alive, well and quietly effective.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI\u2019m pretty confident and comfortable with the role of shared governance at the University of Pittsburgh,\u201d said Kanthak, associate professor in the Department of Political Science. \u201cI think at this point it\u2019s an institution. It isn\u2019t just a norm. It isn\u2019t just a couple of people. But I think we\u2019ve now gone through \u2014 at least in my career \u2014 several chancellor changes with shared governance staying in a position of power and authority.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThere\u2019s always some concern when you have a new person coming into a role like chancellor, and I remember being a little nervous about, \u2018Is this going to be a fight?\u2019 And it absolutely hasn\u2019t been.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tChancellor Joan Gabel, who came to Pitt in 2023, \u201chas been a wonderful partner in shared governance,\u201d Kanthak said. \u201cI think she gets it. She gets why it\u2019s important, and that just continues to increase the power of shared governance.\u201d<\/p>\n \t\u2018Symbiotic relationship\u2019<\/p>\n \n\tKanthak, who became Senate Council president in 2025 after four years as vice president, attributes some of shared governance\u2019s success to its power not resting \u201cin a particular cast of characters.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI feel like at Pitt we\u2019ve gone beyond that, so it doesn\u2019t need me. It doesn\u2019t need (recent past president) Robin (Kear). It doesn\u2019t need the chancellor,\u201d she said. \u201cI think it\u2019s enough of an assumption that our community plays a role in determining what the future of this institution is \u2014 that if someone tried to change that, it would be impossibly difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tKear, liaison librarian in the University Library System, said in her many years in shared governance, she\u2019s only seen it expand \u2014 to include interests of the union, the University Senate and other entities. \u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI would say the umbrella for shared governance has gotten bigger,\u201d she said, adding that \u201cshared governance\u201d means different things at different institutions.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThrough my work with the National Council of Faculty Senates observing other institutions, at each institution, the shared governance structure is unique,\u201d she noted. \u201cThey have different gatherings, different combinations of people, different committees \u2026<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cIt\u2019s never the same, but the goal is always the same \u2014 to make the best classroom and research environment that we can for our students, for our undergrad and our grad students, and faculty. And administrators have to work together to make that the best environment possible.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cUnfortunately, you can\u2019t have one without the other,\u201d she added. \u201cIt\u2019s a very symbiotic relationship, and I think at the University of Pittsburgh, it is a very strong, shared symbiotic relationship.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tIt\u2019s also one based not on lockstep thinking or quick affirmations of foregone conclusions.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cDoes everybody get what they want all the time? No,\u201d Kear noted, reiterating words from the most recent Senate Council meeting in May<\/a>: \u201cWe have a pluralism of viewpoints that we try to come to consensus for the best interests of the University through shared governance. And I think it is strong here.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tAt some institutions, she added, shared governance systems are directly affected by the legal environment of their state.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThe legal framework is different. Sometimes it\u2019s in a state legislature. Sometimes it\u2019s in the bylaws of the state legislature. It\u2019s in the laws of the state, and so on,\u201d she said. \u201cBut here at Pitt, we don\u2019t have those kinds of pressures that other states have for sort of changing the shared governance environment based on legal framework.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWe don\u2019t have those same acute pressures.\u201d<\/p>\n \tReal collaboration<\/p>\n \n\tChris Bonneau, a professor in the Department of Political Science who preceded Robin Kear as Senate Council president, became known for the incisive, witty and sometimes drily cutting comments and opinions he offered in University Senate meetings. It may surprise some observers that, as a dyed-in-the-wool academic, he wasn\u2019t naturally drawn to the committee-discussion way of life.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cMy first experience with Faculty Assembly was not positive, and that was partially because the president at the time was very non-transparent and very arrogant \u2026 so there wasn\u2019t a lot of action going on,\u201d he said. \u201cI got back in when there were some issues coming up that were concerning to me, particularly regarding faculty affairs and intellectual property.<\/p>\n \n\tIn fact, Bonneau never intended to be president.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI ran because I was asked and because I thought that, compared to the other people I was running against, I had something to offer and a different kind of perspective, particularly given my youthfulness at the time,\u201d he said. \u201cAlso, the fact that I kind of had a fresher perspective, but hadn\u2019t been here long enough to have institutional memory.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cSo in many ways, it was kind of an accidental path.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tCalling what he\u2019s read and heard about at other institutions, where the actions of a board of trustees or state legislature have effectively ended shared or faculty governance a \u201cvery troubling sign,\u201d Bonneau said he\u2019s encouraged by the resolve he sees in Pitt\u2019s shared governance culture.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWhenever a legislature gets involved in the running of universities, it\u2019s never a good thing. And the same thing is true for a board of trustees. When (the board) starts moving from a governance job to an administration job, whenever they\u2019re concerned about things much more at the nitty-gritty level, it\u2019s just bad for higher ed.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI mean, these people don\u2019t have the expertise,\u201d he added. \u201cThey don\u2019t have the knowledge, and they certainly are arrogant enough to think they do.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tBonneau said Pitt has been \u201cvery fortunate to not have that at all.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cSo I remain positive about the shared governance of Pitt and how it\u2019s continued to unfold and develop. Shared governance doesn\u2019t mean the faculty always get their way or always get what they want. What it means is that there\u2019s real collaboration. There\u2019s real consultation, and there\u2019s real feedback and learning.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cYou know, it\u2019s hard work,\u201d he stressed. \u201cWe\u2019re in pretty good shape, relative to a lot of other places.\u201d<\/p>\n \tShared solutions<\/p>\n \n\tBoth Kanthak and Kear are quick to push back on the notion that shared governance is more of a \u201ctoothless\u201d or advisory-based structure than a definitively powerful policy-making entity.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThe power of shared governance doesn\u2019t always come from our ability to force people to do things,\u201d Kanthak said. \u201cAnd with my political scientist hat on, that\u2019s one form of power, and it\u2019s not a very effective one. Lots of people think about power as being the ability to outmuscle other folks, but that\u2019s not what it looks like.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cA lot of the power of shared governance at Pitt comes from the fact that it provides mechanisms to bring lots of voices to the table to come up with a shared solution to shared problems.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tAs Kear explained, the power of shared governance \u201ccomes from the process. Creating and changing policies, providing guidance and interactions, comes from the multi-stakeholder process. And that\u2019s not always visible,\u201d she noted, joining Kanthak in rejecting the \u201ctoothless\u201d metaphor. \u201cWe don\u2019t always have to have a mouthful of teeth. We don\u2019t have to bite.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tRegarding miscommunication and potentially mismatched expectations that characterized early stages of faculty unionization discussions with the University Senate around 2022-23, Kanthak acknowledged it was a \u201cdifficult transition\u201d that\u2019s since come a long way.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThere are lots of ways to do shared governance,\u201d she said. \u201cA union is a way to do shared governance. A University Senate is a way to do shared governance. And from my perspective, we\u2019ve gotten better at understanding where our lanes ought to be in a way that serves faculty best.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tAs an example, she cited Pitt\u2019s historical treatment of short-term faculty.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cThey, for years, hadn\u2019t gotten enough respect, hadn\u2019t gotten paid enough, all those kinds of things. The University Senate is uniquely bad at solving that problem,\u201d she admitted. \u201cFirst of all, before the unions got here, those part-time faculty didn\u2019t really have a place in the University Senate. We\u2019ve now changed that, so they do.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cBut even then, they would be outvoted by other faculty, so it\u2019s very difficult for those voices to be able to rise. But the union did that very quickly, right? This was a problem that the University Senate, in terms of raises and hiring for these part-time faculty, had really wrestled with,\u201d she noted. \u201cThe union has exactly the right tools for that, and came in and provided a better solution in the first contract.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tIn other areas, however, Kanthak finds \u201clots of things\u201d the University Senate aspect of shared governance is \u201cbetter at,\u201d including currently evolving general education curriculum reform<\/a>. \u201cThat\u2019s the Senate\u2019s lane. Because those are the tools we have, to think about questions like that. And I think it\u2019s an ongoing process.\u201d<\/p>\n \tDeliberation and engagement<\/p>\n \n\tWhen Chancellor Gabel, who served as president at the University of Minnesota from 2019-23, took over from Pat Gallagher in 2023, Kear and Kanthak served, respectively, as Senate Council president and vice president.<\/p>\n \n\tRather than facing a clash of styles or orders for swashbuckling changes, the University Senate leaders found common ground with Gabel\u2019s open-minded approach and outlook in relatively short order.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cIt was just different expectations, different ways that shared governance works,\u201d Kear said of Gabel\u2019s transition to Pitt culture. \u201cOf course, she got up to the norms very quickly of the way that our University Senate works and has been a good partner.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tKanthak concurred, confessing she was \u201capprehensive at first.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI think (Senate Council leadership) was one of the first meetings that (Gabel) had,\u201d she recalled. \u201cThere was the announcement. We knew we had a meeting on our calendar when we didn\u2019t know the name of who it was, and I think that was sort of hitting the ground running and (Gabel) saying to us, \u2018This is something I\u2019m interested in, participating in and working through.\u2019<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cAnd I think it was very welcoming. I think a lot of us kind of breathed a big sigh of relief that very first day.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tGabel, who addressed questions from the University Times (see related story<\/a>), said what\u2019s impressed her most about Pitt\u2019s shared governance is \u201chow much people care about this institution.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cPeople give their time and expertise to shared governance because they want Pitt to be better, and they work hard to find pathways forward \u2014 even when the issues are difficult,\u201d she noted. \u201cThat commitment has been evident in everything from the development of the Plan for Pitt<\/a> to our work around discourse and dialogue<\/a> and many other University priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThe chancellor acknowledged challenges to thoughtful governance and policy process in a rapidly evolving academic landscape.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cHigher education is changing quickly, while the demands on everyone\u2019s time continue to grow,\u201d Gabel said. \u201cWe need to preserve the deliberation and engagement that make shared governance valuable while finding ways to work together at the pace the moment sometimes requires.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tUnionization adds another dimension to that landscape.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cCollective bargaining and shared governance have different purposes and responsibilities. Our task is to ensure that both can work effectively while preserving the engagement and institutional commitment that have made shared governance at Pitt so strong,\u201d Gabel said.<\/p>\n \tNavigating the moment<\/p>\n \n\tAfter 12 years of service in Faculty Assembly, John Stoner, professor in the Department of History, was chosen this spring as Senate Council vice president<\/a>. A member of the Educational Policies committee since 2016, where he served as co-chair for four years, Stoner also has served on the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure Stream Faculty and the Ad Hoc Committee on Evaluation and Assessment of Faculty Teaching.<\/p>\n \n\tIn short, he\u2019s an academic who thinks well beyond the classroom walls.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cI\u2019ve always liked knowing what\u2019s going on a little more holistically than some of my colleagues or my profession might allow,\u201d he observed. \u201cI could keep my head down (and) pretend that my department was my world and that things rarely intruded. But I knew from (different jobs) in my first couple of years of my career that things intruded fairly regularly.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tStoner said he appreciated knowing more about what was happening at the institutional level because \u201cit often did affect our lives. It often did affect students\u2019 lives. It often had broader implications for the role of the University in the region and in the country \u2026<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cSo fairly consistently \u2026 for the last decade-plus, I\u2019ve been engaged in shared governance at some level. \u2026 I would say I\u2019ve had a fairly broad exposure to a lot of things happening at the University level.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tReferring to the situation at Auburn University, where shared governance was effectively replaced by an entity overseen by the school\u2019s president, Stoner said from his perspective, in \u201crelative terms, shared governance at Pitt is fairly robust and fairly healthy.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tOn some issues, however, shared governance \u201csimply doesn\u2019t move at the pace that at times institutional administrators and leaders would want to move,\u201d he said, noting, for example, that Faculty Assembly doesn\u2019t meet during summer months. \u201cIf the leadership of the University needs a decision made \u2014 and sure, maybe they have a couple months to make that decision \u2014 but they don\u2019t have four months to wait until they can officially convene Faculty Assembly.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tWith what he called \u201cstructural weaknesses in the system,\u201d there may be certain kinds of decisions that get made with less Faculty Assembly input, simply because of the pace at which shared governance can move.<\/p>\n \n\tWhen it comes to research funding-related threats and other pressures from the current White House administration, Stoner confessed to experiencing \u201canticipatory anxiety\u201d while drawing some reassurance from Pitt being a more \u201cstate-related\u201d than \u201ctruly public\u201d institution. \u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWhen the Trump 47 administration came in and started talking about caps on indirect spending for federal grants<\/a> and Provost (Joe) McCarthy sent out a public email (saying) \u2018If they do this, Pitt will lose $200 million.\u2019 And $200 million is existential, (in the sense of) massive layoffs and trying to figure out how to still have a research mission if there aren\u2019t research dollars \u2014 all sorts of major structural changes.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cNow that issue is still not resolved,\u201d Stoner noted. \u201cSo, we\u2019re still in some sense waiting for that other shoe to drop.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tThough ambivalent about having to resign as co-chair of the Educational Policies committee, Stoner said he\u2019s nonetheless eager to take on a new Senate Council leadership role as the 2026-27 academic year gets underway. \u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWe have an incredibly solid group that both is passionate about the University, is passionate about the educational mission of the University, but also capable of being realistic about things like the political headwinds and needing to find ways to navigate those in a complicated moment. So, I\u2019m excited.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tShannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share? Share<\/a> it with the University Times.<\/p>\n