By Kim McDarison
As of Easter Sunday, 31 people have signed a petition begun by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater teachers union local 3535. The union represents UW-Whitewater faculty and academic staff.
The petition, available on the Action Network, is titled: “Protect UW-Whitewater from political interference.”
According to the the union’s president, Chris Ramaekers, an associate professor of music and director of orchestras at UW-Whitewater, the petition was launched Tuesday, April 12, as a means by which to garner support from the campus and broader Whitewater community against what union members perceive as political interference from state lawmakers on the UW-Whitewater campus.
Ramaekers said the purpose of the petition is three-fold: it seeks support in objecting to political interference on campus, and points to the methodology and process used to administer a proposed free speech survey. UW System chancellors were recently informed by the UW System interim president about a free speech survey which had been slated for distribution earlier this month to all UW System students. The survey has since been postponed.
Ramaekers said he and other faculty members on campus became aware of the survey after it was tied to the abrupt resignation of former UW-Whitewater Interim Chancellor Jim Henderson.
A chancellor resigns
Ramaekers described Henderson as someone who was well-liked on campus.
“He was collaborative, even-keeled, reasonable. We were surprised when he abruptly resigned,” he said.
Henderson tendered his resignation Monday, April 4, effective immediately, writing in his resignation statement, which was posted to the campus website: “One of my three goals for my time as interim chancellor has been to help this campus hire the best chancellor possible who will be here for the long term. Over the past few days it has become clear to me that I cannot make progress on that goal. Given that, I feel that it is in both the best interest of UW-Whitewater and me personally that I resign my position as interim chancellor, and I have submitted my resignation effective at the end of the day today.”
After Henderson released his statement, UW System Interim President Michael J. Falbo announced that then-UW-Whitewater Provost John Chenoweth would be installed as interim chancellor at UW-Whitewater.
“This is an unexpected situation, but I am confident that Provost Chenoweth will maintain continuity at UW-Whitewater,” Falbo was quoted as saying in a UW System news release. The release further stated: “UW System Board of Regents President Edmund Manydeeds III is expected this week to provide an update on a search for a new permanent chancellor at UW-Whitewater.”
As the story emerged, statewide news sources reported a second source of concern coming from UW System chancellors and educators: a survey which was being provided as a research project through UW-Stout. The survey’s purpose, researchers at that institution reportedly said, was to learn more about attitudes from students about free speech on campus.
UW-Whitewater Associate Professor and Faculty Senate Chairperson Tracy Hawkins said she was among four campus leaders Henderson called into his office Monday before he officially resigned.
Free speech and funding
During the meeting, Hawkins said, Henderson explained his reasons for his resignation.
“He did talk about the survey that morning. He was using the survey as an example that highlighted for him the problematic dynamics that were going on at the system level,” Hawkins said, adding that, according to Henderson, “the survey was a symptom of the problem.”
The “dynamic” he described, she said, “was the (State) Legislature was threatening to withhold funding if the UW System president did not go forward with this survey. All of the (UW System) chancellors were against the survey but the system president said we have to do it anyway,” Hawkins said.
On April 4, Hawkins said, after her discussion with Henderson, she also had discussions with members of UW System leadership, including Falbo and Manydeeds. From information gathered from those three discussions, she said, she came to understand that there was some concern that would the system campuses not administer the survey to their students, there was a possibility that some $1 billion in state funding that had been allocated as investments in capital projects throughout the system, but had not yet been delivered, would not move forward.
“My understanding is that the Legislature has approved this funding in principle, but not in deed — we don’t yet have the money,” she said.
Said Hawkins: “Chancellor Henderson resigned because he felt like he could not in good faith recommend a (permanent position) chancellorship if that was the dynamic.”
She said Henderson described to her and the three other leaders present at the meeting on April 4 his concern about a systemwide dynamic that “excluded autonomy in decision-making for the system’s chancellors.”
UW-Whitewater campus community responds
While Hawkins was aware of the teachers union’s survey, she said, the UW-Whitewater Faculty Senate had not released a statement addressing the survey specifically.
“We have not taken a position on the survey, but yesterday (April 12) we approved a resolution opposing the political interference in the system,” she said.
The resolution reads: “Be it resolved that we, the UW-W Faculty Senate, strongly oppose all forms of political interference in the UW System, including: Threatening to or actually withholding funding on the condition of adherence to politically motivated or partisan agendas; Withholding confirmation from duly appointed Regents: Attempting to prohibit any specific academic content; Usurping campus-level control of health and safety initiatives (and) Using intimidation, harassment, or threats — including threats of termination — to influence the
decisions or behaviors of chancellors, faculty, staff, or students at any UW System institutions.”
Students, too, have responded to the free speech survey, Ramaekers said, citing a statement sent to Falbo and released by the student government at UW-Stevens Point.
The statement, dated April 6, is signed by student government leaders from UW-Eau Claire, UW-Madison, UW-Whitewater and UW-La Crosse, in addition to Stevens Point, and reads, in part: “We are writing today to express our deep disappointment in regard to the free speech survey announced yesterday. This survey, which is slated to be sent to our campus communities on Thursday, April 7, has raised concerns about the intent, methodology, and impact with student government leaders. We are calling for this survey to be delayed or cancelled until all shared governance groups are consulted.
“The topic of free speech at our universities has been used in the political arena to divide our students, create unwarranted resentment towards public higher education, and pass unjust laws limiting educational freedoms and the ability to have an honest conversation in the classroom. While we clearly support academic freedom and free speech rights, student perceptions of these complex topics must be studied in an academically rigorous manner for the results to be effective. This starts with engaging stakeholders from across the UW System.”
The statement continues: “Not only are the above issues deeply concerning, but the timing and manner of this survey also raise concerns. This time of year is one when students are already swamped with communications about registration, elections, financial aid, housing, graduation – the list goes on. Sending this survey now will only mean that it is lost in the heat of the late spring semester. As a result, this survey will likely have an extremely low response rate and suffer from biases, making the data near useless. This is not even to mention the timeline of this being announced to administrations and shared governance groups less than a week before the survey opens, leaving little to no time for proper response.”
The survey has since been postponed, with a potential for reconsideration in the fall, Ramaekers said.
Regarding the survey and alleged political interference on campus, Ramaekers added: “Everyone in the broader Whitewater community has a stake in the wellbeing of the UW-Whitewater campus. The wellbeing of the community is intertwined with these campuses, so to play games with the wellbeing of campuses is also to play games with the community.”
Withholding funds from campus, he said, “it runs the risk of financially damaging members of the community. There are business leaders who have financial interest in the community’s wellbeing, and people who own homes.”
Why object to free speech?
Citing the petition, Ramaekers said: “So it’s kind of first to say, of course everybody on campus — faculty, administration and students — we support our right to free speech. It’s the context in which this was raised.
“Free speech on campus has become a buzz word,” he said, used by some state legislative officials, “to insinuate,” Ramaekers noted “that we are somehow quashing free speech on campus.”
Ramaekers said that while he was not an expert, those on campus who are experts in the field of methodology have raised concerns with the methodology used in the proposed free speech survey.
“They (UW-Whitewater campus methodology experts) say this is not an effective methodology for evaluating whether students feel free speech is honored on campus,” he said.
A third concern, Ramaekers said, is that the UW-Whitewater’s process used for reviewing information before its submittal to students, which involves the information coming before an Institutional Review Board (IRB), was not conducted.
“It appears the IRB process was not followed properly,” Ramaekers said.
According to Ramaekers, each campus has an IRB. The free speech survey was submitted to the IRB at UW-Stout. At that review, Ramaekers said, he understands the survey was given an exemption.
“It was deemed that it didn’t need approval for Stout. Then it was supposed to go to the IRB on each campus to see if we agree, and it’s that second piece of it that didn’t happen,” Ramaekers said.
The petition created by the UW-Whitewater teachers union remains open and available to collect signatures on the union’s Facebook page, Ramaekers said. A decision about when to close it has not been made.
UW-Whitewater, file photo/Kim McDarison.
This post has already been read 5188 times!
I thought Walker disbanded all the unions which I protested against. So is there still a teachers union? I’m also confused how politicians have gotten involved.
Hi Ray, there is a UW-Whitewater faculty union, which is different than a K-12 public education teachers union. Unions do still exist, but some would argue they have less bargaining ability after changes made through Wisconsin’s Act 10. As for political involvement, that is what the story is about. The people involved have given explanations through their comments in the story.
That an academic institution would be opposed to a survey seeking to understand the state of free speech on its campuses is, to my mind, a naked abandonment of fundamental principle. Intellectual inquiry, the free exchange of ideas, and civil debate and are the sin qua non of academics, especially those at the collegiate/university level.
By its own words (https://www.wisconsin.edu/news/archive/uw-system-to-launch-student-free-speech-survey-this-week/), the UW System declared that, “The survey of students at the UW System’s 13 public universities aims to measure and analyze undergraduate students’ perception of free speech and freedom of expression at their universities.” The survey, it apepars, is a rather modest undertaking.
Moreover, the UW System further declared, “The survey builds on the UW System’s existing commitment to free speech and freedom of expression, as evidenced by Regent Policy Document 4-21, which includes a requirement that the ‘UW System shall report annually to the Board of Regents regarding the efforts of its institutions to uphold the principles expressed in this policy and to fulfill the Board’s Commitment to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression.'” Again, this rather modest proposal is, in fact, in line with the System’s own policy.
Associate Professor Tracy Hawkins claims that the faulty “dynamic” is that the State Legislature was “threatening to withhold funding” if the UW System president did not move forward with the survey. How is that a threatening dynamic? Funding is often made contingent upon the execution of other projects. It is such a common practice as to be banal.
From this and other information, I conclude that the faulty “dynamic” is with the teachers union’s petition, which, on the face of it violates policy and negates the sacrosanct principle of free speech in acedemia.
Move forward with the survey and celebrate when the undergraduates being surveyed report positive perception of free speech on the campuses, or make necessary corrections if it is discovered that the undergraduates do report problems.
Hi David,
Are you the David Medici, who lives in Milton that works as an information consultant for Charter Next Generation? As an information consultant, you should recognize misinformation in others as well as your own writing.
A survey on free speech is a wonderful thing. However, all surveys can stand to be improved. You make no mention of the inclusion of detailed demographic questions on the survey, a severe invasion of privacy that invalidates the results of any survey. You also don’t mention the lack of survey question testing by the authors, a critical aspect of professional survey development.
To me, it is amazing that you have abandoned basic information technology precepts any student would learn and have encouraged both invasion of privacy and “bad data in, bad data out” in an academic setting. If I were you, I would immediately retract this response in order to save your career.
I find your reply very interesting; it takes misleading information to a new level. Very carefully crafted, admirably so in fact. You manage to not address any actual wording in the survey, yet say it should be sent to the student. And you further ascribe negative motives to those who don’t want the survey to move forward.
I am tempted to ask if you actually read the survey, but I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” This makes your “Reply” all the more subversive. You manage to put enough actual detail to make your comments seem sound and reasonable, all without addressing the integrity of the survey itself.
It is the integrity of the survey itself that is at issue. The survey does not pass the the standards of any unbiased survey at any level, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You manage to avoid the issue at the heart of the matter. Very clever. And misleading. Hmmm. What’s your motivation?
I find your reply very interesting; it takes provides information leading to disinformation to a new level. It’s very carefully crafted, admirably so in fact. You manage to not address any actual wording in the survey while providing reasons as to why it should be sent to the student. And you further ascribe negative motives to those who don’t want the survey to move forward. Again, without discussing the actual survey itself.
I am tempted to ask if you actually read the survey, but I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” This makes your “Reply” all the more subversive. You manage to put enough actual detail to make your comments seem sound and reasonable, all without addressing the integrity of the survey itself.
It is the integrity of the survey itself that is at issue. The survey does not pass the standards required for any unbiased survey. At any level. And to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You avoided addressing the very issue at the heart of the matter. Very clever. And misleading. Hmmm. What’s your motivation?
Where is the petition?
Petition found on FB: https://www.facebook.com/UWWUnited.
Whitewater has been in turmoil for over 20 years now. They have had cheating chancellors chasing students, deans taking money, racial and sexual harrasment. Time to close it down.