Arguments in Opposition: Expanding Faculty Senate Membership

Overview

Led by UCSF Division Chair Steve Hetts, MD, the UCSF Academic Senate has proposed two Memorials to the UC Regents to expand voting rights to faculty in the Health Sciences (HS) Clinical and Adjunct series to the systemwide Academic Senate.  Per systemwide Academic Senate Bylaw 90, the voting materials for each Memorial will include 1) the Proposed Memorial; 2) an Explanation of Provisions of the Memorial; 3) an Argument in Favor of the Memorial; 4) a Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of the Memorial; 5) an Argument Against the Memorial; and 6) a Rebuttal to the Argument Against the Memorial.

The respective Memorial packets can be accessed via the following links:

•    Adjunct Senate Membership Memorial; and 
•    Health Sciences Clinical Senate Membership Memorial

Opponents Want to Maintain the Status Quo—Here’s Why

Overrepresentation Clinical Faculty & Lack of Scholarly Rigor

Some faculty members have expressed concerns regarding the proposed expansion of voting rights for HS Clinical and Adjunct faculty. Read the full Memorials to the Regents for formal arguments in opposition of this proposed change, as well as rebuttals. 

HS Clinical Memorial 

Adjunct Memorial

Below are the key points of opposition:

  • Representation Imbalance: There is a worry that the inclusion of a large number of clinical faculty could shift the focus of Senate discussions and decisions toward healthcare-driven agendas, sidelining critical academic and research priorities. This influx of strictly clinical faculty from UCSF and other campuses (UCLA, UCSD, UCD, UCI) could lead to significant imbalances in representation by discipline and degree type. At UCSF, opponents believe that including HS Clinical series in our local Senate contributes to an overrepresentation of the School of Medicine within its local Senate.
  • Current Adequate Representation: Opponents of this change argue that Senate already includes Clinical X faculty, ensuring that clinical concerns are sufficiently represented.
  • Growth Driven by Corporate Interests: The rapid growth of the HS Clinical series (234% since 2014) is seen as driven by UCSF Health’s staffing needs rather than academic or programmatic requirements, leading to fears that UCSF may prioritize healthcare services over scholarly pursuits.
  • Academic Quality and Rigor: 
    • Critics contend that HS Clinical faculty are often appointed without rigorous open searches for the most qualified candidates, potentially limiting diversity of thought and experience. Concerns have been raised about the minimal requirements for teaching and scholarly work within the HS Clinical series, suggesting that faculty advancement is not sufficiently tied to academic performance. 
    • Adjunct Professors are not mandated to hold the highest degree in their field and may hold primary employment at another institution. Their appointments are often for a fixed term and do not require departmental votes or Senate reviews, which contributes to the series’ flexibility.
  • Voting Rights and Responsibilities: Including Adjunct Professors in the Senate would mandate that all departments grant them voting rights on substantial departmental questions. This could allow faculty without scholarly research backgrounds to influence critical academic decisions. Indeed, Including Adjunct Professors in the Senate would mean that faculty without scholarly expertise could influence decisions on faculty search priorities, curriculum, and evaluation of graduate students. Additionally, it would reduce the flexibility of the Adjunct series by requiring tenured faculty votes for adjunct appointments, potentially concentrating authority over key departmental issues in the hands of department chairs.
  • Concerns About Equity: While the inclusion of adjuncts might seem to improve diversity, opponents argue that adjunct faculty lack the same protections and resources as ladder-rank faculty. Meaningful improvements in equity would require hiring and supporting permanently-appointed URM and female faculty, rather than expanding Senate membership and voting rights.
  • Disproportionate Influence of UCSF:  UCSF educates a very small percentage of UC students (1.3%) but demands a disproportionately large share of the Senate vote (nearly 20%). UCSF’s faculty size is significantly larger than its student body and larger than the combined faculties of UCSB, UCR, UCSC, and UCM, leading to potential imbalances in representation within the Senate.
  • Significant Growth of UCSF Faculty:  The UCSF faculty has grown by 167% in the last decade, driven largely by a 234% increase in HS Clinical series faculty since 2014. This growth has not been driven by academic needs but by UCSF Health’s corporate interests, raising concerns about UCSF prioritizing healthcare services over scholarly pursuits.
  • Specific Distribution of HS Clinical Faculty at UCSF:  Of the 1,860 HS Clinical faculty at UCSF, 92% are from the School of Medicine, contributing to the overrepresentation of the School of Medicine in the Senate. Very few HS Clinical faculty are from the Schools of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Dentistry.
  • Administrative and Procedural Implications:  Including Adjunct Professors in the Senate would require a vote of all tenured faculty for adjunct appointments, reducing the flexibility of the Adjunct series and concentrating power in department chairs. Department chairs would have significant new authority to change the composition of voting faculty through nomination and non-reappointment of adjunct professors.
  • Lack of Open Searches for HS Clinical Faculty & Cursory Review Processes:  UCSF does not always perform open searches for HS Clinical faculty, which limits the diversity and quality of faculty appointments. The volume of HS Clinical faculty appointments has led to cursory and capricious academic reviews, raising concerns about fairness, equity, and the rigor of the review process. The rapid influx of new HS Clinical faculty has strained the academic review process, leading to concerns that evaluations are becoming cursory and arbitrary, which could undermine the quality of academic standards across the faculty.

Questions?

We’ll be updating the Academic Senate website, as these Memorials move through the Academic Senate. In the meantime, if you have questions , please email  Kristie Tappan.