MIT’s faculty governance structure is characterized by disengagement, inefficiency, and a lack of accountability. These dynamics foster an environment where a vocal minority dominates governance processes while most faculty remain disengaged. As a result, faculty meetings are no longer platforms for productive debate and robust decision-making. Key issues include the following:
Faculty Alienation
Even during times of crisis, faculty meetings attract only a small fraction of eligible attendees. The median attendance at faculty meetings last year was 102 participants, [1] a figure that underscores the lack of widespread engagement. Consequently, votes at faculty meetings do not represent “the voice of the faculty” but rather that of a minority – those who either feel strongly about specific issues or have more time to participate.
Students’ Appearance in Faculty Meetings
Student participation in faculty meetings contributed to an increasingly performative and polarized environment. Examples include:
- Intimidation: Faculty members reported feeling uneasy speaking up about polarizing issues in the presence of students, especially those they recognize from their classes. They also expressed concerns about colleagues being labeled as racists for raising dissenting viewpoints, especially regarding the students’ presence.
- Perceived Monitoring: When online voting failed, faculty reported seeing students taking note of their votes. At other times, students were seen taking notes of faculty comments. These actions created discomfort among some participants, contributing to their disengagement.
- Snapping: During the past year, students participating in faculty meetings were consistently responding to presentations and statements with unified snapping to express agreement as “the voice of the students,” applying pressure on faculty who, for the most part, care about the students and want to support them.
These dynamics contribute to an environment that undermines the seriousness of discussions. The performative atmosphere exacerbates polarization, distracts from governance priorities, and drives further disengagement among moderate faculty members.
Implications
These failures reflect the broader institutional tendency to avoid confrontation and accountability. Without reform, faculty governance will continue to erode, undermining MIT’s ability to respond cohesively to crises or implement necessary changes.
Revitalizing Faculty Governance
Faculty governance has to be restructured to foster greater engagement, inclusivity, and effectiveness. Decision-making processes must become more representative and disciplined. Key actions include the following:
- Restrict Faculty Meeting Attendance
Limit attendance at faculty meetings to faculty members, ensuring that discussions remain focused, productive, and confidential. Others, including students, may attend by invitation from the faculty chair. Standing invitations can be extended to specific non-faculty administrators whose presence is important. This change is supported by the majority of the faculty, as indicated by the following Pulse question:[2]
How appropriate was it to close a major part of the February 21 faculty meeting to non-faculty? (231 responses; 171 expressing an opinion. Of those, only 4% thought faculty meetings should never be closed to non-faculty.)
- Broaden Participation in Voting
The current system imposes a “poll tax,” as busy faculty members cannot attend faculty meetings even remotely. I suggest transitioning all faculty voting to a secure online platform where the entire faculty is invited to vote following the faculty meeting, ensuring maximum representation. Faculty meeting debates should be consolidated into structured notes, providing confidential pre-vote documentation that includes summaries of arguments for and against each motion, ensuring faculty are informed voters. This change will make governance decisions more representative and inclusive. Ranked choice voting can deal with amendments to the motions introduced in the faculty meetings, thus simultaneously voting on the motions and any amendments.
This change is, again, supported by a Pulse response:
Should final voting on motions be open to all faculty or just those attending the relevant faculty meeting? (246 responses, 231 expressing an opinion. 75% support the idea of having all faculty vote).
This change may require a modification of Robert’s rules, but there is no reason that MIT cannot adopt its own version of Robert’s rules.
- Reform Faculty Elections
Increase the transparency of the nomination process and the voting. The faculty chair should be chosen through an open election by the faculty. The argument against this (when I proposed this in the past) was that faculty members would not want to stand due to the fear of not being chosen. Anybody afraid to stand in front of colleagues should not be the faculty chair. Open elections will result in stronger candidates, independent of any administration pressure, who can faithfully represent the faculty, regardless of the administration’s position. This open election can follow a slate of 3-4 candidates presented by the nomination committee (in addition to nominations from the floor in an open faculty meeting). As part of the election process, each candidate should submit a written piece about how they view the job, their points of focus, and their qualifications.
As I hope will always be the case for anyone who holds office at MIT, the chair should issue scheduled reports about their actions and be subject to mid-term assessment (and removal by faculty vote). One of the chair’s goals should be to increase the share of faculty voting so that MIT will have an authentic “voice of the faculty” when we agree and a signal that the faculty is split when we do not.
- Redesign Meeting Agendas
Adopt structured agendas for faculty meetings that prioritize actionable items and meaningful debate. Summarize decisions in public reports to increase transparency.
A Final Note – Authority Without Responsibility
While MIT operates shared governance between the faculty, administration, and board, accountability is disproportionately placed on the administration and the Corporation. Faculty who wield significant influence through the Institute’s formal and informal governance structures are often shielded from accountability for policies enacted or actions taken (or not taken) by the institution.
A prominent example occurred last year: The Institute was called to participate in a congressional investigation following its challenges in addressing campus protests. This process included a subpoena of communications involving the upper administration and the Corporation’s executive committee, which raised many professional and personal challenges for their members. Meanwhile, under the guise of faculty governance, a group of faculty members actively opposed the administration’s actions to address antisemitism, rein in unauthorized protests, and educate or discipline students. It is not excessive to say that these individuals caused significant challenges to the Institute and its leadership, yet they faced no consequences for their actions. As in all organizations, a person or group’s authority must be proportional to their responsibility and accountability.
While faculty governance can be improved, there are no easy solutions to the problem of authority without responsibility. One solution is possibly to explain to the community the impact of certain choices and rely on the goodwill of the faculty and the rest of the community, who deeply care about the Institute.
[1] It was not clear how many members actually voted and how many abstained or otherwise did not care to vote in faculty meetings.
[2] While some colleagues think the Pulse does not represent the faculty voice, the number of votes is significant.
