Much has been made about the need for and the desirability of diversity in the academic environment.
The question is continually raised: Does the student body or faculty fairly represent a cross section of a larger population?
The same question could well be asked about the BGSU Faculty Association (BGSU-FA). When the faculty voted to unionize, one of the union’s points was that they would represent the entire faculty.
An aside here: The BGSU-FA continually characterizes the vote to unionize as “overwhelming.” Run the numbers. Extrapolating from their own estimates, approximately 800 faculty were eligible to vote. Of this population, only 49 percent voted to unionize.
More than 100 did not vote. BGSU-FA’s response might be that they gained a majority of those who actually did vote.
True enough, but that’s only 57 percent of those who voted. While it’s true that any amount over half constitutes a majority, characterizing 57 percent as an “overwhelming” response seems a bit overreaching.
The larger point, however, is that the composition of the BGSU-FA officers and negotiating team does not represent everyone they purport to serve.
Now, the officers consist of professors who teach in the Departments of Political Science, History, Media and Communication, Computer Science and English.
Original officers include professors from the departments of German, Environmental Science and English, On the BGSU-FA negotiation team, we find professors from the Departments of Political Science, Geology, Communications, German and the Chapman Learning Community, respectively.
This information is readily available on their website and the University website. What each group has in common is all are affiliated with the College of Arts and Sciences.
Not one representative on the officer’s list, past or present, or on the negotiation team hails from the Colleges of Business, Education, Health and Human Services, Musical Arts or Technology.
Only 55 percent of the full-time faculty hails from Arts and Sciences, according to the headcount for the 2010-2011 academic year, the latest available on the BGSU Institutional Research website.
Therein lies the union’s diversity problem. One hundred percent of their leadership comes from a college that accounts for only 55 percent of the full-time faculty headcount. There could be several reasons for this.
If the officers and negotiation team represents a cross section of the union membership, perhaps a predominant number of the active membership are from Arts and Sciences.
We’ll probably never know. One of my colleagues had requested information about their membership.
The union never furnished a membership profile. Although compensation is public information, an organization populated by University employees will not furnish basic information about its membership.
There could be a deeper problem. If there’s a scarcity of non-Arts and Sciences faculty among the BGSU-FA membership, it is possible that a fair number of faculty of the other colleges have chosen not to support the union.
Despite the impression given by the union, there are members who are happy with their circumstances. All would welcome an increase in salary or benefits. But, it’s also possible that a number are reasonably content here at the University.
Another possible explanation for the overrepresentation in union membership by one College is more troubling. Perhaps the Arts and Sciences faculty has had more than its share of problems and grievances with the Administration.
If true, it’s understandable why so many more of them proportionately would be drawn into the union’s ranks.
That doesn’t address the basic issue, however. Why should those who are reasonably happy be compelled to contribute to an organization, either as a member or by payment of an “agency fee,” as a condition of employment, when that organization sees itself as tasked with rectifying problems not shared by all? Being compelled to pay is troublesome enough.
It’s even more irritating to be compelled to fund an organization that doesn’t fully represent its alleged constituency.
Respond to Phil at
