Dear Colleagues,
I am grateful for the many perspectives that I have heard in my recent meetings with faculty. It is clear to me that all want Santa Clara University to be a place where everyone has a voice, where we come together to listen as well as to talk, where we value respectful disagreement, and where we always assume good intentions. We share the Jesuit values that compel us to protect those whose concerns may have been overlooked in the past. Thus, I am saddened that some members of our community do not feel respected and valued, and I see that these issues should have been addressed sooner and more forcefully. My administration and I have heard your concerns, and we are taking action to address them – including working to create a new compensation structure and career track for adjunct faculty and lecturers, reviewing how we can improve our appointment and renewal procedures for academic-year adjunct faculty, and instituting new housing assistance programs.
When I first learned of the proposal for a vote for unionization by adjunct faculty and lecturers to be overseen by a third party, I was hopeful and wanted to understand how this would benefit all of us in the University. The more I learned, the more disappointed I became.
After listening to a wide range of perspectives on this matter, I have concluded that the unionization of adjunct faculty and lecturers would change the culture of the university, further stratify our community, and make it harder for Santa Clara to fulfill our mission to students, faculty and the broader community. The concerns that have been raised are better addressed by realigning our culture and improving our institutional practices such as strengthening our collaborative governance system by including all faculty voices.
Let me note that Santa Clara University respects the right of adjuncts and lecturers to unionize if they so choose. I do not, however, support the proposed third-party election.
The election approach is framed as a “neutral” process. In fact, it would give just one side the right to communicate with our faculty about the union vote and the potential impacts of unionization. The University would be prohibited from communicating directly with faculty, yet third parties would be given open access to the campus, and the freedom to campaign as much and as often as they like. I am concerned that this may lead to a long and potentially-divisive process.
What troubles me most is that this proposed approach would outsource conversations and decisions that should be made by our own community. This is our community, and I believe it is our responsibility to deal with and make right the challenges with which we are faced. Third parties with no familiarity with our campus cannot resolve our problems for us.
I look forward to continuing to work together as one community to improve our University and your experience as faculty.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Engh, S.J.
President