May 31,2013
TO: The New York University Board ofTrustees
FROM: The Special Committee ofthe New York University Board ofTrustees
RE: Report ofthe Special Committee ofthe New York University Board of Trustees to Consider Improving Constituent Voice
The Special Committee ("the Committee") of the New York University Board of Trustees ("the Board") held seventeen separate meetings with constituencies of NYU, with each con stituency free to choose who would attend the meetings. The stated purpose of the meet ings was to identify better ways for constituent voice to be heard. However, the groups were invited to raise whatever issues they wished to discuss.
In addition to the formal sessions, the members of the Committee engaged in informal con versations both with representatives who came as part of this process and others who knew of the process and requested conversation. The Committee also requested andre ceived submissions from interested individuals and groups.
The following constituencies participated in the meetings with the Committee:
• Abu Dhabi Faculty Council Steering Committee • Administrative Management Council • College of Nursing Faculty Council, College of Dentistry Faculty Council, Silver School of Social Work Faculty Council, and Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service Faculty Council • Faculty Advisory Committee on Academic Priorities • Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (F ASP) • Faculty Alliance • Faculty of Arts and Science Chairs • Faculty of Arts and Science Senators • Faculty representatives from Polytechnic Institute of NYU and NYU School of Law • Faculty Senators Council (FSC)
W/2114525v1 • Gallatin School of Individualized Study Faculty Council, Liberal Studies Program Faculty Assembly Steering Committee, and School of Continuing and Professional Studies faculty representatives • NYU Alumni Association • NYU Chapter, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) • School of Medicine Faculty Council • Stern School of Business Faculty Council • Student Senators Council, Commuter Students Council, and Resident Assistant rep resentatives • Tisch Faculty Executive Committee; Steinhardt Faculty Council
This report is submitted to the Board for discussion at its June 12 meeting. The Committee recommends that the Administration work with the Committee over the summer with a view to formulating recommendations that will be presented to the University community and then considered by the Board.
The meetings with the constituents revealed a wide range of views on the Committee's primary inquiry and on particular areas of University activity that have been widely dis cussed. Some participants shared concerns and offered suggestions for improvement; oth ers supported some or all of the components of the University's recent directions and de velopments. In compiling and distilling this information, it is important to distinguish be tween opinions related to the University's policymaking process (specifically consultation, communication, governance) and opinions regarding specific substantive initiatives.
In large measure the most critical observations expressed in the individual meetings are subsumed in four communications to the Committee from the NYU FAS Senators (Exhibit A), NYU AAUP (Exhibit B), Faculty Against the Sexton Plan (Exhibit C) and the Stern Faculty Council (Exhibit D). Affirmative views on the University and its leadership are illustrated in the report of the Law School Senators, which was submitted to the Committee (Exhibit E). The degree of concern and the importance of specific concerns differed among the con stituencies. Some constituencies rejected one or more of the concerns. In addition to the concerns set forth in the four exhibits, one or more of the constituencies expressed other concerns. The following is a list of the concerns relating to voice, process, and governance:
1. Additional mechanisms for communication among the Board, the Administration and faculty. 2. Increased participation for faculty in governance; particularly in the manner in which faculty members of committees are selected. 3. Assuring appropriate voice for non-tenured faculty in University governance struc tures. 4. A faculty role in the process for the selection of the President. 5. The need for reconfigured administrative infrastructure as the University admin istration implements our current strategy. 6. A greater role for students in governance.
-2- In addition to these procedural issues, the following substantive topics were expressed:
1. Compensation of faculty and the administrative staff. 2. Adequacy of student financial aid and the increased debt of students. 3. Allocation of resources among schools and departments. 4. Funding for alumni programming. 5. The implementation of the Global Network University strategy. 6. Space plans as addressed in NYU 2031. 7. The importance of technology and on-line education. 8. The leadership of John Sexton.
The Committee has not fully evaluated the concerns. The Committee has listed the con cerns that it believes warrant the attention of the Board so that the Board and the Admin istration will be able to consider them and, if the Board deems appropriate, formulate pro posals to deal with them. The Committee is of the view that while deficiencies in communi cation and process have caused concerns, a portion of such expressed concerns are the product of disagreement with substantive decisions made by the Administration and with the full support of the Board.
As a result of its meetings and discussions, and consultation with the Administration, the Committee believes that establishment of a permanent committee consisting of trustees, faculty, students and administrators that would meet regularly to discuss NYU issues should be the first matter to be considered by the Board.
-3- Exhibit A New York University A private university in the public service FAS Senators (Faculty of Arts and Science Senators and Alternates to the Faculty Senate Council) 6 Washington Place, Suite 753 New York, NY 10003-6634 212-998-7821 [email protected]
May 20,2013
Dear Marty Lipton, other members of the Special Committee of the NYU Board of Trustees who met with us (William Berkley, Daniel Tisch, and Anthony Welters), and other Special Committee members:
We appreciate your time and effort spent meeting with us on Saturday, April 13, 2013. We are also, as you lmow, deeply appreciative of your support and service to the University.
Our purpose here is to summarize the issues that led to the vote of no confidence in President Sexton's leadership. You recall that in March, 83% of the FAS faculty participated in this vote (52% to 39%) after considerable debate and deliberation. What have we learned from the·· faculty's point of view, and as a result how can we refocus our resources and commitments?
1. The fundamental problem is that this administration institutes academic programs, makes important policy decisions, and otherwise shapes the university without consulting faculty in meaningful ways. Failure to do so has produced constant friction, unnecessary inefficiencies and even hostilities not characteristic of any previous administration's relationship to NYU faculty. The most well recognized and widely reported controversies resulted from the administration's unilateral design and implementation of the Global Network University (GNU) and the footprint expansion plan, NYU 2031. Mutual confidence, respect, and trust between faculty and administration are essential for academic organizations to succeed, particular now as NYU invests in becoming a top university.
2. One symptom of this problem is that the administration persists in appointing ad hoc committees (e.g., on the GNU, or the Working Group on Space Priorities about the 2031 Plan), rather than delegating tasks to elected faculty committees or asking faculty to constitute a committee for a particular purpose or project. These ad hoc committees never have the credibility they should, they are widely perceived among faculty as little more than cynical exercises in publicrelations, and they increase faculty cynicism about the administration's motives as well as interest in genuine, serious, intellectual engagement with the faculty.
3. FAS faculty objected to the selection of Sexton as president without faculty involvement and consideration· Though promises were made,they were not kept when President Sexton was reappointed·to his second term in the same manner. As a result, the faculty's original objection . was only reinforced.
4. The resulting lack ofadministrative accountability to the faculty has undermined its capacity to effectively manage our complex institution. When a University administration feels no accountability to faculty, and looses touch With faculty concerns, it cannot authentically represent faculty views on matters of academic policy. The Board's surprise at the outcome of· recent votes of no confidence, extending beyond the core university faculty (F AS) to many other schools, is a s:Ymptom ofthe widening disconnect between the administration and the faculty.
5. The administration has grown substantially under President Sexton, increasingly becoming a self-reinforcing echo chamber that prizes loyalty to President Sexton above all else.
6. Reform should begin with the Board's recognition that, contrary to corporate practices, the . governance of the best American universities rests on the three legs of a 3-legged stool: the Board of Trustees, the Administration, and the Faculty. Although there are other constituents at the university, these three are primary.
a. The Board, which has the ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the university, as made clear in the Charter and the Bylaws.
• > b. The Administration, which develops and implements the policies agreed upon by these three parties; in accord with widely accepted principles of shared governance.
c. The Faculty, which collectively represents the intellectual heritage and expertise that the public trusts universities to pass on to the next generations. The faculty's prestige primarily rests not Within the university but within their disciplines, in the judgments of their peers worldWide. !'Peer review" trumps institutional loyalty, and this is reflected in the way that scholarly papers, grant applications, and recommendations for promotion and tenure are reviewed. The faculty are crucial in establishing the standing of the university in the worldwide community of scholars, and are therefore responsible for being critical of their university from positions outside of it, in their disciplines.
d. The definitive statement on shared governance is the "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities," formulated collaboratively by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards ofUniversities and Colleges (AGB). NYU is a memBer of these last two organizations, and thereby subscribes to their principles. The statement was developed in 1966 and revised in Aprill990, and can be found at (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/govemancestatement.htm).
7. Real reform will entail nothing less than changing the instit.utional culture of NYU and the administration, whoever heads it. We recommend developing collaborative policymaking and academic leadership partnerships between the Board and the faculty. 8. The best way to do this is to establish a standing committee of Board members and elected faculty (selected by the faculty), to meet regularly to discuss concerns of the Board and the Faculty.
We look forward to your final report and hope it includes these perspectives and this recommendation.
Yours truly,
Jim Uleman · Chair, F AS Senators
Christine Harrington
Rebecca Karl
Molly Nolan
Carol Sternhell and the other FAS Senators who could not meet with you. Exhibit B
Letter from AAUP-NYU to the Board of Trustees
Results from the ballot conducted last week show that a 111ajority of the faculty in Arts and Science has no confidence in President Sexton. Only 39% of the votes cast were in support of President Sexton, while 52% expressed no confidence. Eight percent abstained. Atrulyimpressive·83% of the faculty cast a vote.
Your statement of March 15th suggests that it is only the faculty of Arts and Science who have no confidence in President Sexton, and that this "sentiment" is outweighed by expressions of support from other schools, specifically Medicine, Dentistry, and Nursing. But so far, Arts and Science is the only school whose faculty has voted. We draw this distinction to your attention because your statement places the direct expression of institutional citizenship-the faculty vote-on a par with · statements·from administrators and proxy representatives. To clarify: the faculties in the schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Nursing did not take a vote. At the School of Medicine, the voting was limited to the Faculty Council, despite efforts by both ·School of Medicine faculty and the AAUP to open the vote to the whole faculty. The AAUP cautioned the Faculty Council against limiting the vote, because it would be seen as a premature measure, preempting the franchise of the whole faculty. In addition to the vote of the SOM Faculty Council, the administrators from all three health-related schools (Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing) pledged their support for ·President Sexton. We believe that faculty,-at every NYU school, have the right, and the responsibility, to conduct their own vote, unencumbered by influence from administrators, including department chairs.
You, the Trustees, comprise the third pillar of shared governance, and so we call upon you to exercise your responsibility to help restore faculty confidence in the administrative pillar of NYU. An honest dialogue between faculty and trustees is ·tong overdue-no such institutional channel currently exists-and the current crisis of trust demands it. -
Last month, you were sent a copy (enclosed again here) ofthe AAUP document, "Prome for a 21st Century Presidency at NYU." It was also circulated to faculty, students, and administrators with the goal of sparking a campus-wide conversation about how to move forward. The underlying objective is to re-make NYU into a more open university, a model of transparency in decision-making and fiscal candor.
Our hope is to extend this culture of transparency to the working of the Board as well. Faculty are uninformed as to how the trustees perform their duties, when they meet, how. they are selected, or what Board records can be accessed. Likewise, the Board has not taken advantage of the insights and expertise of the faculty. Sharing on both sides would benefit the university as a whole. We call on you to commit to a joint Faculty-Trustee inquiry (involving FAS senators and AAUP representatives) into the many factors that led to the loss of confidence. The next president of NYU should not be burdened with the legacy of a divided and demoralized faculty body. As for President Sexton, we believe he should step down in the interests of the institution. The longer he stays in office, the more the malaise among faculty is likely to linger and spread.
Andrew Ross, president, NYU-AAUP Molly Nolan, vice-president, NYU-AAUP Marie Monaco, secretary, NYU-AAUP Anna McCarthy, treasurer, NYU-AAUP Rebecca Karl, at-large executive member, NYU-AAUP Rana Jaleel, student member, NYU-AAUP
Proii.le for a 21st Century Presidency at NYU ·
The American Association of University Professors is the originator and steward of the basic principles of governance and academic freedom observed by U.S. universities. Inspired by the Vote of No Confidence process set in motion by NYU's Faculty of Arts and Science, we offer · the following list of requisites for a 21st century presidency at NYU.
New York University, as one of the nation's leading universities, needs a president who is deeply committed to
1. The Ethos and Practice of Shared Governance a:nd who therefore supports
a. the right and obligation of faculty to define and shape all new academic and curricular initiatives, including those at global locations b. the right and obligation offactilty to be represented on the Board of Trustees c. the right and obligation of faculty to participate fully in the choosing of new presidents and provosts d. the right and obligation offaculty to serve, as elected representatives, not as ad hoc appointees, on top level committees e; the right and obligation of faculty to hold regular, plenary assemblies with the president and senior administrators in order to voice concerns and present new initiatives f. the right and obligation of faculty to have full knowledge of the fiscal affairs of the university _ _g. · the right and obligation of faculty to review and participate in the approval of all new building and expansion plans h. the right of faculty, should a majority so decide, to union representation and collective bargaining
2. The Institutional Protections of Tenure and Academic Freedom for Faculty and who therefore supports
a. the steady conversion ofNTT into TT faculty positions at every NYU location b. the extension of protections comparable to those that accrue to tenure to all fulltime faculty who have served continuously for seven years, c. the upholding of academic freedom among all faculty, including those not on the tenure track d. the careful protection of academic freedoms through contracts and intellectual property regulations relating to cOmmercialization of university research
3. The Principle of Making an NYU Education Affordable to All Students and who therefore supports
a. the right and obligation of student representatives to participate in a university-wide plan to reduce the student debt burden by expanding needs based financial aid b. the right and obligation of students to be represented on the Board ofTrustees c. the right and obligation of students to have full knowledge ofthe fiscal affairs of the university d. a moratorium on the growth of non-academic personnel, offices. programs, and costs that are extraneous to core academic functions.
· 4. Th~ Cultivation of Mutually Respectful Town-Gown Relations and who therefore supports
a. the right and obligation of community representatives to review and participate in the approval of all new building and expansion plans b. the right and obligation of community representatives to serve on a committee for developing university-community initiatives that will benefit from NYU's research and resources
5. The Abatement of Salary Polarization and who therefore supports
a. the reduction, by at least 25%, of the salaries of the president and senior administrators . b. the establishment of a more equitable range spread between the highest and lowest paid ofNYU employees c. a suspension of the practice of passing on the costs of benefits spending to employees 6. The Upholding of Fair Labor Standards for All University Employees and who therefore supports
a. the right of all employees, including graduate student employees, should a majority so decide, to union representation and collective bargaining. b. tlie right of erilployee union representatives to expect good faith in collective bargaining from the NYU administration c. the right of all employees, including those contracted to construct and maintain GNU buildings, to be protected by the ILO's basic international labor standards. Exhi:nit c Lipton, Martin
From: NYU FASP
Mr. Martin Lipton, Chair NYU Board of Trustees
Dear Mr. Lipton, and other members of the Board of Trustees:
As NYU faculty with grave concerns about the current direction of our university, we take the liberty of writing in response to the statement you released on March 15, following the FAS vote of no confidence in Pres. Sexton's leadership. Representing schools throughout the university, we applaud that faculty for voting as it did, and hope to see like votes conducted soon at Tisch, Steinhardt, Gallatin, the Silver School of Social Work and elsewhere, including NYU programs and campuses abroad.
We are therefore ambivalent about your recent statement. On the one hand, we naturally regret its overall dismissal of the FAS vote as insignificant. At the same time-and for the same reason-we applaud the Board's decision to create a representative committee to help guide NYU's future course. We are particularly pleased that you intend to seek "the input and involvement of all [NYU's] constituencies, particularly the faculty."
We write this letter, first of all, to join our colleagues in both FAS and NYU/AAUP, in their proposal that we act on your decision by creating a small joint committee of Trustees and FAS Senators (and perhaps one other FAS professor) to engage the issues that inspired the referendum in the first place, and that decided the majority. (Moreover, we agree with our colleagues that the faculty·members who will serve on this committee
1 should be chosen by the faculty themselves.)
More specifically, we also write to identify a number of the issues that this special joint committee should investigate, as they pertain directly to NYU's academic standing and financial health:
1. "NYU 2031""
We hope to understand the academic rationale for the expansion plan, learn more about its planning and financial basis, and determine why it was devised without the faculty, then pushed forward in the face ofbroad and vigorous opposition by the faculty (along with the community at large).
Faculty have posed a number of key questions vis-a-vis the plan and NYU's space needs, repeatedly attempting to get answers from the Space Priorities Working Group-created by Pres. Sexton, as he put it, to solicit "faculty input and critique" -and from the president himself. Those questions were submitted on Oct. 5, 2012, re-submitted on Nov. 20, 2012, then sent directly to the president himself on Jan. 29--and they still have not been answered.
As it pertains directly to the question of shared governance at NYU, we hope to know more about the Working Group. Why was it formed after "NYU 2031" had already been devised? How and by whom were its members chosen? How did the president of the Faculty Senate Council come to chair the Working Group, and was there a conflict of interest in his efforts to secure the FSC's recognition,of the Group?
2. "The Global Network University""
We share the grave concerns of many on the faculty about the broad and rapid spread of academic programs planned and managed without full participation of relevant tenured faculty here in New York (who are often told about them ex post facto, if at all). We are troubled by the likelihood that NYU's students are charged full tuition for programs hastily and inexpertly created, and often with ramshackle housing. Such practices are unfair, and even dangerous, to our students, and therefore harmful to NYU's reputation.
More specifically, we are concerned about the following developments:
a. Tisch Asia
The sudden shutdown of that program has not only outraged its students, · creating much ill will (and sparking a class action lawsuit), but has cost NYU millions, since, late last year, the institution lost its not-for-profit status, the Singaporean board members having quit over certain missteps by NYU's administration.
2 Because of this development, Tisch Asia's students cannot raise funds for their film projects, since donations are no longer tax-deductible; and as the school is not an entity in the eyes of the Singaporean government, NYU is now having trouble securing visas for students and faculty alike. Meanwhile, NYU must now pay large amounts in taxes.
We hope to understand how this very promising arts program, many of whose graduates have been remarkably successful-and which the government of Singapore had promised generous support-was suddenly declared a losing proposition. (For further reading, see Anatomy Of A Failed Campus: What Happened At Tisch Asia?)
·b. NYU/Florence
Recently the students in that program teamed what only its faculty, and some administrators in New York, had known for months-that the administration plans to cut nearly all the studio arts faculty, and some of the art history faculty, so as to shift the overall curriculum to political science. The students instantly set up a Facebook page protesting this decision, drawing hundreds of supporters in two days. (To broaden their support, they are reaching out to students at Tisch Asia and arts students on the New York campus.)
· Perverse on its face, this change in the curriculum also appears to violate the terms of Sir Harold Acton's will, which left his villa, La Pietra, to NYU on the condition that we use it "to assist students in the study of art, architecture, painting, sculpture, archaeology, drama, or other fields of Italian culture and humanistic studies."
We are told that the administration plans to shift the focus of the studio art and art history curriculum from Florence to NYU/Berlin, after first out sourcing the studio courses in Florence to SAC!, a local art school.
c. NYU/London
We are concerned about NYU's employment of a contractor called T JAC -a subsidiary of the Triad Group in B.rookline, Massachusetts-for the construction or renovation of academic sites and student housing throughoutthe GNU. While we have heard about T JAG's involvement, or interest, in the housing at a number of NYU's campuses abroad, including Paris, Sydney and Madrid, the best-documented episode that we know of was in London.
There NYU agreed to pay T JAC 5 million GB pounds per year, to tease two buildings near Russell Square for 20 years: a rent so high-a total sum of over $150 million-that the program director, Prof. David-Hillel Ruben,
3 was told to scrimp on dorm maintenance and security. Moreover, TJAC carried out a costly renovation of the property that turned out to be substandard, creating fire hazards and other risks-in buildings meant to house NYU students. (For that job T JAC reportedly raised another $72 million from investors.)
Troubled by what seemed to be a slapdash job, Prof. Ruben asked.a former contractor to write up an assessment ofTJAC's progress. As.that document Confirmed his fears, he sent it to the administration in New York, expecting that they would appreciate his warning, and change course. lnstead...;...{o his astonishment-he was chastised, and ordered not to interfere. Today, the building is reportedly unsightly and unsafe, requiring frequent stopgaps to remain in use (repairs all paid for by NYU, not TJAC).
d. NYU/Abu Dhabi
NYU/AD has lo!'lg been controversial among the faculty, as many question both the wisdom and morality of NYU extending its prestige to a repressive monarchy. Although Pres. Sexton has dismissed such qualms as parochial, they have only grown with the increasing notoriety of that regime for its denial of basic human rights.
According to Human Rights Watch. the UAE's civil climate "deteriorated rapidly" in 2012, with an intensifying "crackdown on pro-democracy activists and [a) shameful situation formigrantworkers." In Abu Dhabi, 94 defendants facing secret trial on state security charges claim they were · "seriously ill-treated during months in detention." Last week, the UAE's leading LGBT rights group faulted Pres. Sexton for denying the dangers- -"discrimination. imprisonment. torture. and deportation"...;...{hat all gay students face in Abu Dhabi.
While its defenders cast NYU's Abu Dhabi campus as a citadel of academic, freedom, others who have been there tell a different story. Our film students are not allowed to bring their cameras out into the street, and must submit their shooting scripts for prior approval by the state (which frequently refuses it). ·
Meanwhile, there are questions as to whether Abu Dhabi is a sound investment. What exactly are the terms of Pres. Sexton's understanding with the royal family? For how much longer do they plan to fund the campus? Without that regal subsidy, how many students could afford it a·nd how many students want to go? There are only some 400 currently enrolled, out of the 2,000 said to be required for NYU/AD to prosper independently.
(As the program has had trouble drawing Emirati applicants who are prepared for college, NYU has hired·Advantage Testing, a private for-
4 profit company, to run.the NYU Abu Dhabi Summer Academy, "an 18- month program designed to enhance the academic profiles of highly motivated Abu Dhabi-based Em irati high school students." That Advantage Testing manages this remedial program is not noted on the company's website, or on NYU's.)
, 3~ NYU's finances
The controversy over Jack Lew's lavish compensation, and unusual severance, has drawn much critical attention to NYU's finances. with the US Senate now demanding records, NYU/AAUP requesting an investigation by the office of the New York State Attorney General, and, of course, a myriad reporters probing various aspects of the story, for (among others) the New York Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, . Daily Beast/Newsweek, The Nation, Village Voice, Fiscal Times and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal (as well as our own NYU Local and Washington Square News).
As members of the faculty, we see it as both our right and our responsibility to know in full the details of NYU's fiscal management, since the welfare of our university, and, therefore, of our students; depends on. it-as, of course, do our own livelihoods. We therefore ask that this new joint committee be empowered to look into all aspects of NYU's finances, from the cultivation of our endowment (which lately dropped by 2.5%), to the determination and disbursement of tuition revenues, to the funding for financial aid (ours now being the poorest in the country, according to the Princeton Review), to the matter of how salaries and loans are paid to top administrators in comparison with other employees, to the use of taxpayers' contributions, to NYU's expenditures on litigation, lobbyists and PR consultants, to the_ various costs and benefits of.NYU's real estate portfolio, and so on.
These are some of the important issues that we recommend to the attention of this special joint committee, which we hope to see formed expeditiously. So. that its work may be as thorough, fair and accurate as possible, moreover, we also would suggest that it have independent counsel, and an independent accountant; to be mutually agreed upon.
We are delivering 64 hard copies of this letter to the Office of the President in Bobst, and ask you to make sure that they are properly distributed to all the members of the Board.
Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to hearing from you.
Theresa Aiello Associate Professor
5 Silver School of Social Work
John Michael Archer Professor English, FAS
Leon Axel Professor Radiology, Medicine, and Physiology and Neuroscience School of Medicine
/ Adam Becker Associate Professor Classics and Religious Studies, FAS
Chris Collins Professor Linguistics, FAS
Ernest Davis Professor Computer Science Courant Institute, FAS
Patrick Deer Associate Professor English, FAS
Stephen Duncombe Associate Professor Gallatin School
Salvatore Fallica Adjunct Instructor Media, Culture and Communication, Steinhardt
Tejaswini Ganti Associate Professor Anthropology, FAS
Faye Ginsberg David B. Kriser Professor Anthroplogy, FAS
Jeff Goodwin Professor Sociology, FAS
Linda Gordon
6 University Professor of the. Humanities Florence Kelley Professor History, FAS
Marion Kaplan Skirball Professor of Modem Jewish History Hebrew and Judaic Studies, FAS
Arang Keshavarzian Associate Professor Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, FAS
Mark Crispin Miller Professor Media, Culture and Communication, Steinhardt
Nick Mirzoeff Professor Media, Culture and Communication, Steinhardt
Bertell Oilman Professor Politics, FAS
Alan Pascuzzi Adjunct Professor Art History and Fine Arts NYU/Florence
Peter Rea Associate Professor Kanbar lnsmute of Film and Television, Tisch
Michael Rectenwald Master Teacher Liberal Studies, FAS
J. Ward Regan Master teacher Liberal Studies Program
Robert Riccobono Adjunct Professor Administration, Leadership and Technology, Steinhardt
Bambi Schieffelin Collegiate Professor Anthropology, FAS
7 John Singler Professor Linguistics, FAS
Amy Smiley Adjunct Instructor Silver School of Social Work
Helga Tawii-Souri Associate Professor Media, Culture and Commu_nication, Steinhardt \ Barbara Weinstein Silver Professor History, FAS
Sophia Wellington Teacher, Graduate Film Tisch Asia
Marilyn B. Young Collegiate Professor History, FAS
Angela Zito Associate Professor Anthropology; Religious Studies, FAS
8 Exhibit D
To: Martin Upton, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, NYU
From: Stern Faculty Council (Vasnt Dhar, Chair)
Date: May 28, 2013
Subject: Follow up on Meeting Between Stern FC and Trustees Subcommittee on April 24, 2013
Dear Marty:
I am follo,wing up on the meeting of the Stern Faculty Council and the Trustees subcommittee of Larry Fink, Chandrika Tandon, and Phyllis Putter Barasch on April24, 2013. At that meeting, we conveyed to ·the Trustees the following:
• There was no spontaneous movement with Stern concerning a no-confidence vote against the President or the administration, but rather, the concern was in not being actively solicited about engagement in major university initiatives that impact us significantly. A large number of faculty feel that they are essentially utold" about decisions after the fact. Electronic communication alone on such issues is not effective. • There is concern that the administration might be operating with outdated assumptions about the university's future business model in light of the massive disruptions in higher education that seem to be on their way. Considering these changes in the rapidly changing landscape, are we using our resources wisely in light of these disruptions? • There is concern about issues such as benefits to specific segments of the faculty (for example, age groups) have already been impacted negatively with no prior discussion with the faculty. • There is desire for greater financial transparency in light ofthe fact that risks in a GNU environment have increased significantly. While it is understandable that detailed finances cannot be discussed in public, the concerns of the faculty are whether the NYU 2031 plan is grounded in financial reality and based on the real *needs* of the various schools, and a prioritization of the very scarce capital spending among these needs (with schools having flexibility whether to participate in funding the needs).
The larger issue here is that faculty would like to participate in uwhat's cooking" instead of being told after the fact what the baked goods are. This includes financials, strategy, as well as operational issues relating to the establishment of uniform and sensible governance processes across the GNU. We feel that if we are included earlier iri the planning process, we can contribute more productively to outcomes. We believe that shared governance is critical for navigating the uncertainties ahead for the University, both to ensure better outcomes as well as to maintain the motivation and commitment of the Faculty
Action Items:
Three broad suggestions have emerged from the faculty through this process. 1. Have a representative of the USFC (University Senators Faculty Council) sit in all meetings of the Trustees, including the meeting of the Trustees Finance Committee. 2. The administration provides through the financial affairs of the Senate (or a new Trustee-Faculty financial affairs committee) multi~year detailed capital budgets with specific accounting projections of moneys to pay for each project. 3. Trustees and University leaders meet on a regular basis with the Stern Faculty Council representatives so that there is an ongoing dialog on major issues that impact Stern and NYU (talking about "what's cooking'') . Exhibit E
Report of the Faculty of Law's Senators in Support of a Vote of Confidence in NYU President John Sexton March 25, 2013
During the week before Spring break, the Faculty of Arts and Science, led by several · A&S senators, voted that ''we, the Faculty of Arts and Science have no confidence in John Sexton." We believe that this vote is unfair to John and harmful to the University. We think that the no confidence vote reflects deep disagreement between John and his critics about what NYU's future ought to be. Because we believe that it is in the interests of the Law School to support John's vision and leadership, and because it is unfair to John to leave the criticisms unaddressed, we will ask the School of Law Faculty to adopt a vote of confidence in John at its April 3 faculty meeting. John's goal is to transform NYU, just as he transformed the Law School, from a university of good quality into one of the great universities of the world. In this ambition, he has made enormous progress. In its recently released global rankings, The Times Higher Education Magazine pointed out NYU's impressive rise in the world rankings, from 52nd to 29th in three years. Just this year, we have seen a 12% increase in applications for freshman admission in this year, the sixth straight year of record applications. The College Board reports that NYU is at the very top of"the most-searched.,for universities" by prospective American students and foreign students.as well.· The academic qualifications of entering freshmen during John's presidency have steadily increased as have the retention and graduation rates. Financial aid has increased tremendously. During John's presidency, the University successfully completed a $3 billion fundraising campaign, at the time the largest university ·campaign in American history, essentially $1 million per day. The University's finances, which were troubled when John took office, have improved dramatically. He and Executive Vice President Jack Lew cut $70 million from the operating budget and eliminated the University's structural deficit. They successfully "de-merged" the NYU Medical Center from Mt. Sinai. Under John's leadership the size of the faculty has substantially increased, particularly in the arts and sciences. Scores of renowned scholars have been recruited to NYU from top U.S. and foreign wiiversities. During John's presidency, two tenured faculty members have won the
1 Nobel Prize, and a third Nobel Prize winner has been recruited. Three mathematicians have won the Abel Prize, and the first NYU student in many years won a Rhodes Scholarship. NYU opened its first new science building in over 20 years and added a critically-needed engineering collegeto the University. John himself has been widely recognized as one of the leadfug figures in higher education. He holds numerous honorary degrees and the stUdent editors of NYU's Annual Survey ofAme.rican Law dedicated Volume 60 to liim. In November 2009, Time named John one of the 10 Best College Presidents, and in March 2010, he was named Chair of the American Council on Education. Despite this outstanding record, John's critics focus on three separate areas, to which we · nowtum.. One. Globalization is a crucial component of John's work at the Law School and the University. The founding ofNYU-Abu Dhabi and NYU-Shanghai establish NYU as the first truly global university. Many universities are now seeking to adopt NYU's global strategy. In 2011, Yale University's Board of Trustees met at NYU with John to find out how NYU has done that. Extraordinary administrators, faculty and students have been attracted to Abu Dhabi and already to Shanghai. These campuses are creating important research and teaching opPortunities for scores of Washington Square faculty. And they promote freedom of study, debate and expression in parts of the world where that has not been the tradition. Moreover, John has greatly improved the quality and oversight ofNYU's study abroad centers so that NYU undergraduates will have first-rate options for studying abroad. The emergence ofNYU as a leading global academic brand will be very beneficial to the Law School. It will help us with the recruitment of students, particularly to our LL.M. programs, and of faculty with strong global interests. Also, strong synergies exist between our own Global Law School program and the University's globalization efforts and we already are benefiting from these synergies in the planning of our global immersion program. Two. John's critics object to NYU 2031 --the proposal to construct additional buildings on the blocks where Washington Square Village and Silver Towers stand. It seems clear that over the next 20 years the University will need additional space to maintain and improve its academic mission. The pressure for more and better space does not emanate from the University
2 Administration, but from the academic departments and colleges, which submit their space needs to the Provost's office, where they are carefully vetted by a committee. NYU now has about 85 square feet of academic space per student, compared to Columbia's 160 square feet per student (and that's prior to the new Columbia north campus). Bobst Library has 3000 seats whereas 9000 are needed. The Tisch School's facilities are woefully inadequate. Scientists claim that better labs are needed to properly train students and to recruit and retain top faculty. There is not enough classroom space to accommodate current course needs, much less the courses and students of the next generation. John's critics fear that the 20-year expansion plan will severely impair the University's finaitcial situation. Law School faculty who served during John's tenure as Dean find it implausible that John would risk the University's solvency. Moreover, the Board of Trustees, comprised ofsavvy.businessmen and businesswomen, oversees the University's budget and the expansion plan. The Board and the Administration believe that the expansion will be in line with what the University can afford. We have confidence in that belief. The University estimates that $600 million could be saved by building on land the University already owns -- i.e., the superblock sites south of Washington Square, rather than continuing to rent throughout the . neighborhood. We also note the riSk that, if the University does not plan and build for the future, the University will not be able to maintain its current excellence or competitive position. We will lose or be unable to attract scientists, performing artists and others who simply need more and better space. We may lose (or cease to attract) students who will opt for universities with better classrooms, study space, and recreational space. A great University must build for the · future. In a sense, John is taking a hit for asserting the interests of the future University's faculty and students against the comfort ofthe present residents of Washington Square Village. In any
event, no building c~ commence on the north superblock (Washington Square Village) until at least2022. The Space Working Group is reviewing the University's space needs and construction plans. John has said he will consider the recommendations of that committee to be "definitive guidance" as to the extent to which the University utilizes the 'zoning envelop' that it has been granted.· What appears to be clear, even at this point, is that NYU cannot expand via eminent domain as Columbia is doing in Morningside Heights and Harlem. Indeed, NYU faces very tight
3 zoning restrictions. It cannot build or expand into the West Village or Soho and cannot have classroom space east of Broadway. Expansion at or near the core essentially can only take place around Washington Square and to the north. Leasing and purchasing buildings north of the Square is extremely expensive, even if adequate buildings could be found,_ which is unlikely. Expanding into Brooklyn is not an option because students who are enrolled at the Square need to get from class to class. There is also a strong feeling that Washington Square should remain the heart and soul of the University. Three. John's critics say that he has not honored the faculty role in the governance of the
University. The Sexton critics demand "shared governance~" The complaint is somewhat vague. The University administration has at no time interfered with academic freedom -- that is, with curricular requirements, with what faculty members say about the subjects they teach; with examinations, with traditional prerogatives of facultY in academic appointments, or the like. Matters that are classically governed by faculty in American universities remain governed by faculty at NYU. What seems to be at issue principally is faculty control over the Global Network University and NYU 2031. In fact, John has been moving steadily and significantly to include the faculty in University decision making. He agreed to the Faculty Senators Council's proposed standards for faculty participation in governance. He has established faculty committees to review NYU 2031 and the Global Network University, on which Jim Jacobs and Jose Alvarez, respectively, are our faculty representatives. Thus, it seems clear that the faculty currently possesses plenary power over academic . matters and the power to adVise and consult in other areas. But his critics go further and seem to want power to stop the University from. engaging in any initiative to which they are opposed. Their specific objective in voting no confidence, aside from forcing John to resign, appears to be to cancel NYV 2031 in its entirety and undo -- or drastically scale back -- the Global Network University, not simply to increase faculty participation in decision making. More broadly, their model of"shared governance" would tum every policy issue into a referendum and preventthe University from responding with agility to the challenging environment in higher education. Furthermore, our experience in the Faculty Senators Council suggests that John's critics do not appear to appreciate the complex structure of the faculty, the different points of view of faculty
4 in different schools, or the alternative ways in which a body representative of the faculty might be constituted. Finally, it is important to consider the political style of the leaders of the dump Sexton movement. They have engaged in ad hominem attacks on the Law School's faculty senators, the Law School's dean, the chair of the Faculty Senate Council, the Board of Trustees, and, of course, John Sexton. Their attacks focus extensively on Jack Lew. At the time that Lew was recruited to NYU, he had just completed his service as President Clinton's Director of OMB. He was widely sought after by agencies and businesses in the public and private sector. Apparently, to recruit him, NYU offered a competitive compensation and, when Lew ultimately left the University, the University honored the employment contract. Of course, President Obama later appointed Lew his Chief of Staff and now Secretary of the Treasury, confirming John's judgment that Lew is an extraordinary budgetary and financial manager. Like the Law School, which first adopted its housing program over 20 years ago on the initiative of the faculty, and many top tier institutions, the University sometimes makes loans for housing to faculty members (and in a handful of cases to administrators) as part of a recruitment package. Those loans have performed well for the University, yielding a better return over the last several years than returns earned by other endowment investments. Moreover, we note that these compensation and loan features have to be approved by the Board of Trustees. John's own salary is in line with university presidents at peer institutions. Some of John's critics, including those on the University Senate, have attacked other NYU administrators, deans, faculty members, and trustees, as well as John. Their style comes through in one senator's "reports" on Faculty Senators Council meetings. She called Dean Revesz "incompetent" to serve as director of the new Marron Institute on Cities and the Urban Environment. One report noted that "the Law School guys (i.e., Jacobs and Nelson) ... spent, apparently, a good deal oftime complaining about my Reports of the FSC meeting .... No matter. None of this is personal ... ; this is political: about institutions, procedures, honesty, and integrity. They have little of the latter, so far as I can tell." This rhetoric -- impugning motives, competence and integrity -- is destructive in any environment, but especially inappropriate in an academic setting. It can have an especially
5 negative impact on the current situation ofNYU, making it more difficult to fundraise, to attract new faculty, and to recruit outstanding students. Above all, John should be judged for who he is and what he has done. In his thirty plus years at NYU, he has worked tirelessly and creatively to make the Law School and the University better. He has always understood that the faculty is the heart and soul of any academic institution and worked with great success to recruit and nurture an extraordinary faculty. He has never wavered in his affection for and commitment to students. Our experience with John as Dean of the Law School was that he was always willing to talk to faculty members and on many occasions, he modified directions upon faculty input. We applaud him now for taking the advice from faculty about the University's space needs and about the best ways to pursue globalization. For all the above reasons; we will ask the faculty at its April 3 meeting to adopt the following resolution: The faculty of the NYU School of Law expresses its support for John Sexton's goal of
trans~rming NYU into one of the world's great universities and its continuing confidence, based on the success he has achieved so far, that he and his administration are fully capable of implementing that goal.
Brookes Billman James Jacobs William Nelson
6