Poll Results: Faculty Senate Presidents

I ran a straw poll to gauge what faculty senate presidents were thinking about. My conclusion? There are a wide range of views around how faculty governance leaders are thinking about the current moment. I encourage people to skim through the results, read the representitive quotes from the free response questions (which I've grouped into common themes), and decide for yourself.

A brief overview of the methodology can be found after the results. While this is an informal poll among colleagues slapped together over a weekend or so - and certainly not a formal scientific survey anywhere close to peer-review ready - the numbers I've crunched place the margin of error as ±15.5% on a standard 95% confidence interval. The poll was open from Aug 24 to Aug 29, 2025.

Demographic questions about you and your university

How long have you been a member of your university's Faculty Senate (or equivalent shared governance body)?

How many years, in recent times, have you served as a leader (e.g., president, chair) of Senate / Assembly?

About your shared governance body

Roughly how many total seats are there in your faculty's primary shared governance body (e.g., the Senate or Assembly)?

(Total number of seats, not just those held by faculty.)

How often are elections for the leader of your senate/assembly? That is, what is the term length?

What are the term limits for the leader of your assembly/senate?

Several noted that recent changes to state law made this and the previous question not applicable for their university.

How competitive was your last senate / assembly leadership election?

Trust among internal stakeholders

Trust of the Senate/Assembly in University Administrative Leadership

How much does the senate/assembly trust senior university leadership (president/chancellor and provost)?

Perceived Trust of University Administrative Leadership in Senate/Assembly

Senior administrative leadership (chancellor/president, provost) trust the independently elected faculty leaders of the senate/assembly.

Information Sharing

Senior administrative leadership (chancellor/president, provost) shares sufficient information with the senate/assembly.

Decision Transparency

Decisions from senior administrative leadership (chancellor/president, provost) are transparent to members of the senate/assembly.

Voice in Decision-Making

The senate/assembly has meaningful influence in major university decisions.

If you had to pick, would you say your university's senate/assembly is more:

Leading from the back: perhaps more than at other places, our senate/assembly tends to mostly ask questions about what the university administration is doing and provides constructive critique of initiatives led by people outside the senate/assembly.

Leading from the front: perhaps more than at other places, our senate/assembly routinely puts forth its own proposed policies and conducts its own independently launched initiatives.

Responsiveness

When members of the senate/assembly raises concerns, university administrative leadership responds constructively and in a timely manner.

Engagement with stakeholders

Governing Board Engagement

How often does your senate/assembly's elected leadership engage directly with members of your institution's governing board (Trustees/Regents/Visitors -- the one with legal fiduciary responsibility) on behalf of the senate/assembly?

Lawmaker Engagement

How often does your senate/assembly's elected leadership engage directly with lawmakers - such as city councilors, state legislators, or members of Congress - on behalf of the university/faculty senate/assembly?

Public Engagement

How often does your senate/assembly's elected leadership engage directly with other non-lawmaker external stakeholders (e.g., community groups, media outlets) on behalf of the senate/assembly?

Faculty Hiring

We should engage in deliberate outreach to affinity groups/organizations for members with underrepresented immutable characteristics (e.g., race) in the academy as part of our faculty recruitment and hiring practices.

We should engage in deliberate outreach to affinity groups/organizations for members of underrepresented political viewpoints (e.g., Republicans, Libertarians, etc.) in the academy as part of our faculty recruitment and hiring practices.

We should engage in deliberate outreach to affinity groups/organizations for members of underrepresented religious affiliations (e.g., Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) in the academy as part of our faculty recruitment and hiring practices.

Academia has become too insular, elite, and out of touch. As a matter of internal university policy, we should strongly disfavor -- or reject outright -- faculty applicants holding undergraduate or graduate degrees from elite (e.g., top ~30 ranked) institutions for the next few years.

A diversity statement ought to be a component of faculty hiring at our university.

Faculty Roles

Non-Tenure

Faculty in non-tenure or specialized tracks are as valued as colleagues as their tenure-line peers at my university.

Tenure

Looking ahead 10 years, do you believe tenure protections at your institution will strengthen, weaken, or remain the same?

Faculty Titles, Expectations, and Privileges

This question asks you to choose preferred options about how faculty ought to be titled, the consistency of what is expected of them, and privileges that may come with their position (like tenure).

Assumptions consistent in all scenarios: faculty pay will continue to be different (based on discipline, years of experience, externally sourced funds, etc.), and that there are different levels/ranks for each position (e.g., the position of "professor" has the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, full professor).

With that in mind, which of the following options best matches your view:

Option A: In general, it is better to have faculty across the university hold a variety of different titles (e.g., professor vs research professor vs teaching professor vs clinical professor vs adjunct vs lecturer vs instructor vs research software engineer vs lab manager vs curator vs ...).

Each title should correspond to its own expectations and privileges (e.g., some titles have a path to tenure and some do not; some have retirement benefits and some do not, etc.).

Option B: In general, it is better to have faculty across the university hold one title (i.e., 'professor'), with the set of expectations for the role tailored to the individual (e.g., one faculty member with the title of 'professor' does nothing but teach while another faculty member also with the title of 'professor' spends time split between scholarship and administrative duties, etc.)

This one title has a consistent set of privileges (e.g., everyone is full time, everyone has a path to tenure, everyone has full benefits.)

Option C: In general, it is better to have faculty across the university hold one title (i.e., professor), with each faculty member having the same set of broad expectations held constant across the department, college, or university (e.g., all faculty should be teaching at roughly x%, engaging in scholarship at y%, and doing service at z% of their time).

However, different faculty members will have different privileges (e.g., different retirement benefits, some do or do not have a pathway to tenure, etc.) based on the economics of the discipline or other criteria.

Option D: In general, it is better to have faculty across the university hold one title (i.e., professor), with each faculty member having the same set of broad expectations held constant across the department, college, or university (e.g., all faculty should be teaching at roughly x%, engaging in scholarship at y%, and doing service at z% of their time).

All faculty have a consistent set of privileges (e.g., everyone is full time, everyone has a path to tenure, everyone has full benefits.)

Promotion and Evaluation Frameworks

"Teaching, Research/Scholarship, and Service" is the broad framework that many universities use to evaluate faculty.

Consider the following proposal:

The "Teaching, Research/Scholarship, Service" framework of incentives and expectations should be phased out at more universities, in favor of a different framework of incentives and expectations for faculty that is better aligned with today's realities.

**For context, two examples of different frameworks include:

• Sharing Knowledge, Expanding Opportunity, and Stewardship/Mentorship (See: College of Arts and Sciences faculty evaluation pilot program at Michigan State University)
• Discovery, Integration, Application, Teaching, and Engagement (See: Boyer's Expanded Model of Faculty Activities)**

Which of the following most closely matches your view?

Free response

Below are quotes which are representative examples of responses. I've grouped responses by what I percieve to be common themes. Identifying information has been removed.

What role, if any, do you see faculty senates / assemblies playing in restoring public trust in higher education? What ought to be our collective next move? What would that look like at your university?

Themes about communicating to the public

• All faculty have a responsibility to promote the value proposition of higher ed to the public

• Communicating the benefits of higher education when interacting with the public. Also, come across as being humans and not stuffy elitists.

• Connecting faculty with the public in non-threatening ways. Helping the public to realize that we are here to be a part of the community, not tell the community "what to do" or "who to be."

• Relentlessly articulate the value of the university to society

• We should find a way to educate as many of the U.S. population as possible. We should remember that all levels of university teaching are valuable.

• Faculty governance bodies can and should build and maintain strong community connections that are accessible to all faculty. Things like holding regular community town halls, hosting events, meeting with stakeholder groups, and more--these could all be the within the purview of FACULTY governance rather than left to the Office of Advancement (fundraising) and Deans and Admins (again, fundraising). If faculty were regularly engaging with community in ways NOT attempting to fundraise and NOT attempting to TELL them about their own research, but instead intended to ONLY listen and give, I believe that would begin to build necessary bridges for trust.

• I think we could be more vocal/active in the ‘this is what faculty do’ spaces, especially at the state and federal government levels.

• Finding a way to communicate the value of faculty and their research, teaching, service; reducing admin overhead/bureaucracy and admin positions so that college is more affordable

• I think we need public campaigns, especially reaching out to alumni.

• More discussions with the media about the importance of research that benefits society

Themes about other governance partners, the role of the Senate, and transparency

• Being useful to University administration and governing boards during times of calm (i.e., elevating valid faculty concerns in a reasonable way, helping brainstorm ways to solve them, helping communicate to faculty in a way that is supportive but not inflammatory, etc.) builds goodwill for times of chaos. I think some groups (senates/assemblies but also organizations like AAUP) are too fired up about small things during relative calm.

• Faculty senates/assemblies can play a key role in holding university administrators and boards accountable for their actions and decisions.

• Our senate is largely in control of the curriculum. There is some external concern regarding content (e.g. CRT) in some courses. Our process for assessing curriculum is transparent, and records are available if anyone actually wants to look at that.

• A recent change [in state law] removed from our Board of Trustees the ability to delegate its authority on matters of curriculum, making it the sole body empowered over all academic matters at the university. [...] For many Senators, this is merely a final clarification of what has felt a long status quo -- a Senate that is not respected, not heard, and expected to approve of all administrative decisions. Yet, students, staff, faculty, and even administrators agree that the University Senate will continue to be necessary.

• The central issue that we face is the corporatization of higher education administration. Yes, our Board members are political appointees. But, honestly, that's not the central problem. The crisis mindset (e.g., the demographic cliff) woven through higher education has created a generation of administrators that respond the only way they know how (and are trained) -- corporate and management logic. They want to move quickly. Disrupt old university structures. Change immediately. Pilot new programs rapidly, keeping the successes and sunsetting the failures. Tenure represents a substantial financial liability. Senates represent archaic, inflexible structures that are unprepared for the crises of the moment. In the case of our institution, leadership (i.e., the President and BOT) sent a clear signal that they trust outside managing and consulting firms rather than faculty on matters of university strategic planning, management, and curriculum.

• My colleagues and I often note that what is happening at our university feels similar to what is occurring in the U.S. at a federal level: executive consolidation and a complete disempowerment of legislative (i.e., congressional) authority. If the general public still trusts democracy and democratic processes, then I think the first step to restoring public trust in higher education's governance is to educate the public on what is occurring. Should public colleges become corporate entities? I would argue no, they were designed to be democratic and at a state-level are still controlled by some level of democratic process. Will we be able to make that case to the public? I don't know.

Themes related to Skepticism

• Media coverage of higher education is so abysmal that I'm not sure we can change public trust.

• [...] In general my experience is that academics are not change agents [...], but this has to do in part with the incentive structures that keep faculty focused on their individual career advancement, rather than the overall health of departments/colleges/institutions.

• I don't know if faculty senates are equipped to play any role in restoring trust in higher ed. For one, I'm not sure public trust in higher ed has eroded. Public funding and political support have disappeared, but I am not sure that erosion equals public trust. As increasingly untenured members of educational institutions, taking a public facing role on policy would put many faculty senate members in a highly precarious position they are ill-equipped to handle. The role of a faculty senate is to implement shared governance in the institution, it is not to play PR. Faculty unions networked on a national level should be the groups engaging the public.

Shared governance is a unique element of academia. What's a good elevator pitch to describe it in a trust-building way to the skeptics of higher education?

Themes around analogs to non-academic governance structures

• In terms of decision-making and the level of direction given, academia is more like a partnership of faculty, akin to a law/accounting firm or large medical practice, than like a corporation. Partners of a law/accounting firm or large medical practice would expect a significant say in the significant decisions about their firm/practice and would not take kindly to people with significant expertise in unrelated areas (real estate moguls, tech experts, esteemed professors, etc.) determining the head of their firm/practice, the mission statement of their firm/practice, etc. without significant input from them. Faculty shared governance is similar.

• Imagine you have a company in which you are a shareholder led by a board of trustees and a CEO (i.e. college president) that have both made decisions damaging to the company and to shareholder value. As a shareholder, what would you do? Probably insist on a vote of other shareholders to rein in the authority of both, right? Shared governance is a chance for shareholders in an institution (students, faculty, and staff) to engage with shareholders within and outside of the institution (alumni, the general public) to offer advice and -- ideally -- provide a check upon the decisions made by the board and CEO from our example.

Themes around bringing multiple voices to the table

• The more perspectives we have at the table the better the final decision that is made.

• Involving faculty with boots on the ground enables better decision-making at all levels.

• Shared governance brings all stakeholders voices to the table, ensuring that everyone with a stake in the university helps shape what it is.

• Shared governance is a modality to ensure everyone has a representative voice at the table, even if that voice is for recommendations or suggestions (not decision-making). It is important to hear a variety of perspectives across the campus.

Themes about the importance of expert faculty in decision-making

• Faculty members are experts in their fields and the ones engaging with students on a day-to-day basis. Leaving those expert viewpoints out of decision making processes actively weakens higher education.

• Faculty are the deepest resource of any university, and tapping into their expertise in all matters will lead to more robust leadership, and engage their personal investment in the university.

• Faculty innovate, create our future industries for our country's competitive advantage, and guide and shepherd the acquisition of student knowledge and skills to enhance their futures.

• Education is the primary missions of higher education, and it is faculty members who provide that education. They are experts trained in disciplines and in pedagogy, and they should have authority over the processes and rules related to curricula, degrees, and related areas. Administrators and faculty should collaborate on major university decisions and initiatives. In fact, campus administrators are also faculty members with faculty rank and appointments in a specific discipline. This is how crucial it is deemed by universities that faculty are at the heart of decision-making. Part of the regular duties of most faculty members is service, which contributes directly to the management and organization of the campus and its broad set of activities, events, and operations. Faculty-administrators must work with active-faculty in service of providing quality education, producing scholarship and creative activity, and providing both service to the institution and public service more broadly.

Themes around other internal governance partners

• Shared governance allows the different governance bodies to oversee the parts of running the university that they have the most expertise in. This allows for efficiency and excellency!

• It's better for the administration to get 80-90% of what they want with university support than to get 100% without it.

• Shared governance is really a [way] to make sure the people closest to the work of the university have [a] voice in decisions that disrupt it. It brings together different perspectives so leadership can make better, more informed, sustainable decisions. It provides a system of checks and balances to ensure those who we serve, the students, get the best possible education and training.

Themes around the public benefits

• It leads to better outcomes for students

• Science has made the benefits of modern society possible; the humanities and social sciences make democracy and civil society possible. Universities and their faculty are primary drivers of the sciences, humanities and social sciences.

• In our current neoliberal environment, shared governance is the only way to ensure that higher education institutions continue to focus on learning and the creation of new knowledge.

Themes around skepticism

• I'm so skeptical of it myself that I don't think I can answer this in good faith.

• Shared governance offers the promise of voice for different constituent groups. It is how work gets done at our institution, and provides a measure of stability. However, I have seen it co-opted by administrators, often working with governance boards. They find it pretty easy to circumvent shared governance bodies, and in the past have been successful at branding dissenting faculty as 'troublemakers.' As a result administrators often cherry-pick faculty who will do the former's bidding on ad hoc committees (often committees whose missions overlap with standing shared governance committees).

Do the prominent skeptics of higher education have valid critiques? If so, which ones are the most valid, and what is the best path forward to address them?

Themes around "Yes"

• Cost is definitely a problem
• Yes. There are limits to how and how far universities should pursue what can too easily become (or be seen to become) a partisan/political/ideological agenda without losing broad public support. The left-leaning character of campus environments can be intolerant and can silent dissenting views. We must work to foster genuine intellectual diversity and toleration.
• In a quest for diversity, diversity of viewpoint or thought is overlooked in favor of immutable and in some cases irrelevant characteristics.
• My institution has a long tradition of liberal education. Yet, the ever-deepening specialization of higher education has led to a complete divorce between a student's academic major -- which is often just a mark of professionalization -- and the integrated purpose of liberal education that was intended to educate the mind, yes, but also prepare students for the responsibilities of shared civic life. Students cannot see the "value" of education because faculty have failed to show them the value of an integrated, liberal education. At public institutions, the best path forward is to step away from the ever-deepening specialization of curriculum alongside a recommitment to educating students with a curriculum that shows them how their professionalization must engage with the major questions of virtue, ethics, morality, and civic responsibility. The best place for this reset in mission to occur is in the deliberative and consensus-building work of a University Senate.
• University morals can be aloof from general public; minority opinions tend to become exaggerated. We should be more careful about how we project this publicly.
• Sure--higher education isn't perfect. We should do a good hard look at what we offer students and make sure that our offerings and requirements meet their needs--give real value for the cost of higher education. I'd like to see more test out options at my institution, and more flexibility on transfer credits (including AP and IB) to satisfy general education requirements.
• Yes, there are some degree programs that have no practical application. That doesn't mean it's not a valuable degree, but we need to help skeptics understand that students can still elect to enroll in those degree programs knowing it's not a direct job path.
• Yes. Too many layers of bureaucracy. Too many stuffed suits and makework projects pushed onto faculty to keep them all employed.
• Yes. Higher education is too expensive. I don't know the best way to address this.
• Yes: Those often MOST in touch with running our university via faculty service really working closely with students via deep investment in teaching are among the least valued and most 'expendable' faculty on our campus--the (non-tenure track/NTT) teaching faculty. This is deeply problematic and harms long-term prospects for building trust, as tenure track faculty don't do this work and genuinely often ARE out of touch because they're so invested in their own research and academic discourses that they've lost the plot when it comes to how actual people behave and talk...and they're the people that are thought of when people think of "college" or discuss it in the media--thus they do make a valid point. A greater valuing of NTT faculty work could bridge this divide and help build trust...AND/OR stronger requirements for TT faculty to behave like NTT faculty. REQUIRING AND VALUING a "feet on the ground" approach of ALL faculty is incredibly important.

Themes around "Some" or "Depends"

• Some, maybe, but the vast majority of campuses are not Columbia or Harvard. We are local workhorses, providing not just jobs for now, but jobs for the future.
• Some critiques are valid. Some critiques are based on false information.
• I don't think so, although it depends on who is referred to as the prominent skeptics. There is valid concern about the costs of higher education that should be addressed.
• I think the validity of the critiques depends on the institution; also, in our current moment, I think a lot of these critiques are politically motivated.
• Some criticisms are valid, but it's important to separate issues coming from the faculty vs. systemic issues (e.g. those related to funding) and issues coming from administrators, including politically-appointed boards of regents.

Themes around "No"

• No. Our campus has much more diverse political perspectives than the many critics of higher ed would lead us to believe. These political perspectives can be seen in faculty, staff, administrators and students.
• Is the collective faculty more liberal than the collective citizenry? Yes. Does that mean that courses are taught from a liberal bent? I don't think so. I think helping skeptics understand how most classroom discussions go and how most (I hope) faculty encourage discussion of both sides of issues where there is some reasonable amount of uncertainty would be good. Now, if 95% of the research shows something, should there be equal time given to the perspective espoused by the other 5%? I don't think so. (For reference, 2-3% of Americans believe the Earth is flat. Should geographers be forced to give time to that? I don't think so.)
• No. The attacks are bad faith BS, so even asking this question supports their dishonesty.
• If by 'prominent skeptics' we're talking about the likes of TPUSA or the shadowy folks at Project 2025, no, their critiques seem designed to discredit (or worse, in the case of Trump's extortion) the academy. Their attacks will likely lead to less talent seeking to work in the US, less talented students applying from overseas, and more talent leaving for countries whose governments value higher education and democracy.
• No - they attack us because we are so successful at democratizing knowledge & prosperity

What is one concrete, actionable thing that top leaders in university administration (presidents/chancellors, provosts) can do to increase trust between themselves and members of your shared governance body?

Themes around communication and engagement

• The word "communicate" or "communication" was listed as the whole response for multiple respondents
• Embrace accountability and pursue a more collaborative, less adversarial approach that welcomes dialogue and reasonable disagreement.
• Share time in meaningful ways. Our Provost meets with me for one hour in person every week. We start our Mondays talking with one another about campus issues as well as the different fears, hopes, goals that folks expressed to us casually on campus. While we honor and respect confidentiality, we have deepened our understanding of how quickly rumors twist, turn and change within faculty and within our administrative building. While the two of us do not always agree, we have committed to demonstrating that talking with each other about issues is the only path forward.
• At our institution, it's simple -- engage with the University Senate on matters of strategy, curricular planning, and institutional stewardship. Quite literally, show up and talk to the Senate. The President and Board of Trustees will not engage with the University Senate. They see it as confrontational, archaic, and antiquated -- even though the Senate had not said, "No," to a major curricular initiative proposed through the administration for at least the last 5 years."
• Realize that it's good management practice to meaningfully engage with your line employees to enhance decision-making and implementation of said decisions.

Themes around supporting faculty ideas and expertise

• Be more supportive when we take the initiative.
• Stop hiring outside consultants when you literally have campuses full of subject matter experts.
• Seek input and take account of it before important decisions are made, rather than informing the faculty of decisions after the fact.
• The vast majority of our administration is new to us. One thing I’d like to see them do is take a minute and really see/hear what we need before making huge changes.
• Recognize that faculty have expertise and are a crucial part of the university. The bar is kind of low, I guess?

Themes around transparency

• Stop hiding behind counsel! "On advice of counsel, this report that we are going to share with you is so heavily redacted that it is useless." "On advice of counsel, we can't answer any questions about that." Too many lawyers involved means essentially no transparency, which means no trust.
• Increase transparency by accompanying decisions with statements about how specific shared governance feedback was taken into account, and why advise was not taken.
• Increase transparency for how decisions are made. This should include who was at the table and the timeline of events.
• Provide more clarity in decision making processes and the justifications for those decisions.
• Budget transparency and inclusion of faculty in budgetary decision-making. That's not at all the only thing, but that's the simplest.

Other remarks

• One concrete, actionable thing that top university administration leaders could do is acknowledge that their pay scales have more than kept up with inflation while faculty pay scales have shrunk in terms of real dollars and make changes so that administration compensation is in line with faculty compensation in relation to real wages
• I'm much more concerned that they start speaking to the public about the importance of higher education broadly conceived (and not just as marketable skills for jobs).
• We already have trust. Maintain.

Survey Mechanics

How often should a survey like this be conducted?

What was a question which should have been in this survey but wasn't? What is your answer to this unasked question?

Themes related to how senates operate and support for their leaders

• Should there be an organization for faculty senate/assembly leaders? Yes.
• What goes on at a typical Senate meeting? How do faculty prepare for the meeting? Do they prepare?
• [What about] other shared governance bodies: staff senate and student government association
• How is your faculty leadership chosen? (Ours is by just our 6 person senate, and the chair is also the rep for their division)
• I would have appreciated questions about the role of the Governor, [State Board] of Higher Education, and Boards of Trustees. It seems to me that they play an oversized role in the day-to-day practices of universities [in my blue state] than I have seen in other states.

Themes related to unions

• Is the Faculty Senate essentially the "union" for the faculty? I would say not.

• We have periodic debates about the proper range of relationships between faculty senate and our faculty union. These tend to become more important when we have a president who sees faculty and shared governance as potential threats to carrying out some agenda (when buy-in has been neither sought nor secured).

• Are University Senates a productive of a completely different material condition (e.g., financial situation, cultural moment, political sensibility) that no longer exists? Should University Senates continue to exist? Also, how will unions and unionization change University Senates?
  
  I would answer, "Yes." And, yet, also, "yes." University Senates arrived as a factor in shared governance when there was significant public trust in the ability of academics to self-govern. Presidents and Boards were often academics themselves, and understood their role as stewardship of the academic -- not mere corporate management of the university brand. Of course, this held at a time when public support for higher education was high, tuition was reasonable, and government funding of public institutions was not doubted. That, obviously, has shifted, and now it is not clear that were we to start universities today, university senates would have been created at all. Faculty unions, of which I am part, were often unthinkable before this moment. Why? Because faculty felt like partners in the firm -- who held a share, held a vote, and could make their voice known. That is largely gone.
  
  Yet, senates -- especially at public institutions -- represent the idea that faculty, staff, and students, alongside administrators, should engage in shared governance of the institution. They should persist.

Other remarks

• Questions about trends--do I perceive that things have gotten better or worse. My answer:
  
  Two months and one day ago, I would have answered every one of the questions in the trust section differently—nearly all members trusted University leadership, University leadership trusted Senate leadership, there was significant information sharing (in both directions), there was sufficient transparency (though we always pushed for more!), and we did have a voice in decisions. Sadly, the answers I had to input just now are not those because my leadership has been forced to resign and there is significant uncertainty with a new interim and a general lack of transparency all around."

• Something more about engagement with students/relationships with students/teaching/etc....ultimately, the mission of the university, after all..... And something more about social class and first-gen status"

What's at least one way this survey should change? One thing that should remain?

• Depending upon results, I'm sure you'll find ways to make it shorter/less open ended. But definitely still keep much of the open-ended nature :-)
• I'd like to see the survey disaggregate the administrators--presidents, provosts, and other cabinet members are very different.
• Nothing. Thanks for doing this! I hope you have a strong response. This conversation is so needed at a time when so many of us feel so alienated.
• [O]pionions on hiring preferences is [a] personal question and not reflective of senate as a whole
• Our faculty senate elections and leadership is structured somewhat differently from how the survey thought it should be, so answering the questions was complicated. (We elect folks for, effectively, 3 year terms, but the first year is president-elect, the second is president, and the third year is past president. I don't think you can run for president two years in a row.)
• Thanks for asking. Hard to say. Every institution has different bylaws, and philosophies of shared governance can change dramatically, especially when scale is considered. In a relatively small institution like ours, shared governance is critical to the functioning of the university, and when an administration tries to co-opt it, ignore it or circumvent it, the outcomes have almost always been pretty counterproductive. In our particular situation, the governing board might offer redress, but more often than not that is pretty much captured by a president--at least the leadership is, and in our case the board bylaws are abysmal when it comes to evaluating their performance.

Other comments / advice (Last question! Thanks for taking this survey!)

• Great survey. I look forward to seeing the results. There is surprisingly little information out there about faculty senates and similar bodies, so this is potentially a valuable service.
• I didn't answer the long form questions because I had limited time. Sorry.
• It would be interesting to compare these data with those from the AAUP survey of faculty in the south, which is also open at this time.
• My school is [New Name University] (your dropdown has it listed as [Old Name University] - we changed our name two years ago!)
• The person producing this survey should be more transparent about the politics they are promoting.
• Words of thanks for doing this survey

Methodology in a nutshell

1. I pulled the data from the Carnegie Classification website (https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/) to identify colleges which likely had faculty senates or equivalents. The final data set included:

• Every R1 university;
• Every R2 university;
• Every university with the Carnegie "Research Colleges and Universities" designation; and
• All four-year public bachelor's-level and above institutions.

I did not include private colleges or universities unless they had an R1, R2, or "Research" classification.¹

2. For every institution on this list of 742 colleges and universities I asked ChatGPT5 to search the university's website to find the name and public email address of chair/president of the faculty governance body. ChatGPT5 was able to find 552 such emails.

3. I then emailed every one of the 552 people listed and asked them to respond to a linked Google Poll if they were, indeed, the faculty senate president. (Or equivalent shared governance body leader.)

The poll was open from Aug 24 to Aug 29, 2025.

Occasionally respondants would select "other" and then add explanation as to why they made their decision (e.g., "I agree, because XYZ..."). In these instances, the answer was re-recorded in the results acoording to what the respondent specified (e.g., "I agree for XYZ reasons" was recoded as "agree" for the purposes of sharing results).

Respondent characteristics

A total of 39 people responded and clicked "submit" on the form, a response rate of 7%. A handful of people also emailed me back saying that (1) they were no longer the chair/president of the senate or (2) that the political situation in their context made them unwilling to fill out any forms related to shared governance.

I couldn't find any research about how often academics respond to cold emails. However, a cursory internet search about email marketing suggests that response rates to cold emails in business contexts is around 5% to 10%, placing this 7% response rate within the norm. In any case, if this were a more rigorous scientific survey then this sample of 39 (assuming it's a truly random sample) would give us a margin of error of ±15.5% on a standard 95% confidence interval in light of our total universe of 742 institutions.