Faculty debates Alexander Hamilton Center charter

by Emma Furman ’07
editor-in-chief

by Eric Kuhn ’09
Editor-at-large

by Benjamin Noble ’08
insights & ideas editor

by Laura Trubiano ’07
news editor

 
At the most recent faculty meeting, the faculty voted 77 to 17 to adopt a resolution expressing concern over the governance structure of the newly established Alexander Hamilton Center (AHC).  The AHC was announced earlier this year as a center for the study of, according to their charter, “freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.”  It was founded as the result of a collaboration of ideas between Sidney Wertimer Associate Professor of History Douglas Ambrose, Elias W. Leavenworth Professor of Economics James Bradfield, and Publius Virgilius Rogers Professor of American History Robert Paquette.

Those who voted to adopt the resolution objected to the structure of the Board of Overseers in the Charter, which states that this board “will consist of nine members…drawn from the Board of Trustees of Hamilton College, Hamilton College alumni, Hamilton College faculty, and institutional and educational leaders from outside the Hamilton Community.”  It was this last group of board members that some faculty disapproved of, in conjunction with the fact that the Charter provides for “one member of the Board of Overseers [to] be a member of the Hamilton College faculty (not including the Executive Director of the Center).”  Therefore, in theory only one member of the Hamilton faculty could be present on the board, while the rest of the board members could be unaffiliated with the College.

Associate Professor of Philosophy Katheryn Doran read the resolution on the floor:

"Any Hamilton College supported organization that puts at the center of its mission the education of Hamilton College undergraduates – as does the AHC, rightly – should be governed from within the College.  On our view the proposed AHC is not.  To be sure College organizations should be free to seek external advice and counsel, but to have the majority of the positions on the main governing board potentially held by people who are not affiliated with Hamilton puts Hamilton’s institutional autonomy in jeopardy.”

Several faculty members have expressed opinions that President Stewart and Dean of Faculty Joe Urgo failed to address the issue at hand in their response to the meeting attendees.

Margaret Bundy Scott Professor of Comparative Literature Nancy Rabinowitz commented on their remarks, stating that, “their speeches at the meeting did not quite respond to what the faculty was saying, but I do understand that they are now working on it [the charter revisions].”

According to Doran, President Stewart’s “prepared remarks focused on the facts that contributions would be made to and overseen by the College, and that AHC speakers, like all speakers now, would likewise be vetted by the College, and didn’t address the point of the motion; the motion was about the governing structure of the AHC.”

Paquette, the director of the AHC, was not present at the meeting to respond to these concerns because, according to him, he is currently on leave authoring five books along with other activities.  He was, however, aware that this resolution would be discussed at the meeting.

In a correspondence with The Spectator, Bradfield wrote of his response at the meeting to the resolution, “I did speak briefly, mainly (I think) to say that I did discuss (the then proposed AHC) with the CAP [Committee on Academic Policy] shortly before the term began.”

Some faculty members present did not feel that their concerns were adequately addressed by Bradfield and Ambrose at the meeting. 

Associate Professor of History Shoshana Keller stated that “at the Faculty Meeting, Professors Ambrose and Bradfield were asked repeatedly to stand up and explain what they were doing…they would not do it…we never heard from the faculty members involved [with the AHC] what their goals are.”

After this discussion period a formal vote was taken by ballot, an unusual practice for vote tallying at Faculty Meetings.  Votes are usually given by a show of hands or verbal expression.

The resolution, while supported by a majority of the faculty present, does not dictate policy and only expresses opinion.

The major point of debate among the faculty and administration is the governance of the AHC.

Rabinowitz discussed the fact that “the goals of this Center focus on the education of Hamilton undergraduates, and part of the program will involve bring in visiting scholars to work with students.”  For these reasons, she does not think it right that the Center be overseen primarily by people outside of Hamilton and not the Hamilton faculty, who are supposed to be shaping the education of their students.  She noted that the goals of the outside oversight might prove very different from those of Hamilton and its faculty.

Professor of Government Stephen Orvis has similar concerns.  He stated that “a principle that this organization claims as one of its central purposes is the education of Hamilton students,” and continued on to express concern over the fact that with the current AHC charter, “non-Hamilton faculty will have governing control over an organization purporting to educate Hamilton students.”

He mentioned that having “outside perspectives” brought in is “great,” and feels that we “should do more of that around here,” however believes that “as a matter of principle I think that an organization should be primarily governed by faculty.”

Other faculty and administration argued that having outside control would lead to increased dialogue and discussion with the community beyond the Hill.  The AHC founders have stressed that their organization should reach beyond Hamilton and engage members of other educational institutions.

Urgo commented that it is important to find an ideal structure for the mission of a particular organization, stating that the “governance structure [of the AHC] is designed specifically to meet the goal of having links between Hamilton and the outside world.”

Ambrose defended a governing board made up of people “committed to standards of scholarly excellence [that] transcends politics,” stating that “the Board has right, left and center,” as well as a “common commitment to scholarship, not political advocacy.”

Faculty also expressed concern over a question of governance in the Charter with regard to oversight by Hamilton administration, namely the President and Dean of Faculty. As stated in a letter by opponents of the AHC governance structure, designed to bring the aforementioned resolution to the floor of the Faculty Meeting:

“As the charter stands, after initial appointment of the board of overseers, neither the dean (as an ex-officio, non-voting member) nor the president of Hamilton College will have any influence upon the replacement of board members.  As indicated in the charter, ‘By majority vote, members of the Board will fill vacant seats’ (Charter, 7).”

According to Keller, “The AHC very explicitly says the dean and president have advisory status, but no real control.  The board includes people not on the faculty or administration.”

However, Urgo stated that his “assumption is that the President and the Dean have ultimate authority over the Center.”  He went on to say that “if the Center ceased to be in the best interest of the College,” their Charter could be revoked.

Some faculty still worry that this oversight is not explicit in the Charter, and that if the AHC no longer upheld the goals of Hamilton College, the Dean of Faculty and President would not retain the power to revoke its Charter.

Along these lines, some expressed concern that Hamilton has never had an organization under this type of governance, which they feel could lead to problems with the governance of future organizations.

Doran expressed this point of view: “…the number of Hamilton faculty members filling positions on the central governing board of the organization was, as I understood it, two of the nine positions…that seems really problematic, unprecedented, and a bad precedent for future organizations.”

Urgo felt that the Center’s new approach to governance was appropriate for their mission, stating that “governing processes tend to follow the purpose of an organization” and that the AHC is an “unprecedented kind of organization at Hamilton,” in that it strives to connect Hamilton directly to the outside world.

Members of the Hamilton community also disagree over the root causes of the dispute.

A faction within the Hamilton community feels that the current tension stems from personal disputes rather than what is best for the College.

Professor of Chemistry Timothy Elgren stood up during the recent Faculty Meeting to describe Paquette walking into his lab and saying, ‘“you have an option to remove your name [from the aforementioned resolution] and if you don’t you’d be considered an adversary.”’

Paquette refused to discuss his comments, saying “My conversation with Tim Elgren was understood to me to be private.  People will be opposed for a variety of reasons.  I regard his opposition as unimportant.”

Following Elgren’s comments, Christian A. Johnson “Excellence in Teaching” Associate Professor of English Nathaniel Strout responded saying, “this is personalities versus principle and the long term implication of this shows bias.”

Reached after the Faculty Meeting, Strout said, “Tim Elgren made statements about Bob Paquette’s actions. I made a comment to the effect that those statements indicated that the opposition to the Center was about personalities, not principles.”

Many other members of the faculty who supported the resolution stated that they did not have any personal feelings involved. 

Elgren responded, “If the President and the Dean are interpreting a 77 to 17 vote being based on personalities, that’s an unfortunate vote of no confidence in the integrity of the faculty.”

Orvis said that his support of the resolution “was in no way an ideological or personal attack on the Center or the people who are starting it up.”

Rabinowitz stressed that her problems with the governance structure are “certainly nothing personal” and are based on a “matter of principle” as to how organizations should be run (from within Hamilton College).

Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs Alan Cafruny agreed, saying “My concerns are in no way personal or political.  They have to do with basic principles of faculty governance.”

Bradfield and Paquette had suggestions for those who have questions regarding the Center and its governance structure.

“I urge people to read the Charter,” said Bradfield, “and put all the questions and things that the persons are hearing in the context of the Charter.  The Charter is, I think at Hamilton, unique at Hamilton in terms of specificity, accountability and transparency.  Anyone who wants to form an opinion on the AHC should at least read the Charter.”

“If any faculty member wants to talk about the AHC, my door is always open.  I have received a number of very enthusiastic e-mails and once we get underway many serious people will benefit from the Center.”

Trustees discussed the AHC Charter at their recent meetings over Alumni Weekend and have expressed pleasure with the Center.

“We’re very excited about it,” said Chairman of the Board of Trustees Stuart Scott.  “A group of very fine scholars at Hamilton has pulled together a group of very fine scholars from [other institutions].  [We think] it will increase Hamilton’s reputation for scholarship and academics.”

They do, however, feel that the wording of the governance structure needs revisions.

Stuart continued, “They [the three founders] agree, and we agree, if it’s going to come under the aegis of Hamilton College, ultimately it’s going to report to the President…We are exchanging drafts [to sort out the language], but there is no question, everyone agrees.  It’s a matter of working out the language.”

Urgo stressed that all involved, including the Trustees, are working together towards a solution to reach “a consensus of what is in the best interest of the College,” describing the relationship between the administration and the Trustees as “cooperative.”

President Stewart commented on the faculty’s concerns, saying that “we take them very seriously…we are working through those concerns.”

Urgo agreed, saying that “When the faculty speaks, the administration is obligated and needs to respond.

He discussed the motivations behind the split in the faculty, saying that since he has been here “what struck me the most about the Hamilton faculty is their primary loyalty to Hamilton College…every place I’ve been the faculty’s first allegiance is to their professions.”  He described a “certain detachment” between other faculties and their institutions, which he has felt the extreme opposite of here at Hamilton.  “Here,” he went on to say, “when changes come, [such as] a significant addition to the campus climate, the faculty are very concerned that it is what they had in mind for Hamilton.” 

He stressed that all involved on both sides of the issues are most concerned with “whether this is going to enhance Hamilton” and what is best for our College.