Letter from the Board of Trustees:
Following the release of many faculty letters and two messages from President Bergeron, the Board of Trustees sent a letter to the campus community. The letter written by Chair, Debo Adegbile ‘91, reads, “Like President Bergeron, we acknowledge that the decision of the College to schedule a fundraising event at a venue that has been associated with discriminatory policies and practices was a mistake, inconsistent with our College’s commitment to equity and inclusion, which is why the event was canceled.” After explaining the Board’s commitment to “full participation,” the letter describes what action the Board intends to take in response to Dean King’s resignation. This includes funding a review of DIEI programming and practices, which will be followed by creating a plan of action to implement changes, hosting meetings with students, faculty, staff, and alums, and a restructuring of the upcoming Board meeting on Feb. 24 to address these new issues.
Letter from the Faculty to the Board of Trustees:
Over the course of the last week the faculty has met and a group of about a dozen faculty members drafted a letter to the Board of Trustees. This letter was not written by the faculty as a whole, so it was sent out to individual faculty members to sign. Normally the faculty would draft and vote on a letter collectively, but because of the urgent nature of this matter the group wanted to take action immediately. 162 of the roughly 233 faculty members (70%) have signed on to the letter, 51 of which signed anonymously.
On Feb. 14, The College Voice was given access to the letter from the faculty to the Board of Trustees. In this letter, the faculty expressed their indignation with the Board of Trustees letter mentioned above. The letter first addresses the hiring of a team to review DIEI programming:
“Hiring a team of consultants strikes us as a classic media relations move to deflect attention from the core issues by essentially postponing any actionable commitment to change and relying instead on a corporate PR strategy aimed at ‘reputation rehabilitation.’” The letter goes on to note that the Board of Trustees completely failed to recognize the issues “at the heart of the current crisis,” antisemitism and racism. The group of faculty states that faculty, staff, and students should be the group providing recommendations to the Board rather than an outside firm.
The letter continues with a strong critique of how the College has dealt with crises over the last few years. Writing, “Year after year under the current administration, the college community seems to begin and end each semester managing crises of various sorts. Crises that are not of our own making. Crises that could have been averted through meaningful and respectful dialogue which could produce real steps toward change. Crises that sap our energy, take us away from the real work of the college, our engagement in teaching and mentoring students, and away from the things that help develop our professional standing and reputation.” Again, the faculty group follows this statement with a call for a change in how the College will go about reviewing DIEI.
The faculty group then outlines eight expectations for the response to Dean King’s resignation.
- Increase staffing budget and benefits and support for DIEI.
- Fill the Dean of DIEI position with a tenured faculty member.
- Hold an open forum with the campus community on Feb. 24.
- Announce a search for a new president “now.”
- Conduct a presidential search that includes faculty, staff, and students.
- Change the process of presidential review to include faculty, staff, and students.
- Increase transparency of the College’s budget from the last ten years.
- Create space for faculty and staff to be represented on the Board of Trustees.
The letter ends with a simple question to the Board of Trustees: “Does President Bergeron have the continued confidence and support of the Board of Trustees?”
Why are only some professors signing the letter?
The answer to this question is twofold. Some professors may disagree with the content of the letter, however, others place their job at risk by signing this letter. The level of risk a professor faces is determined by their tenure status. Tenure is a position held by professors who have been at the College for many years, have extensive published research, have gone through a process of review of their teaching performance, and have been recommended by several senior members of the faculty. Following a professor’s tenure appointment that professor gains significant job security and academic freedom, which would include minimal repercussions for signing the letter above. In contrast, visiting, assistant, and tenure track professors do not have the same job security and academic freedom as tenure professors. As such, signing a letter like the one sent to the Board of Trustees, could put these professors’ jobs at risk. With this in mind, some non-tenure professors chose to sign the letter with their names and others anonymously.
What is a vote of no confidence?
There have been many rumors around campus about the faculty holding a vote of no confidence. Although The College Voice is unable to confirm whether the faculty will hold this type of vote, here is a brief explanation of what it is and what it would do. A vote of no confidence is a formal vote to indicate a lack of support for the current president. There is no formal procedure for a vote of no confidence outlined in the faculty handbook, but it is covered as a basic function of a parliamentary system. Although the Board is the only body that can fire a president, a vote of no confidence is a way to relay faculty feelings about the president to the Board. If the vote passes, the faculty shows a powerful unified front against the president that would be difficult for the Board to ignore. However, if the vote does not pass, the faculty would demonstrate an inability to unify on a single message and if the current president remains in power this puts some faculty members at risk. In recent history, the only example of something close to a vote of confidence was a petition signed by faculty members demanding the resignation of Claire Gaudiani in the spring of 2000. A College Voice article from May 8, 2000 noted that the petition was circulated to tenured faculty and “received nearly unanimous support.” However, despite calls for resignation from the faculty, the Board of Trustees stood behind Gaudiani and she maintained her position as president until her resignation in October of 2000.
Here is a copy of the full faculty letter:
February 15, 2023
Dear Members of the Connecticut College Board of Trustees:
We do not believe that the email regarding “Campus Concerns” from the Board of Trustees sent on Sunday (2/12/2023) offers an adequate or serious response to the current crisis. Hiring a team of consultants strikes us as a classic media relations move to deflect attention from the core issues by essentially postponing any actionable commitment to change and relying instead on a corporate PR strategy aimed at “reputation rehabilitation.” Notably, it fails to recognize that issues of antisemitism alongside racism are at the heart of this current crisis. It is concerning how easily our leadership loses track of the intersectional and shared nature of the struggles our community experiences.
The Connecticut College faculty, staff, and students (past and present) have the collective wisdom and expertise to offer a more meaningful set of recommendations and action plans than any outside expensive consultants. Hiring an outside firm just underscores the sidelining and disrespect that faculty and staff have been experiencing over the past several years. Moreover, the college has recently participated in multiple campus climate surveys that provide substantial insight into DIEI-related needs alongside the existing Equity and Inclusion Plan (that was supposed to be amended to include stronger guidance around sexual violence, gender, and sexuality in wake of campus incidents in 2021).
The current “Campus Concerns” did not materialize out of thin air, but rather are part of an ongoing cycle of crises. As such, this is less about the details of Dean King’s resignation (although we have yet to receive a full explanation from any college official of what transpired) and much more about the systemic failures it reveals, once again. Year after year under the current administration, the college community seems to begin and end each semester managing crises of various sorts. Crises that are not of our own making. Crises that could have been averted through meaningful and respectful dialogue which could produce real steps toward change. Crises that sap our energy, take us away from the real work of the college, our engagement in teaching and mentoring students, and away from the things that help develop our professional standing and reputation. It is thus wholly inadequate (and frankly insulting) to respond to all of this chaos with news of hiring outside consultants for “independent, expert review.” We need a fundamental change in how the college functions, starting with rethinking the relationship of the Office of the President and the Board of Trustees with the rest of the campus community.
In response to the Board’s email we put forward the following expectations as a starting point. There is much more work to be done beyond that which is captured below:
- Stabilize the DIEI division by increasing its staffing budget and supporting the timely hiring of qualified and competitively compensated personnel and doing everything to retain talented individuals. This would entail providing the DIEI division with an appropriate staffing budget, appropriate salary and benefits, and responsive work from Human Resources and Finance. It would disallow leaving positions vacant or asking staff, faculty, and students or recent alumni to fill in for vacant positions, particularly ones in which they do not have training or adequate
support to step into. The high level of turnover in the DIEI division is alarming, and points to deeper institutional problems.
- Empower the DIEI with real institutional authority. The current reporting structure of the DIEI reporting to the President and serving at the pleasure of the President is not in line with the meaning and goals of full participation. The DIEI position should be a tenured member of the
faculty so that they are able to fulfill their stated goals without fear of reprisal and so that the president takes their advice seriously.
- Hold an open forum with the campus community during the Board of Trustees’ February visit. Hearing from committees and “leaders” is not sufficient at this point. We guarantee that you will receive more meaningful and immediate feedback than hiring consultants. This should be an annual practice.
- Announce the next presidential search now. We cannot speak for the entire faculty yet as to whether we believe President Bergeron should step down immediately or finish the remainder of her term (another 16 months). It is clear, though, that enough serious issues have been raised time and time again, including a culture of bullying and dismissiveness at senior cabinet meetings, that we have reached a critical moment when we must seek the next President of Connecticut College. Regardless of the timing of President Bergeron’s departure, we urge the Board of Trustees to announce immediately a search for the next president.
- Conduct“open” presidential searches. The next presidential search needs to be an “open” search. Finalists should be expected to meet with the campus community in open forums, and faculty, students, and staff should be given an opportunity to provide feedback on the finalists.
- Change the review and reappointment process for presidents. Presidential review and reappointment should happen through a committee of elected members of the campus and the Board of Trustees, which seeks input from faculty, staff, and students. Within the framework of shared governance, it is not appropriate for the Board of Trustees alone to conduct a review in secrecy and without consultation with the people who interact with the president on a regular basis.
- Agree to a transparent accounting ofthe college’s budget over the last 10 years; including allowing PPBC access to the entire budget. This is particularly important as the committee provides input on the college’s priorities. Yet faculty leaders have expressed concerns repeatedly regarding lack of transparency and lack of access even while they serve on that committee.
- Allow for faculty and staff representation on the Board of Trustees. Currently students have some representation through YAT, but the same is not true for faculty and staff.
These are just some of the changes that need to happen at Connecticut College to make it a hospitable and inclusive institution that actually values its students and employees – something called for in its statement of mission and values. Over the next few weeks, we hope this list will continue to grow and work on implementing these recommendations will start immediately. We are done paying lip service to the ideals of equity and inclusion. It is time to start making real, measurable changes.
We end with one urgent question for you. We note your email does not say that President Bergeron has the Board’s continued confidence and support. In fact, your email says very little in concrete terms. So we ask you now: Does President Bergeron have the continued confidence and support of the Board of Trustees?
We look forward to your response.
Signed* (in alphabetical order),
111 faculty members, 51 faculty signing anonymously
* Representing all thirty academic departments, as well as representatives from Athletics. •
