Emory University President Gregory Fenves anticipated being asked about the Respect for Open Expression Policy in his interview with The Emory Wheel earlier this month. He’s not alone in thinking about open expression — following the controversial implementation of a new addendum to the policy, open expression is on many Emory community members’ minds.
“Every policy,” Fenves said in the interview, “especially ones as important as open expression, will need a periodic review if necessary, with the [University] Senate making recommendations for updating it.”
The addendum, added by the administration in late August, was crafted without the consultation of the University Senate or the student body. The University Senate is composed of faculty from all seven schools at Emory, in addition to Student Government Association presidents from the Atlanta, Oxford and graduate organizations. It serves to advise and recommend policy changes to Fenves and the Board of Trustees, who have the actual authority to make changes. However, its bylaws do not grant it the power to amend the policies enacted by the administration, rendering it an appeasing but ineffective system of democratic governance.
The Board of Trustees, which is the policy-making body that governs the University and is largely composed of corporate leaders and alumni. Fenves' decision to codify the addendum blindsided the groups that it would impact the most — the students and faculty — and exposed the hollowness of his notion of a “periodic review” of “every policy” on his desk. In a review of the addendum published on Oct. 14, the University Senate Committee for Open Expression, which is comprised of Committee Chair Prof. Ilya Nemenman and faculty, staff and representatives from different schools, found that the addendum “lacks sufficient detail and clear definitions, which will likely cause confusion in enforcement.” Further, the committee believes that “certain provisions — particularly the blanket ban on protests between midnight and 7 a.m. — place undue burdens on the expressive rights of community members.”
Fenves and the Board of Trustees’ interests are overriding those of a plurality of students and faculty, whose outrage and no confidence votes serve as ample evidence for that. By unilaterally implementing this addendum, Fenves enforced a chilling idea: that the word of the Board of Trustees and himself takes priority over Emory’s system of shared governance. Although it seems easy to be discouraged, students and faculty alike must recognize and find strength in members of the community working to challenge this frightening act of authoritarianism. Shared governance may be broken at Emory, but the power of collective action can still prevail. This starts with forcing the Board and president to take accountability for their actions.
Students and the University Senate have both experienced administrative pushback for their efforts to enact change. Despite being a platform for faculty to advance their collective interests, the University Senate holds no formal power to challenge the administration. This rule is written into the University Senate’s bylaws, amendments to which can only be authorized by the Board of Trustees, who have no incentive to relinquish their chokehold on matters of administrative policy.
Nevertheless, motivated members of the University Senate Executive Committee continue to work to improve the policy. Among other faculty members, University Senate President-Elect Noëlle McAfee and Emory College of Arts and Sciences Senate President-Elect Clifton Crais formed a new Open Expression Subcommittee in September with the goal of revising the Respect for Open Expression Policy. But the revisions suggested by this new subcommittee are no more than “suggestions” for those who hold actual power: the Board and president, rendering the University Senate effectively unable to check the actions of the administration.
The University Senate remains a body that exists as a means of democratic appeasement for students and faculty. The members are given a platform and positions that resemble authority but lack means of stopping policies that actively harm faculty and students.
Still, the advocacy carried out by its members can still have substantial influence. “Informally, we have a lot of power,” McAfee said. McAfee, who is outspoken in criticism of the new open expression addendum, wants students to feel confident that there is inherent power in the fact that their interests are represented and advanced by the University Senate. “We have this democratic authority and kind of soft power that we try to use.”
Crais, who authored the no-confidence vote regarding President Fenves last Spring, remains critical of Emory’s weak shared governance structure, especially as it threatens open expression. “The open expression observers, as well as the policy itself, are deeply reliant on campus life,” Crais said. “The head of campus life is beholden to the President, and that raises significant questions on and around its independence and autonomy to protect the broad issues around open expression.”
“This administration shockingly lacks transparency,” Crais added. “The fact that this addendum was done, in effect, in secret, without consultation with stakeholders — especially given the no confidence motions of last spring — I think raises a real set of issues around President Fenves: Do we have a boss, or do we have a leader?”
On Tuesday, Emory community members received an email with a survey from George Shepherd, President of the University Senate, on the issue of open expression via email. “It’s open-ended, big, and I expect, I hope, to get hundreds, maybe thousands of replies, because there's a huge community,” McAfee said. It’s imperative that students, faculty and other community members fill out this survey; accumulating and amplifying our collective concerns is the best way to challenge our administration’s efforts to silence them.
Precisely because Fenves and the Board of Trustees have proven that they are willing to disregard their community’s interests in their decision-making, we must make it resoundingly clear that our beliefs will not be squandered. The University Senate’s hands may officially be tied, but through other channels, the power of collectivity can and will create change.
“Don’t give up. And organize,” Crais said. “We are at an incredibly important inflection point in the life of Emory and the life of higher education. This is a real opportunity — a moment for students to really change things for the future.” We are all frustrated, but, as Crais put it, “to give up now would be to abdicate all of our responsibility as students, as faculty members, as intellectuals.”
The knowledge of our flimsy shared governance at Emory is power in itself. Push back against these restrictions in ways still within the parameters permitted by the University — protest, free speech, and the right to dissent to get attention from the administrators who have the power to suppress or uplift our voices on campus. Crais described a “wall separating the Board from other stakeholders.” The best way to break down a wall is to start striking.
The above editorial represents the majority opinion of The Emory Wheel’s Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is composed of Editor Marc Goedemans, Carly Aikens, Hunter Buchheit, Allie Guo, Ethan Jacobs, Carson Kindred, Justin Leach, Eliana Liporace, Niki Rajani, Josh Rosenblut, Ilka Tona and Crystal Zhang.
Correction (10/23/2024, 10:11) : An earlier version of this editorial stated that the Board of Trustees endorsed the August 2024 addendum to the Respect for Open Expression Policy, which the Wheel cannot confirm. The editorial has been updated to omit this claim.
