Professor John Stenzel's article in Dateline (Oct. 29) reflects a deeply felt concern that an academic senate with particular delegated authorities over the curriculum and instruction devalues non-senate academic personnel. I would not wish to further that sense of devaluation. I have no doubt about the dedication or professionalism of lecturers belonging to the academic federation nor about the importance of their contribution to undergraduate instruction.

Nevertheless, the image coveyed in the opinion piece -- of the administration and the academic senate as illegitimately conspiring to shut the academic federation out of shared governance -- is incorrect.

Dr. Stenzel writes that: "…even the narrowest reading of university by-laws or regents' standing orders fails to place complete control over the curriculum and personnel in the hands of the senate alone." In fact, the Standing Orders of the Regents, which are the font of authority for both the senate and the administration, say the "academic senate shall authorize and supervise all courses and curricula under the sole or joint jurisdiction of the departments, colleges, schools, graduate divisions, or other university academic agencies . . ." It does not take a narrow reading to see that the senate has been granted authority over the curriculum and its delivery.

Senate (not "university") bylaws govern the exercise of this authority. They exist because the regents granted the senate the right to determine its own organization, independent of the administration. The most important bylaws are systemwide rules that bind all campuses. They cannot be changed simply because UC Davis decides it no longer likes the structure of shared governance granted to the university long ago.

The spirit of shared governance divides authority over the university between the administration and the academic senate. The academic senate is not just one of many constituencies on campus. It is one of two parallel tracks that define the structure of the university. Each track -- senate and administration -- has its own delegated authorities and must determine itself how to exercise them.

The senate is not subordinate to the administration. Shared governance requires the cooperation of each track and of all groups on campus. The senate should cooperate fully with non-senate academic personnel, but it is not an option for it to choose a different structure than the one created by the regents.

Dr. Stenzel appears to sense this point -- at least implicitly. He writes that he is "not suggesting that senate faculty give over or share control of their particular tenure or curricular decisions." The only reason not to lay claim to shared control on these matters is that the status of the senate -- like the status of the administration -- is different from that of other constituencies on campus.

While I do not know the detailed history of the creation of the academic senate, I imagine that Dr. Stenzel has it right when he says that it was created to prevent "politically or ideologically motivated administrators from hijacking course content, curricular priorities or hiring decisions for their own ends."

And that is just the point. What was true at the foundation is just as true today. If the administration can create programs or hire large numbers of instructors who are not members of the senate and then turn around and claim for them -- or have them claim for themselves -- the delegated authorities of the senate, then the very service of protecting the academic integrity of the university that shared governance was meant to serve has been abridged. The academic senate cannot surrender or dilute its delegated authorities without the risk of undermining its most important rationale.

The spirit of shared governance was originally one in which the academic senate not only would "authorize and supervise" the curriculum but in large part would use its own members to deliver it. Once we recognize that the regents never contemplated a large, permanent group of non-senate instructional personnel, the issue should be seen in a different light. Intentional or not, the expansion of non-senate instructional personnel is effectively a divide-and-conquer strategy that, in the end, will marginalize all academic personnel, limiting their control over the curriculum and leaving it firmly in the hands of the administration.

The senate and non-senate personnel should not squabble over scraps of authority with respect to the academic program, which can only undermine the goals that the regents meant to promote in creating UC's unique structure of shared governance. Instead, we ought to reassert the ideal of a curriculum defined by the senate and delivered in courses staffed by the senate. The senate should welcome the current non-senate instructional personnel as members of the senate -- subject, obviously, to meeting a common set of standards for teaching, service and research.

-- Kevin Hoover, professor of economics and a member of the academic senate's Special Committee on Shared Governance

As part of Dateline's commitment to the campus's respect for intellectual debate, forum pieces are published periodically. Forum pieces, at 800 words or less, are accepted from current or retired UC Davis faculty and staff members. All submissions are subject to editing. Dateline does not guarantee publication.