As many of you know, my name is Justin. I loosely represent more than 200 students concerned about the future of the Brophy-Baermanns at this university. At the end of last semester, those of you who were here received calls from constituents telling you to support the Bryan Brophy-Baermann Resolution and the Michelle Brophy-Baermann Resolution. I would first like to thank all of you who listened to your constituents and voted in favor of this resolution. For those of you who were not here, the resolutions passed within a few votes of unanimous.

On the agenda today, is a veto override for these two pieces of legislation. I do not believe that the veto was made with full consideration of all the factors, including the massive student support for these pieces of legislation. I believe that the veto was made in order to protect SGA from some non-existent backlash that was feared; among other misconceptions. In politics, as is the case in many things, there is a time when it is necessary to take a stand that may not be popular among some group. It is of concern today that the stances many of our politicians are making are not popular with the people who elect them, but they are popular with their financial supporters. It is fear of repercussions from these financial supporters that drives politics these days.

The Brophy-Baermann issue is one of the times when it is necessary to side with the overwhelming majority of people who believe that SGA should make a stand on this issue. It is time to call for the fair review of the tenure of Brian and Michelle Brophy-Baermann. The students have spoken on this piece of legislation, and now it is time to enact it. You represent the student body, and the student body has come forward and demanded that you pass this legislation.

As I have continually been doing, I will attempt to dispel some of the myths that have been surrounding this legislation. The first is that we are not siding with the faculty or a particular faculty member with this legislation. I keep saying that, but no one seems to be listening. Nowhere does it state that a professor should be tenured. It is simply calling for the fair review of the tenure decision. On the same coin, we are not stepping on the authority of any department. We are not demanding the tenuring of a professor; we are not declaring that this professor must be tenured. The legislation is simple asking for the fair review of the tenure decision, and we are using SGA, as the representative of the student body, as a way to show student support for a fair review. Moreover, it shows that with all of the student support for this legislation, that the students want the review to be fair.

A similar issue is that this will set a precedent. I will simply point to the amount of work done by students on this issue. I have spent many many hours researching and organizing on this issue. This alone is a testament to why these professors should have a fair review of their tenure. Show me another professor who could inspire this much student response to an issue. If the students believe in something, then it should be the case that they are heard. If students believe a wrong is being done, then they should use any means possible in order to ask for a voice.

An interesting concern is that we should have exhausted all avenues before choosing such an approach. Although I have trouble understanding what this is suppose to mean, let me answer with something that might be just as vague; I would like to use an example from the upcoming elections. If someone is running for office, she does not first start by running TV ads until she discovers the ads are no longer effective. Then move onto radio until that avenue is fully exhausted, only to move onto door to door until that avenue is fully exhausted. A good campaign takes these and more into consideration all at once, and it acts on all of them at once. I do not see any reason against coming to SGA before we have exhausted all other avenues.

There is a petition with over 300 signatures on it for each of the professors in questions, there is a campaign to get letters written and submitted to the department, there have been presentations prepared and made as well as meetings for planning and information called. As you can see, there are many pieces of this movement’s puzzle that are being used, and SGA is only one of them. Therefore, to answer the original complaint, there is no reason to use SGA only as a last resort. If this was the case, then I propose you veto almost all the pieces of legislation that come through here for the sole fact that there are other avenues to pursue before SGA deals with it. If that is the case, I might just run for SGA so as to enjoy the boredom you will all experience.

There is a good deal of concern regarding student evaluations representing the students. First off, educational manuals tell us that the last day of class is not the time to evaluate a class. After a class is over and reflection has occurred is a much better time. Student evals have become a contest to see how quickly they can be finished, and the majority of students give no thought to them. Although both have received evaluation scores that are in line with Tenure, they are simply a number. Is this all the student input in this process there is going to be? A number? It has been proposed, by multiple professors, that even the letters sent to the department in support of the Brophy-Baermanns are inappropriate. This is our education, and I believe that students should have more of an input on who will be administering that education than a simple number from an evaluation.

Another concern I would like to speak on is the issue of future students. We are representing the future students. I am, you are, those enrolled right now. We have seen these two faculty teach, and we want others at this university to be able to experience it. There is no way to connect to future students on this issue, no way to see their opinions. The only way to have the opinions of those future students is to have the opinions of the current students. I doubt that teaching preference by the students is going to change much in the future.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of 36.09(5) and 36.09(4). These keep being tossed around in everyone’s face as if they were some sacred idol. I realize that 36.09(5) is the whole reason you are here, and that it is the reason students have input in the educational process. I realize that 36.09(4) allows faculty to administer their departments and make their own decisions, but as the Veto Override Statement so nicely points out; “…As such, the faculty shall have the primary responsibility for academic and educational activities and faculty personnel matters…” (my emphasis added). The key words are: primary responsibility. The decision still rests in their hands, we are just asking for a fair review of their decision; and through any avenue we can, a voice as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Justin
Student at Large