To: SCU Staff and SCU Faculty
In the Spirit of Mutual Respect
March 10, 2014
Dear Santa Clara University Colleagues,
We find ourselves in the midst of a very challenging academic year. Ever since the President’s initial decision regarding the curtailment of certain health care benefits, the University has been in a very painful place. Many have concerns about the content of the decision itself, and most of us have concerns about the initial process by which the President reached his decision. Expressions of dissatisfaction have escalated to extreme levels, creating a culture of suspicion in which even routine administrative decisions are perceived as essentially duplicitous and/or nefarious. Many of us have remained relatively silent in the recent public conversations. Frankly, more than a few of us have been afraid to engage in conversation because established faculty with passionate and powerful voices have implicitly or explicitly indicated that such interventions would be dismissed or admonished. Hence, rather than allowing our silence to give consent to the prevailing notion that there has been a thoroughgoing breakdown in the proper functioning of our Santa Clara community, we offer here an alternative point of view.
Though many among us may wish that President Engh had not chosen to eliminate non-therapeutic abortion coverage from Santa Clara University’s insurance policies, we do understand the complexity of the issue for him. Our President walks a fine line in attempting to support the Catholic identity of the institution while, at the same time, honoring the choices of faculty, staff and students. The President made a decision to eliminate non-therapeutic abortion coverage. Whereas many Catholic constituencies may have preferred that he take an even stronger stand against current California and Federal law mandating coverage of contraception, therapeutic abortion, etc., President Engh limited his decision to one specific area. We see this as a compromise ruling, still allowing generous coverage for women’s health within the given parameters.
Though many among us may wish that President Engh had availed himself of the shared governance processes in advance of making this benefits-related decision, he has since been very accommodating in meeting with faculty, learning more about the governance process, and exploring more deeply the particular concerns and needs of women. In a gesture of good faith, President Engh suspended his decision for a year to allow the Benefits Committee time to consider and propose workable alternatives. This willingness to be moved and changed as a result of significant dialogue with colleagues (not to mention his longstanding availability to meet regularly with the Faculty Senate Council) speaks of a President who is open to our concerns and committed to strengthening shared governance.
In the course of these several months, some faculty have questioned whether this decision is the first of many that might erode academic freedom. We are confident that the President, a professor of history himself, knows that academic freedom is the sine qua non of the academy. Not only has President Engh done nothing to indicate that he has a restrictive intellectual agenda, he has supported the good work of faculty in even the most potentially controversial areas of scholarship, teaching and creative work.
Santa Clara University is our home and, in very real ways, we are family to one another. Admittedly, there are many things we need to discuss in the months and years ahead, some of which may be difficult. In the wake of the recent decision of the Trustees to deny the appeal of the Faculty Senate, we urge faculty and administrators alike to commit to constructive dialogue, avoiding polarizing rhetoric that would imprison us all in cycles of negativity and cynicism. While we will never agree on everything, we certainly do agree on the work that is most important—creating new knowledge, caring for students, and increasing the quotient of justice in the world. May we continue in this great work in a spirit of mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Barbara Means Fraser
Michael Zampelli
Frederick J. Parrella
Tom Plante
Francisco Jiménez
Alma M. Garcia
Paul Crowley
David Gray
Michelle Marvier
John Hawley
Gary Macy
Jerald Enos
Terry Shoup
Ana Maria Pineda
Greg Baker
Dennis Smolarski
Aldo Billingslea
Bob Senkewicz
Rose Marie Beebe
Paul Soukup
David Pinault
Charles Powers
Barbara Murray
Additional Signatures:
Stephen Lee
Jill Pelletteri
Deirdre Frontczak
Thiadora Pina
Elizabeth Day
Cheryl McElvain
Ramon Chacon
Luis Calero
Maria Del Socorro Castaneda-Liles
Donald St.Louis
David Popalisky
Tim Healy
David DeCosse
Gerald McKevitt
Jim Reites
Dear Santa Clara University Colleagues,
We find ourselves in the midst of a very challenging academic year. Ever since the President’s initial decision regarding the curtailment of certain health care benefits, the University has been in a very painful place. Many have concerns about the content of the decision itself, and most of us have concerns about the initial process by which the President reached his decision. Expressions of dissatisfaction have escalated to extreme levels, creating a culture of suspicion in which even routine administrative decisions are perceived as essentially duplicitous and/or nefarious. Many of us have remained relatively silent in the recent public conversations. Frankly, more than a few of us have been afraid to engage in conversation because established faculty with passionate and powerful voices have implicitly or explicitly indicated that such interventions would be dismissed or admonished. Hence, rather than allowing our silence to give consent to the prevailing notion that there has been a thoroughgoing breakdown in the proper functioning of our Santa Clara community, we offer here an alternative point of view.
Though many among us may wish that President Engh had not chosen to eliminate non-therapeutic abortion coverage from Santa Clara University’s insurance policies, we do understand the complexity of the issue for him. Our President walks a fine line in attempting to support the Catholic identity of the institution while, at the same time, honoring the choices of faculty, staff and students. The President made a decision to eliminate non-therapeutic abortion coverage. Whereas many Catholic constituencies may have preferred that he take an even stronger stand against current California and Federal law mandating coverage of contraception, therapeutic abortion, etc., President Engh limited his decision to one specific area. We see this as a compromise ruling, still allowing generous coverage for women’s health within the given parameters.
Though many among us may wish that President Engh had availed himself of the shared governance processes in advance of making this benefits-related decision, he has since been very accommodating in meeting with faculty, learning more about the governance process, and exploring more deeply the particular concerns and needs of women. In a gesture of good faith, President Engh suspended his decision for a year to allow the Benefits Committee time to consider and propose workable alternatives. This willingness to be moved and changed as a result of significant dialogue with colleagues (not to mention his longstanding availability to meet regularly with the Faculty Senate Council) speaks of a President who is open to our concerns and committed to strengthening shared governance.
In the course of these several months, some faculty have questioned whether this decision is the first of many that might erode academic freedom. We are confident that the President, a professor of history himself, knows that academic freedom is the sine qua non of the academy. Not only has President Engh done nothing to indicate that he has a restrictive intellectual agenda, he has supported the good work of faculty in even the most potentially controversial areas of scholarship, teaching and creative work.
Santa Clara University is our home and, in very real ways, we are family to one another. Admittedly, there are many things we need to discuss in the months and years ahead, some of which may be difficult. In the wake of the recent decision of the Trustees to deny the appeal of the Faculty Senate, we urge faculty and administrators alike to commit to constructive dialogue, avoiding polarizing rhetoric that would imprison us all in cycles of negativity and cynicism. While we will never agree on everything, we certainly do agree on the work that is most important—creating new knowledge, caring for students, and increasing the quotient of justice in the world. May we continue in this great work in a spirit of mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Barbara Means Fraser
Michael Zampelli
Frederick J. Parrella
Tom Plante
Francisco Jiménez
Alma M. Garcia
Paul Crowley
David Gray
Michelle Marvier
John Hawley
Gary Macy
Jerald Enos
Terry Shoup
Ana Maria Pineda
Greg Baker
Dennis Smolarski
Aldo Billingslea
Bob Senkewicz
Rose Marie Beebe
Paul Soukup
David Pinault
Charles Powers
Barbara Murray
Additional Signatures:
Stephen Lee
Jill Pelletteri
Deirdre Frontczak
Thiadora Pina
Elizabeth Day
Cheryl McElvain
Ramon Chacon
Luis Calero
Maria Del Socorro Castaneda-Liles
Donald St.Louis
David Popalisky
Tim Healy
David DeCosse
Gerald McKevitt
Jim Reites
Why is this important?
There have been requests to sign this letter, so we decided to make it available for any faculty or staff members who would like to add their name.