Two years ago, faculty representatives from around the Ivy League, and as far away as Chicago and Berkeley, gathered in New Haven to discuss common interests and explore the idea of creating an ongoing consortium for those engaged in faculty governance. The meeting evolved from a message that I sent, while FEC chair at Brown, to Professor William Nordhaus, then head of the Faculty Senate at Yale, inquiring whether he knew about any network of faculty governance officers. Such networks exist for university presidents and provosts. There is even one for the officers of student government in the Ivy League. Yet I was struck how often the FEC at Brown was left wondering how faculty at other institutions addressed issues similar to those that we faced. Professor Nordhaus was not aware of any formal network, now or in the past, he was keenly interested in the idea, and he graciously agreed to host an inaugural meeting at Yale.

Working with Professor Susan Silbey, who was ending a two-year term as chair of faculty governance at MIT, we organized a one-day meeting early in May 2019. Representatives from nine universities participated—most of the Ivies, plus Chicago and UC Berkeley. Many others who could not attend on such short notice expressed interest in participating going forward.

We began the day-long conference with presentations, in which everyone explained how faculty governance works at their own institution. The difference in the shape and process of faculty governance across institutions was striking. Some have faculty senates; others have arrangements more like our Faculty Executive Committee. The committee structure also varies considerably across universities, as does the the role of faculty in decision-making by the administration.

There was also a general session, led by Professor Robert Post, former dean of Yale of Law School, about academic freedom and emerging issues in intellectual property. There were afternoon sessions on topics including Title IX and retirement incentive programs. One of the conclusions that I carried away from that meeting was that faculty governance at UC Berkeley and at MIT has significantly benefitted from a strong, professional support staff. MIT has a fulltime doctorate-level staff member who is capable of interacting with faculty across the university on a range of issues. The Office of Faculty Governance at Brown was in transition at the time, and the FEC leadership was able to use this example to secure an upgrade from the administration in the qualifications for the primary position that supports faculty governance at Brown. The new Manager of Faculty Governance and Research, Robert Barrick, came to Brown with considerable experience working with faculty at Stanford. He has provided the basic support necessary for the Steering Committee to keep the consortium running smoothly.

I returned to Providence with Professor Jim Morgan, the incoming FEC chair at Brown, grateful that there is a meaningful commitment to shared governance at Brown. It was clear that some of our counterparts were at institutions where the faculty was in the dark about budget information, or where they were not consulted on major decisions as they would be at Brown. We also learned that, despite remarkable differences in the forms of faculty governance, we all faced so many similar issues that everyone welcomed the opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences in the future. We resolved to meet again at MIT in May of 2020.

Preparations for that meeting were beginning just as universities started closing due to COVID-19. Instead of holding an in-person conference, we had a day-long conference on Zoom. The overall group had doubled in the size, through social and professional networks. Beyond the original institutions, there are now representatives from NYU, Michigan, Texas, Rice, Cal Tech, and Stanford. Everyone had become adept at Zoom by then, so it was easy to organize an online conference.

Looking back, May and June of 2020 were times of great uncertainty. We did not know what the coming fall semester would look like or how universities would handle the range of issues from budget to teaching to public safety. The consortium began having meetings every two weeks on Zoom to get updates from around the country and to discuss issues of common concern. The participants found these meetings to be extremely valuable both for exchanging information and for considering the issues at their own institution. These discussions had the effect of increasing my respect for how Brown handled matters involving faculty health and safety. Not all institutions left decisions about in-person versus remote teaching up to the faculty.

When the fall semester began, the meetings became monthly. Those meetings continued all year. The calls last an hour, one of the Steering Committee members runs the meeting, and there is a pre-established agenda that usually mixes brief reports from around the country with time designated for specific topics. The most recent meeting was about fall teaching arrangements and the details of university responses to anti-Black racism.

We still have not gotten around to naming this group. Professor Nordhaus jokingly (I think) suggested the Faculty Officers Group (FOG). It’s undoubtedly a good sign that the group has spent its time on substantive issues rather than on finding a catchy name. But, should the need for one arise, Professor Nordhaus did have a suggestion of one with a much snappier acronym: the Consortium of Faculty Officers (COFO). Whatever it winds up being called, the organization's Steering Committee is now supported at Brown and the benefits of this intercollegiate consortium will continue to inform the FEC officers as they work with the administration in the model of shared governance that makes Brown distinctive.