Open the doors to the public

The mass faculty meeting Tuesday, the first in almost 20 years, will possibly have profound implications for the campus and the University at large. During the meeting, faculty will consider proposed resolutions that aim to secure an IUB chancellor as soon as possible and evaluate the performance of IU President Adam Herbert. This is a rare occurrence. But the meeting will be closed to the public, and for this we must condemn the faculty.\nWhen asked why the meeting would be closed to students, the public and the press, Bloomington Faculty Council President Ted Miller said it would be in the "best interest of Indiana University" ("Faculty meeting closed to public," Indiana Daily Student, Friday).\nIs it in the best interest of faculty members? The decision is remarkably hypocritical, considering one of the faculty's concerns is that Herbert has been secretive and unavailable. We don't believe faculty members have anything to hide, but shutting the doors clearly gives that impression.\nLegally, because this meeting is considered a "general faculty meeting," the doors may be shut. But simply because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. (If it were a BFC meeting, the doors would be open. Although this meeting walks like a BFC duck and talks like a BFC duck, it is nonetheless called a general faculty goose). \nIs a closed meeting truly in the best interests of IU? We don't believe so. This is not a matter regarding personnel, as the general faculty meeting in 1986 was, when the dispute was about salaries. This is a matter of evaluating the president's performance and finding a Bloomington chancellor. These are actions with University-wide implications. As tuition-paying students, we have a vested interest.\nThe one thing faculty members would have to fear if the doors were open would be accountability for their statements. We don't mean retribution for criticisms, since such retribution, even if done through back-door channels, is illegal. We mean that, so far, this debate has been uncivil and, at times, irresponsible. Some faculty members who would defend Herbert have been drowned out. Some have resorted to rumors for their arguments against Herbert. Faculty members should be forced to back up their statements with facts. The best way to ensure this would be to open the doors.\nWe recognize not all faculty members support the decision to exclude the public, and we also recognize there is a time and a place for secret meetings. Yet we cannot help but cringe at the absence of accountability and the empowerment of rumor and heresy through a culture of closed doors. The faculty should also find this trend disheartening.\nWe strongly urge the meeting's organizers to reconsider their decision. It is not too late to open the doors. We urge professors who have principled reservations to voice their concerns proudly, not fearfully. And we urge Herbert to consider his option of attending the meeting in his capacity as an administrator and professor. This debate must be civil and responsible, and it should be open to all.