Editorial : Senate debate policy has potential to speed conversation, restrict in-depth discussion
New rules will guide future debate at University Senate meetings. The new senate moderator, Ian MacInnes, will limit any person wanting to contribute to a debate or discussion to three minutes. That person can speak a second time only if everyone else who wishes to offer an idea has spoken.
MacInnes said he hopes the changes will better facilitate conversation and give voice to a diversity of perspectives. The changes are meant to discourage one person or perspective from dominating the discussion.
Most town halls and public meetings enforce time limits on public comment, and the changes certainly have the potential to speed conversation and keep it from becoming repetitive or hostile. But the changes may not necessarily facilitate a range of perspectives — an administrative bloc, which often represents a single view, may overwhelm the concerns of a single campus member.
Maxwell Auditorium, where the senate holds its meeting, begins to thin when discussions stagnate and circle around two or three people refusing to see eye to eye. Senate meetings gather a range of faculty, staff and students and provide a wonderful and constructive space for community engagement. But, of course, pushing a conversation that a small minority wishes to have is unfair and unproductive to the senate. It is hoped the new changes will end these exclusive discussions.
But meetings have held plenty of constructive and lively conversations in the past several years, ranging from internship policies to concerns about library space. But debate occasionally stagnates as faculty and student questions — or sometimes criticisms — elicit defensive responses from administrators. Judging by this past, the new changes have the potential to downplay a concern of a campus member. That single student or professor will have just one chance to talk before three or four administrators respond, all allowed time of their own but oftentimes articulating the same perspective.
More than a dozen voices at last semester’s March USen meeting offered comment when debate arose about Syracuse University’s academic competitiveness; such a conversation clearly exemplifies one worth having because it kept so many people engaged. Despite the new rules, it is hoped conversation of mass and diverse interest will continue to run without inhibition.
