University President Morton Schapiro does not plan to act on resolutions passed by Northwestern’s Faculty Senate on May 4 that support the Living Wage Campaign and note that the due process of David Protess may have been violated.
Created this year, the Senate consists of faculty representing each academic department and non-tenure eligible members from each NU school. The Senate replaced the General Faculty Committee, a smaller entity, Faculty Senate Vice-Chair Babette Sanders said.
“The Faculty Senate is there to discuss any matters that pertain to faculty functions within the University system or faculty life even,” Sanders said, “and then, if we have any concerns, to communicate those to the administration to try and come to some resolution or make them aware of our concerns.”
At its last meeting, the Senate passed the Living Wage Resolution, stating it is NU’s duty to ensure a living wage for all workers and asking the administration to create a committee to implement a plan. Mary Pattillo, a member of the social responsibility committee and an author of the bill, said the resolution passed “overwhelmingly” with only four members voting against it.
“All of us are beneficiaries of the workers who are now paid below a living wage, and as members of the community we think that their labor is valuable,” Pattillo said. “It’s in line with Northwestern’s general quest for excellence and respect for all of the Northwestern community.”
The Living Wage Campaign is a student-run initiative to establish a living wage for subcontracted workers on campus. Weinberg junior Kellyn Lewis, co-director of the Living Wage Campaign, said students involved are “really excited” about the Senate’s support of their efforts.
“We’re pretty empowered by the fact that the faculty organized in such a way that was really pushing for something that we believe in,” he said.
Though the Faculty Senate and the Associated Student Government endorse the Living Wage Campaign, the administration does not.
During Wednesday’s “Conversation with the President,” Schapiro said forming a committee would be “presumptuous” because he does not plan on implementing a living wage, which he said would be economically unsound.
According to the resolution, the administration has said the private firms hired by NU are responsible for their employees’ wages.
However, Pattillo said NU is within its power to require a living wage in its contracts with companies or hire other firms. Though she said the Faculty Senate has not seen the contracts NU has with subcontractors like Sodexo, Pattillo said they probably include stipulations.
“I would be very sure that it would include things like they want the subcontractor to use recyclable napkins or other kinds of things that are in line with Northwestern’s values,” she said. “We employ the firms that do the work, so we set the terms of what we want those firms to do.”
The Senate also dealt with Medill Prof. David Protess’ controversial removal from the school’s faculty Spring Quarter. The resolution, proposed by the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee, is concerned with the “narrow question” of whether Protess’s right to due process was violated rather than whether the Medill Innocence Project broke the law under his leadership.
“That’s the issue that the Faculty Senate was focusing on, not the outcome but the process,” Sanders said. “And we did not want to infer that due process was not followed. I think the way the motion was read is we want to make sure that it was, and I think that’s an important distinction.”
Protess requested that the Senate look into the matter, according to the resolution. While Protess said Medill Dean John Lavine enacted what the faculty handbook calls “severe sanction” against him without due process, Lavine maintained the handbook gives him the authority over “teaching assignments.”
The Senate determined that removing Protess because of alleged academic dishonesty constitutes disciplinary action, not a teaching assignment. Still, the Senate said it could not recommend action since the case is ongoing.
Instead, the Senate did acknowledge that terms like “severe sanction” need to be more clearly defined. Sanders said the Senate is working on revising the faculty handbook as a result. Furthermore, she said the Senate may make a firmer resolution as the case concludes.
“We will definitely review any additional information,” Sanders said. “And I think based on that make a decision as to whether there’s further action.”
Schapiro said in a a recent interview with The Daily that the University has taken sufficient action.
“We had an investigation. It was a really big investigation, and we ended up detailing what we found in great detail, unusual detail … because there was so much misinformation,” he said. “We hired a great law firm and paid a fortune for it. I don’t know what else we can do.”
When asked if the administration would solicit another review, per the Senate’s request, Schapiro said it was not a consideration: “We already did.”
