EDITORIAL: Faculty Senate, Open The Doors

Belmont Vision Multimedia, Zach Watkins

Belmont University’s faculty senate has shut the door on a majority of the people affected by its decisions. 

It removed the word “open” to describe its meetings, no longer allowing visitors without approval from the senate executive committee. 

Additionally, the Belmont Vision has been shut out from Monday’s meeting, the last of the semester. It is unclear if the Vision will be allowed to attend meetings next semester. 

Virginia Lamothe, president of faculty senate, has graciously offered  to sit down with a Vision writer after meetings and to provide a recap without quotes or names of who said what at meetings. 

Obviously, this won't allow the Vision to adequately, accurately or transparently cover what happens. 

Do we trust the government to truthfully report on itself? We can see how well that works in  

D.C. 

It’s ironic that the faculty senate bylaws, under its own “Faculty Responsibilities” section, says it is required to “contribute to the advancement of knowledge through free, open and scholarly inquiry.” 

As Joe Bendekovic and Justin Wagner said in an editorial written the last time faculty senate tried to remove the Vision from meetings, "open means open." 

This decision is antithetical to that bylaw. 

Although public universities in Tennessee are subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act, which requires faculty senate meetings to operate in the open, Belmont, as a private institution, is not beholden to the same laws. 

But just because Belmont has the right to restrict access to meetings, it doesn’t mean it should. 

By restricting access to these meetings, faculty senate is furthering the divide between the decision makers and those who face the consequences of those decisions. 

Its choice to close meetings only creates more confusion and distrust; and continues to stifle communications across the university. 

It follows a concerning trend across the country of journalism and media being limited in their coverage of government, including the albeit short suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following a joke about the president and more recently the Indiana Daily Student having its content restricted by Indiana University.  

It’s disappointing to see the same institution that provides a journalistic education limit its students’ opportunities in the same way. 

There may be repercussions to what is said in senate meetings if they’re published, and we live in a time when the most innocuous statements can be perceived as controversial. 

But if you believe in what you say, you should be comfortable putting your name on it. 

This article was written by Nick Rampe