Bulletin Supplement Aug 1969

more than this. The failure of the Faculty Senate to give the information immediately to the students when the president expressed informally his intention to resign to the members of the Senate, produced discontent among the students and escalated the trouble last February. C. Openness of the decision-making process: The interest of the students in the decision- making process is not limited to this. They have demanded further that they be informed of the decision-making process itself. They have asked to know whether particular major decisions were reached unanimously or by a majority vote. They were anxious to be informed of the substance of any minority opinions and the names of those who supported the minority . They have advocated open Faculty Senate and faculty staff meetings; and, as the means to achieve this goal, they have demanded access to the minutes of those meetings or the right to send their representatives to the meetings to observe the entire decision-making process. D. Rational reasoning: The students have always argued that the faculty has to explain the rational reason underlying particular decisions, on the assumption that since the university is a place where the rational judgment governs everything, we must provide a logical explanation for our decisions. They always ask: "Why did you make this decisions?" It is rather difficult for us to answer this question, because our decisions are often reached in a complex way, through the dynamics of the group decision-making process; besides, we have to take into account such irrational factors as personal feeling, custom, tradition, and power relations. E. Participation in the decision-making process: Criticism to the past procedure that only the faculty staff participates in making decisions in the university has led to the students' demand for a right of participation in the decision-making process, on the grounds that they also are members of the university. The students have pointed out several forms of participation, (i) Creation of a council where student representatives would be able not only to express their views, but also to have a vote, as an equal partner, when deciding important matters. ( i i) Establishment of the right of the studen t body to negotiate with the faculty on relevant problems. ( i i i) Granting of veto power to the student body concerning decisions made by the faculty. These are problems raised by the students in our university in relation to the decision-making process. A similar situation exists, I believe, in other universities i n Japan. I I I . The University as a Decision-Making system: A Comparative Study A. Two models: We can imagine a decision-making system in which every one has the veto power over decisions. This system could be called the "Unit Veto System." Another decision-making system could be one in which a single person monopolizes decision-making power. This system could be called the "Hierarchical System." These two systems represent the two most extreme. The system which exists in the real world can be placed somewhere in between. For example, the institution of the military represents a system which is close to the "Hierarchical System", but does not represent the "Hierarchical System" itself. The Government and Business are less hierarchical than the military institution as a decision-making system. A s compared with these institutions, the university system should perhaps be placed closer to the "Unit Veto System." B. University model: Having observed tha t the university is unable to react rapidly to student disturbances and to take effective steps to accommodate the different views within the faculty, one cynical observer pointed out that there were two hundred executive directors in the university. It is true that it takes a great deal of time to reach any important decision in the university, simply because we have made it a rule to build consensus among the faculty members, who have their own individual views. We adopt a majority rule in some cases, but generally, in case one of the faculty sticks to his position in disregard of the majority opinion, it can easily create difficulty in reaching a decision. C. Two forces operating in the opposite direction: Taking into account that the university system is inadequate for coping with the current situation, the government decided to transform the university system in such a fashion that decision-making power would be concentrated in the hands of the president. In other words, the government has intended to move the university system in the direction of a "Hierarchical System." The University Bill is designed to pursue this purpose. On the other hand, within the university there are forces operating in another direction, which are pulling the university system closer to the Unit Veto System. These forces can be detected both among the students and among the faculty. — 1 2 —