St. Edward’s leader to face vote
Faculty asked to express no confidence after pride flag flap
St. Edward’s University faculty members are expected to vote on their confidence in President Montserrat Fuentes after the Faculty Senate on March 1 passed a motion to initiate that process over complaints about a pride flag’s removal and other employee concerns.
The vote comes after students publicly requested a vote of no confidence on Fuentes after the university’s leadership resisted calls to return a pride flag to a coffeehouse on campus. The flag had been removed last summer when the shop was renovated and hadn’t been put back when it reopened.
Three days after the Faculty Senate vote, Fuentes reinstated the pride flag in the campus coffeehouse, a day after sending an email to students and faculty to apologize for the hurt caused by the flag’s removal and to promise to rebuild trust. The university’s board of trustees on Wednesday asked the Faculty Senate to withdraw its motion for a vote of no confidence after the flag was reinstated.
In emails obtained by the AmericanStatesman that faculty senators wrote to one another March 1-4, however, the senators said the need for a vote of no confidence goes beyond the pride flag. An email the senate sent to all university faculty members about the vote of no confidence quoted a senator’s call for the motion, saying there are eight documented reasons beyond the pride flag’s removal for the referendum on Fuentes, and she has been presented with them.
Official notes from a December Faculty Collegium meeting that the Statesman obtained include anonymous
questions by faculty members to the president as well as results of a survey taken before students began demonstrating about the pride flag. The survey results show faculty members’ distrust of the president, with employees noting low pay, increased workloads, poor faculty retention and “the worst faculty morale.”
Faculty Senate members did not respond to Statesman requests for comment. In an email sent to faculty members Wednesday night, the senate said to “expect robust opportunity for engagement and involvement” after spring break.
“Thank you for your patience as we thoughtfully examine existing issues beyond restoring the flag that led to the challenges we now face and work toward creating meaningful and lasting solutions consistent with our mission and values,” the email said. “We do not undertake this lightly or hastily and will take the time and deliberation needed to engage and inform faculty as much as possible throughout the process and ensure that the basis for any action is serious, well-founded, and necessary as evidenced by unsuccessful reasonable and viable conflict resolution efforts within our shared governance structure.”
Fuentes, who declined a phone interview with the Statesman but answered questions via email Wednesday, said she supports shared governance but not ultimatums.
“The threats and ultimatums I have received do not reflect the values of this great university. I care deeply for our students, faculty and staff and the depth of my commitment is rooted in the Holy Cross mission, which includes radical hospitality, inclusion and care,” she said in her emailed response.
“Shared governance is about constructive dialogue, listening to different perspectives, and identifying solutions which often call for creativity or compromise. I will continue to work with interested faculty members to design policies which will further the mission and the success of the university,” she said.
Fuentes did not respond to follow-up questions Thursday about faculty members’ concerns.
The board of trustees sent emails
“The threats and ultimatums I have received do not reflect the values of this great university.
Montserrat Fuentes
March 2 and Wednesday to the whole university community, including faculty members and students, affirming its support for Fuentes. In its latest email Wednesday, the board specifically urged the faculty to withdraw the vote of no confidence, calling the decision “an extraordinary and uncalled for action.”
“We strongly urge the Faculty Senate to carefully reconsider its current path and more thoroughly exhaust reasonable and viable conflict resolution options available within our shared governance structure,” said the email, signed by Chair Marty Rose.
Rose did not respond to a Statesman request for comment. In the two emails the board sent to the university community, however, it preemptively affirmed its support for the president.
Emails between Faculty Senate members confirm that they have faced pressure from university leadership officials to stop or at least delay the vote until April 5 to allow the school time to address their concerns.
The vote of no confidence invites faculty members, including adjuncts who teach at least two courses, to anonymously vote on whether they believe Fuentes is a capable leader. Faculty members cannot remove a president, but a vote of no confidence is a record of their trust in the leader and is often the first step in removing a president, which can only be done by the board of trustees.
More than just a pride flag
On Feb. 27, students and some faculty members held a peaceful all-day protest and LGBTQ+ Pride celebration after calls for the pride flag to be reinstated at the coffeehouse went unanswered.
Students purchased 1,000 pride flags — which they displayed on the lawn in front of the Fine Arts Center, a building next to Equity Hall, where the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences is housed and where the school placed the pride flag after it was taken down in the highly visited coffeehouse.
On that overcast Tuesday, when Fuentes walked by the protest, students chanted, “Bring back our flag.” The school’s top official didn’t engage with them.
And though five days after the protest Fuentes sent students an email announcing that the pride flag was being allowed back in the campus coffeehouse, for many, the fight isn’t over.
“The pride flag being returned was a really happy moment, but I think it was still overshadowed by disappointment,” said Mackenna Bierschenk, a junior at St. Edward’s. “This didn’t feel genuine; this felt like a publicity stunt.”
But for Fuentes, reinstating the pride flag was just the first step in her action. She added that there is a working group to make recommendations to her to “enhance our commitment” to diverse identities.
“I don’t think a president who has to be bullied into doing the right thing deserves to lead,” Bierschenk said, adding that “there’s still a fight to be had.”
Biershenk, who helped organize the Feb. 27 protest on campus and holds the account @wheredidtheprideflaggo, an Instagram page capturing voices of students upset by the flag’s removal, emailed every faculty member before the March 1 Senate meeting asking them to stand up for students. Now she said she’s standing up for the faculty members, highlighting their anonymous comments and concerns in recent posts.
“This pride flag issue really just gave (faculty members) a way to voice the concerns they’ve had about the administration for a long time,” she said. “Faculty issues, whether that be underpay, workload issues, all of those things affect us as students, directly and indirectly.”
Louie Moore, a freshman at St. Edward’s and the president of PRIDE SEU who, along with the club’s adviser and another student, made a presentation at the March 1 Faculty Senate meeting, said that when the panel passed the motion to initiate a vote of no confidence on Fuentes, he cried.
“I’m so happy that this movement has gained so much traction. I’m so happy that this movement started such a big thing,” Moore said in an interview after the vote.
Moore and Bierschenk said the lack of transparency about why the pride flag could not initially be reinstated particularly hurt. Fuentes reiterated the university’s statement that the flag was moved to Equity Hall when there was a renovation and was placed back up “after fully understanding the hurt community groups felt from this change.”
But some students still feel unheard and unseen, and Bierschenk said the board of trustees’ email “really just signals to me that the board is trying to publicly shame the faculty for using their voices, and also the students.”