Fragmentation of the Academic Senate Is Not Good News for the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University

Academic senates were as an integral part of autonomous universities re-established after 1989, at a time when the state and its political authorities stopped deciding about which direction faculties should take. Now it is the academic senate that votes on important activities of a faculty but the decision about who is going to be a senator is made by all members of the academic community, irrespective of predetermined allegiance. What should prevail is the idea, goal, and intentions which a given senator wants to fight for to the benefit of the entire faculty and not just any particular lobby.

Parity varies

Since the 1990s, the composition of academic senates of various faculties has been evolving, in part in reaction to the Higher Education Act. Differences between academic senates are due to internal directives, which reflect the unique situation of each university and its tradition. One ought to view the issue from this more comprehensive perspective in order to avoid oversimplifying emphasis on details taken out of context. Senates vary in student representation, whereby in one senate the students’ chamber under some circumstances even has the right of veto. Moreover, the whole machinery of a faculty is interconnected by a system of other rules and regulations, and individual parts cannot be taken out or altered without sound knowledge of the whole. That could lead to a loss of long-established balance. This is why new regulations and changes in existing ones are carefully prepared, and although they are adopted by the academic senate, they are – with the sole exception of rules of procedure of the academic senate – proposed by the dean. The system of the Academic Senate at the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University is clear and well-arranged and represents the faculty above all as a whole, a single unit. The faculty provides the senate support also in the form of one parttime administrative position.

Academics and students have a parity. It is a specific feature of our senate that teachers and students can choose from a joint list of candidates: students thus regularly elect their representatives also from the ranks of popular teachers. This, I believe, is of extraordinary importance. This is also how it happened that many outstanding teachers have been elected to the academic senate. It is meanwhile also the case that in accordance with the Higher Education Act, the number of student senators may not go below one third: in our case, there must be therefore at least ten students in the senate.

A purely democratic approach and the role of students

Students influence the work of the academic senate to a large extent. This goes hand in hand with a large share of responsibility, but it also stimulates students to activity. Although at first, they usually have little experience with academic politics, it is necessary to listen to their voices. Their enthusiasm and energy bring new impulses. At the First Faculty of Medicine, the partnership between academic and students has a long tradition, which makes some things easier but other things more complicated. In any case, when their positions differ, both parties are forced to negotiate and seek the optimal solution, and negotiation is an important element in life. We know it for instance also from the European structures. Thanks to negotiations, positions are becoming clearer, democratic principles are reinforced, and decisions taken by the Academic Senate have a high degree of validity. The situation is similar in the ‘big’ senate of the Charles University as a whole. The option of influencing what happens at the faculty must not be merely declarative or theoretical: it must be actually achievable. Senate is the highest level on which students can participate in decision-making.

Overall direction of the faculty

 

Recently, there appeared suggestions that our Academic Senate should be organised in such a way that individual groups would have a mandatory representation so as to better reflect the composition of the faculty. But it is far from easy to clearly define these groups or to decide what their adequate guaranteed representation should be. And above all, we should bear in mind the function of the senate: it is a body which focuses mainly on managing the faculty and defining its overall direction. The senate adopts regulations for the faculty, its budget, and many other measures and guidelines that affect the faculty as a whole. According to some proposals, or perhaps so far just general notions, groups of students should be divided according to their fields of study (in some faculties, these could be in fact the individual years of study), while the academics could be divided in theoreticians and clinicians. One could, however, also argue in favour of grouping according to different hospitals or departments (e.g., surgery, internal medicine, neuroscience, etc.). Our faculty has its departments in numerous Prague hospitals and from this perspective, one could argue that they, too, should have guaranteed representation in the Academic Senate.

This search for a just balance could lead to a discussion about whether an academic who works halftime should have the same vote as a fulltime academic, which would clearly change the parameters of voting once we realise that some departments employ many academics with small fulltime equivalents while other departments tend to have fulltime staff. It becomes clear that this idea, which was clearly well meant, could lead to no small amount of complications but above all, and that is something I believe is of key importance, it could disrupt the cohesion and perception of the faculty as a unit, a whole. Right now, each and every candidate must try to win votes within the whole faculty, must think comprehensively, address everyone, and not just curry favour with particular interest groups. This faculty-wide vision is something I see in the work of the current senators, many of whom, including academics, probably would not be in the senate if it were reorganised into groups. Moreover, it has not been shown that the traditional composition of the senate in any way hampers the development of our faculty.

Particular interests must not prevail over shared goals

By fragmenting the senate into particular groups, which could moreover never be truly relevantly represented, we run the danger of disrupting the free competition of visions of further development of the faculty. Voters could choose from only a limited number of persons, and moreover only based on the ‘district’ to which they belong, not based on views they find attractive. Why couldn’t I, as a theoretician, vote for an excellent otolaryngologist or another clinician whose views and ideas regarding the faculty’s development I find attractive? Moreover, one can foresee a vast disbalance between the number of votes needed to be elected between the various groups.

Certainly, all the main categories should be represented in the management of the faculty, but this requirement cannot be related only to the senate, it should apply to the entire management of the faculty, especially the Science Board, Dean’s College, and other advisory organs of the faculty. What is essential is that each member of the academic community should be able to turn to the Academic Senate and the senate could always invite the person who is responsible for a given area at the faculty level. The faculty moreover has also other mechanisms aimed at making sure that everyone’s voice is heard (heads of each year, working groups, etc.). Their effectivity in addressing particular problems is thanks to a direct link with the executive management of the faculty oftentimes greater than the formal presence of a lonely representative in the senate.

A faculty-wide approach without fragmentation driven by particular interests

Which of the two conceptions is thus preferable? It is certainly a good idea to discuss it. Let future candidates to the Academic Senate of our faculty clearly declare their position. Should the senate be accessible to all those who want to champion ideas of crucial importance from the perspective of the faculty as a whole? I am convinced it should. I do not believe that a change of parity between the two chambers is advisable. After all, even the Academic Senate as such had clearly expressed itself against a change in the election rules. Organisation of the senate in an almost corporative form, with predefined fragmented groups, has no equivalent in the representative organs of the Czech Republic (save for the purely formal National Front under the former regime). Compartmentalisation of senators in small groups with particular interests would, in a longer term, lead to a loss of faculty-wide vision, to stagnation and a limitation of ideas, to ideas which will not be able to transcend the parameters defined by electoral segments.

Martin Vokurka, 
Dean of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University

Is It Time for Change?

Let me offer some thoughts on the Academic Senate of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University, thoughts informed by my experience of working in this assembly as its head, in about the middle of my 2019–2022 term.

An academic senate is a representative organ of self-governance established by the Higher Education Act (No. 111/1998 Coll.) at all public universities and institutes of higher education. Its members are elected from amongst its members by the academic community, that is, by students and teachers. An academic senate of a public institute of higher education has always at least eleven members, at least one-third and at most one-half of whom are students. The number of members of the senate and organs of the senate are determined by each university’s own internal regulations: the election code and rules of procedure.

It follows therefore from existing legislation that the academic senate is an elected organ and as such, it should be unequivocally transparent, represent the individual communities, and defend the widest possible interest of the faculty. The foundations of our academic senate were laid in 1990. Its first head was Professor Ctirad John and its first elected head MUDr. Jaroslav Svoboda. At that time, there were also prepared and adopted its election code and rules of procedures, both of which are with minor modifications in force to this day. At the time when the senate was being created, however, the circumstances, needs, and atmosphere were different.

Changes at the faculty

When the senate was established, the First Faculty of Medicine had its departments mainly in the General University Hospital. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, it has about one half of its clinical departments at the General University Hospital, while others are at the Bulovka University Hospital. Thomayer University Hospital, Military University Hospital, and Motol University Hospital. Thirty years ago, the First Faculty of Medicine also had not yet opened its current study courses: one could study only either general medicine or dentistry.

Since that time, there opened a study of general medicine in English, dentistry in English, and bachelor, master’s, and postgraduate studies. A number of new scientific institutions were created, which work for the faculty and are its part, such as Biocev. There is thus a lot that changed since the foundation of the Academic Senate, and one could ask whether it is time to open a discussion about modification of rules that govern it. Right now, any eventual change is fully in the hands of current senators. If they do decide to start discussing changes, they could propose and submit modifications to the current election code and rules of procedures, and if they conclude that changes are desirable, they could submit those changes for adoption to the Academic Senate of the Charles University. Any discussion should include the management of the faculty. I repeat: it is all in the hands of current senators, it is up to them to see whether there is a will to open this issue, propose potential changes and negotiate them, eventually adopt a proposal and submit it to superior institutions. And most certainly, there is also the option of being content with things as they are and letting things continue unchanged.

Change to the election code?

Not only senators can influence an eventual change. It is most certainly desirable and important to listen to the voice of the broad academic community. After all, the management of the faculty expressed itself in that sense and emphasised the need for a broad academic discussion about eventual changes in the academic senate. This year, the academic senate repeatedly dealt with this subject and the discussions were interesting. At this point, a narrow majority prevented negotiations about a new election code but did open space for discussion of changes in the rules of procedure.

As head of the academic senate, I had a presentation for the Science Board of the First Faculty of Medicine and acquainted them with this issue. The board acknowledged my communication and invited the academic public to open an open discussion. I am using this opportunity to turn to all of you and ask you to think about this subject. Let us consider whether we should stick with the tradition or use an opportunity for change.

The composition of academic senates varies

Here, I would like to share with the academic community some observations regarding arrangement of the senate at other medical faculties in the Czech Republic. Let us take a look at how their organisation varies and whether some could not be a source of inspiration also for us. First, however, let us look at the election code of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University. The Academic Senate has two chambers, an academic one and a student one. Fifteen representatives can be elected to each of those chambers and one can run for both chambers at the same time. There is no set number or composition of communities from which representatives are elected to the senate and the senate does not have a board or presidium.

At the Second Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University, the academic senate also has two chambers, whereby there are 12 representatives in the academic and the students’ chamber each. When announcing elections, the senate sets the number and composition of communities from which members of the students’ chamber are elected. Only students can vote for representatives in the students’ chamber and only academics vote into the academic chamber. The senate has a presidium consisting of five persons.

At the Third Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University, there are 16 representatives in both the students’ and academic chamber. The academics are divided in predefined groups from clinical departments, theoretical fields, and students are divided in students of bachelor, master, doctoral, and English master programme. The presidium of the senate has two vice-chairpersons and a secretary. The Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové has academic senate where academics and 24 and students 12 representatives. The students’ chamber includes representatives from programmes in general medicine, dentistry, and from the English parallels of both of those programmes, as well as from bachelor programmes and doctoral programmes, i.e., six groups in total. The Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen has an academic senate comprised of 16 academics and 8 students.

In Brno, particular fields have guaranteed representatives

The Faculty of Medicine of Masaryk University in Brno has an academic senate composed of 11 representatives elected from the student body by students and 22 representatives of the academics elected by the academics. The academic community of the faculty is divided in 7 ‘electoral districts’ with a predefined number of representatives in the academic senate. The academic body has its clearly defined mandates from clinical departments, departments, and theoretical institutes. The students have guaranteed representatives from students of general medicine, dentistry, postgraduate studies, bachelor, and master’s programmes. The presidium of the senate has three members and administrative support provided by the Dean’s Office. In other words, at a faculty of complexity comparable with that of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University, representation of all parts of the academic community is defined in the election code. The Faculty of Medicine of the Palacký University in Olomouc has a senate consisting of 24 academics and 12 representatives of the students’ chamber. The academic chamber has two sections, a section of theoretical and non-medical fields and a section of preclinical and clinical fields. The students’ chamber has likewise two sections, a section of medical programmes and a section of non-medical programmes. The presidium has three members.

Adding precision to the election code and rules of procedure

Modifications to the election code and rules of procedure could take the form of adding precision to some somewhat vaguely defined statements that can lead to uncertainty. For instance, adding a clause regarding the replacement of senate members for a particular election term, the position of senate representatives elected as students after completion of their studies, distance voting, the manner of submitting proposals for discussion, etc.

Withing the limited space now at my disposal, I would like to open a discussion. In particular, I am asking whether the time had come to give a serious thought not only to the rules of procedure of our senate but also its election code and decide whether eventual changes may not benefit our faculty. In doing so, I do not wish to cast doubt on the past decisions and activities of the academic senate of the First Faculty of Medicine. I do, however, believe that it may be time for the senate to react to the changes which our faculty had undergone over the past decades. I would welcome an open academic discussion. Let us talk about it, exchange views, debate. I invite all of the academic community to join.

Jan Betka,
předseda Akademického senátu 1. LF UK

Senate Through the Eyes of Its Student Representatives

‘What actually does an academic senate do?’ This was the first question we thought of when writing this article. It sounds simple but this question has several answers. A straightforward answer can be found in the Higher Education Act, which sets the rules for basic operation of academic senates, the main rules for its sessions, and defines public access to senates’ sessions.

An academic senate for instance puts forth proposals for appointment of a dean, based on dean’s proposal decides about the establishment, merging, splitting, or dissolution of institutes and departments of faculties, and adopts proposals regarding the division of financial means of the faculty submitted to it by the dean.

What is senators’ job description

Large part of senators’ work takes place outside the senate’s sessions, for instance in the various commissions of the senate. Quite often, however, senators deal with our faculty’s interests completely outside of the senate, usually at various meetings where the direction which our alma mater should take is discussed. At other times, senators together with representatives of particular years of study work as mediators at negotiations aimed at solving various problems. In short, senators can deal at the faculty with many different things, starting from minor issues, such as the purchase of a new microwave oven at the faculty (a task burdened by surprisingly many administrative obstacles) all the way to the faculty’s budget. During elections into the senate – and this holds of elections in general – many different ideas, visions, and dreams are voiced. During the elections, many candidates promise they would help improve this and that. On the other hand, to improve the functioning of the faculty, one does not need to be in the senate. It may be easier to present some ideas and visions when one has the label of ‘senator’ but ultimately, anyone who wants to improve life at our faculty can pitch in.

What does the senate look like and how it functions

The Academic Senate of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University has 30 members and consists of two chambers, an academic and a students’ one. Its specific feature is that both students and academics can be represented by senators from either ‘camp’, that is, academic staff can be elected by students and vice versa. It happens quite frequently that academics are elected to the students’ chamber; the opposite situation is rather rare. In the end, however, the senate is a single unit where everyone shares the same goal: to do the best for the First Faculty of Medicine.

Senate’s proceedings have their rules and their etiquette

Sessions of the senate are moderated by president of the senate, who is always elected during the first session of the incoming senate. The president of the senate has, in comparison with the ‘rank and file’ senators, many more duties. The first session of a newly elected senate also elects a vice-president, who in collaboration with the president facilitates a smooth operation of the senate.

The senate usually meets in the building of the Dean’s Office of the First Faculty of Medicine on Mondays. The sessions are open to the public (which does not mean that anyone can actively participate). In addition to the formal aspect, senate’s sessions also have an important social aspect. The senate has in some respects a representative function. Its sessions follow their etiquette and many rules, which are defined in the senate’s rules of proceedings. The number of rules is really quite staggering and finding one’s way through them can be quite a challenge.

We would like to stress that the senate is an important body, and that is why one should take interest in its work, especially during periods of senate elections. No less important is also the senate of the Charles University, but that is another chapter. And naturally, the senate is here for you! You can contact your senators for instance via the senators’ box on the website of the First Faculty of Medicine.

Jakub Danzig and Christian Joachim Entenmann,
members of the students’ chamber of the Academic Senate of the First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University