I'd like to begin with a story, a really bad one, a dumb blonde story about a male blonde. An Irishman, a Mexican and a blonde guy were doing construction work on scaffolding on the 20th floor of a building. They were eating lunch and the Irishman said, "Corned beef and cabbage! If I get corned beef and cabbage one more time for lunch I'm going to jump off this building." The Mexican opened his lunch box and exclaimed, "Burritos again! If I get burritos one more time I'm going to jump off, too." The blond opened his lunch and said, "Bologna again. If I get a bologna sandwich one more time, I'm jumping too." The next day the Irishman opened his lunch box, saw corned beef and cabbage and jumped to his death. The Mexican opened his lunch, saw a burrito and jumped too. The blonde guy opened his lunch, saw the bologna and jumped to his death as well. At the funeral the Irishman's wife was weeping. She said, "If I'd known how really tired he was of corned beef and cabbage, I never would have given it to him again!" The Mexican's wife also wept and said, "I could have given him tacos or enchiladas! I didn't realize he hated burritos so much." Everyone turned and stared at the blonde's wife. "Hey, don't look at me," she said, "He makes his own lunch."

Moral of story? Every group can be stereotyped, even University faculty. One sees this attitude in the media all the time: ``Faculty believe this or faculty are overexercised about that.'' Stereotyping has all sorts of negative effects, but perhaps the worst is that it reduces the concerns of an entire group to a single, monotonic dimension. It's like an artist who paints with one brush and one color (no offense to post-modernists like Rothko) or an orchestra that only plays one note.

Faculty stereotyping by others results in their thinking they know what we faculty think and are going to say, hence it becomes unnecessary in their minds to engage in conversation with faculty since our attitudes and opinions are pre-existing, pre-determined, and unchanging.

Such an atmosphere of disinterest leads to faculty feeling isolated, unappreciated and frustrated. This is particularly true when faculty are excluded from decision making processes that affect their own futures or that of their institutions. And this ``we-already-know-your-opinion-thank-you-very-much'' attitude makes faculty more than a little angry.

This zero-input-by-faculty scenario is playing out at several levels in the state system these days. At the state level there is the current state budget situation with its potentially disastrous effect on instruction. Not much faculty input there despite your heroic efforts. At the OUS level there are the issues of the chancellor search, budget cut allocations, and full funding of cell values. Again, not a lot of requests for faculty opinions - after all there already is a faculty member on the board, no need to hear from others. And then there are numerous issues affecting faculty at the local institutional level, including faculty salaries, teaching loads, and program funding to name but a few. Faculty voices are just not being heard.

So, how do we change this situation, both in the short- and long-terms? Simply stated, by applying gentle yet firm pressure continuously to the Governor and state legislators, the Chancellor and State Board, and University Presidents and administrators. The goal? To get them to start believing that it is in their best interest to listen to and follow faculty advice regarding higher education decisions. This is not a difficult management concept to grasp; any organization is optimally effective only if all stakeholder groups feel that they have a voice in controlling their own destinies. Such a relationship goes against the traditional dichotomy of management vs. labor, administration vs. faculty, us vs. them. I suggest that we should replace that outdated adversarial relationship with a new formula that emphasizes an us-us, we-are-all-one-family scenario.

This is not just an untested, egg-headed theory - it is being put into practice here at the University of Oregon. In 1996 the University of Oregon completely rewrote its governance system. Out went the University Assembly, an unwieldy organization of a 1000+ members whose meetings mirrored the Roman Coliseum scenes in the movie ``Gladiator''. The Assembly was replaced by the University Senate, a representational form of campus governance consisting of elected members from the ranks of faculty, administrators, librarians and students. From this beginning 6 years ago has emerged the start of a true collaborative effort between faculty, students and the administration. Since its total revamp, the University Senate has insisted, gently yet firmly, on being heard by the administration. Our mantra has been the academic equivalent of the 1960s slogan ``Make love, not war'' updated perhaps to something like ``Swim together, sink apart''. And such an seed change in attitude has begun to sprout results. Through the very hard work of the past 6 University Senate presidents -- Paul Simons, Carl Bybee, Ann Tedards, Jeff Hurwit, Peter Gilkey and Jim Earl, nearly all former or current IFS members-- faculty have insisted upon and forged an on-going dialog with our administration on all major campus issues. Faculty wrote and approved a new post-tenure review policy. Faculty salary increases became the top campus priority and we have seen significant salary improvements in each of the past three years. Faculty asked for and received an agreement to eliminate the $2M athletic department subsidy. In each case faculty politely but persistently requested a dialog with the administration and contributed heavily to the final result. More importantly, the administration listened. And listened carefully.

Don't get the impression that life here is all roses and chocolates. UO faculty and administrators aren't taking happy drugs to ensure mutual admiration and consensus. I and my predecessors have been on opposite sides of issues with the administration more times than not. And let's face it, us faculty can be and have been more cantankorous than any group of administrators. But in spite of these differences, both sides are beginning to understand that we can only solve our problems by seeking out meaningful dialog with all sides and working together for the good of all. True shared governance means listening to and respecting each other's opinions - two qualities that have seen a welcomed resurgence in recent years on this campus.

I humbly submit that the IFS would do well to consider following a similar course with respect to the Chancellor's office, the State Board and our state legislators. Along with the Association of Oregon Faculties and the Oregon Conference of the American Association of University Professors, you are our voice at the state level. Higher education needs faculty advocating for academic quality, not fighting to prevent academic slippage.

My comments should not be misconstrued: The IFS has worked very hard to get to this point in your history, and we faculty are very much appreciative of your efforts. But please don't stop. Work together with the OAF and AAUP to develop a faculty voice that is both coherent and strong. And use that voice at every opportunity in every available venue. We must convince our decision-makers and fellow Oregonians that higher education is not an option for the few but the door to success for the many. We must also make them understand that the state cannot continue to reduce funding and expect to maintain quality, let alone improve it. There is only so much one can accomplish with the ``do more with less'' attitude that has permeated our state since the Measure 5 cuts of the 90s. The current stakes are very high, not only for us and our institutions, but for our students, our children and the citizens of Oregon. We faculty are more than willing to help you achieve this goal in any way we can. We need the IFS and its collective wisdom, now more than ever, to provide leadership and direction, to be the faculty voice.