Search News


Browse Archives

News

Tactical Retreat

May 17, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

By most measures, William J. Lennox Jr.'s academic credentials are the sort that professors at a place like the University of Nevada at Las Vegas would relish in a new president: English Ph.D. from Princeton, sitting chief executive at a nationally respected university with a student body stronger than UNLV's, and federal ties that could help in the competition for research funds.

But one central aspect of Lennox's background -- the fact that the title "Lieutenant General" appears before his name -- alienated some faculty members and others at UNLV, generating criticism that may have influenced Lennox's decision to withdraw Saturday after a search committee had recommended him for the UNLV presidency last week. Lennox would have been the second leader of a military institution to take the reins of a public university within a year; the State University of New York named John R. Ryan, former superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and of SUNY's Maritime College, as its chancellor last winter.

In a prepared statement, Lennox, who is retiring this year after five years as superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, said only this: "I'm withdrawing my name from consideration of the presidency of UNLV, and I'm doing this for personal reasons. The community and all at the university have been superb. I view UNLV as a great university on the rise, and wish them the best of luck." Through a West Point spokesman, he declined to comment further.

But several officials involved in the search to replace Carol S. Harter, UNLV's president for 11 years, said they believed that faculty criticism about Lennox's military background, along with faculty and alumni dissatisfaction that the regents' panel nominated Lennox even though a campus advisory committee ranked him third of three finalists, had almost certainly played a role in the lieutenant general's decision to withdraw.

In a search process that board leaders said was condensed with the hope of ending before the end of the academic year this month, both the six-member regent panel and a 30-person advisory committee of professors, administrators, alumni and students had chosen as their three finalists Lennox and two other men: David Ashley, vice chancellor and provost at the University of California's fledgling campus at Merced, and Marvin Krislov, vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan, who is best known as the primary architect of the university's Supreme Court defense of its affirmative action policies.

But last Wednesday, after the three finalists had spent a day on the UNLV campus meeting with administrators, professors, staff members and students, both panels took straw polls, said Steve Sisolak, a regent who oversaw the search process, with differing results. Krislov and Ashley essentially tied in the tally taken by the advisory committee, with Lennox a relatively distant third, while the regents' panel ranked Lennox slightly above Ashley, with Krislov third.

A divisive discussion ensued, in which some faculty members and alumni leaders complained that their opinions weren't being given enough weight and some others raised questions about certain aspects of Lennox's background, touching on such issues as the war in Iraq and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy of discrimination against gay service members. There was significant discussion of the "fit" between Lennox and the institution.

Because he sensed that the "frustration on the part of some faculty" was "about to boil over," Sisolak called for a vote of the six-member regent panel, which endorsed the hiring of Lennox by a tally of 6-0. In a public comment session that followed the vote, Sisolak said, faculty and alumni complaints and criticism of Lennox and the board intensified. "As angry and mean-spirited as some of those people were," said Sisolak, "I wouldn't be surprised" if their comments discouraged Lennox from taking the job -- a significant loss for UNLV, he added.

"We were thrilled that a man of Bill Lennox's caliber would consider becoming president of UNLV," said Sisolak, an advertising consultant. "He would have driven the university to a higher level, and been an agent for change."

Sisolak and other regents who supported Lennox "found positives in his military background," he said. "I can separate the lieutenant general from President George Bush and 'don't ask, don't tell,' but I don't know that everybody could. I just don't know how much of that baggage he carried."

Faculty leaders said concerns about Lennox's military background had played a role, but that dissatisfaction with the process loomed larger. Bill Robinson, vice chair of the UNLV Faculty Senate, said that "there are certainly some parts of the faculty who have fear of a general," and expressed concerns about the fact that Lennox's prior administrative experience is at an institution, West Point, that does not have a system of faculty tenure. (Lennox's supporters note that he was the only one of the three candidates who said during interviews that he would add a faculty member to his cabinet.)

"But the general feeling in the faculty," said Robinson, an assistant professor of economics, "was less about not wanting [Lennox] and more about really wanting the other two folks." Krislov, he said, was seen as a "community builder," while Ashley "comes across as a research guru kind of person, and a lot of faculty found that to be attractive, because their goal is to be at the [University of California] level.

A board meeting scheduled for tomorrow at which the regents had planned to endorse the selection of Lennox has been scuttled, replaced by a meeting Thursday at which the search committee will either nominate one of the two remaining candidates or, conceivably, start the search anew. Ashley, the Merced provost, told the Las Vegas Review Journal Monday that he would accept the position if offered. Krislov was traveling, the newspaper said, and could not be reached.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Tactical Retreat

  • Posted by Thomas Molloy on May 17, 2006 at 7:55am EDT
  • Why is it that professors have a pathological fear of the military? I worked as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense for 38 years. I can assure you that the typical military officer is intelligent, articulate and eminently rational.I have also spent more time that I care to with college profeesors, who I find to be clannish, dandefied, and anti-intllectual. In my experience, many professors don't deal in ideas; they they take refuge in slogans.
    It is almost impossible to get past their slogans and engage in rational discourse.

    I suspect the big bad general was probably just what the UNLV dandies needed. He would have been a tonic for the faculty. He might have turned the boys into men as he did at West Point. A pity!

  • Posted by Wayne on May 17, 2006 at 9:25am EDT
  • The sad thing is that faculty, many of whom talk passionatly about divirsity and collegiality turn out yet again the be against anyone who doesn't think, talk, and act like them.

  • An Attempt gone awry...
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A Retired Business Professor on May 17, 2006 at 9:40am EDT
  • It appears that the Superintendent's tactical withdrawal is appropriate given the current state of affairs in higher education today. What we are seeing is the reaping of a harvests of the seeds sown in the sixties of undisciplined, self-indulgent, anti-intellectual,dandified (as Mr Molloy defines it so well) behavior on the part of the current crop of people who stand in front of our young men and women and attempt to brings a modicum of learning to a generation of millenials who will be venturing into a new world that we can't even conceive of at this point. This current crop of "instructors" do not have the capability of delivering the structure of personal self-discipline and responsibility, let alone possessing a discipined character-building value system that will serve as a base for creating a new culture. They gave that away long ago without comprehending what they shunned. As a result, these faculty responses are so blatantly arrogant that they don't even perceive their arrogancy.

    Is it any wonder that enlightened administrations are attempting define the need to provide a base of self discipline, responsibility and personal character as a guiding principle by selecting men and women like the Superintendent? Is there any hope? We'll see...?

  • Enlightened?
  • Posted by mdg on May 17, 2006 at 11:00am EDT
  • Enlightened administrations? That is an oxymoron. Is it possible that after years of being ignored and marginalized as "independent quirks" faculty and others wanted one of the other two enough to protest a military take-over? Just can't be so. Who wants a community builder or a researcher in charge of a university? Now that would be an oxymoron!

  • As a UNLV alum
  • Posted by Blake Barney on May 17, 2006 at 12:30pm EDT
  • As an alumni of UNLV, I was very dissapointed in the faculty's decision to push Lennox out the door. Despite what people think, UNLV is a good university serving a community of 2 million as the community's ONLY university or 4-year college. The real problem with UNLV is the leadership the past 11 years has alienated alumni (as myself), students, local leaders, and those that have or would have donated large amounts of money to the school.

    A guy like Lennox, with his background and credentials, gave all of us a collective sigh of relief. Then the "open-minded" educators at my alma mater go an open their prejudist mouths and ruin it.

  • A UNLV Student's Voice
  • Posted by Pete , Student at UNLV on May 17, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT
  • As a student at UNLV I am happy to see that the General has declined the job offer for several reasons.

    1.) Of the 3 finalist Lennox had the least amount of experience working with an undergraduate public university. Military Academys are organized much differently than public universities are.
    2.) Since 2002 UNLV has seen a major increase in research which is being funded by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy (nuclear weapons research with Los Alamos), and Department of Homeland Security. UNLV is mostly doing research for the military now and that is an issue of concern with many students at UNLV. We don't feel we should be forced to do destructive research for the military. We would rather be doing productive research at our school like clean energy, public health, public transportation, and other studies. Students were concerned that if Lennox was the new president that military research would continue to increase and that he would ignore the students who opposed doing this research.
    3.) UNLV allows for the right to dissent. Students speak out against injustice. Lennox does not have experience with this. He is use to everyone just following orders. UNLV students don't follow orders. We are free-thinkers. That should be encouraged in a democracy.
    4.) As the article mentioned we have concerns about military ideas that might follow him such as the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. UNLV student conduct code says that no student should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. The military contridicts this rule with their discriminations towards LGBT people in the military.

    I had the opportunity to speak with Lennox when he visited UNLV. I was not impressed. When I asked him about having a dialoge with students about the military research at UNLV he replied with a question, "Well don't you think that its worth it to protect the Las Vegas casinos...and um... the Las Vegas people too?"

    My question wasn't about if it is worth it or not. It was whether or not he was willing to work with students to find solutions to problems.

    I am sure he is a good general but that doesn't translate into a good UNLV president.

  • Posted by robert gaudino on May 17, 2006 at 4:35pm EDT
  • UNLV opposed to West Pointer is another example of closed minded liberals at work. the opposition is to anything military no matter what credentials one might carry. the first test for any job in academe is how far left are you? How about Ward Churchill for UNLV leader? Sounds li8ke they deserve him.

  • Posted by Richard on May 17, 2006 at 9:00pm EDT
  • How in the world did we ever give mediocrity the right to demand mediocrity.
    Professors should learn to teach and quit trying to choose a boss who will let them slide. How will the universtiy ever be great if the average professor is allowed to deny the hiring of prestegious persons like the general.
    Dear professors: Suck up and get to work. If you were my children I would send you to your room. You have done significat harm to UNLV and should be ashamed of your conduct. This is not a good example for the students you teach.

  • Posted by Regine , Education doc student on May 18, 2006 at 5:35am EDT
  • I'm glad to see that at least one UNLV student is taking a stand on administration issues at his school - I just wish it were a better informed position, or at least a logical one.

    For one thing, military academies aren't THAT different from civilian universities - large structures, government subsidy, herding cats (because there are civilian profs at USMA, too), so on and so forth.

    But if they ARE so different, we could at least hope that Lennox, who Pete argues is "used to everyone just following orders," would follow orders himself - from cabinet members, state officials, etc. - and align his personal mission with that of his organization... whether it's an armor division, one of the world's great military colleges, or an up-and-comer in civilian academe.

    Give the man a little credit, please. He didn't buy those stars on EBay.

  • From this Students Perspective
  • Posted by Rich , Student on May 18, 2006 at 5:35am EDT
  • I am a student at UNLV. I attended the public forums and listened to all three candidates. It was a good break from exams. I was very impressed with them all, including Lennox. I feel he would have done a good job and helped improve the bad image that UNLV has.

    Faculty probably objected because some of them don't do much and like it that way. They probably thought that the General would make changes and they would have to work. They put their selfish interests ahead of what is best for UNLV. With faculty like that, who is kidding who?, UNLV will never move up in the academic rankings. Maybe that is what the faculty really want, mediocrity and status quo.

  • Re: Comments from a UNLV faculty
  • Posted by Mike on May 18, 2006 at 5:40am EDT
  • I am getting very feed up with all these comments about how UNLV faculty are against General Lennox or how UNLV faculty are influencing the system. I do believe these positions are inaccurate. First of all the RJ has a tendency to only quote the extreme faculty. These faculty do not speak for most of us. Second, the UNLV Faculty Senate (similar to most Universities) is made up of what we refer to as the "deadwood" faculty. These are the non-researchers. These faculty try to make themselves feel important by getting involved in organizations like the Faculty Senate. Most of the researchers find the Faculty Senate to be a waste of time. In conclusion, I believe the better faculty prefer a strong President that will make some necessary changes. General Lennox would be fine. Professor Ashley is also fine.

  • Lennox
  • Posted by Michael Green on May 18, 2006 at 4:35pm EDT
  • This article misses several key points. One is that the search committee moved at very high speed. Another is that the advisory committee that recommended Ashley and Krislov above Lennox was not entirely faculty--in fact, I believe, it had only a small minority of faculty. Also, your article appears to merely track the reporting and editorializing of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, an anti-government newspaper whose editorial writers consistently attack the university and whose editorial views drive its news coverage. If you would take the time to talk to more than the usual suspects, you might learn that the whole issue is much more complex than you think. Finally, has it occurred to anybody that the tenor of this editorial claptrap is that a three-star lieutenant general backed out because some faculty might oppose him. That presumes the faculty have more power than they really do. More than that, if some tenured faculty scared the general, I wonder how he would do in battle. If that seems insulting, well, that is basically what those who buy into this storyline are suggesting, not me.

  • Posted by Mike Vogel on November 12, 2006 at 12:20am EST
  • Michael,

    I'm not going to exert a great deal of effort commenting on this topic, because most on here understand how obsurd it was to run off a man of this caliber.

    I must, however, respond to your comment about how well Gen Lennox would have done against an enemy. First of all, the title General should be a clue. One doesn't reach this level without being made of the right stuff. Secondly, understand that soldiers, while dedicating their lives to the defense of our country, are not immune to the comments of our citizens. They hear the comments made by the "professor types" who don't have a clue what the real world is like. If I were General Lennox, my reaction to the comments of the faculty would be basically this - they have assumed a lot about what kind of person I am and what kind of President I would be without really getting to know me. They have no clue how far I could take this university, and don't really care. I am a civilian now, and for the first time in many many years I don't have to put up with their crap, so screw them. I'm going to go elsewhere and make a lot more money while not having to put up with them. Were this same situation to occur in a military environment, I can assure you that it would have been handled much differently. Enjoy your retirement General Lennox.