Unprepared Professors 'Should Be Shot'?

Bruce Harreld is no stranger to controversy. The University of Iowa’s new president has faced criticism for an inaccurate résumé and a limited background in the academy, and is now under fire for joking that professors without lesson plans should be shot.

Harreld’s comment was made at a Staff Council meeting earlier this month, although the president says he’s made the remark, which he characterized as “off-the-cuff,” before. Harreld, in an email exchange with a university employee, apologized for the remark.

The day after the Dec. 9 meeting, librarian Lisa Gardinier emailed Harreld to say his statement that “there was ‘one way’ to prepare lessons and any instructor who goes into a class without having done so ‘should be shot’” was “horrifying and unacceptable” and “irresponsible and unprofessional.”

Less than two hours later Harreld sent a short response: “Thanks for the feedback. I likely will never be able to live up to your expectations but I will try.”

In a subsequent email, Gardinier showed frustration with Harreld’s vague response.

“Unfortunately I think you’re right. If you don’t address the issue raised, or even acknowledge it, I’m not even convinced you’re trying,” she said. “Violence is not to be joked about as a public authority, and certainly not in the frame of consequences for professional performance in the workplace.”

Harreld responded shortly after:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore your comment about gun violence. It was an unfortunate off the cuff remark and I had no intention to offedn [sic] anyone. Nor did I seriously mean to imply I support gun violence in any shape, manner, or form.

Frankly, I have used the comment in many, many forums and this is the first time any one [sic] has objected to it. I apologize and appreciate your calling my attention to it.

Bruce

Harreld’s comments and subsequent response have irked some on Iowa’s campus. The teaching and research assistant union released a statement saying the president’s statement displays “a callous disdain for the members of this community” and violates the university's policy against violent threats.

Iowa spokeswoman Anne Bassett said in an email that "President Harreld responded directly to Ms. Gardinier, which is appropriate."

Meanwhile, Gardinier called Harreld’s response a “non-apology.”

“Just because nobody has raised the issue with him before does not mean that nobody has ever been bothered by his use of the phrase. I've said before that he strikes me as someone who is very used to speaking to boardrooms and to people who aspire to be in boardrooms, which doesn't necessarily translate well to a wider university community or to a position of public authority,” she said in an email.

Harreld took office in November after a controversial presidential search. The Iowa Board of Regents publicly introduced four candidates for the position and chose Harreld, even though he received little faculty, staff or student support.

After his selection Iowa’s Faculty Senate voted no confidence in the institution's governing board, saying its selection of Harreld was made without considering faculty input. And since he took office, Harreld has continued to weather criticism from faculty and staff. An American Association of University Professors report released this month, for example, again criticized Harreld and the search that produced him.

Below is the full email exchange between Harreld and Gardinier. To read chronologically, start at the bottom:

From: Gardinier, Lisa B

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 7:53 AM

To: Harreld, J. Bruce

Subject: Re: Staff Council talk

Thank you. It's appreciated. I did understand your use of the phrase to be rhetorical, and inappropriate. A teachable moment.

lbg

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Dec 10, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Harreld, J. Bruce wrote:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore your comment about gun violence. It was an unfortunate off the cuff remark and I had no intention to offedn anyone. Nor did I seriously mean to imply I support gun violence in any shape, manner, or form.

Frankly, I have used the comment in many, many forums and this is the first time any one has objected to it. I apologize and appreciate your calling my attention to it.

Bruce

 

From: Gardinier, Lisa B

Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 4:45 PM

To: Harreld, J. Bruce

Subject: RE: Staff Council talk

Thanks for your prompt response, and unfortunately I think you’re right. If you don’t address the issue raised, or even acknowledge it, I’m not even convinced you’re trying. Violence is not to be joked about as a public authority, and certainly not in the frame of consequences for professional performance in the workplace.

I do wish you the best of luck and success -- we’re depending on it.

Lisa

 

From: Harreld, J. Bruce

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:19 PM

To: Gardinier, Lisa B

Subject: Re: Staff Council talk

Lisa,

Thanks for the feedback. I likely will never be able to live up to your expectations but I will try.

All the best,

Bruce

 

On Dec 10, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Gardinier, Lisa B wrote:

Hi, Mr. Harreld,

I observed the Staff Council meeting yesterday. I share many of the misgivings about you and your hire that you’ve heard elsewhere, which I won’t rehash here, but I do want to address a specific comment you made in response to Sam Van Horne’s question regarding instruction. When discussing lesson planning you claimed that there was “one way” to prepare lessons and any instructor who goes into a class without having done so “should be shot”.

The first and lesser problem was the emphasis on one way, indicating there is one right way, not that there is one of many ways. There are many schools of pedagogy and, being a university, there are several, if not many, good ways to plan lessons, classes, and curriculum, and our academic freedom extends to teaching in the way we see fit to the content on which we are trusted to be experts, preferably with adequate support and opportunities for the development and improvement of our teaching skills throughout our career. Poor planning is an unfortunate waste of both the instructor’s and the students’ time and research but is not a capital or corporal offense, leading me to the second part of your comment.

For a university president to use the term “should be shot” so flippantly, and just a week after the most recent highly publicized mass shooting and in a tense atmosphere of racist law enforcement violence, is horrifying and unacceptable. For someone who claims to sideline his vision to that of the university community, to casually suggest potentially lethal punishment as consequences for failure to comply with a narrow perception of the correct way to fulfill one of our duties, is irresponsible and unprofessional. You may not have been kicked out since your appointment, but not for lack of trying, and nor is anyone is advocating for bodily harm to come of you or anyone complicit in your hire.

I have many other issues with your rambling, unfocused talk, none of which alleviated any of my concerns regarding your ability to lead our university. If you’re going to play university president, a very public figure, please do it well for the sake of the community you’ve been given to lead. If you’re going to earn the trust of the community, none of your approach yesterday was to your credit.

Regards,

Lisa