administrators

Christian Theological Seminary Offers Buyouts to Tenured Faculty

The Christian Theological Seminary, in Indiana, has announced a "sustainability plan" that involves buyouts to faculty members while looking for partnerships with other institutions and developing new financial strategies. While not detailed in the announcement, the buyouts could substantially change the nature of the institution. Some concerned students have heard rumors that essentially all faculty members are being asked to accept deals. But a spokeswoman for the seminary said that the buyout offers have been presented to 70 percent of tenured faculty members.

 

Ad keywords: 

Why Didn't U. of Missouri Pursue Rape Allegation?

An investigation by ESPN has found that the University of Missouri at Columbia failed to investigate an alleged rape by one or more members of the football team. The article says that the university did nothing after learning of the allegations, and that the alleged victim -- a student who was a member of the women's swim team -- eventually committed suicide. University officials said that they didn't have enough information to act on the possible assault.

On Sunday, Timothy M. Wolfe, president of the University of Missouri System, announced that he is requesting an independent review of the case. "Such an independent review will be beneficial to all our campuses so that we can determine if there were any shortcomings with respect to MU’s handling of this matter and, if so, ways in which to improve the handling of such matters in the future," he said.

 

 

 

Ad keywords: 

Essay on the need for administrators and faculty to discuss risk

About a year ago I was paging through a report prepared for our college by a group of leading risk-management consultants. Illustrated with brightly colored heat maps and tables, the report’s conclusions looked fairly reasonable.  But then I reached a chart titled “Reputation Risk.” Tucked among the factors that contribute to reputation, listed only after “branding” and “community relations,” was the phrase “academic excellence.”

As a longtime faculty member and dean of the college, I reacted strongly. Academic excellence, I thought, deserved more than this supporting role. For your typical manufactured product, its quality may be adjusted to optimize reputation with customers (and thus profits). But academic excellence? That’s the ultimate goal. It’s what we should most fear putting at risk.

At the end of June, I would complete my term as dean. As my thoughts kept turning to risk and liberal education, I talked with the president. We agreed that as a transitional step before returning to teach, I could spend one year conducting a risk project. Some of its goals are specific to our campus, but more broadly it’s a labor of translation. Why would that be needed?

The Language of Risk

Corporate jargon may help explain why campuswide awareness of risk has not fully taken hold at many academic institutions. Deans, presidents, and faculty leaders can find the framework of Enterprise Risk Management, commonly known as ERM, alienating. The talk of suppliers, products, deliverables, and profits is not our language.

Risk management was born to protect the bottom line of corporations. (Success has been mixed, but that’s a different story.) For the past 10 years or so, financial consultants offering risk services have tried to expand into the higher education market. While it’s hard to reject the pitch that “nonprofits face risks, too,” one could also argue academe is sufficiently different from the corporate world that frameworks like ERM will require at least a translation — and perhaps deeper revision — before they can serve us well.

Taking Risk Campuswide

In many ways my transition feels natural. For five years I was second to the president, serving as vice president for academic affairs. I helped to confront the risks that typically face a college, from anticipating a flu pandemic to deciding whether to shut down during a blizzard; from the agonies of the recession to nervous reports of little brown bats winging through the chapel. I’m well-prepared to step back and evaluate how our college responds to risk. Yet to my knowledge, this particular administrative move is unprecedented.

At most places — as I know from recently attending the national meeting of URMIA, the University Risk Management and Insurance Association — risk management lives in the treasurer’s office. Risk managers may have a background in environmental health and safety or human resources; often their primary training is in insurance. Regardless of specific professional field, college risk managers are likely to have broad responsibilities, from regulatory compliance to decisions about campus events, and from employee training to coverage for student travel abroad. Groups of universities have formed organizations like United Educators and EIIA (Educational & Institutional Insurance Administrators) to offer insurance and other risk services.

The risk managers at the conference were forthcoming and curious. My status as a faculty member was more interesting to them than my recent deanship. They told me that they wish professors understood more about how risk works. The risk managers want to be perceived less as naysayers and obstructionists, and more as a resource to keep activities safe and legal. They don’t want to shut down study abroad, but they want to be sure the college has a plan for evacuation in the event of national crisis or natural disaster. From where they sit in the finance office, it’s not easy to have this conversation with the faculty.

As we talk, it’s clear the risk managers recognize that for colleges and universities the real bottom line is the institution’s mission: to teach and conduct research. Threats to the mission are, for us all, the ultimate risk. And since no one knows more about teaching and scholarship than they do, the faculty is the proper guardian of college mission. I now start to understand that purposeful risk engagement could help colleges take a fresh look at shared governance.

Risk and Governance

Faculty leaders, whether as champions or critics of a proposed initiative, are all too familiar with hearing about risk from administrators, legal counsel, and even from board members. Fiduciary risk, compliance risk, liability: We’ve all seen the risk card shut a conversation down.

But once they are fluent in risk, academic leaders will contribute more effectively. They can evaluate and speak to risk in the special context of a college’s mission. As any risk manager will tell you, risk can be positive or negative. The uncertainty at hand may represent an awesome academic opportunity, or may threaten what the institution stands for. Shared governance will work better when we succeed in having all the relevant dimensions of risk — including the ultimate risk, to institutional mission — fully voiced and appropriately weighed.

 

 

Paula Vene Smith was dean of the college and is a professor of English at Grinnell College. She directs the Purposeful Risk Engagement Project. Follow her on Twitter @EventualMishap.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock

Brown Provost Named Next President of U. of Michigan

The University of Michigan Board of Regents today named Mark S. Schlissel as the institution's next president. Schlissel is provost of Brown University. Before being named provost at Brown in 2011, he was dean of biological sciences at the University of California at Berkeley, where he also held the C.H. Li Chair in Biochemistry.

He will succeed Mary Sue Coleman on July 1. Coleman is retiring after 12 years as president at Michigan.

 

Ad keywords: 

CASE President Announces Retirement

John Lippincott announced Thursday that he will retire as president of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education a year from now. He has been president of the association since 2004, having previously served as vice president for communications and marketing at CASE and associate vice chancellor for advancement at the University System of Maryland.

 

Ad keywords: 

Brandeis Paid Ex-President $4.9 Million This Month

Brandeis University announced Thursday that it paid Jehuda Reinharz, its former president, $4.9 million this month. The funds were due to Reinharz for deferred compensation and sabbaticals that he did not take during his presidency, a Brandeis statement said. The university has been under intense criticism from many students and faculty members over high payments to Reinharz. The university also announced new policies on executive compensation, including a faculty role on panels that review executive compensation and a commitment to release information on executive compensation before it is required. The university statement noted that in revealing the large payments made in January, before such information would be public on tax forms, Brandeis was moving toward the kind of transparency it has pledged to provide.

 

 

Layoffs and Program Cuts at Iowa Wesleyan

Facing enrollment declines, Iowa Wesleyan College plans to close about half of its academic programs and to shrink its faculty, The Gazette reported. The jobs of  22 of 52 professors and 23 of 78 staff members will be eliminated. The college will also eliminate 16 of 32 major programs, including studio art, sociology, history, philosophy of religion, communication and mass communication, and forensic science.

After a Murder, Auburn Faulted for Eliminating Campus Police

The parents of an Auburn University student who was kidnapped on campus in 2008 have filed a claim alleging that her murder could have been prevented if the institution had its own police force, which it eliminated in the 2000s to save money. Since then, Auburn has relied on city police to patrol campus, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported. Lauren Burk's parents also allege that the university failed to follow federal security recommendations. They are suing the Alabama Board of Adjustment for $1 million in damages; the state's constitution protects state entities (including Auburn) from lawsuits seeking monetary damages. An Auburn spokesman reached for comment said, "It is Auburn University’s policy not to comment on pending investigative issues."

Ad keywords: 

Essay criticizes presidents who have condemned Israel boycott

On December 27, William Kelly, the interim chancellor of the City University of New York, the vast university system in which I teach, published a statement condemning the resolution of American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities. In his statement, Chancellor Kelly wrote, “The need for global cooperation has never been more urgent, and we repudiate any effort to foreclose productive dialogue.” Who, one might wonder, is this we the chancellor is invoking, and who exactly is foreclosing dialogue?

Kelly’s statement is part of a growing chorus of denunciations of the ASA resolution by university presidents and other academic leaders. In these public pronouncements, Kelly and his fellow executives almost always speak in the royal we, as if they talk for the entire university community. In many cases, such arrogation of the right to speak for the whole community is explicit. Amherst College President Biddy Martin, for example, writes in her rejection of the ASA resolution, “On behalf of the college, I express opposition to this academic boycott for several related reasons.”

Yet when university leaders like Kelly and Martin speak not based on their own personal opinions but in the name of the institution, they abrogate the academic freedom of their faculty members. None of the statements issued thus far have benefited from consultation with faculty senates or other representative bodies of faculty opinion. Think of the chilling impact of such presidential declarations on nontenured faculty members who may have participated in the ASA vote, who may be considering attending meetings of the ASA, or who may even hold dissenting critical viewpoints about the Israeli occupation of Palestine. These presidential denunciations threaten to create a witch hunt-like atmosphere on campuses.

The courageous response of a group of faculty members at Trinity College in Connecticut to President James F. Jones Jr.’s attack on the ASA resolution highlights the ways in which these denunciations infringe on academic freedom. The Trinity faculty members point out explicitly to Jones that, “you did not speak in our name – also members of the Trinity College community – when you wrote this ill-advised letter to the ASA president.”

The Trinity faculty had good cause to complain. Without consulting them, President Jones stated in his letter that if Trinity were still an institutional member of the ASA, “it would not be any longer after the misguided and unprincipled announcement of the boycott of the only democracy in the Middle East.” The Trinity faculty might also have objected to the fact that President Jones appears so concerned to protect the academic freedom of Israeli institutions while ignoring that of members of his own university community. What could explain this apparent contradiction between the presidential devotion to abstract notions of academic freedom and pronouncements that ride roughshod over academic freedom at the leaders’ own institutions?

The answer perhaps lies in President Jones’s characterization of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, a statement that the Trinity faculty remind him is not simply erroneous but also racially stereotyping. Following this gaffe, Jones goes on to ask rhetorically why the ASA is not boycotting “Syria, the Sudan, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, or Russia.”

An identical assertion concerning the regional uniqueness of Israeli democracy and a nearly equivalent list of human rights-violating nations occurs in a recent statement on the website of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In this statement, the conference calls on university presidents not simply to “publicly reject this academic boycott and the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel” but to deny “any funds, direct or indirect, to the ASA or any other body that adopts similar measures.” As part of their campaign against the ASA, the conference is deploying alumni and donors to put pressure on college presidents, distributing highly distorted talking points such as the ones that appeared in President Jones’s and many other presidents’ statements, and ignoring the discussions that circulated before the ASA resolution was put up for a vote, including the collection of essays that I curated at the AAUP’s Journal for Academic Freedom. Also involved in this campaign are Zionist organizations like Stand With Us, whose website includes a “how to” list for campaigners against BDS.

The university presidents’ denunciations are likely to have a chilling impact on fair and open discussion of the BDS campaign on American university campuses. If they follow through on the call to deny all funding to the ASA without adequate consultation with their faculty members, academic leaders will be infringing even more directly on academic freedom.

This building crisis underlines that there is no such thing as academic freedom shorn of the institutional and material conditions that enable such freedom. This point, which, as Judith Butler has explained in her endorsement of BDS, highlights the fundamental lack of freedoms of Palestinian scholars, was key to the ASA’s endorsement of the boycott. It seems that scholars who have endorsed the ASA resolution, or who continue to participate in the ASA, may now be penalized with a withdrawal of institutional resources as well as subtle and not-so-subtle infringements of their academic freedom. It is worth remembering that the academic boycott endorsed by the ASA targets only institutions and not individuals, but the presidents in their defense of Israeli institutions are directly infringing on the rights of association and expression of individual faculty members.

Instead of attempting to silence debate in this manner, academic leaders who are truly interested in nurturing academic freedom at their institutions and elsewhere should establish forums in which the ASA resolution can be discussed and debated in a fair and evenhanded manner. After all, the ASA boycott controversy is not a flash in the pan. As David Theo Goldberg and Saree Makdisi argue, “A rising level of concern about the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (now in its fifth decade), as well as the precarious position of Israel's beleaguered Palestinian minority, have been countered by increasingly strident, even furious, attempts to silence or stifle criticism of Israeli policy on American college campuses.” Goldberg and Makdisi’s article details the campaigns of “insinuation, accusation, and defamation” through which organizations such as the Israel on Campus Coalition seek to silence debate about Israel’s policies in the occupied territories. As part of this campaign, groups like Stand With Us distribute propaganda tools such as the Hasbara Handbook, which details strategies of “point scoring” while avoiding genuine debate. Against such attempts to silence discussion, Goldberg and Makdisi’s article sets out some clear ground rules for forums designed to promote civil, respectful, but critical engagements across political divides.

Surely the quashing of dissenting viewpoints should be anathema to university presidents who are truly committed to academic freedom. Courageous and enlightened academic leaders should be fostering critical debate rather than contributing to an atmosphere of intimidation on campus while repeating abstract, and ultimately hollow, endorsements of academic freedom.

 

Ashley Dawson is professor of English at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, and editor of the American Association of University Professors' Journal of Academic Freedom.

Section: 
Editorial Tags: 

New presidents Albany Pharmacy Baker Brock CSCC Missouri Mount Mercy UNMC

Smart Title: 
  • Gregory Dewey, provost at the University of La Verne, in California, has been named president of Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, in New York.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - administrators
Back to Top