Gregory Gray announced Friday that he will resign, effective at the end of the year, as president of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, a system of regional public four-year universities and community colleges. In a statement, Gray said that the move was personal. “This decision was purely a personal one, arrived at after a number of months of consideration and discussion with my family,” he said. Gray has clashed with faculty groups throughout the system and has been the subject of a series of no-confidence votes over his plans to centralize the curriculum and make more use of online education than many professors believe is appropriate for their at-risk students.
Eric W. Kaler, president of the University of Minnesota, on Friday issued a statement apologizing for a remark he made after Norwood Teague -- facing accusations of sexual harassment -- resigned as athletics director. At a news conference announcing Teague's resignation, Kaler said, “I view this as the action of one man who was overserved and a series of bad events happened.” Many criticized Kaler for this remark, saying that he was suggesting that drinking too much alcohol was an excuse for Teague's behavior.
In Friday's statement, Kaler said, “I regret that very poor choice of words because I cannot state strongly enough that Teague is entirely responsible for his behavior, and alcohol use is no excuse. Sexual harassment will not be tolerated at the University of Minnesota, and his resignation was the appropriate result of his actions.”
The University of Saint Joseph, in Connecticut, announced Friday that it will drop a requirement that all undergraduate applicants submit SAT or ACT scores. The requirement will remain in place, however, for some entering health professions or honors programs, or seeking non-need-based scholarships.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has notified the National Collegiate Athletic Association's enforcement staff that it identified "two new pieces of information" regarding NCAA violations, UNC announced Friday. The new information was discovered in the course of responding to the NCAA's notice of allegations from May that stated the university demonstrated a lack of institutional control when it allowed athletes to participate in years' worth of phony "paper courses."
For 20 years, some employees at UNC knowingly steered about 1,500 athletes toward no-show courses that never met and were not taught by any faculty members, and in which the only work required was a single research paper that received a high grade no matter the content, according to a report released by the university in October. The NCAA is currently conducting its own investigation into the matter, and the university was expected to offer its response to the allegations this week. With the finding of new possible violations, that process will be delayed, potentially for another five months. This means UNC will now likely avoid receiving any sanctions until after National Signing Day for its football team and the NCAA postseason for its basketball teams.
Of the new possible charges, one concerned "improper academic assistance" being provided to women's basketball players, the university said, adding that the assistance was "directly related" to the paper course scandal. The other involves potential recruiting violations with the men's soccer team, and is unrelated to the NCAA investigation.
“We identified this new information as part of our due diligence in preparing our response to the notice of allegations and materials for public release,” Bubba Cunningham, UNC's athletic director, said in a statement. “Consistent with NCAA process, we promptly notified the NCAA’s enforcement staff. We continue to work cooperatively and expeditiously with the enforcement staff to complete our review, and we are confident this can be done quickly to allow the NCAA to bring closure to the investigation.”
A former University of California at Berkeley football player is suing the university, alleging that it "failed to take reasonable measures to prevent head injures." The former player, Bernard Hicks, says he suffered several concussions while playing for the team between 2004 and 2008 and that the injuries have led to permanent neurological injuries. Hicks was a starting safety during most of the 2006 and 2007 seasons, but sat out much of his final year due to his injuries.
"We base our care on the best and most up-to-date clinical guidelines and believe that the medical care we provide our student athletes meets or exceeds the standard in collegiate and national sports medicine," the university's athletic department said in a statement Friday. "While we cannot comment on any student’s specific medical history, we were saddened to read the lawsuit's statements about Mr. Hicks's health."
In a statement sent to reporters, along with a request that they not contact her, she said that the University of Illinois board broke an agreement it and the system president made with her. Further, she said that the $400,000 she was due to receive was not a bonus or an exit payment, but money to which her contract entitled her. (University officials, who have characterized the funds as a bonus, declined to comment on Wise's statement.) In the statement, Wise also denied that she had any "illegal intentions" in her use of personal email accounts. University officials (and her own email records, in some cases) have suggested she was trying to avoid having email comments become subject to public records requests. The statement also says that Wise is consulting with lawyers on her options.
Here is the statement in full:
For close to four years I have been devoted to helping the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recognize its limitless potential. We’ve achieved inspiring successes but recent events have distracted us from focusing on the university’s future. In the past week, the news media has reported that I and other campus personnel used personal email accounts to communicate about university business; some reports suggested I did so with illegal intentions or personal motivations. This is simply false. I acted at all times in what I believed to be the best interests of the University. In fact, many of these same communications included campus counsel, board members, and other campus leaders.
On Tuesday, in the spirit of placing the university first, I acceded to the board’s and the president’s request that I tender my resignation. In return, the university agreed to provide the compensation and benefits to which I was entitled, including $400,000 in deferred compensation that was part of my 2011 employment contract. The $400,000 was not a bonus nor a golden parachute; it was a retention incentive that I earned on a yearly basis. As the university knows, months before this controversy began, I had begun discussions with campus development leaders about gifting an amount equal to my deferred compensation package to the College of Medicine.
Yesterday, in a decision apparently motivated more by politics than the interests of the university, the board reneged on the promises in our negotiated agreement and initiated termination proceedings. This action was unprecedented, unwarranted and completely contrary to the spirit of our negotiations last week. I have no intention, however, of engaging the board in a public debate that would ultimately harm the university and the many people who have devoted time and hard work to its critical mission. Accordingly, I have again tendered my resignation as chancellor and will decline the administrative position as adviser to the president. These recent events have saddened me deeply. I had intended to finish my career at this university, overseeing the fulfillment of groundbreaking initiatives we had just begun. Instead, I find myself consulting with lawyers and considering options to protect my reputation in the face of the board’s position. I continue to wish the best for this great institution, its marvelous faculty, its committed staff and its talented students.
The University of Texas at Austin will move a statue of Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, from a prominent campus location to a history museum. At the same time, other statues of Confederate leaders will remain in their current locations, but may have plaques added to them explaining their history and providing more context. The decision seems unlikely to satisfy students and others who have been pushing for the removal of all the Confederate statues, and some traditionalists who have accused the university of being politically correct.
We’ve all been there -- the crack of dawn, the long narrow table, people with their status shields (aka laptops) open and rattling around the table, some poor soul up front droning on about the project to which he or she just devoted the past six months. Levels of interest torn between the incoming emails and waiting for this person to just get to the point. Yes, it’s the committee meeting. And we’re using it all wrong.
First, ask yourself -- why committees? And why structure the meetings like an evil twin of the 1970s lecture theater? Gather some of the best brains in your organization, gossip/update, dim the lights, pontificate, raise the lights, get your stuff and run like hell to the next meeting. See my point?
Now, many would say, “We’re a decentralized model. We need committees to get the best people working together toward a singular purpose. They help us push forward the agendas that will make this college or university the best in the nation, making education more affordable, accessible and engaging while transitioning innovation from the classroom to the local economy.” Yeah. And when did your committee meeting do that last?
Reality? Somewhere between the august town hall meeting of the commonwealth and today’s committee meeting, we lost the script. Committees became collectibles that connote status. “Oh, are you in the digital reimagination committee? Well, I’ve just been nominated for the rock our health scholarship committee.”
Over the past few years, a lot has been written on effective corporate structures and meetings. Below are some of the nuggets colleges and universities may consider when looking to improve how they utilize their best talent. My division at Pennsylvania State University is currently employing these approaches. The most precious thing we have is our people and their brainpower. Innovation demands that we look at absolutely everything within the organization and say, “How can this be better? How can this be more sustainable? How can this be more productive? How can this be less painful?” Whereas we first got some pretty strange looks when we skirted the opportunity to create committees, we are now finding that others are taking our practices and employing them across more than just our activities.
My dear academicians -- you want change, you like working together and you are perfectly capable of getting stuff done. Let yourselves have some license to go there. (Warning, some of these thoughts are completely contrary to the way higher ed now functions.)
1. Keep it small.A recent report on the most responsive modern companies that are best at elastically meeting new demands shows the optimal size for getting work done is five to nine people -- max. Higher ed committees tend to be much larger than this in many cases, and corporate leaders are stunned that a 15-person committee in academe is a pretty normal thing. How big are your committees? Is each person in that committee carrying his or her weight? Do they come prepared, informed and ready to intelligently move your initiative forward? If there are people who aren’t doing that -- they’re not committee members. They are subject experts you should call on occasionally but not pull into a meeting room every week.
Consider: What if you shifted your mind from “committee” to “working group”? At the center is a five- to nine-person team who can reach out to the greater universe of the campus to gain consensus. I still lean heavily on the RACI principle. That’s one person responsible for the initiative, two or three approvers, consultants who can be called on if and when needed and the informed, who … well, you need to keep them in the loop.
Within the initiative itself, you should staff to win. Put in place a creative mind who will stretch the tried and true who is an expert on the audience for whom you are developing the initiative, an editor who is familiar with your system and can make your idea ironclad, an engineer who can manifest your ideas, a networker who can work through the system to get the right approvers and, finally, a monetizer who knows how to get you the funding you need and can measure all performance for further enhancement or sunsetting.
2. Meetings are for working together, not being talked at. Most of the people who are at committee meetings are there specifically because they hold veto power, a specific skill/knowledge or the purse strings. Their schedules are tough to get onto. Do you honestly want them sitting there passively at your meeting? Or would your time be much better spent working together?
Consider: What if each of your meetings had clear and concise goals and involved exercises to meet those goals and attain answers you critically need? And what if a core priority of each meeting was to gain consensus on a topic, decide a direction and appoint a small group to get it done within that quarter? Hard work framing your meeting, timing your agenda and constructing productive (and dare I say fun?) exercises is critical in designing a truly effective meeting.
Increasingly, our engaged scholarship meetings are moving from committee meetings to working meetings. Everyone now knows that when he or she comes to ELT (Engaged Leadership Team), goals of the meeting will be framed, team exercises will tackle shortlisted issues, report-outs will include rapid enhancement editing from the larger team and no one leaves the meeting until next steps and responsibilities have been assigned. Those meetings move.
3. Relaying information is best prior to discussion/activities so people have time to move from collection of information to connection of information. Meetings often go sideways when you’re trying to reach consensus among people who have varying levels of literacy on a topic. Also, we frequently forget that people have different cognitive processing. Some can scan and immediately see broad implications that they want to discuss immediately; others need time to digest the information and check the facts. I have a colleague who comes to each meeting with reams of highlighted information. She rarely talks. But when she does, you bet I listen.
Consider: How much time is spent on making flash presentations that are meant to explain complex issues in the simplest visual terms? What if we just did one-page explanations of our idea, which outlined the why, what, how much and for how long? Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, puts 30 minutes at the front end of meetings aside just for the reading of these reports. He knows “preread” often stands for “never read.” This practice allows everyone sacrosanct time to review, and the information is fresh in their minds while they are discussing during the rest of the meeting.
4. Nothing beats one-on-one, face-to-face. Some consider committees a reason to no longer have one-on-ones. Wrong. Many of the issues you’re going to deal with in your groups are contentious and political -- in short, subjects that many don’t want to first be exposed to when surrounded by their peers. Take the time to treat your team members like the flawed human beings we all are. Give them the safe, private space they need to openly discuss their issues/passions. When you give them time and respect, you’ll understand them more, and as a result they will be more open to your ideas.
Consider: Sure, one-on-one takes time. So schedule for it. Block out one day of your week just for one-on-one meetings. Be ready to listen. Do not spend the time pushing your current agenda. Find out about your members’ priorities, goals and responsibilities. Understanding what they consider to be success will help you understand the best ways to employ them to meet the goals of your institution.
When I first moved to Penn State University last October, I knew there would be many people thinking, “Oh, here comes the innovation lady. She’ll think she’s all that.” In actuality, I have absolutely no interest in force-feeding innovation to unreceptive souls, and I fully realized that, without support from others in our great institution, innovation would go nowhere. So I met with many people one-on-one. To each, I asked, “What are your goals? What is your role? What are the barriers getting in your way? How can I help?” Then I sat back and listened and took notes. Those meetings defined and continue to define my job. These one-on-ones gave me my priorities, the pains that needed to be addressed, the passions I needed to feed and foster. Everything I could never get from a committee meeting.
Let’s start with that. Give it a try. And let us know at Inside Higher Ed what you experienced. Did it work? Did it fail? What dynamics were at play? After all, life is about learning, making incremental improvements and hopefully progressing to better and better models for us all to succeed.
Rose Cameron is director of innovation, outreach and online education at Penn State University.