Therapist Who Criticized Oregon Over Records Resigns

A therapist at the University of Oregon who criticized the university for its handling of an alleged sexual assault victim's campus therapy records resigned Monday.

Jennifer Morlok was one of two employees at Oregon's counseling center who blew the whistle on how the university sought and received the records of a student who said she was gang-raped by three Oregon basketball players. The university asked to see the records after the student sued the administration over its handling of her case. The consensus among student privacy experts was that Oregon did nothing illegal, but many considered the university's actions to be an ethical breach that exposed an alarming loophole in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

In February, Morlok penned an open letter denouncing the university's actions. The letter and its fallout prompted the Oregon House of Representatives to unanimously pass a bill that ensures “confidential communications between a victim of sexual assault, domestic violence or stalking and victim advocates or services programs are to be kept confidential from disclosure, and by default will not be admissible in court.” The controversy also led to the U.S. Department of Education releasing new guidance about the issue and to federal lawmakers calling for the loophole to be closed.

In a letter sent to the university's president on Monday, Morlok said that after coming forward with her concerns, she was "sidelined" and vilified by administrators and her coworkers.

"I am no longer willing to be treated as though I am an enemy of the very counseling services I enjoyed providing to students -- or an enemy of the very university I received my degree from -- where I had hoped my two sons would attend," she wrote. "It is wrong to treat employees who share problems with the system as though they are the problem."

In a statement Monday, Robin Holmes, Oregon's vice president for student life, said that the university was "opposed to anything that can be construed as workplace retaliation against those who air critical views or opinions."

Another lawsuit

Oregon settled the alleged assault victim's lawsuit in August, awarding her $800,000 and free tuition. On Friday, another lawsuit related to the case was filed against Oregon -- this time by the accused student at the center of the allegations.

Brandon Austin, a former Oregon basketball player, is suing the university for $7.5 million, alleging that Oregon violated his rights to due process when it suspended him over the alleged assault. According to the lawsuit, the university refused to allow "Austin to subpoena witnesses who would be supportive of his defense, refused to provide unredacted reports, refused to provide a contested case hearing, refused to allow cross-examination and otherwise refused to provide the due process required by the United States Constitution and applicable laws."

In the suit, Austin claims that the university "outrageously suspended him," and that the punishment caused him emotional distress and lessened his chances of one day playing in the National Basketball Association. Austin transferred to Northwest Florida State College and played basketball there last season, but has since left to pursue playing the sport professionally.

On Friday, the university released a statement saying Austin "was afforded fair and consistent due process that fully complied with the university's legal obligations."

Ad keywords: 

Protest Greets Iowa President on His First Day

About 200 students and faculty members greeted J. Bruce Harreld with a protest on his first full day as president of the University of Iowa, The Gazette reported. Many on campus have charged that the Iowa Board of Regents didn't conduct a proper search, and critics have questioned Harreld's qualifications. He has insisted he is qualified and that he wants to move past the protests. But on Monday, protesters called on him and members of the Board of Regents to resign.

Ad keywords: 

Perpetual endowments can thwart colleges' educational and charitable goals (essay)

“Endowments ’R’ Us!” Now that’s a fitting motto for American higher education.

College and university presidents like large endowments for both their real and symbolic benefits. A large endowment provides a flow of spendable resources each year and also gives a college or university a big boost in prestige and national rankings. And a high endowment per student adds luster to the symbolic shine -- and raises the institution’s Moody’s credit rating.

Little wonder then that college and university presidents avoid spending more than the endowment’s annual interest and dividends. And they bristle when a congressional subcommittee suggests new federal legislation that would require colleges and universities to increase their endowment spending or questions how much they are spending -- as occurred at a recent hearing on Capitol Hill last month.

Presidents have thus far warded off congressional threats by reminding the public that endowments guarantee colleges “will have a future” so “we can continue to enhance our value and service to our students, faculty, community and nation” or something along those lines. As the president of Pomona College, David Oxtoby, recently wrote, “Endowments are financial pillars, not piggy banks.”

Endowments certainly should not be used as piggy banks. But “financial pillar” is hardly an apt metaphor, either. First, it literally ties colleges to a “bricks and mortar” image when the priority should be education, not construction. Second, pillars, for all their imposing stature, are inflexible, inanimate and do not withstand earthquakes and erosion very well.

Endowments need to be reconceived as organic, comparable to the college’s garden. As such, they need continual care in weeding and seeding. More urgent than fending off federal regulation is for college presidents, trustees and development officers to reconsider the customs they have taken to heart in celebrating endowments as important to colleges and universities.

The foremost scripture worth revisiting is that perpetual endowments are sacred. Is that always a good thing? Even John D. Rockefeller Sr. -- no stranger to generous philanthropy for American higher education -- had some reservations. In opting to put term limits on one of his major gifts for educational projects, he noted, “After all, forever is a long, long time …”

Think of some of the headaches caused by perpetual gifts, which may honor the donor but thwart good stewardship today: scholarships restricted to children of Spanish-American War veterans might have been noble and useful in 1900, but they now tie up some student financial aid resources and help no one. If a financial aid director today does happen to have a prospective recipient, she should be careful to check the applicant’s birth certificate as well as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

The waste of petrified funds caused by colleges agreeing to unwieldy restrictions is not only from the distant past. A few years ago a university in the San Diego area reported that it had a substantial scholarship fund, which the donor restricted to "Jewish orphans interested in pursuing a graduate degree in aeronautical engineering." The donated money may accrue interest that increases the college endowment tally, but it is useless in assisting students because it is lifeless.

The problem is not confined to idiosyncratic scholarship funds. Many colleges and universities have institutes and centers originally supported by private gifts -- but for research projects on topics that have long cease to be pertinent, now artificially shored up by a perpetual fund. These take up space, facilities and may even be cross-subsidized from revenues elsewhere in the institution.

So, a first consideration for the 21st century is that colleges need to review thoroughly the terms of all their assorted gifts, which coagulate to create the complex mutual fund we refer to as the endowment. If the terms of a particular gift are obsolete or unreasonable, colleges can bundle the dysfunctional scholarship funds and request the courts to invoke the doctrine of cy pres -- translated as “so near.” This then allows a college to propose reasonable new terms to guide spending from these albatross gifts. But that requires the college to take initiative and give sustained attention, as the crucial concern of the courts is that an institution has truly shown good faith in tracking down donors or their heirs to get their permission and collaboration.

One might argue that such a review of all gifts is a housekeeping chore that distracts from the main issues about purposes and funds of a college. Perhaps, but the case-by-case exercise does prompt colleges and universities to address ultimately a serious concern: namely, that restrictions donors place on gifts -- and to which colleges have knowingly agreed -- may not always represent responsible educational priorities.

Yes, of course, a potential donor has the right to demand conditions. And colleges have equal right to persuade the donor to change the terms. And, if that falls through, a college can refuse gifts whose terms remain unreasonable or inappropriate. Even though a major gift may be tempting to take, college officials must be vigilant to make certain its charter of educational service is not compromised.

The principle of scrutiny and restraint could be extended to additional situations where donors are detailed and demanding. For example, at one time, college officials discovered -- often, too late -- that major gifts for monuments and buildings left the college stuck with maintenance and heating expenses long after a bell tower or library had been named in honor of a donor. Presidents had to make sure that henceforth prospective building donors be required to include a fund for repairs and maintenance. Here was an example where incorporating a restriction was the right thing to do. Such innovations in fund-raising require that the burden shifts to the modern college president as the one who educates and persuades donors on wise projects and their time limits.

In asking college presidents to rethink the propriety of perpetual gifts, no one is suggesting that colleges “spend out” or exhaust their endowment. Rather, the invitation is to consider working with donors so that each gift has an appropriate life span to accomplish a worthy and timely educational goal. This might result in a perpetual endowment -- but perhaps not.

The point is to move away from the presumption of a perpetual gift and the presidential path of least resistance in accepting unwieldy gifts. A project might be accomplished in 50 years, another project in 10 years. So, instead of federal regulation, how about a voluntary, good faith commitment by presidents to work at educating donors to define gifts to finite periods that are educationally and fiscally sound?

The conventional wisdom is that a large endowment assures a financially healthy future. By this logic, it provides a college protection if “tomorrow is a rainy day.” This justification is not wholly convincing. If a college has a firm policy that prohibits spending the principle, the endowment is limited in how it can provide added relief in a problematic time, whether it is in 2016 or 3016. It’s feasible for a college to close down financially even if it has a substantial endowment that is either untouched or untouchable.

Some presidents note that colleges spend more from their endowments in “bad times” and then less in financially “good times.” But I’m not certain that is universally accurate. Following the 2008 stock market decline, many institutions with relatively high endowments still cut staff and faculty positions and reduced spending on educational programs.

Most overlooked is that the primary threat to reducing a college’s endowment has not been the spendthrift who draws out more than the accrued interests and dividends. Rather, it is bad investing. Somehow college presidents and boards who are averse to spending, say, 15 percent of the endowment on timely educational programs in a year still readily accept as an unavoidable fact of life that an endowment can lose 25 percent in a year due to stock market losses. What is missing from that explanation is that some colleges became susceptible to severe losses when, over the past two decades, they opted for high-risk investment strategies.

It’s hard to see established, affluent colleges and universities as beleaguered institutions. They are beneficiaries of many privileges and exemptions -- and enjoy a favorable status even within the ranks of all charitable nonprofit organizations. For example, colleges already get a substantial break from the requirement whereby foundations must spend 5 percent of their endowment each year. Colleges, in contrast, have to spend annually only 4 percent of their endowment to comply with the IRS.

Weeding the college endowment garden may reveal that many restricted gifts do not serve genuine educational activities in the historic spirit of an eleemosynary institution. Presidents and boards need to keep in mind that a college or university is a charity. It can receive money and also is required to spend money on appropriate charitable, educational goals. With large endowments, spending wisely does not always mean spending less.

John Thelin is a professor at the University of Kentucky and the co-author, with Richard Trollinger, of Philanthropy and American Higher Education (Palgrave MacMillan).

Editorial Tags: 

NLRB Rejects Columbia U Grad Student Union Bid

A regional National Labor Relations Board office rejected Columbia University graduate student workers’ petition to hold a union election, saying it’s constrained by a precedent against graduate student worker unions. The NLRB has historically gone back and forth on graduate student worker unions, but such unions largely have been blocked (unless private institutions voluntarily recognize them) since a 2004 decision regarding Brown University established that graduate students are students -- not workers -- and therefore not entitled to collective bargaining. The new regional ruling doesn’t necessarily preclude a Columbia union in the future, however, since the NLRB recently indicated that it will again reconsider graduate student unions in a pending case regarding the New School.

Columbia students want to affiliate with the United Autoworkers, as do their counterparts at the New School. New York University graduate student workers already are represented by the UAW, since the university chose to recognize the union in 2013. William Herbert, executive director of the Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College at the City University of New York, said it’s probable that the union will petition for a review of the regional decision regarding Columbia, the process by which the New School case ended up before the NLRB. The two cases could be decided together, he said.

Ad keywords: 

Student newspaper reveals inequitable toilet paper distribution

Smart Title: 

Ryerson U students reveal that administrators' bathrooms feature two-ply, while everyone else has one-ply.

Paine College Unable to Make Payroll

Paine College, a historically black institution in Georgia, announced Friday that it could not make its most recent payroll. A statement on the college's website said Paine was hoping to make up for the funds soon, perhaps within a week. The Augusta Chronicle reported that Paine told creditors it would make payroll by "no later than Jan. 8." But the Paine website statement said that it was "not true" that employees won't be paid for the rest of the year. The statement said that "no final decisions have been made" about any future pay.

Is Wisconsin System Chief Backtracking on Tenure?

University of Wisconsin System President Ray Cross has come under fire from faculty and a high-profile administrator for his changing stance on how the system should address tenure in light of recent changes to its legal status in the state. Faculty members and Chancellor Rebecca Blank of the University of Wisconsin at Madison have criticized Cross’s recent directive that new tenure polices can’t be written at the campus level, saying that the guidance contradicts Cross’s earlier assurances that tenure as it’s known would be preserved at the campus level -- even though the Wisconsin state Legislature changed the law to make it easier to fire tenured faculty members.

“We were assured by Ray and others that Madison could write policies, which would be reviewed by the [system Board of Regents] for approval,” Blank wrote to John Behling, a regent who chairs a newly formed task force charged with reviewing the system’s tenure policies, in reference to Cross’s memo. “Those voices that have argued for more extreme policies (and have argued that the [board] is less than trustworthy on these issues) will be strongly reinforced, and those of us who have been trying to shepherd this in a responsible way toward resolution are likely to lose effectiveness.”

Cross’s memo -- as well as a draft version of a systemwide tenure policy saying professors could be fired for “underperforming” -- also angered faculty meetings at a faculty meeting late last month, according to the Wisconsin State-Journal. (Blank’s emailed letter was obtained by The Capital Times.) On Friday, the American Federation of Teachers in Wisconsin called for Cross to step down over his handling of the tenure issue, among others, saying “we no longer have confidence in his leadership.”

John Lucas, a spokesman for Madison, said Blank had since met with Cross to discuss her concerns. “Chancellor Blank is satisfied that UW Madison will have the opportunity to adopt its own language in [Madison’s] faculty policies and procedures, once a broad system policy is enacted,” Lucas added. “This is consistent with how other issues are managed between the system and individual campuses.”

Blank reiterated that message in a statement released late Friday, and said she expected the Madison Faculty Senate to pass a draft tenure policy today that will be sent to the system's tenure task force as a suggested campus policy. Once a broad system policy is adopted, she said, Madison will have the opportunity to finalize its specific terms. Behling said in a statement that he was glad Blank clarified her statement and that she and Cross are now “on the same page.”

Ad keywords: 

Federal Experiment on Dual Enrollment

The U.S. Department of Education today announced the creation of an experiment that will seek to encourage the expansion of dual-enrollment programs for students from low-income backgrounds.

Dual enrollment is when students take college courses for credit while enrolled in high school. As a result, they can more quickly and affordably earn a degree once they head to college. Under the newly announced experiment, the department will for the first time allow high school students to receive Pell Grants for these programs. The feds plan to spend up to $20 million next year on the project, which could benefit up to 10,000 students.

“A postsecondary education is one of the most important investments students can make in their future. Yet the cost of this investment is higher than ever, creating a barrier to access for some students, particularly those from low-income families,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a written statement. “We look forward to partnering with institutions to help students prepare to succeed in college.”

Fraternity group finds criticism, 'internal squabbling' over support of sexual assault bill

Smart Title: 

Two senators blast fraternity group's support of legislation to limit how colleges can respond to sexual assault.

Lumina highlights ways states have increased productivity in higher education

Smart Title: 

New report examines Lumina's state-based efforts to encourage public colleges to be more efficient and focused on student success.


Subscribe to RSS - administrators
Back to Top