Job ad at U of Louisville raises questions about considering race in faculty hires

Many colleges want more ethnically and racially diverse faculty members. But should searches be limited to underrepresented groups? One university just tried.

'Interactive Learning Spaces' at the center of Ball State U.'s faculty development program


Can active learning techniques and flexible classroom seating improve student outcomes? Research at Ball State University has produced mixed results.

Late snowstorm strains schedules and budgets, but college leaders say planning can relieve the pressure

March's four snowstorms have real costs for colleges in the Northeast. But colleges around the country plan to pay in case of extreme weather.

College embeds field for people with disabilities into sports facilities

Massachusetts college embeds a field for people with disabilities into its sports facilities, aiming to support its curriculum and serve local organizations.

Improving the value of campus facilities (opinion)

Articles in recent years about higher education spending on luxurious campus facilities can leave readers with the impression that students are only attracted to lavish campus frills -- and that colleges and universities are merely motivated by the pressure of an amenities arms race. Perhaps that is true of some institutions and students, and the fact is that certain colleges and universities that construct lazy rivers or tanning beds may be unnecessarily spending resources and, in so doing, damaging an otherwise educationally sound rationale for facility development. As the cost of attendance rises, levels of public funding slow or decline, and private institutions question the longevity of tuition-discounting models, institutions that invest too much in expensive building projects may be putting themselves at risk when it comes to not only public perception but also their bottom lines. Recently, a growing number of colleges and universities are becoming aware of that possibility and moving away from trophy buildings and other seemingly excessive amenities.

All that said, however, there are many good reasons -- other than student consumerism or competitive pressure -- that colleges and universities should invest in their facilities. I have been making this educational case for facility development throughout my 30-year career.

Higher education leaders know from years of research that what students learn -- about themselves, about others, about the world around them -- is significantly influenced by those with whom they interact and occurs largely outside the classroom. Just as initiatives in our most livable towns and cities often include spaces and experiences designed to incubate unplanned serendipity -- such as parks, libraries, civic spaces and festivals -- students, too, need places for such engagement if they are to bridge misunderstanding and build more cohesive communities. The disintegration of civil relationships on our campuses points to the need for connection. Only through connection can people learn to constructively disagree.

The programs and experiences within campus facilities give students an opportunity to practice these relationships and roles in preparation for a postcollege life in which our businesses, communities and neighborhoods need highly skilled leadership and participation. Developing a more sophisticated capacity to live, lead and contribute is not solely a cognitive exercise. Going to a football game is very different than watching it on television, and experiencing new music, food, people, languages, music and ideas is very different than simply reading about them.

Some campus facilities are intentionally developed to expose students to people and ideas that are different from those they might have previously known. Residence halls, for example, match roommates with different backgrounds or majors wherein students learn about accepting difference, managing through conflict and literally living together in harmony. And student centers offer spaces for students to learn about organizing people and managing meetings, as well as civic spaces for programs that are overtly or subtly educational. Recreation facilities, dining centers, cultural spaces and the like give students opportunities to practice, make mistakes, form opinions, explore values and learn, lead and follow. These facilities are worthy of investment because student learning is worthy of investment.

What’s more, many of the nation’s campus buildings were constructed during a period of historically high enrollment decades ago and are now in significant need of repair. Some estimates place higher education’s collective deferred maintenance backlog in excess of $30 billion. As in our own homes, building systems fail, materials become worn and ways of use become outdated. The cost of replacing facilities almost always outweighs the cost of renovating them, although sometimes these buildings reach the end of their useful life and simply must be replaced. Regardless, campus buildings -- classrooms, recreation centers, libraries, plazas, laboratories, counseling offices -- matter for the total educational experience, and to neglect their need or their purpose means neglecting the people who use them.

Even so, campus construction costs are too often unexplainably high, institutional leaders too often plan within administrative silos and student life administrators too often lack a narrative to counter unfortunate rankings that describe “luxury dorms” or “amazing recreation centers.” Although it is fun for students and administrators to learn that a campus facility is purported to be among the best, these misleading lists lack any form of methodology or inquiry about the campus itself, perpetuate a mythology of higher education being wasteful, and ignore the educational purpose and intentional learning designed into such facilities.

New Approaches Required

To improve value for students and their families, remedy the public relations challenge, and aid public understanding, colleges and universities must:

  • Insist on educational and institutional outcomes for facility development. For example, can student persistence and retention be somehow correlated with the creation of a new student success and advising center? Can student self-efficacy or appreciation for difference be measured as a consequence of a student center renovation?
  • Bring down the cost of campus construction. The cost of campus construction almost always exceeds the cost of construction in the private market. While there may be reasonable rationale (e.g., additional federal and state regulatory obligations), that reality drives up student costs, strains endowment earnings and astounds the public. We must find new ways to build less expensively, for shorter lifespans and/or with private-market relationships.
  • Be open to private-market practices in operations. Some colleges and universities have successfully lowered costs and improved service by looking to peers and private markets for examples of operating benchmarks in information technology, auxiliary services, conferencing management, procurement processes and the like. Although not always appropriate for all campuses or situations, we might lower operating and building costs and improve revenues and returns through operational self-examination.
  • Eliminate planning silos. Higher education is organized into offices, departments, schools, colleges, divisions and other structural units for effectively managing the institutional enterprise. Too often, however, we plan only within those structural silos and miss opportunities for cross-functional synergy, efficiency, knowledge and shared focus on student learning and experience. We should acknowledge that including students, faculty and other colleagues in facility planning discussions can result in more support, better buildings and powerful outcomes for students.
  • Push back on “luxury” narratives and related rankings. Higher education should develop its own measure of quality for student facilities, similar to institutional comparisons that have arisen as a counter to the U.S. News & World Report rankings, such as the Voluntary System of Accountability created by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities; the University and College Accountability Network developed by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; and the National Survey of Student Engagement based at Indiana University and funded by Pew Charitable Trusts. Moreover, we should assertively counter more populist rankings with information about the experiential intent of these buildings.

Recreation centers, student center buildings, residential buildings, dining halls, student success offices and similar facilities provide space, programs, experiences and challenges that contribute to the sum of a student’s education. They do not replace what is in the classroom, and they should not be the primary reason a student selects a college. Most important, they must be responsibly developed to serve the institution’s mission. Yet they are vitally important for educational reasons and not merely competitive ones. We shouldn’t oversimplify these reasons and throw the baby out with the bathwater -- or the learning out with the lazy river.

Loren Rullman spent 30 years as an administrator at five universities and is now a higher education consultant and strategy advisor for Workshop, a planning, consulting and design firm with offices in Milwaukee and Ann Arbor, Mich.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
iStock/Frank Ramspott
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Why not all LGBT-exclusive spaces are beneficial (essay)

There are safe spaces, and then there are entire segregated social spheres. The first are places where members of a marginalized group can come together in the midst of busy lives to talk together openly, and the second are more like a way of life. One might be a community center on a campus that LGBT students can drop into for a support group, and the other looks more like, say, an LGBT-only dorm -- an idea that has popped up at a smattering of universities. One is a good, even necessary, idea. The other is not.

Birmingham University is currently the only university to offer a LGBT-only living space in Great Britain, and only a handful of colleges and universities offer the option of LGBT-only living spaces on campus in the United States as well. Response from other students, campus administrators and legislators to the concept has been overwhelmingly negative. Most American universities want to ensure the safety of their LGBT student population, and these spaces that create further segregation from the rest of the non-LGBT student population would ultimately create more divide and friction.

Safety is often cited as the central defense of the LGBT-designated living quarters on college campuses. But safety is such dorms’ greatest drawback. An LGBT-only living arrangement would heighten the risk of targeted violence or vandalism. Everyone who passes through the structure’s doors would be forced to come out in a potentially very public way -- a risk that students might not be considering in the moment they sign up for what they hope will be a perfectly safe living environment. The Guardian quoted Simon Thompson, the director of a website about student living, who voiced a similar concern: “Segregation will only lead to more victimization; it will not solve any problems,” he said. “I believe this is the view of a very small minority.”

I hope it goes without saying that I long for a world in which there is no risk associated with publicly announcing oneself as LGBT. Unfortunately, we don’t yet live in that world. Does establishing separate lives, homes and social circles for people who do and don’t identify as LGBT help us closer to that world we all hope for? I suspect not.

As a social equity scholar and human rights activist, I have been researching and teaching in the area of LGBT issues for 15 years. My latest publication is entitled “Leadership and Racing Toward the Arc of Freedom by African-American Gay and Bisexual Men” (a chapter in African-American Males in Higher Education Leadership: Challenges and Opportunities, from Peter Lang). Here I argue that gay and bisexual African-American men and other men of color are routinely left out of the LGBT conversation as a whole, except when it comes down to closeted and/or predatory sexual behavior. I am proud to act as an advocate for all of my students on campus at the University of San Francisco, and I take great pride in being someone who many LGBT college students turn to for advice when they look to make important life decisions.

The long, painful, but ultimately promising mainstreaming of acceptance of LGBT rights happens to have come alongside the dispersing of LGBT communities, even historically well-established ones like in San Francisco. I’m doubtful that the correlation between stronger public support of LGBT folks and lower concentration of LGBT communities is incidental.

How can the segregation of our college campuses contribute to the continuing progress that must happen in our society? In the same Guardian piece cited above, Lily Robinson, a 22-year-old student in Great Britain who identifies as transgender, worried that “rather than tackling the problem by making it clear homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and other discrimination aren’t acceptable, separate living or schooling means we are running away from the problem.”

It’s important to stress here that while I’m leery of LGBT-only living situations at universities, I do wholeheartedly support the development and protection of safe LGBT spaces like support groups and gay bars. Safe spaces usually have clearly defined, collectively maintained codes of behavior that help LGBT folks feel less vulnerable to the possibility of discrimination. In my mind, the important difference here is that community centers and bars are places where people spend just a fraction of their time (although certainly an important fraction -- one that may prove crucial for their social and mental well-being). A person who frequents a gay bar will probably find plenty of other opportunities in their day to establish relationships with people of diverse identities. In contrast, while an especially social person who lives in an LGBT-designated dorm could conceivably do the same, it would also be easy to restrict most social effort to the living space.

My position is not that we should expect LGBT students, or anyone else, to act as though homophobia and discrimination are things of the past. They are not, and it would not serve anyone to pretend otherwise. In the spirit of fighting for safer, more inclusive spaces everywhere, perhaps we could all advocate for more laws like the one passed in California, which protects LGBT students from discrimination at private universities. But let’s continue fighting for inclusion and equality on all fronts, rather than retreating into segregated social spheres.

Richard Greggory Johnson III is a social equity professor researching and teaching in the areas of race, gender, sexual orientation/gender identity and social class in the School of Management at the University of San Francisco.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Texas colleges cope with Hurricane Harvey

Hurricane prompts evacuations, as well as delays in move-in days and starts of academic years for colleges along the Gulf Coast and in Houston area.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Violated Ethics Rule

An investigation at the University of California, Berkeley, found that its chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, broke university policy by accepting free memberships to the campus recreational sports facility, campus exercise equipment and meetings with a personal trainer, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The value of the benefits Dirks received inappropriately since becoming chancellor in 2013 amounted to just under $9,000. The gym membership fees and personal training were estimated at $4,990, and the elliptical exercise equipment he accepted was valued around $4,000, according to a report released Friday.

By accepting these fitness perks, Dirks violated UC ethics rules that prohibit university employees from using campus facilities and resources without special authorization.

The investigation was launched in April, but a university spokeswoman told the Los Angeles Times that Dirks corrected the issue by September, before the investigation was closed, by apologizing and paying back the money he owed.

Dirks announced plans for his resignation last fall. His term will end on June 30, and Carol T. Christ, the interim executive vice chancellor and provost at Berkeley, will become the new chancellor.

Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

The complexity of removing the names of controversial people from campus buildings (essay)

Calhoun College is gone with the wind. Last month, Yale University announced it was removing the name of 19th-century politician and pro-slavery alumnus John C. Calhoun from one of its residential colleges. In the same week, Centre College of Kentucky reported that the name of the late U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John C. McReynolds was being removed from a campus building because donor McReynolds’s record of racial intolerance and anti-Semitism in public office from 1914 to 1941 was at odds with Centre's mission and values. The decisions at both institutions followed thoughtful deliberations.

Previously, on Jan. 25, the University of South Carolina honored the memory of Richard T. Greener, the university’s first African-American professor, by unveiling a model of a statute “to commemorate the Reconstruction-era pioneer.” Education professors Christian Anderson and Katherine Chaddock (emerita) teamed with art history professor Lydia Brandt and graduate students in the higher education program to lead efforts over several years to recognize Greener (who also was the first African-American graduate of Harvard College).

An irony of the dedication event was that the Greener statue is adjacent to the Thomas Cooper Library, named in honor of a legendary university president from 1820 to 1833 whose teaching of Calhoun’s “nullification theory” was popular with students. Cooper’s curriculum of political economy, combined with emphasis on oratory, helped to make the University of South Carolina the alma mater of numerous Southern governors, senators and congressmen who championed slavery and states’ rights in national politics up to the state's secession in 1861.

All this attention to monuments means that history matters on the American campus. And the motley mix of building names shows that the heritage of higher education is complex and even conflicting in its symbols and celebrations. Deletions and additions of campus figures can be at best indicative of healthy renewal, both in their process and decisions. What’s also wise is that colleges and universities take care not to erase all symbols and signs of the partisan slavery-advocating alumni and politicians of an earlier era -- a point that Yale President Peter Salovey made in the letter he released announcing the removal of Calhoun’s name.

Why is such an accommodation important? Each day on my way to the University of Kentucky, I pass by a state historic marker on the sidewalk noting the apartment where Jefferson Davis, later president of the Confederacy, roomed when he was an undergraduate from 1821 to 1824 at nearby Transylvania University. Even though I may not celebrate Davis’s leadership legacy, the historical marker assures that I remember him and daily confront his historic presence at his alma mater and as part of the heritage of the city and the state. Other campuses elsewhere should retain some symbols and signs of their comparable legacy even if -- or rather, especially if -- those historic figures conflict with contemporary ideals of social justice and political equity. This is important because colleges and universities are historic institutions -- and genuine history is complex and not for the forgetful or fainthearted.

Colleges and universities face unfinished business in some other areas of heritage and representation in their campus monuments. For starters, at many campuses few buildings are named to honor distinguished women. That neglect may be changing. Yale has shown imagination and sound values by renaming the former Calhoun College in honor of Grace Murray Hopper, who earned her master’s degree and Ph.D. from the university in the 1930s and then was a pioneer in computer science, as well as serving as a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy. Will other colleges and universities follow Yale’s example?

At the University of California, Berkeley, I would like to see a building named to honor Laura Nader, who has been an internationally acclaimed anthropology professor for more than a half century. An appropriate historic site would be the Faculty Club, where newcomer Nader persuaded a few women colleagues in 1960 to join her in climbing through a window to attend a universitywide faculty meeting. It was the only way they could gain entrance to the all-male faculty club building. Her pioneering act in a long, distinguished scholarly career deserves to be marked prominently for all to see while walking across the campus.

If women are underrepresented in the names on our campus buildings, in stark contrast, donors are abundant. For starters, just consider the names of entire institutions: Brown, Carnegie, Clark, Cornell, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Vassar and Yale, for starters. Donors also have added power to shape institutional memory because they have the right to have a building named in honor of a campus figure they designate. Given American higher education’s historical dependence on philanthropy, it’s understandable that our colleges and universities acknowledge generous gifts with naming rights. However, recent controversies and changes signal that each institution ought to draft a thoughtful protocol to consider -- and reconsider -- names honored on buildings and in other memorials. That might reduce the volatile clashes and hasty name-removing decisions that have surfaced recently.

Perhaps the worst abuses in naming campus buildings does not come from controversial political disputes but thoughtless choices that lead to a lack of historic distinction. When a college or university gives monumental recognition to really undistinguished people, the danger is that the campus architecture becomes uninspiring.

In teaching the history of higher education, I have tried to provide an antidote to nondescript monuments. I ask students to walk a campus to observe in detail whom the buildings honor -- and whom they overlook. My key question, then, is to ask how they would amend this -- and why.

The numerous, thoughtful suggestions were dramatic. Perhaps the biggest surprise to me came in 1983 when I was teaching at The College of William & Mary and one of my graduate students was an African-American woman who was a graduate of Tuskegee University. She recommended that Tuskegee award an honorary degree to George Wallace. At first, most students and I were incredulous and thought she was joking. But she was both serious and wise. She explained that since Wallace had repented, an honorary degree from Tuskegee could represent both remembering and healing for all Alabamians. About a year and a half later, her suggestion became a reality when the university did indeed give Wallace such a degree.

All members of the class learned from this. It provides a good reminder why I encourage all campus constituencies to join in this exercise to bring history to life with deliberate, distinctive monuments. It’s an investment in time that can connect past and present as we join together to consider diverse significant people and achievements within the historic campus setting.

John Thelin is a professor at the University of Kentucky and author of A History of American Higher Education.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Caption: 
Hopper College at Yale University
Is this diversity newsletter?: 

Syracuse University Sues Its Own Law Firm

Syracuse University is suing its own lawyers over paperwork in a real estate deal turned sour.

The university filed suit against local law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King, charging legal malpractice over the way lawyers represented the university in a contract with a developer to build a $20 million fitness center and bookstore. A key clause was not included in legal documents, reported The Post-Standard.

That clause, a “time is of the essence” clause, would have allowed the university to break its contract with developer Cameron Hill Construction without fear of liability in the event that the developer missed a financing deadline. The university severed its contract with the developer in 2014 because of construction delays and a failure to secure financing. The developer is suing the university for ending the contract, blaming the university for delays and alleging breach of contract.

Bond, Schoeneck & King is the largest law firm in the city of Syracuse. It has represented Syracuse University for years, notably making $4 million in the 2012 fiscal year, the year the firm took part in investigating child-molestation charges against former associate basketball coach Bernie Fine.

New York City law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman is representing the university in the case against Bond, Schoeneck & King. The local law firm continues to represent the university regarding other issues, The Post-Standard reported.

Ad keywords: 
Editorial Tags: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 


Subscribe to RSS - Facilities
Back to Top