Board of Governors, 1; Quincy College, 0

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

College presidents come and go, too. Some, as in the case of Liberal Arts College USA, blessedly sooner rather than later. As the door slams on his retreating derriere, let us pause to contemplate the achievements of his short-lived tenure. It’ll be but a brief pause, given that his meager accomplishments are easily summarized as 1) rooting out and eliminating all staff guilty of AWF—Administering While Female—2) larding the payroll with hangers-on, friends of friends, and parasitic common-law spouses of ill-advised trophy hires and 3) bloating the organizational chart with ever-more grandiose titles for exceptionally ordinary functionaries. But at least the talented new president has no need to sweep away any half-baked plans or initiatives as she takes on the daunting task of rebuilding LCA, her predecessor having thoughtfully left the planning tabula utterly, totally, completely rasa.

Sometimes, though, college presidents depart before they even arrive. Take, for example, the rollicking saga of one Philip Conroy, the man who until yesterday aspired to the top job at Quincy College in Quincy, Massachusetts. QC is a public two-year institution; this is important for you to keep in mind. Back in June, QC’s board of governors, in a tight 6-5 vote, recommended that Mr. Conroy be offered the college’s presidency. Mr. Conroy, a vice president at an independent two-year college in the Commonwealth eagerly accepted. The appointment seemed to make a lot of sense. After all, Mr. Conroy is a native son of Quincy, and he has administrative experience in both public and private higher education, including at the university level, which gives him an important dual perspective on transfer issues of students seeking to continue their educations after community college enrollment.

Yesterday, however, the Patriot-Ledger printed an excerpt from a letter Mr. Conroy had just written to the board: “’It has become increasingly clear to me that the board of governors is unable to unite behind a new president,’” Conroy’s letter reads. ‘(W)hile the offer of the position was extended there has been no movement toward a contract. Therefore, it is with a profound sense of sadness and disappointment that I respectfully decline the offer to serve as president of Quincy College.’” One might quibble about whether “decline” is the right verb, given that what the board offered Mr. Conroy included apparently nothing in return for the services he was willing to render.

A pirated copy of Mr. Conroy's contract, rescued from the briny waters of the Fore River.

The board members were too busy fighting amongst themselves to devise a contract for the hapless Mr. Conroy. The close vote that brought him to the brink of the presidency he was ultimately denied bespeaks the kind of high-stakes intrigue public institutions in Massachusetts are so famous for. It seems Mr. Conroy’s closest competition for the position was Peter Tsaffaras, Esq., Director of Employee Relations and Benefit Administration for the Massachusetts Board of Education, and former member of the Quincy College Board of Governors. Cozy, no? The summer months in Quincy sizzled from heat generated by the procedural maneuvers, scheduling chicanery, and character assassination that emanated from the board.

As one who has watch similar dramas unfold, I can say with great assurance that there are few fights as nasty, no tactics so dirty as those the bottom feeders feasting at the public chum in the Massachusetts pond politic employ when attempting to move themselves or their cronies up the food chain. It makes those who engage in the superfluous nepotism of certain private institutions look like the bush league players they are.

LCA's buy two, get one deal.

Mr. Conroy will remain the vice president of the college that currently employs him. I don’t know the man, but I wish him well, and would advise him and any other potential candidates for the presidency of Quincy College to stay far away until the board’s feeding frenzy is over and the ragged claws of the governors are busy scuttling across the floors of silent seas to the more hospitable waters of the Turnpike Authority.

Mr. Conroy meets his competition.

Bookmark and Share

SAY THANKS!

“I do not think we have a “right” to happiness. If happiness happens, say thanks.”
Marlene Dietrich

Bookmark and Share

Administer with Care

Every enterprise has its own in-jokes, I suppose. In academic circles, and by that I mean in ballrooms of tony convention hotels in Washington, San Francisco, Miami, or San Diego where porcine college presidents, vice presidents and deans gather for top-level meetings on issues of national importance. In academic circles you are guaranteed a chuckle or two of recognition from an audience of your peers if you make one or more of the following three jests:

• Leading the faculty is like herding cats
• A secret on campus is what you only tell to one person at a time
• Academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low

I’ll pause for a moment while you wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes and the milk that shot out of nose from your chin. But I’m betting that you already knew that academic administrators, or “leaders,” as they prefer to be called, are a fun group.

Fun, but not exclusive. Oddly enough, in an organization that prides itself on thinning its faculty ranks through the gymnastics of the tenure process, packing the payroll with administrators is widely regarded internally as the mark of a successful, well, administration. If a leader is really, really committed to establishing the importance of his contributions to the campus, he (feminists, forgive me, but what I am talking about here is universally a male behavior) methodically begins building his empire by bulking up his troops with senior executive associate vice presidents, senior associate vice presidents, associate vice presidents, senior assistant vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, executive directors, directors, senior associate directors, and so on down the line until you reach coordinators and dog catchers.

Academic leaders sit in wonder at their latest creation, the 3-D organizational chart.

Needless to say, the addition of administrative expertise makes the institution stronger; after all, how could a college ever get along with just a “director” when it could hire an “associate vice president” or a “dean” to do the same job? Of course, along with the title change comes a significant change in salary (upwards) because after all you get what you pay for. Or, as a recently appointed vice president I had the all-too-brief pleasure of working with once said to a faculty that had lived for decades with below-market salaries, “people with my expertise don’t come cheap.”

With all this brain power, I deserve a couple of big paychecks.

Some experts have observed that academic administration, being the growth sector that it is, is a bright spot in our flagging economy, while others, the pessimists, have pointed out that

Between 1993 and 2007, the number of full-time administrators per 100 students at America’s leading universities grew by 39 percent, while the number of employees engaged in teaching, research or service only grew by 18 percent. Inflation-adjusted spending on administration per student increased by 61 percent during the same period, while instructional spending per student rose 39 percent.

As long as all spending trends are up, I suppose everything is hunky-dory, except for the cash-strapped moms and dads who are picking up the tab—and the faculty who are patiently waiting to stick their mitts in the cookie jar for the crumbs the vice presidents et al in their largesse leave behind.

A handful of campuses are bucking this trend. At Washington State University, for example, university President Elson S. Floyd, PhD recently informed his faculty and staff that he was implementing a “new organizational configuration [that] reduces the total number of vice presidents from nine to six.” Floyd continues: “I would expect budget savings of between $700,000 to $900,000 resulting from these actions, although the ultimate savings will depend on a number of personnel actions and salary adjustments, which will be determined going forward.” He concludes his announcement of the vice presidential holocaust by saying, “Streamlining the administrative leadership of WSU will require all of us to work smarter, harder and faster. I have no doubt that the WSU family is up to the task.”

For those of you whose first language is not academic administrativese, allow me to translate for you: the Washington State Legislature slashed the university’s budget, so the president had to find some quick savings. Thinking fast, he collapsed three vice presidencies into one, and eliminated a currently vacant vice president’s position. Right away we know there’s something just a little fishy about the claim of “eliminating” a position that, being unoccupied, is not costing the campus anything. The piscine aroma grows a little stronger when we read the part about “ultimate savings” having to “depend” on “personnel actions and salary adjustments”; in other words, it has yet to be determined just how big a piece of the savings pie the surviving VP’s will carve up for themselves, given that they now must work “smarter, harder and faster.” The reward for the rest of the campus—the WSU family—for also working “smarter, harder and faster” is the comforting knowledge that their president believes they are “up to the task.”

It’s one thing, of course, for a large state university to be awash in administrators, and maybe even justifiable, given the multiple mandates the public trust demands it fulfill. But what about liberal arts colleges? Must these beleaguered institutions also beef up the administrative ranks in order to remain competitive in today’s diverse, multicultural, gender-neutral global educational market?

Of course they do. Take the fictional Liberal Arts College USA in fictional Collegetown USA as a hypothetical example. At LCA the president found a nationally recognized expert to lead a newly created dean’s office. The charge to this dean was to put the faculty on notice that its educational rubrics, learning objectives and classroom outcomes needed to be assessable, because assessment is, you know, important. Woe to the faculty member who could not break down Finnegan’s Wake into learning units, assigning each unit precise learning parameters, and ensuring each student derived the same learning outcome from each unit. Sayonara to the professor who believes students should be encouraged to establish their own educational goals. The point here is, LCA has a new dean, and he is a nationally recognized expert. On what, nobody is quite sure.

The national expert ponders his reputation.

Sometimes hiring more administrators makes a lean-and-mean institution even more efficient, and nowhere has this been more true than in the president’s office at LCA, where a year ago the then-president replaced one staff member with three, and announced plans to hire a fourth. Of the four, one failed immediately at the task she was given but was kept on anyway; one was an equal-opportunity hire, whose qualifications were based on her cohabitational preference; and one was a unusually sane appointment. The fourth is still in limbo, but will be, when (and if) he arrives, LCA’s newest vice president. And you thought administrative bloat was just for state schools.

I got my job the old-fashioned way!

Things are looking up at LCA, however. Its trustees are a remarkably dedicated group of people who are continuing to deliver on their promise to steward the college wisely. Their collective judgment will untangle the threads of the crazy-quilt organizational chart that has grown and grown over the last few years. More power to them!

NOTE to readers: “Administrative Bloat at American Universities: The Real Reason for High Costs in Higher Education,” a just-released report from the Goldwater Institute, makes for interesting reading if you want to get a sense of how universities operate and spend money. The link is above, where I have quoted from the report. I also remind readers that universities and colleges may look alike, but they are not alike, and efforts to run one as if it were the other are doomed to fail. I have drawn on the Goldwater report to make a general point, and not to compare university practice with what goes on on a well-run college campus.

Bookmark and Share

Plus ca Change : Transitional Analysis

A former boss of mine was fond of needling me and various colleagues with a constant reminder that “change is hard.” He chose his words carefully, not so much to point out the obvious (although he did a lot of that, too), but to let us know directly how much pleasure he was taking in our discomfiture at many of his dicta. While no one could call such behavior “harassment” in the traditional sense, it certainly created a chilly if not downright frosty atmosphere in the workplace. I tried my best to soldier on in this decidedly hostile environment, Nancy-Reagan smile plastered on my face and swallowed critiques that burned like acid in my throat and my thoughts. My eventual departure from the inner sanctum of my boss’s enablers was all but inevitable, I suppose. My leaving my job was a change that was hard for me, but in retrospect I see that living with the specter of the kind of change that continued to haunt the campus after I was gone was even harder for those who stayed.

A president consults his checklist for change.

Small liberal arts colleges have a vexed relationship with the notion of change. Like every organism, these institutions must regularly experience change to renew, refresh and survive. Even the doughtiest alumnus and crustiest professor recognize this simple truth. And so there is curricular reform on a pretty predictable cycle; offices of student affairs are always trying some new, sure-fire technique of encouraging undergraduates to embrace diversity and celebrate difference; and, difficult as it is for some of us to believe, faculty do eventually retire and are replaced by shiny new PhD’s with state-of-the-art ideas about their discipline. But like any host organism fighting off an unwanted parasite, a campus will resist change its collective psyche, spirit, gut—call it what you will—apprehends as hazardous to its health and future well being.

Liberal Arts College USA, like every other small baccalaureate institution, prides itself on being unique. Let us pause for a moment to reflect on what it means to be unique. Some colleges take their uniqueness very, very seriously. Consider, for example, Ithaca College. Ithaca is a typical liberal arts college with a typical faculty in upstate New York, but by golly, it is unique—and if you visit its website, it will tell you so 2870 times. Here’s a sampling of what you will find. (Thoughtful readers will not blame Call Me Miss for the errant adverbs modifying “unique” in a few of the sample texts. I guess when everything around you is unique, you need to muster a little extra verbiage so that your program can stand out as one-of-a-kind.):

The Theater Arts Management (TAM) degree is [sic] very unique program.

One of the most unique programs administered by the Gerontolgy [sic] Institute is the College’s relationship with Longview, an Ithacare Community.

CMD — A unique program in which you will develop a comprehensive mastery of communication as well as an understanding of the impact of communication on an organization’s success.

Human Anatomy provides the unique learning experience of human cadaver dissection and hands-on experience to study anatomical relationships, assess gross structure, and begin to appreciate the range of normal variation and pathological changes in different types of human tissue.

Undergrad was just the beginning.
Come to Ithaca for a unique graduate experience.

The Ithaca College sport club program mission is to provide students with a unique opportunity to develop leadership, organizational and fiscal management skills in a fun and safe supportive learning environment in which participants can build a sense of community.

International Students
Come to Ithaca College for a unique and challenging experience

Besides our unique major, we also instruct all entering students in first-year writing;

Culture and communication is a unique critical-studies degree program that makes connections between two areas of inquiry: the study of how culture informs and shapes all aspects of communication, and its corollary area of investigation — how communication is the process through which culture is created, modified, and challenged.

Our group-based all-college mentoring program is unique and nationally recognized.

Even universities—the big siblings of liberal arts colleges—are in the business of being unique. Just down the road from diminutive Ithaca looms the behemoth Cornell University, a campus that sparked the War Between the Tates and the War Between Keith Olberman and Principled Argument. Given that Cornell’s enrollment of 20,300 graduate and undergraduate students dwarfs the teeny tiny Ithaca’s 7,000 or so student body, it’s not at all surprising that Cornell is 13 times more unique than its petite companion school, scoring no less than 38100 invocations of the sacred appellation on its website.

Unique colleges all in a row, artist's rendering. Surely you can spot the differences!

But there are a handful of colleges that really and truly are unique, for example, the jewel-like Conway School of Landscape Architecture, an institution with a single focus that awards a master’s degree to its exceptionally talented graduates. Or Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, a Catholic great books school with a beautifully articulated sense of purpose and grace.

Liberal Arts College USA legitimately stands in the company of these unique institutions. Although it shares in common with other colleges many challenges, among them insufficient resources, lagging building maintenance, and occasional administrative chaos, its students, faculty and the things the two groups together study represent a remarkable and, yes, unique achievement in 20th Century higher education, made all the more remarkable because all efforts to quantify, analyze, or even replicate the transformations LCA effects in its students stymie even the most ardent devotees of “assessment.”

LCA USA grads leave the college determined to do things their way, on their timetable, and woe to anybody who stands between them and their goals. Whatever mojo the faculty works on students, the “outcome” (as we in the educational enterprise are fond of intoning) is a dazzling array of men and women who don’t just say they want to change the world—they do.

So, why, one might ask, would a president looking to make a mark on such a special place seek to change the very fabric of what makes the college unique? Is change so important that it drives the essential out the door with the expendable?

As always, it comes down to the simple matter of vision. College presidents, in order to steward the precious entity over which they hold sway, must be far-sighted. A myopic president whiles away his time at the helm tinkering with a policy here, changing a title there, fretting that somewhere, in some dusty document is a phrase so infelicitous it will bring Erin Brockovich and her ilk running. Rather than keeping his eyes on the prize of a fiscally robust, intellectually electric college—he focuses instead on the kind of change he, and only he, can believe in: the kind of institutional changes that will look impressive on his cv when he begins his job hunt. Thankfully for LCA USA that hunt is now underway. Its faculty, staff and trustees can go back to doing what they do best: squabbling about what the future holds for LCA USA while making its present the best it can be. And that will be the most welcome change in a long time.

Dawn at LCA USA: A new day brings welcome change.

Bookmark and Share

Forget about Killing All the Lawyers; First Let’s Call the Consultants!

What comes to mind when you hear the word “consulting”? The folks at McKinsey who brought you Enron? Bob Shrum, who ignited the dynamite Kerry-Edwards campaign? Or perhaps that unfortunate laid-off fellow next door, who has added “consultant” to his resume in a futile effort to conceal his unemployment.

When I see the words “consulting” or “consultant” I think about PT Barnum’s philosophy of doing business, and how consultants have adopted it with great success to sell their services to higher education. Take Liberal Arts College USA (LAC USA) in the bucolic hamlet of Collegetown USA. The manifold consultants suckling at its budgetary bosoms are sapping the alma right out of this mater.

The national average for consultants at liberal arts colleges is approximately .0005 consultants PSI; at LAC USA that ratio is closer to 1:1. These are important numbers to know, because one of the key assignments that keeps higher ed consultants busy these days is helping colleges develop “metrics” by which they can “measure success” and “demonstrate accountability.” Having a higher than average consultants/per square inch ratio can be read several ways. The positive interpretation is that the institution has buckled down and is calling on outside expertise to identify and provide solutions for the college’s manifold “challenges.” A less positive interpretation might suggest that a campus chock-a-block with consultants is a campus whose administrators lack the requisite skills and experience to do their jobs without the training wheels and steadying hand a personal factotum affords them.

Consultants: Follow their advice and they'll take the hit for you.

So just who are these hired hands, and whatever do they do? Let’s discuss.

One of the first ways you know you’re in trouble is when the college president suggests a review of the office where you are in charge. Such a review is never, ever good news. At LAC, some years ago the president decreed that an office key to the success of the college and his presidency should undergo such an exercise. To make a long and predictable story short, Consultant “A” was hired to do the review, at the conclusion of which the head of the office met with an ignominious end, and was replaced by a highly inexperienced, callow youth. So young and inexperienced that the consultant—who recommended the appointment—urged that the pup be advised by a more mature, experienced coach. And so it came to pass that Consultant “A” has for years been enjoying a fruitful gig as Yoda to the apparently permanently-too-inexperienced head of the office. One could ask if a more sensible recommendation might have been simply to hire a qualified individual to run things. But then Consultant “A” might not have had the opportunity to fly cross country several times a year on LCA’s dime and enjoy 100% return on the recycled advice he shares with the college, advice that has no basis in, and is in fact counter to, the college’s interests.

Consultant “B” doesn’t have to make a transcontinental flight to reach LCA, although he followed a circuitous route to arrive at its ivied halls. Consultant “B” helps the “expert” hired by the president to sort out the various jurisdictions of the campus’s internecine jurisprudence. He is also the expert’s former boss. The expert had served in the faculty senate of a previous institution, so therefore of course not only possessed deep knowledge of this particularly thorny briar patch of college life, but without question also had the requisite street creds to give LCA faculty the reassurance they needed in order to be guided—expertly, of course—to enlightenment. Have you spotted the emerging pattern yet? Time for a pop quiz.

Consultants “C” through “F” are such fixtures at LCA that one of them even has a permanent office on campus and gets invited to official college celebrations. These guys earn their keep, and it’s a good thing, because they are in possession of intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of LCA as well as licensures nobody on staff can lay claim to. But, wouldn’t you just know it? LCA chooses not to listen to the advice offered by this phalanx of hired hands. Just this spring decades of expensive and remarkably consistent recommendations were blithely ignored because another consultant—one with a negligible relationship to the college, but advising a new “report” to the president—tossed out a suggestion concerning buildings and grounds. The bloodshed from the ensuing mayhem has yet to prove fatal to anyone, but some vital signs are not looking good.

But..but..but...the consultant told me if I built it they would come!

And then, finally, there is the granddaddy of LCA consultants, the president’s own amanuensis. Gramps has been around since the early days of the president’s tenure and provides recommendations almost as fast as he cashes the checks he receives from the college’s capacious and opaque “general administrative” fund. I came to know this graybeard when he offered me advice on a project that comes around every ten years or so on most campuses. It’s a project I had undertaken more than once (I won’t tell you how many times lest you think I am getting long in the tooth) and for which my expertise had been recognized both on and off campus. Let’s just leave it at this: the president was none too happy when I showed him the how-to manual from which the consultant had cribbed his recommendations. Need I add that the displeasure was not directed at the consultant?

What is the take-away here? It’s not that all consultants are charlatans or never offer original advice. And it’s certainly not that all administrators at LCA are sock puppets animated by unseen and unaccountable hands of off-stage consultants. No, it is, rather, the simple suggestion that if the right person is in charge, then consultants count their stays on campus in days or at the most weeks. They do not become long-term “cost-centers” for the college. And Alma Mater does not become their cash cow.

Food for thought? Why not let the consultants decide.

Bookmark and Share

Hey Faculty! Your Priorities Need Alignment!

In June I wrote a post about Alexander Kemos, who faked his resume, landed a highly remunerative job at Texas A&M, rose quickly to an even more remunerative position, cozied up to the university president, got caught in his lies and was sent packing.

Now comes word that another senior official at A&M has lost his lucrative perch on the administrative ladder, although this time the malfeasance seems to be institutional rather than personal. Or maybe it is personal, because Robert Hash was relieved of his duties as vice dean of the medical school—and demoted to an untenured faculty position—because “he had personality differences with other administrators,” according to A&M mouthpiece/general counsel Andrew Strong.

Of course, if you ask ex-Dean Hash you get another story, one of ethics violations, real estate chicanery, sweetheart deals, and institutional retaliation for whistle-blowing. You can read all about it in the Austin, Texas statesman.com, then decide for yourself if “personality differences” constitutes a demote-able offense. You might even be moved to ask yourself if, in academic workplaces, “personality differences” play a role in getting the brass ring, tenure, the job for life. Or you can simply enjoy the farce of a lawyer saying something supremely stupid.

Dr. Hash got demoted when he wondered if the cost per-square-foot was too high.

I am interested in this all-too-familiar tale because of its similarities to what happened recently at Washburn University. There is a key difference between the two sagas, however, one well worth a few moments’ contemplation. The Washburn whistleblowers, women, were fired outright; ex-Dean Hash, a man, was demoted. For those of you out there who like to think of colleges and universities as bastions of all things enlightened, wake up and smell the sexism. When something ugly happens on a campus, you can bet the farm that punishment will be meted out along gender lines reminiscent of those found in Sharia law.

A long-time colleague of mine, a woman I respect as highly for her professional expertise as I do for her warmth and compassion, was recently given her walking papers at a small liberal arts college located in Collegetown USA. Her “supervisor”—a faculty member put in charge of my colleague’s non-academic division—let her go after subjecting her to a year of petty humiliations.

Since this scenario—a new male boss enters the picture and it’s bye-bye women of a certain age—has been replayed ad nauseum in the last few years at Liberal Arts College USA, my former colleague was not surprised by her dismissal. She, like every other member of the staff and administration, served at the pleasure of the trustees, so unemployment lurks around every corner ready to getcha at a moment’s notice.

But what, you might wonder, had this particular administrator done to incur the trustees’ displeasure? According to her boss, she was “not in alignment” with her fellow administrators. Keep in mind that this is a liberal arts institution, not a school of chiropractic, so her “alignment,” or lack thereof, should not have been an issue at all. But, just like a personality difference, a difference of alignment can be fatal when the stakes are every man for himself.

And that’s pretty much how it is these days at LAC USA: every man for himself. Women are useful so long as their alignments conform to the patriarchy’s specifications, but female administrators are about as welcome on campus as full-need students with C- averages and no claims to victimhood. As a former administrator and a woman still, I scratch my head over how so sorry a situation has come to pass.

If we can't adjust her alignment, she'll be the next to go!

Actually, I don’t. I know exactly why it happened. When former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis ran for president, he evoked what he called an old Greek proverb to describe the Reagan-Bush administration. Fish, the governor said, rot from the head first. Not a pretty image, but a compelling one and applicable today at LCA USA.

The official presidential portrait

The college has been adrift for five years now, when a new president arrived and promptly announced that he had been hired to “clean up the mistakes of the past.” And to his credit, that is what he did. Noticing that the president had to use the same toilet as the rest of the male administrators on his floor, he acted decisively: the very first bricks-and-mortar project he “tasked” the buildings and grounds department with was the installation of a bathroom, complete with shower, for his personal use. After that, construction and renovation pretty much stalled on campus, but one terrible sin of the past had been redressed. The next wrong the president righted was to cut down on the amount of driving that he did. This was not so much a go-green gesture as it was long-overdue recognition that it was absurd to expect a college president would not have a car and driver at his disposal.

The Throne Room: A President's Enduring Legacy

Having addressed his two most pressing priorities first, the president then turned to the meat-and-potatoes of college life, the mission and future of the campus. He penned a think-piece intended to stimulate the faculty and the board to begin strategic planning for the years ahead. The LCA USA, he wrote, needs to “reinvent liberal arts education,” “educate students for a global economy,” “find away to become sustainable.” Are you yawning yet? This tattered list of been-there, done-that shibboleths has floated around every college campus for decades—the only difference being some of those colleges years ago turned their rhetoric into action.

But the president’s approach to planning was two-pronged. For the board he wrote an annual retrospective chronicling his achievements of the past year and his goals for the coming academic year, thus guaranteeing that LCA USA would have an event horizon no further out than the president’s next evaluation and compensation review.

Such an iteration of incremental enhancements year-to-year can accrete to overall improvements in the college. The substitution of short-term projects for long-term aspirations and directions is worse than no planning at all, however, for it presents a convincing illusion that the long-term interests of the college are being served. Here we are five years later still waiting for a strategic planning process to begin.

In the interim, though, the president has continued his bold correction of the “mistakes of the past”: nary a woman in charge of, well, anything on campus five years ago is still present and accounted for on payday. My colleague is simply the most recent in a long line of female former LCA employees joining the queue at the unemployment office. Men who didn’t measure up were given different titles and new offices.

But let’s hold our noses and revisit Governor Dukakis’s decaying flounder. The president also worked his mojo on the LCA USA board of trustees, once a national model of diversity with a heady mix of men and women, blacks and whites, young and old. As a trustee retired (or resigned), chances are if he were a man he was replaced by a man and if she were a woman she was replaced by a man. The president convinced the board that it needed a shake-up, so a game of musical chairs began whereby the heads of various committees were replaced. When the music stopped and the chairs were filled, guess what? With one lone exception, all of the women who had led committees had been relieved of their duties so that a man could take their place. They don’t call them “chairmen” for nothing, after all, and with the men back where they belong—in charge—the president could finally say his board was in alignment with the as-yet unspecified and unplanned-for future goals of the college. Oh, happy day.

The Dream Team: A President and his Fully Aligned Administration

My colleague should wear her premature retirement as a badge of honor. She has joined the ranks of some impressive professionals. More than their ouster, these women share something else: all held non-faculty positions. Their commitment to the college, their contributions, their wisdom all counted for naught, and there was no safety net of tenure to protect them from the caprices of a misogynist president.

And all the while, the faculty stands by and enjoys the show. So sad. By their failure to act, the faculty will get the administrators they deserve. And then it really will be too late.

Bookmark and Share

A Faculty (Almost) in Revolt: Institutional Loyalty, Acts of Conscience and Votes of No Confidence

When the temperature hovers in the upper 90’s for weeks on end, not much stirs in Collegetown, USA. Most of the underpaid, underappreciated faculty have shipped their kids off to lacrosse or computer camp, or are busy packing for the Vineyard or Prince Edward Island. It’s a tough life.

So I was mildly surprised when I ran into a former faculty colleague coming out of the doctor’s office the other day. After we exchanged languid, semi-sincere pleasantries, she volunteered that she and other faculty were having a terrible summer, and that even the shortest of attempted conversations quickly degenerated into foaming-mouth, expletive-hurling duets of rage-fueled albeit impotent calls for revolution. As a faculty, my friend said, she and her colleagues were scared, angry and disaffected. “We came so close,” she said yearningly, “so close to voting no confidence last fall.”

The faculty cordially request your presence at a pig roast. So read the invitation, but the event was cancelled.

Voting no confidence in their college’s president, to be precise. Alas, misdirected institutional loyalty kept that much-needed vote from taking place. It’s only now, some six months after the aborted insurrection, that the faculty have come to realize that loyalty to ones college is a very different thing than loyalty to ones college president, and that their failure to act when the situation cried out for action has allowed an already fetid and festering wound to continue to eat its way through flesh and bone to the heart of the college they profess to hold dear.

Make no mistake: whistle-blowing is not easy, and its consequences can be terrible. This is a lesson learned the hard way recently by a couple of administrators at Washburn University who were given the heave-ho after answering board member’s questions about university President Jerry Farley’s squirrelly ideas about finances.

According to the Topeka Capitol-Journal Online,

Two former Washburn University administrators allege in a lawsuit filed Thursday [July 8] against the institution, its Board of Regents and president Jerry Farley that they were terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected whistle-blower activities.

Wanda Hill, former treasurer and vice president for administration, was terminated April 1. Robin Bowen, former vice president for academic affairs, was terminated March 30.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Topeka lists three counts for the action: deprivation of the plaintiffs’ Fifth and 14th Amendment rights to due process against all three par ties, breach of contract against Washburn University and the board, and common law retaliatory discharge (whistle-blower) against all three defendants.

Vice Presidents Hill and Bowen were sacked when the president discovered they’d told inquisitive regents that he was cooking enrollment data with no-show students and handing out scholarships to them. So, with phantom students spiriting away $500,000 in grant monies, the trustees were understandably a tad suspicious. And this is where the story gets murky. Were Hill and Bowen duped by board members’ reassurances that their jobs would be safe if they told what they knew, or were they malicious underlings, out to stab their boss in the back?

Freshmen at Washburn U practice the class cheer.

Hard to tell, since Jerry Farley remains ensconced as Washburn’s CEO, and has the “110 percent confidence” of at least regent Dan Lykins, who says President Farley’s “reputation for being honest and upfront is beyond reproach.” On the other hand, the court documents suggest pretty conclusively that there was some sleight of hand in the budgetary cookie jar during Farley’s watch.

What’s of greater interest here, though, is the dangerous game VPs Hill and Bowen entered into with the board of regents. Sure, the regents are their boss’s bosses, but the promise of continued employment was not one that the women should have believed. President Farley had the power to can them, and he did. Unless and until the regents dismiss him, they will not interfere with his presidential prerogatives.

These women were either truly courageous or truly stupid, because they spoke up even though they lacked the protection that tenure would have afforded them. As administrators, they were as expendable, fair game for a vindictive president or a manipulative board. Had they been members of the elect—the faculty, that is—with the guarantee of jobs for life that tenure provides, they could have squealed on their boss with impunity.

Which brings us back to Collegetown, USA, where the faculty’s winter of discontent has given way to a summer of boiling tempers and exploding anxiety. A question gnaws at the faculty’s small, rarely used collective conscience: should we do the right thing? Having given one answer a try and finding it sorely wanting, perhaps now is the time for faculty to stand up for themselves, their students and their college.

Before it is too late.

Remember the princes and do the right thing!

Bookmark and Share

Most Definitely Not the Father of His Country

Each morning I wake up in the grip of fear, convinced that I’ll open the morning paper and find some new piece of information that will ratchet up my growing alarm that the fate of our nation is in the hands of a dangerous man. Every morning, it seems, the fear and alarm are justified.

On June 21, for example, a day late and a dollar short, President Obama said the following in his Father’s Day remarks to an audience at The Town Hall Education Arts & Recreation Campus (THEARC) in Washington:

Over the course of my life, I have been an attorney, I’ve been a professor, I’ve been a state senator, I’ve been a U.S. senator — and I currently am serving as President of the United States. But I can say without hesitation that the most challenging, most fulfilling, most important job I will have during my time on this Earth is to be Sasha and Malia’s dad.


Enjoy Frank, or fast-forward to 1:04 to hear an excerpt of the president’s speech sung by Ole Blue Eyes.

I looked and listened in vain for commentary about this shocking and revealing statement, and could find none. Contrast, if you will, the president’s admission with the self-sacrificing patriotism of General David Petraeus and of his family. The General answered the call of his commander-in-chief to assume command in Afghanistan and did so without hesitation or public tears for his wife and children. There is no doubt in my mind that the General cares as much about his son and daughter as the president cares about his offspring. But in a time of war, he went where is country needed him, an action that speaks louder than any of the president’s alleged “eloquence.”

Two fathers, one patriot

For a sitting President of the United States to state that “without hesitation that the most challenging, most fulfilling, most important job I will have during my time on this Earth” is something other than the presidency is appalling. The audience at THEARC, of course, applauded the president’s confession. One imagines the president’s handlers gleefully thinking a bit of emoting would play well in the approval polls, giving voters a chance to see that the president is a regular guy—a family man brimming with fatherly love and affection.

But that opportunistic interpretation is not my take on what the president said. What he said, quite simply, is that the presidency to which he was elected is of secondary importance to him. I don’t care how devoted a father President Obama is, if the United States of America is not his first priority he should not be its president. Period.

I do not deny that Sasha and Malia are fortunate to live in a two-parent family and to have a father who obviously loves them and cares about their welfare. I think it’s great. For them. There is a certain poignancy, too, in the fact that that their father provides them the stability and the knowledge that they are wanted his father could not be bothered to give him.

Much ink has been spilled about the president’s inscrutability. This is a foolish concern. Best to focus on what we do know; best to take the president at his word. Which in this instance is that rare case of the known being scarier than the unknown.

Bookmark and Share

Former VP of Administration Seeks Employment as Creative Writer; Highly Experienced!

As unemployment continues to hover around ten percent (if you are an optimist) or seventeen percent (if you are a realist), a job hunter might do well to ask herself if what she puts on her resume matters. Selling oneself in a buyer’s market is after all easier said than done, so when the rejection slips start piling up, or, as is the modern “human resources” response to applicants, the lack of rejection slips or indeed any notification whatsoever keeps her in-box empty, the huntress may wonder if she should burnish the arrows in her experiential quiver.

Padding a resume, or curriculum vitae as we in the academy call this autobiographical novella, is irresistible for a certain kind of would-be employee. Every conference attended, every membership on every committee, every letter written to the editor, every scrap of recognition earned since and including the perfect attendance ribbon at Sunday school is painstakingly recorded to document what a great hire the applicant would be. One is tempted to feel sympathy for a search committee charged with the soporific task of finding successful keepers amidst the losing weepers in the avalanche of enhanced resumes it receives for any given position, or to forgive the committee if in its puffery-induced somnolence it fails to assign a reject to its proper pile.

Such might be the case for the Texas A&M committee that recommended Alexander Kemos be hired as associate executive vice president for operations in February 2009. Mr. Kemos was quickly promoted to senior vice president for administration in March of that same year. Now, just a little over a year later, he’s in so tight with the president to whom he reports that the two are off vacationing together in Maine. Cozy. Or at least it was until Mr. Kemos abruptly resigned in order to fulfill an irresistible “desire to spend more time with his family.” So said A&M President R. Bowen Loftin.

Why the sudden familial urge? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the recent discovery that Mr. Kemos possessed neither the Master’s degree nor the Ph.D. in international relations he claimed to have earned from Tufts University. And I seriously doubt his need to have more quality time with his kids was in any way related to the other fabrication on his resume, his service as an elite Navy SEAL.

Alexander Kemos and his impressive resume.

At the time of his employment at Texas A&M, the faux Dr. Kemos must have seemed nothing short of dreamy. Supposedly fluent in Greek, Arabic and French, he must have looked like a quite a catch. His impressive academic credentials, moreover, probably had faculty members on the search committee squealing with delight. Clearly it did not occur to them to wonder why anyone genuinely in possession of the phony Dr.’s alleged bona fides would take—or want—a job that entailed ensuring the “management, oversight and strategic planning in areas such as facilities and operations, governmental affairs, athletics, transportation services, dining services, marketing and communications, and university advancement.”

But, then, again, perhaps search committee members truly believed that a Ph.D. in diplomacy was a requirement for the position, given its specifics: “engage the Office of the Executive Vice President for Operations into academic discussions related to construction, facilities, research, real estate and physical plant priorities, as well as maintain and build relationships with stakeholders across the University.” Anybody who has ever tried to have a rational discussion about office space with a faculty member knows that not only diplomatic skills but also the training a SEAL receives will come in handy.

You misunderstood when I said I was a trained seal!

The reports out of Texas do not make it clear if Mr. Kemos remains employed by Texas A&M, only that he is no longer its senior vice president. If he is indeed unemployed, I hope he has a pleasant summer with his family. Maybe he can squeeze in some “me time” to work on his resume.

In the meantime, for those among us who do not lie about our credentials, searching for a new job just got a little harder.

Bookmark and Share

A President Responds to the Crisis in the Golf


Dear Mr. President: It’s spelled with and “U” not an “O.” G-U-L-F not G-O-L-F. Have you no shame?

PS: You might also want to remind your Chief of Flatulence Rahm Emanuel 1) that if he wants to give advice about PR, perhaps he should look first to the 18th hole instead of the Isle of Wight and 2) that as usual, the members of your administrative cabal focus their attention on illusion rather than reality. BP’s PR is the last thing the staff should be worrying about.* Save a little concern for the oil workers your administration has callously thrown out of their jobs.

*Unless, of course, they are planning ahead for the next time they put the bite on BP for campaign contributions.

Bookmark and Share

Next Page »


 

September 2010
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
Bookmark and Share

Blogger’s Query:

In May I wrote a post about the former president of Peru (Nebraska) State College, Ben E. Johnson. I would like to explore Johnson’s life and work more; if you knew or worked with him at Peru State, Thomas College or elsewhere, and would be willing to answer a few questions, please write to me in confidence at callmemiss1@gmail.com. Many thanks.

Gee, I Wish I’d Written That

The next time someone tells you conservatives are mean, refer them to Mr. Hanson.

Fun with Grammar

"Its" is the possessive of "it," and "it's" is the contraction of "it is." Use each correctly in a sentence: "It's too soon to tell if the apple will fall far from its tree." Keep this handy tip in mind as you write and your prose will thank you.

Short Takes…

For those interested in a thoughtful discussion of race relations as they relate to music, I highly recommend Randall Sandke's Where the Dark and the Light Folks Meet: Race and the Mythology, Politics and Business of Jazz. Sandke's meticulous research and insider's knowledge of the jazz world make an important contribution to the kinds of conversations about race we Americans should be having. Sandke writes: "Extra-musical agendas have so overtaken the jazz world that I fear they threaten its artistic survival. Any art must constantly renew itself by absorbing outside influences and new ideas." DeeDee Bridgewater, are you listening?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.