ACTA's Must-Reads
« Quote for the day | Main | Now hiring... »
Compare and contrast
"Five students drinking Gatorade and water for a week are apparently all it takes to bring a major university to its knees." That's how John Leo summed up affairs at Columbia University, where a small band of student activists recently staged a remarkable and disturbing coup. The tiny group ended its fasting vigil--one that was closely monitored by campus physicians--after Columbia administrators met most of its demands.
"New faculty will now have to endure diversity indoctrination as part of their hiring," Leo explained. "Columbia's core curriculum, much too 'Eurocentric' for the strikers, will now feature more required courses on Asia, Africa, and Latin America. More money and staff will be added for ethnic studies. The Office of Multicultural Affairs will be expanded and another high-ranking diversicrat will be named to the administration. The collapse will cost Columbia at least $50 million."
In the wake of widespread media coverage and criticism, Columbia is now denying that it has done anything of the kind. In a letter to the New York Post, Columbia's media relations director, Robert Hornsby, states that curricular changes have been in the works for some time, and that "There is not, and never was, a commitment to raise $50 million in response to student demands."
The implication of the statement is very strange indeed: Columbia's administration would have us believe that it hoodwinked the triumphant protesters, appearing to yield to their demands by agreeing to reforms that were already in the works. We are left with an unsavory sense that Columbia has either pandered to the manipulative tactics of a vocal campus minority, or that it has cynically manipulated those students, or both. The suggestion becomes all the more disturbing in light of President Bollinger's cryptic recent statement that negotiations with the strikers "is a major, University-wide initiative, and the trustees are involved, so I am not going to comment."
The events raise real questions about academic freedom and procedural seriousness at Columbia.
Meanwhile, the protesters are delighted with the results of their antics, and promise that there is more to come. And why shouldn't they? As Anthony Paletta observes, "it's clearly now not a question of whether more stunts will happen, but when."
It is worth comparing the murky behavior of the Columbia administration to the principled actions of the Texas A&M Chancellor and Board of Regents. A&M needs to hire a new president, and an advisory committee composed of faculty, staff, students, two regents, and the president of the local Chamber of Commerce recently submitted to the Board a short list of three candidates. But upon examination, the Board determined that it needed to expand its search to ensure that it finds the person who best meets A&M's needs; while the Board is still considering the candidates on the short list, the Houston Chronicle reports, it is also expanding its search to include candidates that the search committee eliminated.
The Regents are facing sharp criticism from faculty, who claim that the Board's actions disregard the values of shared governance and could harm faculty morale. But the Board is taking a reasoned, firm stand when it comes to its fiduciary rights and responsibilities.
"While shared governance has its place, the ultimate responsibility and charge for governance in the selection of presidents for universities in the system lies solely and completely in the Board of Regents," wrote board chair Bill Jones in response to criticism. Noting that the Regents would try to be "inclusive" during the selection process, he stated that if the process does indeed affect faculty morale, "we will accept those unfortunate consequences."
Mike McKinney, chancellor of the A&M system, echoes Jones' sentiments. "You need some shared governance, but that doesn't mean shared responsibility," he told the Houston Chronicle. "It means that faculty get to express their opinion. But with all due respect, they're not on the board."
Shame on Columbia. Bravo to A&M's Board.
Posted by acta online at November 28, 2007 11:04 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/420
Comments
In the wake of widespread media coverage and criticism, Columbia is now denying that it has done anything of the kind. In a letter to the New York Post, Columbia's media relations director, Robert Hornsby, states that curricular changes have been in the works for some time, and that "There is not, and never was, a commitment to raise $50 million in response to student demands."
I'm interested in the specificity of the denial.
Color me cynical, but all he's really saying is that they didn't commit to raising the specific amount $50 million in response to student demands. Did they commit to another amount, or whatever unspecified costs would be required to implement student demands?
The issue isn't the amount, but the caving, and the way Hornsby phrased things, it's almost like he wanted his audience mistake the two, leaving the administration to have it both ways: caving to student demands in practice, while appearing publicly not to have.
Posted by: trocantor at November 28, 2007 12:52 PM
Leo also points out that all of this was cynical gambit as part of a land grab north and east of the Columbia campus. All of these changes on campus are setting a level of sensitivity to convince various city and local boards that they are not 'racially insensitive' and therefore are OK to expand the campus.
Posted by: Mike McKeown at November 28, 2007 07:24 PM
Faculty "get to express their opinion. But with all due respect, they're not on the board."
That goes for alumni too, and everyone else who's not on the board. "Accountability," like "academic freedom," is just what the law says and no more, regardless of the whining of interest groups such as ACTA.
Posted by: reader at November 30, 2007 01:21 PM
reader wrote:
Faculty "get to express their opinion. But with all due respect, they're not on the board."That goes for alumni too, and everyone else who's not on the board. "Accountability," like "academic freedom," is just what the law says and no more, regardless of the whining of interest groups such as ACTA.
Huh?
Who said otherwise about alumni or interest groups?
And what "whining?" Or is that just an ad hominem attack?
Posted by: minerva at December 1, 2007 01:31 PM
"Who said otherwise about alumni or interest groups?"
ACTA, that's who. ACTA's always saying board should be accountable to alumni (witness its support for the discredited Todd Zywicki and Stephen Smith at Dartmouth) and outside interest groups such as alumni clubs (witness its support of the discredited Frank Gado at Dartmouth).
One of ACTA's goals appears to be to expand the accountability of trustees, or at least those it doesn't like, beyond the traditional accountability to the corporation itself and to make trustees accountable to donors, students, faculty, and who-knows who else.
Posted by: Reader at December 1, 2007 10:36 PM
Does the Council have any comment on the ongoing meltdown of Dartmouth Trustee Todd Zywicki, whom it once supported? John Leo, although he has joined Zywicki in disparaging a deceased president of Dartmouth College, has not attempted to excuse Zywicki's failures of accountability or his violation of his governance duties.
Posted by: Zywickimplosion at December 4, 2007 03:05 PM