Most readers will just have received the email I paste below the break (from the President, via the Chancellor), but I thought it worth flagging as an example where faculty and administration are on the same page. Whatever our differences on other issues, I don't think there's any reason to doubt Glenn Poshard's dedication to making college affordable for all students, or his hard work on this issue, which has been a major theme of his entire time in office. I encourage you to visit the student aid alliance site President Poshard lists below, and sign the petition in defense of student aid programs; I have already done so.
Dear Colleagues:
I recently returned from Washington, D.C., at which time I visited numerous congressmen and women on two major issues at stake for higher education, funding for both research and student assistance. I had appointments with several members who sat on appropriations committees which have jurisdiction over higher education appropriations, in the hope that these members could influence members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Supercommittee) to protect both of these needs which are critical to the mission of our university and our country. I expressed my concerns that in the Supercommitee's deliberations to find $1.2 trillion in cuts to the federal budget, that federal research to higher education and student aid be exempted as much as possible from the cuts. We are continuing to work daily on further communications with these members of Congress.
If the Supercommittee has not agreed on a package that meets bipartisan approval, then large across-the-board cuts will be enacted. Maximum efforts must be exacted at this point in time by administration, faculty, staff and students to help protect these universal needs. The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) has launched a public campaign to highlight the importance of preserving student aid. This organization has developed a website, Save Student Aid website, which I would encourage everyone to visit and register your support of this effort.
The link is: http://action.studentaidalliance.org/5371/save-student-aid-statement-support/?src=president
Nearly three-fourths of our students at SIU depend on some form of needs-based assistance and obviously the PELL Grants are critical to our students' success. A previous communiqué from my office asked people to contact their congressmen with regard to the need to protect research funds. I am hopeful that we will continue that effort in earnest.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Glenn Poshard
President
Friday, November 18, 2011
73 comments:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your endorsement of President Poshard's integrity is certainly the opposite of what most FA supporters have been posting.
ReplyDeleteYes, Dave,always seems to feel a need to placate and please the administration. I wonder why. For example, when speaking to the media (recently) he said: "we look forward to working with the administration"--he should have said: "we look forward to working with our students--and all other stakeholders..."
ReplyDeletePoor Dave can't win. He's doomed to be a divisive critic or a toady of the Administration.
ReplyDeletePoshard does a lot of good for SIU on the legislative front. But he could play this role as chairman of the BOT. That is a suitable place for a prominent alumni. BOT members should not be hired as administrators however. Poshard has done a very poor job of hiring upper administrators for SIUC and this has caused a lot of damage.
Look, I think that Poshard and Cheng have handled relations with the unions abysmally (not to mention other things they've screwed up). That doesn't mean that I can't also recognize that Poshard is a true believer when it comes to serving first-generation college students.
ReplyDeleteI think supporters of the FA sometimes make the following error. They think that if they ("the administration") lose, we win. But this isn't a zero sum game: we (the FA) aren't going to win some contest and emerge as the rulers of SIUC in the way that one political party can defeat another and take over. There is always going to be an administration separate from the FA. Our goal isn't to supplant it, which is impossible, but to empower faculty to work with it--where working with is distinct from working for or working under. That's what I mean when I say we are eager to work with the administration. If we aren't eager to work with the administration in that sense, just what is our goal?
Thanks for clarifying Dave. I think that to many, the role of the FA has been exactly to work against the administration. It is reassuring to hear you say that it isn't the case.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that it would have been good to emphasize the eagerness on the part of faculty to work with students--not only the administration. In any case, I guess people are different and they have different agendas.
ReplyDeleteDave-
ReplyDeleteI just read your comment after I wrote elsewhere. I agree with you about working with...I have been trying to think about ways that we can change the culture. Any culture is hard to change...the proverbial tanker in the high seas. But I think we have opportunity now....the process isn't going to be easy but it can happen. We need some ideas about how.
Kim
THANK YOU, Dave, for the comment above. I have never felt the FA wants to oust the Administration -- we are all better served getting to a place where we can work together. I hope against all hope that the Administration has learned something from all of this. If reminding them at this point that we can be on the same side of many issues, that will help.
ReplyDeleteAnother regular meme that frustrates me is the assertion that the FA has always and only had an adversarial relationship with the Administration. Is the FA responsible for the ousting of our last three Chancellor's (not including interim Chancellor Goldman)? NO! If there has been a history of adversarial relationships between the FA and upper Admininstration, that may have more to do with leadership failures that ultimately brought them down by other means.
We would all be best served by an Administration that recognizes shared governance and reasonable limits on its managerial powers. If this means some sacrifice of their "flexibility," so be it. I prefer to think of this as sensible transparency and accountability.
Well said, Jonny. But Poshard does not fool some of us. He is merely barnstorming playing "Mr. Poshard Goes to Springfield" and doing nothing to help SIUC. The misguided belief that making a failed politician SIUC President has not helped the university at all. A petition to the Board of Trustees is now circulating to remove both Cheng AND Poshard. The way to ensure shared governance is for all of us to sign it.
ReplyDeleteOh that's a great move! The FA has been vocal in talking about "healing" and "working together" and now, the radical realists launch a petition to get rid of BOTH the chancellor and the President, and at the same time, no less. We are looking to try to stem the bleeding on enrollment (likely made far worse as a result of the strike), and the wisest of the FA decide now is the time for a change of leadership and ask the same folks that gave the FA a spanking just over a week ago (and indicated that they supported the administration) to back them. Tell us all, please, what planet did you come from originally?
ReplyDeleteI've seen the petition to oust Poshard and Cheng, and read throught the comments explaining why those two should go. By and large, the comments are articulate and intelligent--in fact, they are, on the whole, of a higher quality than comments on this blog. But I've yet to see one written by anyone in the FA leadership (though I don't guarantee none will come from such folks, who are welcome to their own opinions). If people continue to conflate "the FA" with "everyone critical of Poshard and/or Cheng", those same people will continue, by circular reasoning, to find the FA always and only critical.
ReplyDeleteThe same logic, from the other ideological extreme, labels every anonymous who criticizes the FA an administrative stooge. Perhaps this is all one should expect from comments on a blog, especially anonymous ones, but I am naive enough to still be disappointed.
One can sign such a petition and still work with the current Administration. My Dept voted no confidence in our dean but we still work with him to the degree him is willing to work with us. But I do not think the FA should endorse such a petition and visible FA leaders should not associate themselves with it. Individuals can do as they please of course. I haven't seen it myself.
ReplyDeleteOn a historical note, some in the FA leadership wanted Wendler out and lobbied Poshard for this, not that I think he needed much prompting. (Walker was President and Poshard was chairman of the BOT.) It proved to be a mistake. It may be better to stick with the devil we know.
I continue to think we should push for a law banning BOT members from being hired and that we should find ways to connect with the BOT on the long term direction and purpose of SIUC.
PS: Great party! You FSNers missed out some fantastic ribs and chicken wings!
So, Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou spoke out pretty strongly against the FSN petition while you where official spokesperson of the FA. What is the official FA position regarding this petition? Is this a good idea or a bad idea for SIU at the present time given the present circumstances. You can't on the one hand 'officially' call for 'healing' and 'working together with the administration' and remain silent while FA supporters, building on the rhetoric you espoused in the lead up to the strike, call for removal of the entire leadership of the University. (Which smacks of revenge for the beating the FA has just taken, BTW)
P.S. What do you think the consequences will be if the BOT does remove Poshard and Cheng? Do you think we are in a position to attract the kind of talent that it takes to run an institution like a major research university?
Anonymous (7:17):
ReplyDeleteDave spoke out strongly against the FSN BEFORE and AFTER he was speaking as the spokesperson of the FA. While he was the spokesperson, he stopped saying much about the FSN, probably to avoid the problems you described.
The FA isn't obligated to take an official position on every issue that the university faces. Dave may have his own opinion about the petition, but that's DAVE'S opinion, not the FA's opinion.
I believe the current online petition comes from a GA. This is not the same as an on-campus vote of no confidence or a petition with a state representative agency to decertify the FA. It has no teeth whatsoever. This is a pretty important distinction overlooked by the hypocrisy hounds.
ReplyDeleteThe real lesson to be taken from this is that there are folks on and off campus who (with considerable justification) have great doubt and frustration with the Chancellor and President. The absence of an official no confidence vote should not be taken as resounding support for our leadership.
Nor, I think, is there a consensus about who exactly got a spanking last week. I believe the "paddle clause" was dropped from the final supposal. More's the pity!
The FA sent out an "Open Letter" about the FSN on October 12. I've just posted it, belatedly, over on the FA website:
ReplyDeletehttp://siucfa.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/open-letter-to-siuc-community/
Correction: Here's the right link: http://siucfa.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/open-letter-to-siuc-community/
ReplyDeleteAnon 7.17am:
ReplyDeleteDave's response to the FSN has been measured and fair, both in the above posted letter (with the other FA officers) and in his interview with J.Fuller on NPR-WSIU a few weeks ago, and, no doubt, at other times as well.
And the FA, didn't take a beating last week, we won many victories, some bigger than others.
I went on strike, probably have lost 5 days pay, but it was well worth it. As well as these gains we stood up to a bullying administration.
I suspect that next time they try to impose such harsh terms on us, they will think again.
To Anon: 7:17. What do you think would happen if we got rid of Cheng and Poshard? First, we would be getting rid of somebody who caused a strike by acting in an authoritarian manner and refused to negotiate for 18 months. Secondly, how can we attract talent to a research university when we have an ex-politician as President who plagiarized his dissertation? Also years ago,former President Albert Somit suggested abolishing the office of President since it was irrelevant and redundant. Firing these two would send a message, nationally and internationally that things are changing and SIUC is not becoming the DL version of the University of Phoenix. To attract real scholars here, these two must go.
ReplyDeleteFA caved in before a contract was reached. Pretty obvious that the ideologues rushed to strike and then retreated once it was apparent they had little support and it was hurting their pocketbooks.
ReplyDeleteLetters to editor in today's Southern Illinoisan pretty well sum up the public's accurate assessment of the FA. It's no wonder the General Assembly is cutting higher education. FA is the budget cutters best ally!
ReplyDeleteOf course we can also view the recent strike in the context of the current `bigger picture' going on around the world at present,,,the Occupy Protests. Here, at SIUC, `they' (the Admin, Cheng, + Poshard, etc), are the 1% (in fact it would be good if there were only 1% admin here...one can but dream) who have control of the purse strings, pay themselves nice fat salaries, and control the rest of us, the proverbial 99%: teachers, students, other campus workers. By striking we contributed our bit to the bigger picture...........long may the Occupy Protests prosper. And lets support them as much as we can in the following months.
ReplyDeleteAnon: 3.55. You should know by now that Southern letters are usually carefully selected to promote Metro's ideology. As for doctoral student Becky Robinson, I wonder who will be writing a letter for her dossier when she looks for a job (preferably with Ann Coulter)? Awarding tenure to only those who support higher administration makes a mockery of both critical thinking and university education paving the way for Cheng's corporate model.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9.21PM,
ReplyDeleteHere is the definition of ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.
Your advisor must be a strong FA supporter and your independent thinking must be taken away.
Becky Robinson has a courage that Anon 9:21 clearly lacks. That post (9:21) is tantamount to a threat against a student for daring to speak up. It is shameful that those that justify their behavior on the basis of defending academic freedom are so slow to denounce that type of intimidation of a student expressing what many felt and agree with. The fact that you do not want to hear it does not make it untrue. Way to go Becky!
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:21 made no threats. It is a fair question to pose. Patrick Dilley
ReplyDeletePatrick, Anon 9:21 tied the question of writing letters in support of a doctoral student's job applications to her opinions (and her decision to express those opinions) regarding the actions of the FA. The quality of her dissertation is unrelated to her views regarding the FA and to link the two issues as 9:21 did is a very thinly veiled threat. I agree that Becky showed considerable courage and deserves to be commended for her strength of character, and "Way to go Becky!"
ReplyDeleteP.S. Patrick, I see now that you are a faculty member. I can see no difference between the comments made by Anon 9:21 and, for example, giving extra credit to students who chose to join faculty on the picket line or grading those that chose not to do so more harshly. Either such action would clearly be unethical (in the extreme). Linking the issue of willingness to write letters of recommendation for a doctoral student to their views relating to the actions of the FA is, in my strong opinion, equally unethical. It boils down to a position of "I support the FA's actions and if you want to succeed, you had better support them as well". It is an abuse of the power that faculty inherently have over students.
ReplyDeleteThere's a fine line between friendly admonition and threat. "It's not a good idea to say that every member of the FA is a selfish whiner" can qualify as either, depending on the setting. So too could "You're better off not carrying around that sign denouncing 'scabs'."
ReplyDeleteI'd encourage those writing comments to stay clear of that line but also those reading comments not to push comments across that line.
Or Socrates Finger could be doing the equally unethical action of giving Becky extra credit for her letter.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure where that comment is coming from or if it is just a cheap shot, but I will state for the record and for the information of everyone reading this blog that I do not know Ms Robinson, I have no record of ever having taught her, I do not serve on her committee nor do I teach in her department. I have no direct interaction with her and no involvement in or influence on her education, in any way, whatsoever, beyond the fact that I am a faculty member at SIUC. Is that clear enough?
ReplyDeleteAnon (9:21)'s question accused Becky of kissing up to someone for a good recommendation.
ReplyDeleteMean and unjustified? Yes!
A threat? No!
SF: I believe that Anon 9:21pm might be able to make the same claim of being not even marginally associated with Ms. Robinson, and therefore in no position of power over her in regard to letters of rec--that she would have to personally request from her/him in any event. I read that comment as a question as--without direct power over her--it carries no weight of threat or intimidation. Dave's caution about 'line crossing' is well taken--as is your clarification. While Ms. Robinson's letter to the editor suggesting that tenure not be given to faculty who oppose the administration does not observe that line--as she is also in no position to wield that power over a P&T committee--I take her comment as just that--an opinion, not a threat.
ReplyDeleteWhy Faculty Unions Could Destroy SIU?
ReplyDeleteFaculty votes should not determine unionization, especially at research heavy universities. Why? Weak but numerically large departments with lower pay and little research will have strong incentives to unionize and guarantee benefits to seniority regardless of productivity. Untenured assistants will have incentives to make promotion easier. Poorly paid departments will want more equalization across fields. These measures will especially damage up and coming research schools where a few strong departments are surrounded by large numbers of teaching intensive departments with no incentives to reward on the basis of productivity and national prominence.
Having closely observed unionized faculty at several state universities, I believe I can safely say that rather ttan offering leadership and management, the AAUP [or equivalent] more closely resembles a horde of [rather puny] Vikings or Visigoths or Huns being led by a few very angry, confrontational midgets in bumper cars, all pursuing what all unions pursue -- more compensation for less work, easier work rules and more job security.
What's funny, though is to watch one of the midgets grab the brass ring [or get bought off with it] by gaining an administrative job and seeing all her/his former union colleagues teun on the like rabbit rats.
The writer lays out a reasonable argument why unions play a significant and successful role in so many industries - however having a union presence in his own industry would: (1) have a negative impact on pay for performance, (2) have a negative impact on the methodology of future promotions based upon seniority rather than merit, (3) have a negative impact on his and his associates guaranteed lifetime employment agreements with their employers through tenure.
ReplyDeleteI am shocked that someone who obviously is well read and articulate cannot look himself in the mirror and realize that the unions he claims to find so much value in, for all other industries - when applied to his industries, would be so destructive.
Sounds awfully elitist to me. Hey, don't worry, unions at your university won't do any more harm than they have done at GM, where you say they are needed. Let me get this straight: institutionalized inefficiencies through work rules, no merit pay, and near impossibility to fire incompenents should be tolerated among blue collar workers, no matter what the cost, because these poor souls purportedly lack bargaining position, while enlightened self sufficient professionals shall live in a Darwinist universe. And precisely where do you draw this line, among occupations, among those who need unions and those for which unions are anathema?
ReplyDeleteHave you read Ms. Robinson's letter in its entirety? It is nothing more than a rant in the spirit of Gary Metro. So tenure should only be awarded to those who support Cheng and Poshard? What next, an oath of loyalty similar to those exerted in the McCarthy era? This letter is an insult to the very spirit of university education and a clear example of the type of corporate thinking that Cheng and Poshard attempted to impose on SIUC. Ms. Robinson is already pitching for a job with the Koch Brothers.
ReplyDeleteMy wife was a tenured prof at a Canadian university until we emigrated to the US a couple years ago. Take a close look at the reality of faculty unionization in Canadian universities and you will see exactly the mediocrity that it will introduce to US universities. It's an absolutely horrible idea.
ReplyDeleteDestroy the universities? This would only be a problem if they were of value. They gave up teaching Western Civilization and took up left wing political agitation years ago. Destroying them is like slum clearance. Let's get on with it.
ReplyDeleteLet them form as many unions as they want - just never agree to be bound to negotiate with any of them.
ReplyDeleteMost letters to the SI can be safely ignored....you won't be missing much.
ReplyDeletePut your head deep into sands and the problems will go away.
ReplyDeleteI Love Union, But Not Always its leadership.
ReplyDeleteThe union leadership consists of craziest people and complain everything in our society. A poor man gets one dollar, he will be happy. While a union leader get one dollar, he would ask why you have money and he doesn't. Then he starts to against you.
Anon: 6.30. Cheng and Poshard are already far advanced in introducing mediocrity to SIUC, not unions. Had the compulsory DL and 30 days notice not been fought, SIUC would have declined even more. You were obviously not on any picket line otherwise you would have seen productive research faculty there in abundance.
ReplyDelete7:52,
ReplyDeleteIt's a total "head in the clouds" mentality to ignore DL. I don't think SIU should adapt the U. of Phoenix model, but I don't think SIU can afford to ignore it either, surely there is room for a model that works for us.
Likewise, 30 days can be all the time needed for a total fiscal meltdown of the state of Illinois. SIU unfortunately doesn't exist in a vaccum. After the 1973 fiasco do you think any administrator in their right mind wants to repeat that?
I just tire of the worst possible motives always being cast on the administration. They don't benefit from enrollment sinking or the quality of the institution failing any more that you all do. Do I think they have done much here? No way. I think Cheng and Poshard should be very closely evaluated. I don't think they've done a good job at all. However, there's plenty of evidence they aren't doing a good job without casting bad motives on them.
I have read Ms. Robinson's letter and concluded that it revealed a mindset of a person who has no clue about what a tenure is and an university is all about.
ReplyDeleteSadly, we see more and more graduated students of her "caliber" at SIU.
Anon. 7:52. Nobody is ignoring DL. The whole battle was to stop Cheng forcing it on those who had genuine disagreements. As for the 30 day clause, what about the money going on new (and even more) higher administrative appointments and the demolition of the Faner Parking lot, all of which are unneccessary and have nothing to do with real education here.
ReplyDelete4:53,
ReplyDeleteWe don't know if the new positions are creating bloat or simply reshuffling it at this point. While we could easily cut off 20% of the administration, firing ANYONE is a difficult sell in this economy. As far as the demolition of the Faner Garage, that's because the new Student Service building is going there.
I'm shocked you're not angry it took 5 years to start construction. Talk about a way we completely failed students. You seem to be more upset you're losing parking.
As far as the distance education issue, that's something that can be solved with a far better sense of discussion. What really bothers me about any attempts at shared governance at SIUC is that we've never had a real good forum for it. The FA has a purpose but it's not a shared governance unit. It's a legal bargaining unit by definition. It's OK for what it does but it will never be a body to achieve shared governance.
ReplyDeleteWhat this University needs is a new model for shared governance. SIU has never had a strong model for shared governance. Even if you study the glory days of Delyte Morris, you will find that we have never had a solid shared governance model. In his day he was the dictator and what he said, went. Now people revered him because what he did worked and worked gloriously. However, at the end with issues like the war and Stone Center, people should have seen that SIU needed to grow up and develop shared governance structures like mature universities have. We never did that. David Derge should have known that firing the 104 wasn't a good idea, but he never had the structure of people around him to talk him out of the idea. We've had the same issues pop up more or less under every Chancellor and President we've had, some of whom have been fired and some of whom have went on do to really good work elsewhere. Don Beggs and Buzz Shaw come to mind.
What this school needs is a University Senate - a place where students, faculty, staff, and alumni are together in the decision making process. We need to work as one SIU and be much more aware of the needs of our different groups. If we don't do that and we don't change the flawed structure, we are setting ourselves up to failure again and again.
Just don't tell me "SIU is going to a corporate model" of higher education. Morris had us on a corporate model all along. It has never worked for us.
What we need is major, significant structural change to the system. Otherwise all the discussions we have on blogs like this are for naught.
Lightsaber....this sounds very interesting. Can this be done thru the Senate? How did other universities "grow up"? What ways can we start?
ReplyDeleteIllinois State went though this getting a new Senate model under their very excellent President, Al Bowman. Looking at their model would be a good start, especially since they are an in-state peer.
ReplyDeleteKansas also developed a very strong University Senate model in the early 1970s. It would be another good model. A shame we don't have scholars on campus with graduate degrees in the study of higher education. Oh, wait, we do; I am one.
ReplyDeleteLightsaber, The construction of the new Student services Building was originally scheduled for the MacAndrew area until the greedy Athletics Department objected. Then it changed to the Faner Parking Lot. Now where did I ever mention being upset losing a parking space in my post? The people we should be concerned about are those who will lose out working in Faner during the summer when temperatures are high, to say nothing about disabled drivers who will need better access than the extra parking spaces allow them.. Again, SIUC administrative callousness knows no bounds!
ReplyDeleteThe decision to build the student services building in the space currently occupied by the parking garage rather than over the road in the area formally occupied by the old stadium was based on concerns about having students crossing Lincoln Drive in large numbers. That has risks and could also disrupt traffic flow. In my opinion it was a silly decision since now the foot traffic will consist of faculty and students moving to/from their cars, rather than going to the new building, so little was actually gained, but it had nothing to do with objections by the athletics department.
ReplyDeleteActually it did. That was the real reason. Everything in SIUC has to do with athlectics.
ReplyDelete8:13,
ReplyDeleteYou can't be more wrong on why the location shifted. I checked, the 2:33 comment is correct. Also, "everything in SIUC has to do with athletics" - not true. Very little of our nearly $600 million budget is concerned with it. Less than $10 million, actually. Now our some of the priorities there out of whack? Yes, but that's true of a lot of places in our University right now. However remember our student athletes graduate at a far higher clip than their non-athletic peers and have the best academic achievement records compared to their peers. Not all is wrong. Do we have some underperforming programs *cough*Lowery*cough* right now, yes. Not all is broken, however. Sometimes, we also need to lift up the good.
Actually, if you look at the FA financial breakdown of SIUC expenditure and the link concerning athletics spending going up 121% you will find that too much money (along with administrative costs) is going towards this area. In an era of financial restriction, it is all the more essential to ax athletics along with million dollar coaches such as Lowery and reallocate sources back to education. The University of Chicago does not have any sports team. I'm not saying that SIUC will ever match this superior place but dropping sports and selling off the new sports stadium to private ownership may represent a beginning.
ReplyDeleteRather like Rutgers, we've robbed academics in pursuit of athletic glory, and are failing. This ridiculous waste of money--which started before Cheng's watch, of course--is an outrage. Our spending ballooned from $10.5 to $23.2 million from 2005-6 through 2009-2010 (and this doesn't count Saluki Way). While a small proportion of our overall budget, that $12.8 million is a huge percentage of our disposable income. The furloughs last year amounted to a mere $2.6 million in comparison. 60% of the athletics budget is a subsidy from the academic side of the university; we are essentially spending $14 million a year we could be spending on academics in order to provide the Southern Illinois region with entertainment. (Details, with links to sources, in my "keeper" on athletics spending linked over on the right column.)
ReplyDeleteOur athletes do graduate at a higher rate than they are winning games, the former of which is admirable, but imagine how much we could help the rest of our students if they received something like the help our athletes do. Had we restrained spending on athletics to the rise in inflation over the last five years, there would have been no need (i.e., even less need for) furloughs, and with no furloughs it's hard to imagine labor-management relations getting so bad we needed a strike.
During negotiations with the FA, the FA bargaining team, when asked about possible disagreements about whether laying off tenured faculty would be necessary in a fiscal crisis, suggested that they would like to see athletics cut before faculty were fired. This suggestion was hardly viewed as commonsensical by the administrative side: rather, the administrative bargaining team expressed worries that cuts to sports would hurt the local economy. That's the kind of thinking we need to expose, ridicule, and rid ourselves of. Too often those running this university see it simply as an "economic engine"--not as an educational institution (that also has immense economic benefits on the region and state). If SIUC is just an economic engine, then we might as well spend money on sports & construction as on academics; after all, a job is a job.
Of course this way of thinking is absurd even if viewed simply in economic terms. Just as a company without a focus ends up bloated, inefficient, and bankrupt, so too will SIUC Co., If we continue to divert resources to provide employment in construction and entertainment for the fans--while taking resources away from our "core business" of education (even viewed, cynically, simply as a source of tuition and grant revenue).
12:49.
ReplyDeleteThe U of C most certainly does have sports teams... they are division 3.
http://athletics.uchicago.edu/
At least know what you speak of before you open your mouth.
Dave,
Look I think that cuts could be made to athletics. I just don't want to see our current student-athletes hurt over it. Many of them are relying on scholarships for access. What grates on me is that our budget is exploding while our programs are sucking out loud. That's an AD issue in my book.
Also to 12:49,
ReplyDeleteWhen the UC built the Ratner Center (which was a NEW ATHLETICS FACILITY) for a D3 team was that wasteful spending in your book? Come on people, do some research for crying out loud.
http://athletics.uchicago.edu/facilities/facilities-ratnercenter.htm
I'll also go one further and say that if Robert Maynard Hutchins was never the president of the University of Chicago that they'd be a lot like Stanford... ranked 2 or 3 in the world with really good D1 B1G athletics. He may have been the biggest failure to ever run a higher education institution. He completely frosted the UC donors and almost ended up shutting the place down at the end of his tenure. Only when adult leadership was brought in did they start to regain prominence. The key is, instead of being ranked 15-20, they'd be top 3 along with Harvard and Stanford if he never showed up.
Addendum to the last comment... I brain blanked... most places have Chicago in the Top 10 now. However that was a recent move upward. They were in the Top 20 for a long time.
ReplyDeleteWell, Lightsaber, if that is the case, then it shows sadly how the University of Chicago has deteriorated in this aspect. Sports should have no place in an academic establishment and if it does should either be sold off to private bodies or kept on a restricted budget that does not affect academic programs as Dave has mentioned. The problem about SIUC is that it regards itself as an institution primarily designed to provide entertainment (sports) to the local community. As long as Poshard and his Tammany Hall group remain, the situation will get worse. In addition to the positive comments already made about shared governance on the Illinois State model, perhaps we should move to petitions that elections be made to the Board of Trustees not political appointments by the Governor that landed us up with Poshard and his cronies in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with a lot of faculty is they think they are experts in everybodys field.these people are a mile deep and and an inch wide. God help us if they ever got any administrative power at SIU.
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly should administrators of higher education come from, then? Academics do not work for administrators, anymore than education is a business. Hutchins might have been idealistic (and perhaps a bit rigid in his construct of collegiate education), but he was an educator who articulated and administered by an educational philosophy, not a business model or strategic plan.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:45, are you implying that you prefer an "administrative class" that is far removed from the faculty? Admittedly, that is the direction current trends seem to be heading. And our current Administration has recently demonstrated an astounding "flexibility" in its understanding of what qualifies one to teach a particular subject (evidence, I think, of the exact problem you decry). But I don't think I can agree with the likely and logical outcome of your argument. Thank you, though, for demonstrating the anti-faculty, anti-academics lines of argument that have characterized too much of the recent debate, from Gary Metro to several anonymous posters here to (at times) our Chancellor and President.
ReplyDeleteOnce again JG, you prefer snide sarcasm to honest debate. If you were to twist 11:45's words any more you could make rope! S/he is correct that far to many posters opine/pontificate on subjects that they obviously know nothing about, and if you want an example on the FA supporter side, look no further than the FA's accountant general with his degree in classics (ask an actual expert what they thought of DJs farcical analysis of SIUs budget...)
ReplyDeleteSeems as if 3:32 is practicing snidery as well. Funny how any retort seems to become argument, not debate, to anonymous poster(s). Pot, meet Anonymous.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is a fair criticism. My frustrations came through more than I intended but it really seems that every time JG posts, the words are sharper than the wit.
ReplyDelete11:01 AM,
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you reappoint without the political influence though, especially in (see the root problem?) a state as hopelessly corrupt as Illinois. Trustee elections for all dues-paying members of the alumni associations of both schools? As far as getting rid of sports altogether, has it helped NEIU any? Most of the students I have talked to there want D2 athletics to come back. FWIW, I am not a fan of Poshard. I think the economic engine justification for SIU's existence is really bad. If we're the economic engine, we're one that's broken down on the side of the road with a blown engine.
Very busy day at the beginning of a super-hectic three weeks (as I am sure is true for many others as well in this trunctated semester), so I will only add to the discussion briefly. I wonder has anybody yet read the current issue of Thought & Action? There are several really good pieces in there on exactly why the idea that a college degree at SIUC is "a meal ticket" is so pernicious. Admittedly, when President Poshard said this earlier this summer, it sat funny with me but I couldn't put my finger on what was troubling me. It is the corporatization of the university, the idea that a one-size-fits-all business model not only has relevance for most of the things we do in a learning and research community but that this is the only model.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend the articles in this edition of Thought and Action.
Anon 3/4:32, your critique of sarcasm rings a little hollow. I make clear and relevant arguments against a position made with broad strokes and a fair amount of sarcasm (or just snide derision) for academics. My words are sharp, pointed even. If my words are twisted and witless, though, I note you do not take up the arguments but prefer to pass unsubstantiated judgement on my (and mine alone) tone. I don't begrudge you a similarly sharp tone, but I can't help but wish it came with a more substantive and topical rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteLets sack Lowery and Lennon and, with their enormous salaries saved, fund some scholarships for bright ACADEMIC youngsters, not ATHLETIC ones.
ReplyDeleteA university should first and foremost be an educational place, not an athletic place. I currently have a student athletic in one of my classes and he is in the bottom 20%, he wants a good grade, but doesn't want to work for it. I have had some good ones in the past, but if other students had the benefits the athletic students get, I'm sure they would do as well if not better...they wouldn't be wasting so much time in the gym, etc...they would be studying.
I second what Joe has said about the latest issue of THOUGHT AND ACTION, especially after listing to whining Glenn Poshard this morning who admitted finally that it was not "business as usual" and could not answer student complaints against substitute teachers. The sooner this failed hillbilly politico leaves this university the better. He is a real disgrace on all levels.
ReplyDelete