But anyone not brand new to this blog will know that I've become reflexively critical of new infrastructure on campus. As trustee Don Lowery rather sharply pointed out in his WSIU interview some time ago, SIUC has the infrastructure to support c. 18,000 undergraduates, though only 15,000 are on campus. So our priority is infrastructure? Paid for by student fees? As if the Woody Shuffle was due to the architectural shortcomings of Woody Hall, not to poorly functioning bureaucracy; as if that bureaucracy will automatically improve just because we've put it in a new building. We've lost hundreds (sic) of civil service positions over the last few years; would you rather go to bad old Woody with enough staff or the brand spanking new building with far too few staffers? Thanks to the state's messing with pensions, and to low campus morale, the university will face something of a mass exodus of employees in all classifications in the near future. We will soon be coming up against our contractually mandated student-Faculty ratio of 26:1 (which the administration tried to raise both during and after negotiations). The answer? New construction!
Glen Poshard emphasized construction on campus in his press conference defense of his tenure at SIU. It would be one thing had Poshard landed us new buildings paid for largely by outside money. This is the case with some new construction on campus--I believe it is the case with the new transportation facility out at the airport. But when construction is paid for out of student fees (the majority funding for Saluki Way, and the entire funding for this project), construction isn't necessarily a good thing: this is our students' money, money that could have paid for something else, or left in their pockets. But you don't get to break out the golden shovels to celebrate, say, good relations with unions; a healthy student-faculty ratio despite a difficult budgetary climate; or inspirational leadership that unifies the campus (or even the BOT) rather than dividing it. Poshard is a politician, and building projects are a staple of politicians' playbooks, creating jobs to be filled by friendly local firms, and giving you something to point to when re-election time comes around--or when people question your leadership. When the construction comes from earmarked money landed from Washington, it is hard to knock it (from a self-interested, local point of view). When it is paid for by our students it should be a harder sell.
The signs surrounding the building site feature Littman-Hearne advertising images of students and faculty engaged in research, creative activity, and the like. Not one of those signs depicts anything that will ever happen inside the building under construction. None of this $32.5 million will go toward improved classrooms, laboratories, or spaces for creative work--to mention only infrastructure projects more directly tied to our mission. It looks like our ad firm has a better understanding of our academic mission than our administration does.
Oh, come on, Dave... Once again, the money for the building could not be used to pay for salaries of staff or faculty. Student fees can't be used to pay salaries - they can only be used for the original intended purpose.
ReplyDeleteBut these were Dave's words: "None of this $32.5 million will go toward improved classrooms, laboratories, or spaces for creative work--to mention only infrastructure projects more directly tied to our mission."
DeleteDo you suppose that an aging and crumbling infrastructure could be at least part of the reason why enrollment has fallen off in recent years?
ReplyDeleteSIU does have a "new" library, a new health service, and yes, new athletics facilities. If you havent' been in Algeld for awhile, you might want to visit one of these days. Plans are in the works to renovate the Communications Building. McLafferty is to be converted into research space. SIU has plans to build new residence halls. There are plans to renovate and update classrooms over the next few years. Dave mentioned the new TEC Building. And with all the retirements, SIU will need a certain amount of "new" faculty and staff.
Sounds like a growing university to me. One that might attract more students unlike an aging institution held together with duct tape and rubber bands. One with a very broad mission of quality academics, a vibrant student life and personal growth.
Of course, the shortsighted among us will only be happy when their share of the salary dollars gets bigger. Dave, perhaps you could spearhead a drive to create a student fee that would fund faculty pay raises.
Growing in just what sense? Not enrollment, alas; if you have evidence that poor infrastructure is driving students away, that would be interesting to see. I'd also be curious to see just what elements of infrastructure matter the most, and would wager that athletic facilities and administrative buildings aren't very high on the infrastructure list. New dorms would presumably be a bigger draw--but we've got to factor in the higher student fees needed to subsidize this wave of new dorms. Of course old buildings need, eventually, to be renovated or replaced, including administrative buildings (which is what the student services and alumni services buildings are). It is, as always, a question of priorities. The classrooms I teach in haven't been updated in years; most aren't smart, and while the smart ones were smart when they got wired five years ago, most are now operating with aged computers that are all but obsolete. If we are to spend on infrastructure for students, I'd think that would be the place to spend it, rather than on a services building. With any luck, after all, students will spend rather more time in classrooms than in the financial aid office.
DeleteThe "we can't spend fees dedicated to construction on anything else" argument is the oldest fallacy in the book, and is parallel to saying "I had to spend that money on beer because I spent it on beer". I also don't recall saying that I thought my salary ought to be SIUC's #1 priority. I did however suggest that we could have had students keep that money. In fact, I rather liked the FA position that faculty salaries should go up only to the extent that SIUC's revenues rise. The problem is that SIUC is increasing the student faculty ratio. SIUC is spending less money on faculty not so much because salaries are stagnating but because faculty are leaving and not being replaced--and the losses in faculty lines are far greater, proportionately, than losses in student enrollment.
I've got nothing against "vibrant student life and personal growth", but am not sure what this new student services building for the registrar et al has to do with that.
"I'd also be curious to see just what elements of infrastructure matter the most, and would wager that athletic facilities and administrative buildings aren't very high on the infrastructure list."
DeleteAlas, when students were asked which facilities were important in their decision to attend a particular college or university, the survey's creators didn't even think to ask about administrative buildings or alumni centers.
Dave - In my department, we raised funds to update our classrooms. Why not take on some of this responsibility instead of constantly blaming the administration. You know, for the students....
Delete...and Dave; next time the position of chancellor is open...be sure to submit your vita. You seem to have all the answers.
Deleteanon: 4.59, you would probably want the faculty to empty their own garbage cans also............
DeleteSo what a big deal there? So you should not empty your garbage cans because you are in `upper class'?
DeleteHow bitchy are these last two comments, all too typical of administrative supporters. The fact is money is going in the wrong directions. Academics rather than irrelevant buildings should be the priority and the administration knows this.
ReplyDelete``The fact is money is going in the wrong directions.'' This is YOUR opinion (or some FA leader's opinion). Dave's comments are either very ignorant or trying to mislead others.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:59/6:28 implicitly identifies a set of problems that point to bigger issues on the campus.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is the department's job to raise funds to enhance facilities? My department exclusively "controls" 2-3 classrooms. We commit resources to their maintenance. But we cannot offer our full curriculum in those spaces, and so depend on the classrooms shared with other departments and located all over campus.. So no, we cannot imagine in some zero/sum way that the department should take responsibility for the upkeep of its teaching spaces. I also wonder (especially given faculty attrition) if raising money for facility maintenance and advancement should be a priority of departmental work. In addition to providing a vibrant curriculum, encouraging active research, and administering a major, departments are also expected to fundraiser for their particular facilities?
This sort of thinking also leads to the addendum: if you have ideas or criticisms, you should be chancellor. Because apparently only the chancellor makes meaningful decisions about the campus? Implicit in this charge is a "put up or shut up" model of administration that reifies on the idea that the chancellor decides what we do and we either help her or get out of the way. Expressing opinions, offering criticism, etc. are not welcome, even on an inconsequential blog. I suppose this anonymous critic might also chastise Dave to get involved in the Faculty Senate or other bodies where shared governance is enacted, but (dang it!) Dave already does those things! So instead, he must be rebuked to apply to be the leader. Neener neener!
Dismiss the criticisms of thoughtful and involved members of this community if you must. Do so from behind a wall of anonymity, even. But Dave walks his talk. He puts his name to his opinions. And he puts his shoulder to the wheel of making this institution work. He has earned the right to express these concerns and his criticism of current leadership and its priorities. You don't have to agree with him. But imagining your department is an island that solves its own problems regardless of institutional support and priorities is simplistic, naive, and ultimately a destructive attitude for the university. As is the presupposition that one person makes all the decisions that we must support in lockstep without caution, criticism, or the exploration of alternatives through legitimate means of shared governance.
A very lousy comments. As a faculty members, that we come to SIUC is not for listening to your consistent negative comments. We are tired of your attitude and the way you viewed the Admins. I use Anonymous to post since I have no interest at all to have a confrontation with you (not be afraid of you, please note). I don't want to waste my time to argue with you, one never accept different opinions.
DeleteAnon. 7:38
DeleteNo one is making you read this blog or comment here.
Why are you wasting your time even putting the comment up, if that's how you feel?
Yes, you are a paragon of avoiding conflict and negative comments, aren't you? I am reassured that you are not afraid of me, since we both agree you have nothing to be afraid of. I accept your opinions as opinions, but absent a willingness to support them with sustained and substantive arguments, I probably will have trouble ever agreeing with them.
DeleteMy point, Anon 7:38, is that you are not very persuasive when your criticism exemplifies that which you criticize: negative comments, not accepting different opinions, engaging in conflict, etc. We could, potentially, move beyond this impasse -- but that would involve engaging each other's actual positions and the arguments and evidence we use to support them, rather than reducing them to false dilemmas and straw person arguments.
If you truly care about this university and its future health, I strongly believe there are better ways to express our disagreements. Your current strategy, after all, is not protecting you from "wasting time."
I think the point is that the University is a very big place..it's a lot of things to a lot of people. Yes, academics are the main focus...but the administration of any university has to be a balancing act.
DeleteFaculty see the world from their own myopic viewpoint and, at least some of those here on Deo Volente, don't like to consider the balancing act.
I mean Dave says:
"we can't spend fees dedicated to construction on anything else" argument is the oldest fallacy in the book."
Really? It is, in fact, the reality of the situation. Fees ARE collected for specific purposes. For instance, I'd like to see someone advocate to re-direct fees earmarked for student health services to some other purpose. It'll never happen. So where does he come up the "oldest fallacy" thing? I would hope its nothing more than a lack of knowledge on his part.
The stridency in Dave's and Mr. Jonny's posts, seems out of place...even more so if they really don't, or won't, understand the reality.
This is anonymous 04:59. My point was not that departments should be responsible for all of the infrastructure that they use, only that it is possible for departments to improve the classroom condition for their students if they make it a priority. I am critical of the way that the administration spends money, but it seems that the FA crowd can never find any good in the administration. Will you be writing a positive piece about the administrations decision to renovate Pulliam Hall for faculty offices and studio space? Probably not.
DeleteI'm anon 4:59. My point was simply that departments can improve can the instructional setting for their students, if it is considered a priority. More generally, I wish this blog would also occasionally be used to give credit where credit is due. For example, the DE ran a story today about the renovation of Pulliam Hall to make space for faculty offices and studio space for Art and Design. Here, I will only expect to hear about how Dave is upset that the pool is no longer available!
DeleteYou may be right about my attitude toward Pulliam--if only because the pool is the one facility in it I (mainly my kid) use most often. With the closure of the Life Center pool, Carbondale has now lost two of its three more or less public pools. But I will withhold judgement until I've studied the details, as perhaps the pluses outweigh the negatives in this plan.
DeleteThe spending fallacy, one more time, goes like this.
It's absolutely true that once you've committed the institution toward a building project, and committed student fees toward paying for that project, that the fees so dedicated can't be diverted to something else.
The problem is when people assume that these fees were committed from the beginning of time. This fallacy is convenient when one wants to defend a decision in a slovenly manner, but it remains a fallacy. We cannot *any longer* divert money we've contracted to spend on the new Student Services Building. But we didn't have to build that structure in the first place.
We can agree or disagree about whether the building is a good idea, or a high priority. All I'm saying, right here, is that too often people make the logically sloppy argument that because we are now committed to building structure X, we never had any option to do otherwise. That portion of student fees going toward the new student building *could have* been spent on anything else--most obviously, it could have been left to our students to spend as they see fit. This is logic 101, or perhaps logic 1.
Some of our decisions to spend money, including on buildings, have been wise, some not. Many such decisions, once made, cannot be altered, but that doesn't mean that discussing them is useless. After all, once I'm chancellor, and Dr. Gray is head of the board of trustees, we'll have learned from all these mistakes, educated all stakeholders as to the one True Path to unbounded excellence, and will provide the error-free & enlightened leadership that will embark this here institution on a bright, shiny golden age--an age so bright and shiny that we won't need to fly banners, as there will be happy photogenic students and faculty at every corner, test tubes and drumsticks in hand.
Dave, could you please appoint a provost who had experience as a department chair and dean? And not give "updates" at meetings that eat up the entire meeting time? And perhaps ask student services to base their services to students in theory and/or "best practices?" Many thanks.
DeleteSIUC problem solver:
ReplyDeleteAppoint:
SIU President: Randy Hughes
SIU Chancellor: Dave Johnson
SIU Provost: Jonny Gray.
Faculty senate is replaced by FA.
Then a bright future will be ahead???
You forgot to end with "Neener neener!" Or the digital equivalent of a raspberry?
DeleteAvoiding Godwin's Law, I'll attribute your tactic here to Karl Rove: Repeat a lie until it is "true." It's so much easier than substantively challenging the rebuttal offered above to this trendy "argument."
anon: 4.59, you would probably want the faculty to empty their own garbage cans also............
ReplyDeleteSo, what a big deal there? You can not empty your own garbage because you are in ``upper class''?
DeleteDave Johnson ``After all, once I'm chancellor, and Dr. Gray is head of the board of trustees,'' then, simple, on the day one, the university will be broken and everyone will lose their jobs.
ReplyDeleteWell I like magic Johnson(NBA) more than midget Johnson (SIU).
DeleteDoes anonymity rob one of one's sense of humor?
DeleteThese negative and sniping comments are so typical of those who slavishly support the administration. Dave and Dr. Gray are trying to initiate an informed debate on this subject and have instead received a barrage of disdainful comments from the "My administration, right or wrong" and the "Love it or leave it" brigade. With this attitude, you will continue to get the administration you deserve, one that treats research with contempt by closing down McLafferty rather than waiting for the summer break to begin the book transfer.
ReplyDeleteI've been critical of Dave's and Jonny's comments on this thread, but don't subscribe to either of the perspectives you describe. It seems that you are trying to describe a group of people that you simply don't understand.
DeleteAnonymous 4/20 12:39 PM,
DeleteYou may not be someone who subscribes to those perspectives. There are comments in this thread (e.g. Apr 18, 2012 06:51 AM; Apr 19, 2012 04:59 AM; Apr 19, 2012 08:33 AM; and Apr 19, 2012 03:30 PM) that are critical of Dave and Jonny's comments something to say about the topic of the student services building or university funding. Maybe you wrote one of them.
It's hard to find those critical comments when they are surrounded by the, "Stop your whining, especially you, Dave and Mr. Jonny" comments (Apr 19, 2012 06:45 AM; Apr 19, 2012 07:38 AM) and the, "You're not the Chancellor, know your place and don't question it" comments (Apr 19, 2012 06:28 AM; Apr 19, 2012 07:59 AM; Apr 19, 2012 08:59 PM; Apr 20, 2012 06:00 AM). What are Tony and I misunderstanding from that barrage?
Your listed comments do not support your conclusion. Your statements are more like Mr. Jonny saying:''Repeat a lie until it is "true." This is exact what Dave has done.
DeleteMy goodness....this is a blog...if someone can't tolerate differences of opinion and the occasional personal attack...they probably shouldn't be here. Oh wait....
DeleteAnonymous 1:44 PM:
DeletePlease explain it to me. What is the the intent of the listed comments? What am I misunderstanding?
Anonymous 1:50:
DeleteDifferences of opinion are one thing. Troll attacks are another.
If the comments aren't intended to silence anyone critical of the administration, what are their intent?
I'm seriously asking these question. They are not a rhetorical questions.
btw, What's the intent of the "Mr. Jonny" tag, cause it sure seems like faux 'respect' as he has both a name and a professional title that would signal something more genuine in either the familiar or the formal. While I don't generally share "paranoid's" sentiments, his query above seems spot-on
DeleteMy original response to Tony's post only meant that one can be critical of Dave or Jonny without being pro-administration. It is very common here for dissenters to be referred to as pro-administration even though it is not justified based on the content of the post.
Deleteparanoid: ``Differences of opinion are one thing. Troll attacks are another.'' But why there are so many troll attacks on Admins posted here and you are either to join in or to keep silence? In a word, to attack Admins (I am a faculty member) is acceptable but not those who share the same view as Dave (or Jonny)? Is this fair??????????????????
DeleteLeaders of mafia does not talk about fairness in this way.
DeleteAnonymous 4:58:
DeleteThank you for the clarification of your intent. I understand that you cannot speak for other anons to explain why they are choosing to repeatedly make comments that are unrelated to the content of a thread.
Anon. 1:44, 1:50, 5:17, and 5:38:
The closest thing to an answer to my questions that I've seen is, "Two wrongs make a right." As Regis Philbin and Meredith Vieira would say, "Is that your final answer?" If you have a better explanation, other than that my assessment is true and that you're going to keep doing it until you break up the "mafia," please share it.
While you're at it, Anon. 5:17, could you let me know when I've launched personal attacks against the university administration here? I certainly have attacked their decisions and even accused them of dishonesty or bad intent, but I also have made an effort to explain why I believe what I believe about them. My explanation gives them or you the opportunity to respond cogently in their defense or even for them to explain why I'm off base, anonymously if y'all would like.
With a statement like Anon. 5:38 PM's "mafia" claim (which up until now I have kept silent about, even though it has been repeated in this blog several times), a cogent response is hard to make. What do you mean by mafia? Are people getting killed and dumped into Cedar Lake? Have there been threats to your family if you don't join? Is the FA protecting people who the university authorities should be protecting but aren't? Heck, depending on your definition of "mafia," I might even agree with you.
Jonny (below),
I'd rather listen to a radio playing something I don't like than listen to static. The signal to noise ratio is low enough that I have a hard time ignoring the noise anymore.
One way to recognize trolls, in addition to their halitosis, is via their propensity to personal attack; many of them also seem to lack names as well. Humor is not their forte. Arguments can however be slovenly (with all due respect to our late President, below)--trust me, I've made some, and while saying so is a bit harsh, I've countered what I regard as an absolutely fallacious argument ("we decided to spend it on x so we had to spend it on x") so many times that I'm suffering from a bit of savage indignation on that score.
DeleteI'm happy to engage with arguments that counter mine. There have been a helluva lot of comments in this thread; I don't believe that any of them has directly addressed my central claim: that in the current budgetary climate spending $32.5 million on a new building to replace Woody Hall is a poor idea. Surely there are some arguments to be made in favor of this specific construction program: it would be interesting to hear them. There have been some reasonable arguments counter to the spirit of my original post (defending other construction on campus, for example). But nothing specifically on topic. That, perhaps, is another troll indicator: poor aim.
A bit of bite or snark is what one should expect from a blog, I think, and blog comments. But 200 proof bile is bit much. The only rational goal behind such comments is to make reading (and writing) the blog, or at least the comments, such a vile experience that no one will want to do so. The tactic of spewing venom in order to shut down more substantive speech strikes me, as, well, less than admirable.
Paranoid, yes, I prefer substance to static. But this channel is not HD and there is no button to squelch the static. I prefer to remind the pops and wheezes that they are only so much noise. I like your tactic of addressing them head on. But I don't operate under the illusion that either tactic will make them go away or stop what they are doing.
DeleteI would like to also point out that my criticism is for the Administration's choices and policies. You will note that I aim these criticisms at Chancellor Cheng and President Poshard and sometimes others. I do not call them names or presume to address them here by their first names. I respect the offices and the people that currently occupy them. But I do not always agree with their decisions and policies, and I believe it is important to have fora (formal and informal) to express that disagreement.
Heeding Dave's observation that we have said precious little of substance about the original post (guilty as charged, sorta), I'll take this opportunity to do what I rarely do on this blog and put on my Sustainability hat. Our conversation here has reduced the issue to expensive new construction vs. faculty salaries. This was NEVER Dave's point and bespeaks a common strategy of the Administration (at least before and during the strike) and those sympathetic with the Administration to identify the motivation for faculty criticism as personal greed. I do not dispute the value of construction. I do question the priorities in our new construction projects as well as how they are accomplished. I have questioned by more formal channels the decision to do these projects with vague and ultimately unverifiable claims that they are LEED compliant just not LEED certified. This follows a trend of new construction that prioritizes getting the buildings up fast and as cheaply as possible with no real attention to their longevity or cost of operation, including how to maximize their efficiency. We prefer the surface appearance of (fake) gold plating on our ceremonial shovels to a deeper core commitment to value. I also note that were the student service building funded primarily by state funds it would be legally required to be at least LEED Silver; because it is funded primarily by student fees, it escapes this requirement -- a loop hole we are taking full advantage of.
Now please note: This criticism is not an ad hominem attack on our Administrators. It is a legitimate concern about campus priorities. I do not make it because I want more money; I make it because I invest considerable time, energy, and heart into the sustainable future of this institution. As a founding member and current chair of the Sustainability Council, it is also a criticism I have made by more formal routes. That is, I too have put my shoulder to the wheel of shared governance and tried very hard by legitimate and formal means to participate in crafting the shared vision of our university's future.
From this perspective, I would like to close by responding to one of the more substantive Anon criticisms above. Faculty are not always "myopic" about the concerns of the university, nor are administrators always magically "balanced." It is all too clear that administrators can be myopic, that their policies can shift priorities out of balance. When that happens, it is important for the community at large to register complaint by formal and informal means. Others reading this blog may see no reason for concern in our current policies and choices re: new construction. By all means, defend your views here. But when responding to others' criticism, try to respond to the arguments they are actually making.
Or, you know, you can just pop and wheeze.
If I read another post on here that contains the words "slovenly" or "slavishly" there's gonna be hell to pay.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I read "Mr. Jonny" on here I hear the sweet way young children in Louisiana would address me when I was in graduate school in Baton Rouge. I take no offense. If the user intends it to be insulting, I hear it another way. Aw, ain't you sweet.
ReplyDeleteThe comments here weigh in on a frequent topic of this blog: the manifest priorities of our university. Guess what? We all have opinions on that. It's something we have in common. Even within the ratio of signal to noise, we are all weighing in on that basic concern. I prefer the more substantive positions, even (especially?) when expressed with snark. The shorter barbs merely indicate (to me anyway) that folks who have nothing very meaningful to offer are at least (obsessively?) reading the rest of us.
The observation cast so often that this blog or the comments therein are a "waste of time" is less a criticism than a confession of conflicted values. Wasting time is a choice you make; you may be making it now. By all means, waste a little more to tell us.
For Dave's group, the nature of its work is to attempt to mould and push its social character, its mode of thinking and acting. But at least I don't see this is a public opinion across our campus. They enter the realm of politics and use interests against interests. Solidarity now becomes messy from the posts I have seen here.
ReplyDelete