Yesterday,
I learned that our BOV (Board of Visitors) decided to unanimously reinstate our President, Teresa Sullivan. After just a short deliberation, around an hour or so, all members decided Sullivan should come back. I wasn't inside the board meeting, but more than one source cited that Helen Dragas, the leading member behind Sullivan's forced ousting, announced that she changed her mind before the Board voted. Amazingly, all members then followed in her footsteps. What really amazes me though, is the fact that the Board overwhelming voted 12-1 to place an interim president at the helm until the Board could decide on a new full time president to take Sullivan's place. Though, at least it was wise on the Board's part to allow the one dissenter the first go around, Heywood Fralin, to introduce the Board's final resolution this time. Why is the Board so flippant? One minute the Board follows Dragas to oust Sullivan and the next, it follows her right back into reinstating Sullivan. This is why, along with the majority opinion of the faculty, I believe we need a Board with a diverse group of people, along with faculty members. It sounds like the current Board doesn't know what is actually going on inside our school, though that's not really a huge surprise, and it needs people who can give it some insight into the goings on at UVA - especially the unforeseen or far reaching consequences of rash decisions that affect education.
Another thing I find annoying with Dragas is that she went on in her statement yesterday to assert: "I believe real progress is more possible than ever now, because there's absolutely no denying that all of the wonderful people who make up this community are as awake and egaged as ever," she said. "It is unfortunate that we had to have a near-death experience to get here, but the University should not waste the enormous opportunity at hand." (C-Ville)
Firstly, we people of the community "are awake and engaged as ever," true, but I doubt Dragas was counting on us to be so when she first tried to oust Sullivan. Dragas has to concede that we are those things because we forced the Board time and time again to come clean about its' beef with Sullivan but it continued to side skirt the issue, using formal statements crafted by PR firms instead. Now maybe Dragas has come to realize that she is dealing with an informed community of individuals who want answers. Bringing the irony home, the very people Dragas and the Board initially hired, such as say faculty members, are the ones who demanded clarity at the ousting of Sullivan. You should have realized Dragas, that when you hire exceptional faculty, they are probably going to be intelligent individuals who can tell when something underhanded is going down. You didn't think you could just make us accept the ousting of our President without any real explanation did you? Apparently, she couldn't.
Secondly, this idea that "we," the collective "we," "had to have a near-death experience to get here," is not quite putting the blame on oneself. Yes, we the community may have had something like a "near-death experience," but that was easily avoidable if Dragas had engaged Sullivan in an open dialogue in the first place. Nevertheless, Dragas did do what was right for our school. She swallowed her pride, or maybe fought her donor temptations, and reinstated Sullivan. We still don't know what made the Board change its' mind, the discretion continues, but the important thing is that it did.
During the last two weeks, I lost significant faith in higher education. I felt like "the man," was sticking it to me, my university community, and to education, entrusting the University's future to Board members who don't really even know the University, instead of a President whose passion is education and our University. In fact, Sullivan told sources that she would not return unless Dragas resigned. Yet, when Sullivan was reinstated yesterday, she said she would work with Dragas and the Board to work out the initial "philosophical differences" between the two, and those challenges the University faces in the 21st century. That there to me, is the mark of a passionate educator. One who returns regardless of the climate because he or she is so enthusiastic about his/her university and cares more about that than differences with some of the people.
I have more respect for the Board because it acted to do the right thing but I still have a bitter taste in my mouth about this whole affair and that the Board acted under Dragas' will without really expressing its' own member by member. Nevertheless, Sullivan is back because this time our community with its "mob mentality," in the words of the great Dragas herself, got to stick it to "the man," just a little bit.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Now what?
Since June 8th, there has been great turmoil at my university, the University of Virginia. My president, President Terry Sullivan, was forced to resign at the behest of a couple of board members, namely Helen Dragas, a real-estate agent. I should give her a little credit here though, she did attend UVA's Darden school.
I'm angry though, along with a lot of others, because the Board did not give us, the students, or the faculty, staff, and community, adequate reasons why they wanted Terry out. Dragas sent us a lot of oblique and formal e-mails about how the Board had to make tough decisions in a time of changing higher education. She repeatedly expressed the need for a "bold leader," in her e-mails to us and the "strategic challenges," the University faces in the 21st century, emphasizing the fact that rapid changes need to be made to compete in higher education. Okay, I will agree that among other issues, our University is state and privately funded and this among other challenges presents a very real concern for the school. We rely mainly on big donations from wealthy donors and it's just the reality of the situation because state funding has gone down in recent years for public education. This leaves us in a vulnerable position because we do need these donations to stay competitive. Yet, President Sullivan knows this and has been working diligently to come up with solutions. In her statement to the Board, post-decision regarding fundraising, she said:
"Fundraising during my tenure has been rebounding from the effects of the recession and the presidential transition. Since I came on board in 2010, philanthropic cash flow has increased by 15.6%. New campaign commitments to date averaged $17.1 million per month in FY 2010 and averaged $24.6 million through April 30th of FY 2012. A number you may not know yet is that we raised $44 million from our Reunions classes at Reunions Weekend."
These are just a couple of Sullivan's actions geared towards solving our financial woes. I don't pretend to know the logistics of all of her financial plans, but according every faculty and staff member who I have heard voice their opinions, she has been anything but lazy in improving our financial state.
But, what the Board didn't like is the fact that Sullivan chose to address the concerns of our University in the 21st century with incremental changes. Those that well, take more time, but usually end up more effectively solving the problems at hand. The Board however, wants to make sweeping changes now so that I guess the University can live up to the Board's vision of a flashy, top-of-the-line school, that can compete with Harvard or Stanford or what have you, but here I have to agree with Sullivan. These types of rash changes most likely have unintended consequences whereas with incremental changes, no there is no quick fix visible to the naked eye, but these changes work more behind the scenes making the University better in the long run. Let's take for example the liberal arts. I am an English major and proud of it but do you think the general consensus on the board is that the school should increase funding for say history, english, or philosophy? I highly doubt it. Yet, by cutting funding in these areas, we not only lose the capability to be a well-rounded university, but these areas are necessary in the greater world. You can't tell me that every single business out there needs a writer of some sort to promote its business or a historian to keep us learning about the past and what has put our civilization where it is today. I also think that UVA should stand on its own. I don't want to to compete with Harvard or Stanford in a look-alike contest. Sure we need to have faculty, resources, education etc. to be as good but we should not aim to be alike in every way.
Here is another problem. The Board of Visitors, or BOV, do not have any faculty members on the board, you know the ones that actually know UVA and work on its grounds on a day-to-day basis, interacting with students. That is only one of the problems that is being voiced in the last couple of weeks, though arguably from the side of the University community and faculty members, my professors, and not the BOV.
Another issue I find I am very much against is greatly increasing on-line courses. I cringe a little every time I think of the idea. No offense to the University of Phoenix, (it was not me who first labeled you a "cash cow"), but I hate the idea of my University becoming a cash cow while sacrificing the important element of professor-student relationships and interactions in the classroom, the real classroom, not the virtual one. True, UVA has some on-line degree programs for students wanting to enhance their degrees or finish a degree and UVA should offer some on-line courses while increasing revenue - to stay competitive. But over the last few days, many professors criticized the Board for their lack of research in this area especially when it comes to constrasting us to the: "bold experimentation and advances by the distinguished likes of Stanford, Harvard, and MIT [who] have brought online learning into the mainstream, virtually overnight," in the words of Dragas herself. Wait, according to faculty, these were only experimental programs, as in, not actually drawing revenue yet. Apparently, these classes aren't for credit but for a school like Stanford, there is a "statement of accomplishment," according to Stanford University News. This is not to say Stanford won't actually implement more on-line classes in the future, but for now, it seems that the idea is more in the experimental rather than implementing phase. Now Board, I found that by googling. One of the best ways to form an argument is to have research, that which leads to "evidence," as some might call it, to back the argument up. I would expect that Board to at least be aware of this fact when ousting a University president after only two years. Again, NOPE.
Lastly, I believe that in a real classroom setting, I am challenged by the very presence of a good professor. I am challenged by the presence and words of my peers, and every time I receive a grade I dislike, I challenge myself to rise to the professor's expectations. I am able to gauge what the professor expects not only through the grades I receive but by how he/she runs the class - visually. I also participate in class discussions which help my learning tremendously. Yes, there may be on-line discussion boards that accompany on-line classes, like those of Stanford's, but these discussion boards are at best supplemental to an in-classroom course. Cyber space cannot replace human interaction and now matter how many tell me the countless reasons and perks of on-line courses, I cannot be convinced.
Further, oh and here is the ultimate irony. Because we focused so much on irony in my in-class English course, I feel I am now an educated discerner and detector of irony at work. Many of you out there may or may not know about the Honor code. Schools around the nation from kindergarten all the way through grad school, even in the workplace, have some sort of honor code. Well, UVA is particularly stringent in what it calls its' Honor System, as one learns upon induction into the school. All of us students have to sign a pledge that we will follow the System throughout our four-year stay. For example, if one so much as copies a single paragraph from a published source, that student is immediately expelled. There are rare exceptions to this rule if any. We are a school built on "honor and integrity," as spelled out in the Honor Committee's mission statement for 2011-2012 school year. The Honor Committee seeks to uphold our "Community of Trust." So these now loaded words, "honor," "integrity," and "trust," are extremely important to the University community. Then, why would the BOV conceal the real reasons behind President Sullivan's forced resignation? Why give us formal reasons, (no doubt the doing of PR firms), that don't really explain clearly where Sullivan went wrong if she even did so. We can guess and speculate with the wording given us but after repeated demands for a clearer explanation, the Board remains firm. I can guess pretty accurately for example that the Board wants immediate changes contrary to Sullivan's belief in incremental change. What happened to our Community of Trust though? Furthermore, the BOV did not even engage in an open dialogue with Sullivan before deciding that she was no good. It seems that the Board is severely lacking in professionalism when it cannot even discuss with our President the problems it has with her decisions, instead working with her first, and then deciding if she really cannot continue as President once given the chance to work with the Board. Yikes, what kind of Board is making decisions for my school?
Now I hate to go here, but often when someone or a group of people will not disclose reasons for doing something or making a decision it is more often than not because of an outside influence that wields a lot of power. I don't want to believe Dragas was acting for a big time donor like let's say, UVA grad Paul Tudor Jones, none other than a Hedge Fund manager who: "is already well known for pledging $35 million to build a UVA basketball arena in his father's name, [and] had a key role in removing the president," according to the Hook, a weekly Charlottesville newspaper. Sources say he apparently was already aware of the ousting to come before the entire Board was aware. So this might be a case of a wealthy donor, whom the University relies on for its' funding, seeking to run the University as he sees fit at the risk of losing a very accomplished and knowledgeable educator like Sullivan? When did it become okay for business men or women to run a university in the place of educators? If the fate of education lies in the hands of big business, I am sorely disappointed. I want my education to be in the hands of people who know and love it backwards and forwards. Not big CEO's and hedge fund managers who don't deal in education straight on, on a daily basis.
Here's a bright spot though. The Board meets this Tuesday to consider Sullivan's reinstatement after the public outrage and anger with her forced resignation. No Board, in fact, we were not going to take this decision lying down. In fact, if any of you reside in Charlottesville, there is a standing silent vigil in support of Sullivan on the steps of the Rotunda at 2:30 pm right before the Board convenes there for its' meeting.
Frankly, I want an educator like Sullivan at the helm of my University.
I'm angry though, along with a lot of others, because the Board did not give us, the students, or the faculty, staff, and community, adequate reasons why they wanted Terry out. Dragas sent us a lot of oblique and formal e-mails about how the Board had to make tough decisions in a time of changing higher education. She repeatedly expressed the need for a "bold leader," in her e-mails to us and the "strategic challenges," the University faces in the 21st century, emphasizing the fact that rapid changes need to be made to compete in higher education. Okay, I will agree that among other issues, our University is state and privately funded and this among other challenges presents a very real concern for the school. We rely mainly on big donations from wealthy donors and it's just the reality of the situation because state funding has gone down in recent years for public education. This leaves us in a vulnerable position because we do need these donations to stay competitive. Yet, President Sullivan knows this and has been working diligently to come up with solutions. In her statement to the Board, post-decision regarding fundraising, she said:
"Fundraising during my tenure has been rebounding from the effects of the recession and the presidential transition. Since I came on board in 2010, philanthropic cash flow has increased by 15.6%. New campaign commitments to date averaged $17.1 million per month in FY 2010 and averaged $24.6 million through April 30th of FY 2012. A number you may not know yet is that we raised $44 million from our Reunions classes at Reunions Weekend."
These are just a couple of Sullivan's actions geared towards solving our financial woes. I don't pretend to know the logistics of all of her financial plans, but according every faculty and staff member who I have heard voice their opinions, she has been anything but lazy in improving our financial state.
But, what the Board didn't like is the fact that Sullivan chose to address the concerns of our University in the 21st century with incremental changes. Those that well, take more time, but usually end up more effectively solving the problems at hand. The Board however, wants to make sweeping changes now so that I guess the University can live up to the Board's vision of a flashy, top-of-the-line school, that can compete with Harvard or Stanford or what have you, but here I have to agree with Sullivan. These types of rash changes most likely have unintended consequences whereas with incremental changes, no there is no quick fix visible to the naked eye, but these changes work more behind the scenes making the University better in the long run. Let's take for example the liberal arts. I am an English major and proud of it but do you think the general consensus on the board is that the school should increase funding for say history, english, or philosophy? I highly doubt it. Yet, by cutting funding in these areas, we not only lose the capability to be a well-rounded university, but these areas are necessary in the greater world. You can't tell me that every single business out there needs a writer of some sort to promote its business or a historian to keep us learning about the past and what has put our civilization where it is today. I also think that UVA should stand on its own. I don't want to to compete with Harvard or Stanford in a look-alike contest. Sure we need to have faculty, resources, education etc. to be as good but we should not aim to be alike in every way.
Here is another problem. The Board of Visitors, or BOV, do not have any faculty members on the board, you know the ones that actually know UVA and work on its grounds on a day-to-day basis, interacting with students. That is only one of the problems that is being voiced in the last couple of weeks, though arguably from the side of the University community and faculty members, my professors, and not the BOV.
Another issue I find I am very much against is greatly increasing on-line courses. I cringe a little every time I think of the idea. No offense to the University of Phoenix, (it was not me who first labeled you a "cash cow"), but I hate the idea of my University becoming a cash cow while sacrificing the important element of professor-student relationships and interactions in the classroom, the real classroom, not the virtual one. True, UVA has some on-line degree programs for students wanting to enhance their degrees or finish a degree and UVA should offer some on-line courses while increasing revenue - to stay competitive. But over the last few days, many professors criticized the Board for their lack of research in this area especially when it comes to constrasting us to the: "bold experimentation and advances by the distinguished likes of Stanford, Harvard, and MIT [who] have brought online learning into the mainstream, virtually overnight," in the words of Dragas herself. Wait, according to faculty, these were only experimental programs, as in, not actually drawing revenue yet. Apparently, these classes aren't for credit but for a school like Stanford, there is a "statement of accomplishment," according to Stanford University News. This is not to say Stanford won't actually implement more on-line classes in the future, but for now, it seems that the idea is more in the experimental rather than implementing phase. Now Board, I found that by googling. One of the best ways to form an argument is to have research, that which leads to "evidence," as some might call it, to back the argument up. I would expect that Board to at least be aware of this fact when ousting a University president after only two years. Again, NOPE.
Lastly, I believe that in a real classroom setting, I am challenged by the very presence of a good professor. I am challenged by the presence and words of my peers, and every time I receive a grade I dislike, I challenge myself to rise to the professor's expectations. I am able to gauge what the professor expects not only through the grades I receive but by how he/she runs the class - visually. I also participate in class discussions which help my learning tremendously. Yes, there may be on-line discussion boards that accompany on-line classes, like those of Stanford's, but these discussion boards are at best supplemental to an in-classroom course. Cyber space cannot replace human interaction and now matter how many tell me the countless reasons and perks of on-line courses, I cannot be convinced.
Further, oh and here is the ultimate irony. Because we focused so much on irony in my in-class English course, I feel I am now an educated discerner and detector of irony at work. Many of you out there may or may not know about the Honor code. Schools around the nation from kindergarten all the way through grad school, even in the workplace, have some sort of honor code. Well, UVA is particularly stringent in what it calls its' Honor System, as one learns upon induction into the school. All of us students have to sign a pledge that we will follow the System throughout our four-year stay. For example, if one so much as copies a single paragraph from a published source, that student is immediately expelled. There are rare exceptions to this rule if any. We are a school built on "honor and integrity," as spelled out in the Honor Committee's mission statement for 2011-2012 school year. The Honor Committee seeks to uphold our "Community of Trust." So these now loaded words, "honor," "integrity," and "trust," are extremely important to the University community. Then, why would the BOV conceal the real reasons behind President Sullivan's forced resignation? Why give us formal reasons, (no doubt the doing of PR firms), that don't really explain clearly where Sullivan went wrong if she even did so. We can guess and speculate with the wording given us but after repeated demands for a clearer explanation, the Board remains firm. I can guess pretty accurately for example that the Board wants immediate changes contrary to Sullivan's belief in incremental change. What happened to our Community of Trust though? Furthermore, the BOV did not even engage in an open dialogue with Sullivan before deciding that she was no good. It seems that the Board is severely lacking in professionalism when it cannot even discuss with our President the problems it has with her decisions, instead working with her first, and then deciding if she really cannot continue as President once given the chance to work with the Board. Yikes, what kind of Board is making decisions for my school?
Now I hate to go here, but often when someone or a group of people will not disclose reasons for doing something or making a decision it is more often than not because of an outside influence that wields a lot of power. I don't want to believe Dragas was acting for a big time donor like let's say, UVA grad Paul Tudor Jones, none other than a Hedge Fund manager who: "is already well known for pledging $35 million to build a UVA basketball arena in his father's name, [and] had a key role in removing the president," according to the Hook, a weekly Charlottesville newspaper. Sources say he apparently was already aware of the ousting to come before the entire Board was aware. So this might be a case of a wealthy donor, whom the University relies on for its' funding, seeking to run the University as he sees fit at the risk of losing a very accomplished and knowledgeable educator like Sullivan? When did it become okay for business men or women to run a university in the place of educators? If the fate of education lies in the hands of big business, I am sorely disappointed. I want my education to be in the hands of people who know and love it backwards and forwards. Not big CEO's and hedge fund managers who don't deal in education straight on, on a daily basis.
Here's a bright spot though. The Board meets this Tuesday to consider Sullivan's reinstatement after the public outrage and anger with her forced resignation. No Board, in fact, we were not going to take this decision lying down. In fact, if any of you reside in Charlottesville, there is a standing silent vigil in support of Sullivan on the steps of the Rotunda at 2:30 pm right before the Board convenes there for its' meeting.
Frankly, I want an educator like Sullivan at the helm of my University.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
So here's day one of the blogging experience.
I figured I'd start a blog at the recommendation of five or so people when I said I liked writing so much. It's summer, I'm currently taking a much needed break from my studies, and what better time to start. My one big skeptical recurring thought was: "What if what I write isn't interesting?" After all, what if my blog doesn't wet the appetites of readers or peak their interests? Everyone assumes that what they themselves have to say is entirely unique and original. Maybe it is...or maybe not.
Therefore, my solution is just to write. What I feel like, when I feel like it and who knows? I may come up with one or two interesting inserts that do catch the attention of a couple of people. If not, I'll write just to write. So here's to all of you out there who are bloggers yourselves, interested parties or simply whiling away your summer and are in need of a little entertainment. As the title of my blog suggests, I plan to compile a little bit of this and a little bit of that as it strikes my fancy. Here goes.
Happy summer.
I figured I'd start a blog at the recommendation of five or so people when I said I liked writing so much. It's summer, I'm currently taking a much needed break from my studies, and what better time to start. My one big skeptical recurring thought was: "What if what I write isn't interesting?" After all, what if my blog doesn't wet the appetites of readers or peak their interests? Everyone assumes that what they themselves have to say is entirely unique and original. Maybe it is...or maybe not.
Therefore, my solution is just to write. What I feel like, when I feel like it and who knows? I may come up with one or two interesting inserts that do catch the attention of a couple of people. If not, I'll write just to write. So here's to all of you out there who are bloggers yourselves, interested parties or simply whiling away your summer and are in need of a little entertainment. As the title of my blog suggests, I plan to compile a little bit of this and a little bit of that as it strikes my fancy. Here goes.
Happy summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)