Professors with pitchforks
at Case:
The faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences today approved a resolution of no-confidence against Case Western Reserve University President Edward Hundert. The vote was 131 to 44 against the president.By a narrower margin, 97 to 68, the faculty also approved a no-confidence resolution against Provost John Anderson.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt; as staff, I can't vote. If anything, I'd like to see Hundert stay on to enjoy the ride. And my shlub employee attitude is: just fix it so we have more money, so I can get paid more, and spend more money on Cool Music Materials...and oh yeah, having 4x as much space in the music library would be nice. But there are a few points crying to be made:
Ed Hundert is a lot like George W. Bush. They both have a grasp of the big picture in their jobs (the war against Islamofascism, and building the university, respectively) and are willing to reach audaciously for big goals. But neither seems particularly sensitive to risk or suffering along the way, or sweating the ethical small stuff.
And this administration made two major mistakes in the past several years. The first was the rebranding campaign. It was the right idea at the wrong time; they should waited until all the WRU alumns were dead. They didn't, and some donors got pissed. It was probably inevitable that the CIT Borg would assimilate WRU; Case is a fine liberal arts school, but a GREAT tech school. But people get sentimental. Couldn't anyone at Weatherhead stand up and say, "Uh...New Coke?" On a positive note, the rebranding ended for all time the pronunciation of CWRU as "Crew", as in "CWRUnet" or "The CWRUtones". You just can't do that without violating the rules of English phonetics. I don't even think you can do it in Welsh, where at least w is a vowel. That would be something like "kuru", which is a fatal brain virus spread by cannibalism - not the image of intellectual accomplishment that you want to leave people with.
The other mistake was engaging in partisan politics with the hosting of the 2004 Vice-Presidential debate. Yes, it was successful in raising the public image of Case; we can see that in the increased enrollment. That MAY have been worth the hideous expense, and the shutting-down of the University's prime function for 2 days. But was it entirely positive publicity? Consider: the purpose of a university is to teach independent thought, free inquiry, and all those other good core liberal values of Western civilization. So, how did it comport with the school's mission to host a debate on the condition that 60% of all qualified candidates (i.e., those on enough ballots to theoretically win in the Electoral College) -- and the 60% who actually had ideas -- were censored? This was blatent partisan pandering (BIpartisan is not NONpartisan), and it's not like it got us more NIH grants or something. What this told the public, at least the parts of the public willing to think about it, was that Case is the sort of place where only approved ideas can be discussed. If the object was to sell Case as a cool place, well, Official Ideas aren't cool. The argument could be made that the bid was going to go to somebody, so Case might as well reap the benefit. That's a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. "Somebody had to guard the concentration camps, and I needed a job" didn't fly either. If ethics are no consideration, well, Biswanath Halder probably did a lot for Case's name recognition too; does this mean that every several years we should hire a hit man to play shoot-em-up in a campus building? NO college should have played the Bipartisan Debate Commission's game, and if any had, they should have been drummed out of the ranks of respected universities, being regarded as mere diploma mills.
If Case had wanted to be Cool, here's what they could have done: the day before the debate, announce that they were not allowing use of facilities unless ALL candidates were included (they were in town anyway for the alternative debate at Baldwin-Wallace). This would have been THE story, trumping the debates themselves (IF they continued...and given how persnickety they were about venue, chances are that they would either accept Case's terms, or cancel the debate). Case would instantly have a reputation for valuing free inquiry; Hundert would be on every TV with a pithy and pious sound bite about free speech. Yes, there'd be downsides: they'd be in breach of contract, probably out some money, open to fiscal punishment by the Duopoly.I'm sure the Case beancounters have ways to cost risk vs. benefit here. B-W would have lost out, but they hadn't done any building remodeling. There'd just be use of the theater for one night. If they hired extra security, it was invisible, and it was probably not considered necessary (though perhaps someone should have shot my man Richard Campagna for Incompetence Damaging to the Cause).
Who knows, we might even have made history, by changing the course of the election. We would certainly have made a lot more news.
Comments
Posted by: Wyn
Posted on: March 3, 2006 11:27 AM
*sigh*
I've seen votes of no confidence before... they highlight dissension in the ranks, but ultimately don't amount to a hill of beans unless the Board of Trustees takes them to heart.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 3, 2006 12:18 PM
So true. If Hundert comes up with the bucks, he'll be the golden boy. With enough wooing, disgruntled donors will forgive,and people will forget Case betraying free speech (esp. since everyone else does it too).
Ultimately, it's all theater. At least academic politics is a refreshing relief from domestic politics. And the A & S faculty vote is probably more significant than the San Francisco supervisors voting to impeach Bush.