The Antioch Papers

Questions Regarding the Unusual Structure of the University.

Craiglow_7May2003.pdf [90.95KB], Documents

Excerpts

“The federal model has gone away, the University subsidies have — or are — going away, the College no longer has control of its own finances, the University intervenes in the affairs of the College on a regular basis, the College has become ‘last among equals,’ identified most often as a ‘problem’ rather than an asset, and the role of the President has been seriously compromised. I’ve also begun to ask myself some ultimate questions regarding the unusual structure of the University.
•Why should the College be affiliated with the University? What are the short and long term benefits that counterbalance the subordination that many at the College experience?
•Why shouldn’t the College have its own Board, a body that has the time and focus to attend to the unique directions, vision, values and successes of the college, as well as to its particular problems and challenges (apart from simply its finances)?
•Why shouldn’t the College have control of its own assets? If it bears responsibility for the depreciation of the Yellow Springs campus, why should it not also have the benefit of endowment earnings and growth, and control of the allocation of those assets in forging its own destiny?”

“1. Without consultation or transparency, the Board and the University have recently implemented policies which subordinate the College and are detrimental to its ability (a) to attract and retain students, (b) to regain its fiscal health and balance, and © to control its own destiny in rebuilding its strength and its national reputation.”

“a. Showing depreciation in the College’s budget. I wasn’t born yesterday, Jim. When you say that “the depreciation issue is one that was mandated and directed by the Board,” I’m stunned that you consider me that gullible. The Board’s attitudes toward depreciation were carefully and methodically cultivated by Jim Hall and Glenn for more than five years…”

“b. Reducing (eliminating?) the College’s subsidies. Most that I’ve spoken with at the College have no clear sense of what has become of the subsidies set up to benefit the College at the time of the disentanglement of College and University administrations. In their policies regarding these subsidies, the Board specified certain conditions that “could” lead to a reconsideration of those subsidies. To my knowledge, none of those conditions have been met…”

“c. Eliminating the College’s CFO as an ostensible cost-saving“consolidation”. This is, as far as I’m concerned, one of the most serious and damaging mistakes permitted by the Board. Structurally it places the College in a very compromised position with regard to being able to negotiate its own circumstances and manages its own affairs. It undermines the sense that the College has any degree of autonomy or self-determination, and it structurally undermines the role of the College President…”

“2. The Board and University have delegated far too much responsibility, authority and trust to the position of the University CFO. Glenn has very little experience with or understanding of residential undergraduate liberal arts education, and if we are to believe his many off-the-cuff sarcasms in both public and private (and I have a very thick file documenting questionable instances), he also has great disdain and lack of respect for the core values of the College, the demeanor and idealism of its students, and the professionalism of its staff and faculty.”

“3. The Chancellor is not in Yellow Springs. I’m well aware of some of the personal challenges and difficulties you’ve assumed in your willingness to take on the Chancellor’s role. However, I’m also very aware of the symbolic and practical implications of the Chancellor being at a distance from the College. You’re simply not able to spend sufficient time to gain deep awareness of and sensitivity to the dynamics and problems faced by the College community.”