Hope is the Thing with Feathers

So, Brady is gone, right? Members of the university community should be linking arms and singing! Birds should be landing on our shoulders! And yet, the best we can see right now is the hope that we can be optimistic. Why is that? I think that Richard Levy has said it brilliantly, and so I share his thoughts with you below:

"Chancellor Brady is gone.  A cancer, nearly universally disliked and disrespected, has been ignominiously removed from the UNCG body.

     Yet one senses little joy as a new Chancellor will soon come on board.  Why?  Four reasons come to mind.

     --No apology has been forthcoming for the actions causing "Firegate".

     --Neither Dr. Brady nor those who chose or defended her have acknowledged what a huge

       mistake her hiring was.

     --There is no provision for rectifying the error when a bad choice is made.

     --Dr. Brady embodied many larger problems in modern university conception and

       management, none of which has been addressed.

     Dr. Brady has continued to defend her lies and inept handling of the firings that brought her down, disrupted several lives, and brought decimated UNCG's reputation.

     Her total lack of introspection is unsurprising.  But the silence of the UNCG Trustee Board and Chapel Hill higher-ups creates the scary impression that they either agree with her or just don't get it.  Either way, the continued input of these people and their future monitoring of the new Chancellor does not engender confidence.

Dr. Brady's unsuitability for the position was clear years ago.  She was temperamentally wrong.  She made no effort even to learn the names of faculty or even major financial contributors.  She ignored input and tried to rule by fiat.  She made poor personnel decisions.  She gutted academics while substantially increasing administrative and, especially, athletic budgets.

     Dr. Brady's style was already well-established.  A reasonable investigation of her time at NC State or the University of Oregon would have uncovered it.  (And perhaps it did.  Perhaps those choosing and monitoring Dr. Brady actually liked her style.). Whatever reasons allowed her to continue are scary; these folks might do it again.

     But people do make poor personnel decisions.  The question is:  How long do you go before you admit the mistake and correct it?  There was a large and growing disenchantment with Dr. Brady almost immediately.  Yet no one at the local or Chapel Hill level took action until her mishandling of "Firegate" forced Chapel Hill to force her retirement.

     These matters are all serious.  But they pale compared to the last item.  UNCG is particularly poorly run (according to a study undertaken by the NC Legislature).  But it is hardly unique.  Indeed, it is typical of public universities and colleges.  Several examples:

     --Administrative budgets, already outrageously high, continue to expand dramatically, until

       they are often equal to the educational budget, which meanwhile stagnates or is even

       reduced.

     --Athletic budgets proliferate, even as they lose more-and-more money, and at schools like

       schools like UNCG have no chance of becoming profitable and provide few measurable

       benefits.

     --A race to build silly amenities increases student fees substantially, even for those students

       who can scarcely afford it and who will seldom or never use the new facilities.  Little attempt

       is made to find out if the students even want them.

     --State universities are vastly overbuilt, under-utilized, and poorly maintained.  Most schools

       have no idea what their building utilization even is.  (Hint:  at most it is below 25 per cent if

       You count 8 AM-10PM Monday through Friday, plus summers.)

     --Universities are being re-defined so only research or majors with short-term practical

       payoffs really count.  The very real benefits of other academic disciplines are ignored.

     --Professors are asked to spend substantial amounts of time evaluating rather than teaching.

     In other words, public universities are being poorly run and dumbed down (even while their

heads claim they are being run the way a private company would operate, which is very unfunny joke).  But not a word from Chapel Hill or individual trustee boards suggests that these truly important questions are even being thought about, much less acted upon.

     That, more than anything else, explains why university communities are dispirited, and why Dr. Brady's eclipse, welcome though it is, does not lead to a re-set of confidence and optimism."

Hope may have feathers, but it will take much more to grow the wings we need to use them.

Statement by UNCG-AAUP on BOG's Closing of UNC Law School Poverty Center

March 2, 2015

Statement by UNCG-AAUP on the UNC Board of Governors’

Closing of the UNC Law School Poverty Center

To be true to their mission public universities must serve all members of our society, the poor as well as the privileged.  Externally funded centers must be free to sponsor curricular and extracurricular programs and provide services to the public across the broadest range of perspectives and approaches.

--- AAUP Statement on Proposed Closure UNC Law School Poverty Center (2/24/15)

What side are you on? We’re on the freedom side.

When education is under attack what do you do? You stand up, fight back.

---  Members of NC Student Power interrupting the Board of Governors in the midst of voting to close the UNC School of Law’s Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity (2/27/15)

On Friday, February 27th, the UNC Board of Governors voted unanimously to shut down the Poverty Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. The heroes of the day were the NC Student Power activists who effectively spoke truth to power by reading aloud from a prepared text, thereby disrupting the proceedings before being escorted from the building by campus police. They (along with Professor Altha Cravey, UNCG-Chapel Hill and AAUP member) refused to abide by the established order that would allow the Poverty Center to be closed. Here is why we think their actions were justified:

The decision by the UNC Board of Governors to close the Poverty Center violates the fundamental tenets of academic freedom and shared governance that are the cornerstones of higher education in the United States. Yet the thirty-three duly appointed custodians of one of the oldest and most respected universities in the nation saw to it that there was never an opportunity for this argument to be made and deliberated upon. These business leaders, lawyers, and executives (overwhelmingly white, male, wealthy, and conservative) deployed speech acts as forms of power. Their communications proceeded by way of assertion without regard for the rules of logic and reason.

There is a profound disconnect between academic discourse and BoG oversight. We faculty keep thinking that our highest leaders will listen to reason. But it seems not in their interest, experience, or inclination to do so. The words they used at this meeting most often took the form of self-approbation, sound bite, and atmospherics. One marked exception turned out to be the most telling. It came when Hannah Gage voiced concern that, in recommending to close the Poverty Center, the BoG had "crossed a line" by interfering in the academic affairs of the University. She hoped they would be careful in the future. And then she voted along with all of her fellow board members to close the Poverty Center.

Under the rules of rational argument such a divorce of word from action is untenable. The reasoned response would have been: "The BoG has exceeded its authority (crossed the line), therefore I must vote "NO" on the recommendation to close the Poverty Center." As academics, we may want to expose this logical fallacy in the interests of making better choices, but the fact remains there are currently no structures in place by which we can insure the founding principle of shared governance, namely that faculty play a central role in all decisions concerning curricular matters. Even Gage, the best and bravest of the Board of Governors, remained aloof from any form of dialogue in which reason, truth, or justice had standing as mutually agreed-upon goals to be reached by way of communicative speech acts.

And so it was that the student protesters enacted outside closed doors their passionate dissent, chanting  -- "This is what democracy looks like!" -- a far more disruptive model of communication than formal rules dictate. Their interlocutors retreated into a small room where the public was not allowed, since, as President Tom Ross proclaimed, the Board of Governors must not be prevented from "conducting its business."

Members of UNCG-AAUP

Matt Barr

Deb Bell

Jim Carmichael

Susan Dennison

George Dimock

Michael Frierson

William Hart

Spoma Jovanovic

Hannah Mendoza

Elizabeth Perrill

Christopher Poulos

Jonathan Tudge

Anne Wallace

Andrew Willis

I'm confused...

Setting aside for a moment any opinion about Tom Ross’ efficacy as UNC system president, can somebody please explain to me why he has been forced out?

Is it because of this bit of character assassination issued by UNC’s Board of Governor’s Chairman John Fennebresque:

“President Ross has our complete confidence in managing an incredibly complicated system in an area, education[1], that is changing every day.”

Or the UNC athletics scandal as alluded to by Fennebresque using the poetic device of repetition to ensure that people’s minds were focused on, well, on the situtation:

“President Ross handled that situation, managed that situation, led that situation in exemplary fashion.”

Or because Ross indicated he was ready to go when he said:

“I wasn’t planning on leaving in the near future…It’s not an easy thing for me because, you know, I love it, and I would love to be here forever.”

Or is it a result of the dissatisfaction expressed by Governor McCrory in the statement:

“Tom Ross has been a great partner and longtime friend of my family. I want to especially thank him for helping us build bridges of cooperation between our K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.”

And obviously, he should not have been allowed to continue serving as UNC System President given this statement from the Board of Governors:

“The Board believes President Ross has served with distinction, that his performance has been exemplary, and that he has devoted his full energy, intellect and passion to fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of his office. This decision has nothing to do with President Ross’ performance or ability to continue in the office.”

The very nerve, no wonder he is being forced out. No one should have to tolerate that type of behavior.

And, of course, we can certainly rule out politics. There’s not really any reason to even need to bring that up, it so clearly doesn’t play a part in this decision. At all, I mean really, why would you even ask. There’s no possible way that politics can have played any part at all in getting rid of someone. I mean, just because the Board can’t come up with any reasons why they were getting rid of him doesn’t mean it’s political.  You’d be off your head to think that if the Board is so satisfied with him and he wants to stay where he is that politics could have been sufficient to cause the call for his resignation.

In fact, just to prove that this isn’t political, I have typed out the transcript of the press conference where Board of Governor’s Chairman, who certainly did not look like an Alzheimer’s patient in a rocking chair trying to recall how to use language, eloquently and powerfully expressed all of the reasons that the board made this decision in a way that did not appear the least bit hostile and certainly wasn’t outright stupid.

Fennebresque’s opening statement: “I want to make a few things clear, this Board believes that Tom Ross has been a wonderful president, fantastic work ethic, perfect integrity, worked well with our board, and, speaking for myself, and I have some great excitement about working with him for a minimum of a year and maybe longer. I wanted to clear something up, uhh that, I saw from some article with a quote attributed to a member of the board, which I am disappointed in and that is that age had nothing to do with this. Full stop. President Ross has our complete confidence in managing an incredibly complicated system in an area, education, that is changing every day. And I look forward to the next year plus with my president.”

Q: So, Mr. F. You said age had nothing to do with – there is a historical coincidence that his four preceding presidents retired, left at 65…so why?

A; It had nothing to do with the age, okay.

Q: okay why

A: I think, the board um felt like umm at the appropriate time uh there should be a transition to a new president and (pause) well, we had a timeline umm that we were thinking along and, and President Ross had a, had a different timeline and that’s it.

Q: So, with respect, that doesn’t really answer the question. You had a different timeline, what does that mean?

A: I think it answers the question. Look at the statement, it answers the question.

Q: It seems to me there was a difference of opinion, but you must have had a reason, but you’re not saying what the reason was.

A: Figuring out, uh trying to figure out the time for this board to (five minute pause) work with a new leader a year from now that may bring uh other umm assets to the, to the job. It has. Tom, has been terrific.

Q: Did the board have pressure from legislative members

A: okay there is one of me and, and 32 of us. I had absolutely none. Okay?

Q: Have you heard of other board members…

A: No. I just know people who live in Raleigh talk about politics. But I don’t live in Raleigh.

Q: When you talk about other assets that the next president could bring, what are you referring to?

a. Ummm… a lot of that is, uh is, is gonna be determined by a search committee and my experience with a search committee is zip. So, our, our board of governors is going to, we’ve gotta do a, a job description, and, and so it’s all new, so I, I , I , I would, I’m just, I’m just going to wait until umm we have a ummm this organizational meeting of the search committee and try to explain it, have 32 people weigh in on it and then give the uh, give the uh characteristics, the traits.

Q: Mr. Ross, you said there was a difference of timeline. What was your timeline?

A: [Ross] Well, I don’t know that I had finely determined what one was, but you know I’ve been enjoying my work with the BOG and I think we’ve accomplished a lot during the last four years. When I cam here I was clear that I would not be ready to stop working at age 65. And I’m not ready to stop working at age 65. So, I don’t know how much longer, but I was not planning on leaving in the near future. But, I think the board did have a different timeline and I respect their right to, and their prerogative to select the president, and I think so what we’ve done is develop a plan that will allow for a smooth transition and will allow the university to continue its work, and that has to be the most important thing, we have to put the university first and I know the board believes that I certainly do.

Q: do you think UNC-CH scandal attributed to that in any way?

A: [Fenne…] Let me answer that. Absolutely not. In fact, I would suggest to you that President Ross has handled that situation, managed that situation, led that situation in exemplary fashion and I’ve been with him all the way.

Q: If he’s done such a great job, if he’s such a wonderful president and you don’t even have assets or a job description indicating what you are looking for yet, why? What’s the hurry? Why do this now?

A: Um…it’s a, it’s a conversation, about, ummm. Ummm…succession planning, transition, ummm, and as you can see from the, umm, the document you’ll, I don’t know if you have it now, it’s 12 more months of this leadership, maybe more. There’s no magic to the time.

Q: President Ross, did anybody on the board give you a reason other than what’s stated?

A: [Ross] You know, we’ve had a lot of discussions about this and I think it’s the board’s interest to begin transition and we talked about how best to do this and this was the agreement.

Q: But no one has expressed dissatisfaction with what you’ve done?

A: [Ross] No, no I’ve had no one express dissatisfaction with the job you’ve done.

Q: Were there some on the board who didn’t want

A: [Ross]I don’t know the answer to that.

[Fenne] Umm.. the agreement was, umm, ummm, approved and the joint statement was approved by all but one person on the board. And we spent a long time talking with board members umm about it and I think that, that whatever, 31/32nds of the board is on the same page here.

Q: Does this have anything to do with politics?

A: Absolutely not. Ummm to elaborate on that umm it’s my understanding of BOG history that people have generally left their politics at the door. If we’re talking about politics D’s and R’s I have heard close to nothing about D’s and R’s since I’ve been on the board which is, how long have I been on the board? About four years.  I’m about in my fourth year. It doesn’t come up. I can’t tell you the registration of my fellow board members. They don’t ask me about mine. It doesn’t come up.

Q: President Ross, do you believe this has anything to do with politics?

A: [Ross] I think the board is committed to this university and I think what we’ve accomplished in the last four years has demonstrated that they are committed to the university and I think they’ll remain committed. I think what’s most important for people to remember today and every day this is the oldest public university in America and it’s one of the best public universities if not the best public university in America  it is and has been a key driver for this state’s success for its economy for its civic leadership and all of us have a responsibility to protect the university and I think the board is doing what they believe is right for the university ad I certainly am here today because I believe the university is one of our greatest asset and I have tried to give it all I can in my time so far and I continue to give it all I can for as long as my services are needed.

The board has both the legal right and responsibility and the prerogative to think about transition and move in a way that they think is best. And my job is to do the best job I can

[Fenn] this board agrees with president ross. This board takes very seriously its responsibility to the citizens of this state and the students, our 220,000 students. We take that very seriously, as does president ross and our wonderful cadre of chancellors, so the board is fully engaged in doing its very best to make sure that people, to, to not only keep improving the best system in the country but to make sure our elected leaders realize that this is, and our citizens, this is the most important asset that we have for the prosperity for our citizens and we are going to make that, over and and president ross and I have said that together and separately over and over and over again and we’re just going to yell even louder now.

Q: Mr. Ross would you have done anything differently

A: [Ross] that’s a complex question because I’ve done so many things that to think back over four years and say would I have done anything differently, I suspect there are but I can’t think of them right now. I ’m proud of the work I’ve done, I think we’ve done a lot together. You know, this has been a period of transition for the university in many ways. There has been a dramatic change of board leadership there has been a dramatic change in the state’s leadership and policy makers…there’s been about as bad of an economy as we’ve had, so it’s been a challenging time to lead. I’m proud that we are here where we are today. I think we are still the best public university in America, I don’t think we’ve lost ground and To me, that says a lot given what we’ve been through. I don’t, I can’t point to a single thing that I would do different…I’m sure there are a few here and there.

[Fenne interrupting and not sounding at all desperate] I can point to a bunch of things he’s done well!!

[Ross] I’m very proud of what we’ve done and what we’ll continue to do, I mean, again, as the chair points out, I’m not out of here this afternoon. I plan on being here working for the university until at least next January.

Q: you were a big advocate for Elizabeth State

A: you know, our new chancellor there is off to a great start and she’s working really hard, that institution has challenges there is no doubt about that, the board has made it clear that they are excited to work with her. I am an advocate for that institution, I am an advocate for all of our universities…Elizabeth city state is no different and for that part of the state it’s a very, very important institution and we need to remember that. I think we have our challenges still ahead, we do with a lot of our institution, it’s not been an easy time…very high on its importance to the state and I don’t plan to change my view of that and I don’t think the board will either.

Q: [address to vice president of board] Mr. Bisset , you are here for a reason. He’s been in the hotseat so far. He’s itemized a number of things that President Ross has been exemplary in,  he’s certainly not leaving because of his age. And neither one of them were really able to answer the question about whether or not politics had a factor in this…

A: [Fenne] That’s not true! I said No!

Q: You said ‘no’?

A: [Fenne] Yeah, really clearly, and it’s a short word!

Q: And that’s true as far as it relates to you, would you…

A: [Bisset] And I would say no as well. I would say no as well. You know in every organization there comes a time when there is a leadership transition and that’s what’s happening here and it’s... you know Tom is not leaving tomorrow he’s gonna to be with us for at least a year, he’s gonna, he’s gonna to consult with us after that, he’s an extremely important part of this university, and he’s our leader and will be our leader for some time to come and on top of that he’s a dear friend of mine and a dear friend of most of the people on that board.

Q: Can you tell us when the decision was reached, and how it was communicated, and how you all convened to decide this.

A: [Fenne] That’s personnel and I’m not going to talk about personnel. What’s next.

Q: President Ross, when did you first learn that this was in the works?

A: [Ross] We’ve, um, we’ve had conversations over the last several days. So I think and I ‘m sure the board has given this a lot of thought. We’ve had some healthy conversations over the last few days we’re at the point where Tuesday morning, Monday we celebrated Martin Luther King day on Monday and Tuesday morning I’ll be here and my staff will be here.

[Fenne, again not seeming either overly desperate or like a person suffering from press conference related Turrets]: With the support of 32 members of the Board of Governors!

Q: Chairman, looking to the future, how soon will you start your official search process for his successor?

A: You know what? What is it, about noon on Friday? So…I don’t know. We’re gonna find out. So, McNeil is chair of governance and she got some advice from the prior chair of the BOG Hannah Gauge that maybe the processes we have in place to generally search for presidents is unnecessarily cumbersome, complicated, and so we’re working on that, that’s not, that’s in, in , in process, and then we’ve gotta, we’ve gotta get together and articulate the characteristics and traits of a new president. So it’s, we’re not in a hurry because it’s got to be the right decision because we’re five for five as a system and we want to be six for six. Does that make sense to you?

Let me, and let me answer you about Elizabeth city state. That’s a…I support Elizabeth City State University. It’s hard. I mean, its enrollment has gone off the cliff, right? If effort ummm and commitment can turn it around we’ve got that, okay.

Q: Mr. Ross you said that you’ve had these conversations over the last several days, was there an event that precipitated those conversations? Was there some reason that those conversations started, at say the beginning of this week first, for example?

A: [Ross] I mean, they were…Mr. F came to see me and we started talking about it. I think that the board was in a place where it wanted to begin the transition

Q: Has the board met in the last week or two?

A: [Fenne] No.

Q: Well, then I should address the question to you Mr. F, is there a precipitating event?

A: No. No.

Q: okay.

A: We are very pleased with Tom Ross’ umm efforts on behalf of the UNC system and I don’t know what the current count is, but he’s brought in about 9 new chancellors and we think he’s found us some great ones and we’re excited about them, I guess in the normal course, I guess 9 is a lot in four years…so we’re gonna…

Q: The fundamental question may be: where does the board want to go? You know You’re talking about change and I would think that before you can go through the procedure to terminate a new chancellor you need to determine where you want to go. Can you give us some insight on where the board wants to go going forward.

A: No. I’d like to clarify a couple of things, there was no termination and he’s not the chancellor, he’s the president.  And uhhh There was no precipitating event at all, he’s been wonderful and a very close friend of, to me and to most of us.

Q: Mr. Fenne... you spoke definitively when I mentioned politics and the role that it may or not played you said it did not play a role. I believe earlier you said that you were one of 32 and that it had no relationship to your considerations. Could you clarify that? What role, if any did politics play in this decision?

A: I don’t understand. What’s the confusing part?

Q: I think you’re, you’re more recently talking about generally and I think initially you were speaking about yourself individually.

A: That’s just me. My saying things right. I think I was trying to tell you, I don’t know. I can’t tell you what 32 other people…they don’t talk about it with me.

At this point, the incredibly insightful interview was complete and Mr. Fennesomething went home, secure in the knowledge that the money he had sacrificed for the “Public Speaking with Sarah Palin: Learning Jobs America And” was well spent.

So, there you have it, folks. Straight from the horses mouth: there was absolutely no reason to get rid of Ross because he was the most fantastic thing since sliced bread and it was ABSOLUTELY NOT about politics. It was because Tom Ross likes Coke and the Board likes Pepsi.

---

[1] For those of you who weren’t paying attention to what area he was in, I guess. Thank goodness he clarified.