Valpo Strategic Plan

[valpopal]

Valpopal - Masciotra is not a journalist. He is an English major who found a way to monetize his essentially useless degree by becoming a radical left provocateur with a poison pen. His forte lies not in truth, but in the perversion of truth. He is accountable to no one but himself in adhering to journalistic standards. Any reference he makes to  an "unnamed source" is almost assuredly fabricated, despite your highly suspect claim to the contrary.

You do not get to determine who is a journalist, nor do I. Just like neither of us gets to decide what is ethical, whether it be in journalism or art sales. Those categorizations are set by the professional institutions themselves. You might not like what David writes. Indeed, I disagree with his politics almost all of the time as well. But if I disagree with Woodward or Bernstein does that eliminate them as journalists?


Also, excuse me if your evaluation of David as an author is outweighed by those of the numerous editors who have published his books or included his articles in major publications. Again, even if you and I completely disagree with his opinions almost all the time, and we likely do, that doesn't lessen his skills as a writer. In fact, your dismissal of David's credentials as a journalist apparently differs from those of Valparaiso University, including President Padilla, who have invited him multiple times as an honored speaker, even as a featured presenter at the MLK campus celebration this year.


Finally, as to his unnamed source, I can guarantee you 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not fabricated and is completely accurate. I checked it out for myself fully so that there is no question remaining. Indeed, David also gave Padilla an opportunity to deny the quote. Had Padilla done so, ethics would have prevented David from including it in the article. Padilla knew that yet did not deny the quote or raise any objection to its characterization.

[wh]

Pal - How could you validate the provocateur's "unnamed" source unless he unethically revealed his "unnamed" source to you, who in turn unethically asked the "unnamed" source, or some other rendition of the same story? This simply isn't credible.

People in this guy's industry lie about phantom sources all the time without worry one about being called on it. Are you familiar with the recent NY Times phantom unnamed government sources scandal? That happened at a place where real journalism is practiced with real journalistic standards.

[valpofb16]

The bad PR train just needs to stop. When businesses go south you let the people who bring in new profitable business stay and cut dead weight.

Padilla needs to get in front of this. Tell the loud and proud liberal arts majors / old professors that a private institution is a business and you can either hop on the train or hop off.

Too many cooks in the kitchen. There are leaders for peaceful times and for war times. Valpo needs a war time leader to start making necessary decisions.

Anything but this lens I can appreciate from the humanitarian side of me. I get why Ruff wants to preserve the art he showed many students and Brauer wants to maintain his museum. I'm human and can be sympathetic. I think Gen Z loves cancel culture and finding "the greater good". Perfect storm.

Unfortunately in America. This is capitalism, and it operates in profits and losses. Would be happy to talk with anyone about this.

[valpopal]

Pal - How could you validate the provocateur's "unnamed" source unless he unethically revealed his "unnamed" source to you, who in turn unethically asked the "unnamed" source, or some other rendition of the same story? This simply isn't credible.

wh: I don't care if you think it is "credible" or not, and I don't have to disclose how I know 100% without question that the quote is accurately sourced. To do that would be unethical. To ease your mind, I will tell you that David did not unethically reveal his unnamed source to me nor did I do anything unethical to verify the source and the quote. There are other scenarios for obtaining the information; however, you will either have to trust me or call me a liar. I'm fine with either.


Nevertheless, I stand by my record a number of times on this board of only accurately reporting information that I have first verified as true over the past years, whether that be transfer signings, recruiting candidates on campus, the administration's plan to remove the Crusader, or warning everyone weeks ago that the bad pr from this issue had "only scratched the surface" because I knew in advance of upcoming newspaper reports (including the NY Times) and articles. I respect those on this forum, including you, so I would never post false or unreliable information.

[David81]

The bad PR train just needs to stop. When businesses go south you let the people who bring in new profitable business stay and cut dead weight.

Padilla needs to get in front of this. Tell the loud and proud liberal arts majors / old professors that a private institution is a business and you can either hop on the train or hop off.

Too many cooks in the kitchen. There are leaders for peaceful times and for war times. Valpo needs a war time leader to start making necessary decisions.

Anything but this lens I can appreciate from the humanitarian side of me. I get why Ruff wants to preserve the art he showed many students and Brauer wants to maintain his museum. I'm human and can be sympathetic. I think Gen Z loves cancel culture and finding "the greater good". Perfect storm.

Unfortunately in America. This is capitalism, and it operates in profits and losses. Would be happy to talk with anyone about this.

But valpofb16, the University is not a business, it is a private, non-profit organization that gets special privileges because of that status. (Among other things, that status allows people to deduct contributions from their tax exposure.)

In our current economic structure (which, in general, I happen to like), we have a tripartite mix of private, for-profit businesses, private non-profit organizations, and public sector agencies/bodies. In the context of higher education, VU's non-profit status separates it from for-profit universities, which have been the disproportionate sources of predatory student recruitment practices (with an eye towards profits) and (ironically) awful business practices.

Now, if you want to say that non-profit organizations can benefit from following some of the best practices coming out of the private sector, we're in general agreement. Sound management principles can apply across the spectrum of private, non-profit, and public entities. But it's simply wrong to say that Valparaiso University is a business, to be measured by profits and losses. By dint of both mission and legal status, it is not. It does, however, have to be very mindful of budgets, like any other organization that wishes to be sustainable.

So...how does this relate to the art sale and VU leadership in general? Invoking your war time leadership frame, while I'm generally supportive of President Padilla and understanding of the challenges he faces, I don't think this has been his Finest Hour, to channel Churchill. He and his team badly underestimated the degree of opposition to this proposed sale, when at least some of it should've been readily anticipated. What is just "three paintings out of thousands" to some, has been interpreted very differently by others. To take an extreme, but illustrative example, what if the University decided to sell off three buildings to some non-Lutheran religious order, and one of them was the Chapel, because it would bring in the most cash? "Hey, it's just one building, and shouldn't people be able to worship God from anywhere?" Point being, this controversy is one of both substance and symbol. When you set up those battles, you can win the "war" by selling the paintings, but the casualties on VU's own side will be considerable. The apparent failure to do that calculus has resulted in a very divisive situation that, absent an agreeable third option between selling the art and no dorm renovations, will not end well.

[usc4valpo]

Using an unnamed source is weak journalism.

[valpofb16]

David, that was a fantastic response. I was talking more that the University in order to survive needs to adhere to and eventually end up profiting at a sustainable level. (Even if a non profit need funds).

I appreciate your view and response. I think there is no third course at this point. Either need to move on the paintings or publicly saying the sale will not happen.

[David81]

David, that was a fantastic response. I was talking more that the University in order to survive needs to adhere to and eventually end up profiting at a sustainable level. (Even if a non profit need funds).

I appreciate your view and response. I think there is no third course at this point. Either need to move on the paintings or publicly saying the sale will not happen.

valpofb16, thank you for your response. I haven't given up on some 3rd option. If they can develop a viable one, it will be a win-win and a testament to the ability to work through differences, respect valid differences of opinion, and attract resources that weren't within sight when the original decision was made. This is a time when the University needs all hands on deck (to change the metaphor), rather than bad feelings created by either of the two options on the table. Fingers crossed....

[valpopal]

Using an unnamed source is weak journalism.

usc: You have incoming calls from a couple of gentlemen named Woodward and Bernstein. 

[valpopal]

I haven't given up on some 3rd option. If they can develop a viable one, it will be a win-win and a testament to the ability to work through differences, respect valid differences of opinion, and attract resources that weren't within sight when the original decision was made. This is a time when the University needs all hands on deck (to change the metaphor), rather than bad feelings created by either of the two options on the table. Fingers crossed....

Well stated, David. This is still my hope as well.

[vu84v2]

Regarding whether Valparaiso (or any university) is a business...

Is a family a business? is a hospital a business? is a church a business? They are obviously different than a for-profit business, but (and I realize this may be semantics) all of these are businesses. They have different outcomes that they seek, but nonetheless they not only need to be conscious of expenses but also need to attain revenues to cover expenses and invest to achieve future outcomes. People who argue that universities, as well as any of these other examples, are not businesses often miss or undervalue the importance of the revenue side. For Valpo, attaining necessary revenues means attracting and retaining students, as well as reducing the necessary discount rate, far more than anything else. Thus, it becomes imperative to invest in areas that shore up any challenges to revenue - and the greatest priority for Valpo is dorms, the nursing building, and the business school (I think it is a big mistake that the business building has fallen off of the priorities). Additionally (and building on what others have said on various sides of the art sale argument), the professors in all disciplines drive the experience (and thus retention), so attention needs to be given to having market competitive salaries (I do not have data on this for Valpo, but my suspicion is that it is low). I realize that this is not how universities work, but I would like Valpo to consider an incentive structure in which increases to faculty and staff salaries are specifically tied to student enrollment (with potential increases much larger than they have historically been).

By the way, I would invest in changing the men's bb coach, but would not invest (for now) in the facility. The return from investing in a coach who changes the performance of the team has a far greater likelihood for near-term return.

Regarding the hypothetical of "what if Valpo were considering selling the chapel?"...

I had also thought of this, but I believe this is fundamentally different than the art. As Valpo has a religious affiliation, the chapel is core to the university achieving its mission and objectives (note here that I am not Lutheran and have never identified or connected with anything associated with the chapel). Valpo should have great religious programs for those who choose to engage in a religiously-oriented direction. Thus, I would be strongly against selling the chapel. Valpo is not an art museum or an art collector - if you disagree, look at the mission and objectives of the university. Thus, the art, as much as it may be cherished by some, should not be considered a core asset and should be considered as an asset that can be used to fund investment to drive sufficient revenues.

Regarding a "compromise"...

I am not optimistic this is possible. In reading the various articles and comments on this forum, I frame the acceptable compromise position from people opposed to the art sale as follows: the university agrees not to sell the art and "we" agree to stop contacting regional and national media sources to have them cast Valpo in a negative light.  Further, the university agrees that they will go find other revenue sources to make the necessary investments to achieve revenues, but "we" reserve the right to veto any direction that is not aligned with our views. This is not tenable.

Regarding the actions of people within the university who do not agree with the art sale...

First, protests on-campus by students and others who had petitions signed and marched to meet President Padilla are fully within their rights and, indeed, should be commended for presenting their concerns. That is how a healthy university (and organization) should work. On the other hand, people going to outside media sources who are likely to be sympathetic to their position and then getting them to write articles that highlight their direction as righteous (and themselves as heroes) and the university as a villain is irresponsible and dangerous. It creates a lose-lose scenario. Tenure rightfully protects faculty from being "punished" for, within the university, questioning university actions - but it should not protect them from taking actions that are intended to be directly harmful to the university. I sense that many of these people are thinking, "hmmmm, look at all the power we are creating", but a healthy organization cannot allow this. Indeed, if you took these steps while working for most any profit or non-profit organization, you would be immediately fired (and should be).

[David81]

Regarding the actions of people within the university who do not agree with the art sale...

First, protests on-campus by students and others who had petitions signed and marched to meet President Padilla are fully within their rights and, indeed, should be commended for presenting their concerns. That is how a healthy university (and organization) should work. On the other hand, people going to outside media sources who are likely to be sympathetic to their position and then getting them to write articles that highlight their direction as righteous (and themselves as heroes) and the university as a villain is irresponsible and dangerous. It creates a lose-lose scenario. Tenure rightfully protects faculty from being "punished" for, within the university, questioning university actions - but it should not protect them from taking actions that are intended to be directly harmful to the university. I sense that many of these people are thinking, "hmmmm, look at all the power we are creating", but a healthy organization cannot allow this. Indeed, if you took these steps while working for most any profit or non-profit organization, you would be immediately fired (and should be).

But taking issues public has long been deemed a part of academic freedom, including questioning university leadership. In some cases it can put sunlight on situations crying out for it. This is a narrower matter, and as I suggested in an earlier comment, the public nature of this dispute wouldn't seem so unusual if Valpo was more of a visible player in the higher ed world. On the scale of academic disputes that go public, this isn't a momentous one (see the controversy at U.Penn over law professor Amy Wax for a truly ugly brouhaha gone public that involves the extraordinary protections of tenure), and online comments to these various pieces suggest a division of opinion roughly equivalent to views expressed here.

Is VU's reputation truly suffering because if this public attention? I doubt it, even if folks have strong opinions on this matter. As for the accompanying reporting on the school's financial challenges, that potential impact is more concerning, though it also presumes that folks pay close attention to the news, which these days is questionable.

[valpopal]

if you took these steps while working for most any profit or non-profit organization, you would be immediately fired (and should be).

The following comments are meant as informative, especially for those not in Valparaiso. I want everyone to fully understand the current situation in Valpo. I hope you accept the remarks as describing the environment here, and not as argumentative.


The two figures most prominently featured in all the news stories as central spokespersons against the art sale, John Ruff and Richard Brauer, are both retired. They have continued to work for the university for free over the years. They do volunteer work for the art museum, on committees, and in tasks elsewhere on campus at the request and blessing of department officials. At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale. You cannot "fire" Ruff or Brauer, and I think you would open a whole new can of worms if the administration tried to fire Canning.


So you could ban Ruff and Brauer from campus participation, I guess. However, these are two of the most beloved members of the campus community. I have said it before, the biggest mistake made in public comments and private meetings was when Padilla pit himself against a pair of individuals the faculty and students revere and would choose to fully support every time. Together, their service to the university is almost 95 years. Ruff continues to organize and host the prominent weekly series of lectures at the museum. (In fact, on Thursday he will be introducing Canning for a presentation.) The museum is named after Richard Brauer, without whom it wouldn't exist because funding from the community was with the stipulation it be named after him. Banning Brauer from the museum would be like banning Michael Jordan from attending Bulls games. In another analogy appropriate in this forum, Brauer is like Homer Drew to the academic community, and that might be understating it.


Indeed, both Ruff and Brauer are equally beloved and have been honored in the outside communities at Valparaiso. Just last week Ruff was honored in Valparaiso by being celebrated in a "Life in the Spotlight" feature at Valpo Life. If you think proposing a sale of the artworks is creating negative public relations, banning Ruff and Brauer would cause damaging consequences far greater.

[valpo tundra]

If Valpo were truly a business, they would have to pay taxes on their assets. Since they, and all the other non-profit universities, do not, can you imagine how much worse off they would all be it they had to pay taxes. Why are there exceptions for any non-profits such as universities, churches, hospitals, think tanks, etc...

[valpopal]

Did J Ruff not take the buy-out? i thought the retirement buyout people got research prof status and two years of salary so are still receiving pay and benefits from Valpo... Or did he retire normally?

That's not how the buy-out works. The early retirement payment was a lump sum at termination date (6/30/22). No pay checks are issued afterwards. Employment and health or pension benefits also ended with the retirement, as in any normal retirement. The research professor status is an elective titular alternative to emeritus status and chosen by a professor who continues to do unpaid work for the university. It is not a salary position. All work Ruff is doing for the university is gratis.

[DejaVU]

Did J Ruff not take the buy-out? i thought the retirement buyout people got research prof status and two years of salary so are still receiving pay and benefits from Valpo... Or did he retire normally?

It does not matter. Don't want to stir an argument , especially since I do not know Ruff personally, but I can't help thinking of VU retired people as those lucky ones to catch a seat in the lifeboats. And here they are now giving lectures and tough love to those still on the deck of Titanic. Just to be clear, I don't know if Padilla's attempt to sell the paintings to fix the dorms is the correct thing to do in an emergency situation (and mark my word, VU and many other places are in emergencies).  But what if he is right? Let's say the sell won't take place, alternative funding cannot be found (notice how many anti-sale say "find a different way" without getting into credible specifics) and then 2-3 years down the line VU declines further and entertains the possibility of closure.


Would John Ruff and other VU retired folks for that matter help people find a different job? MAybe I am unfair and I don't want to belittle retired people because I am sure they earned their status. But I cannot help thinking that ultimately they are not in the firing line. This is why I don't understand why Padilla is not stronger with counter-arguments like: "Ok, no sale, give me your solution that I can implement NOW so I can avoid catastrophe in 5 years". He did say in a meeting that half of colleges like VU may not exist in 20 years...I want to hear people like Ruff and Brauer say what they think about the risk of VU closing in 10 years...


Now, I know that in their mind, they may think that precisely the sell of the art jeopardizes VU existence. But people with that level of education should at least entertain the possibility that they are wrong and that the danger lies elsewhere. What about the wave of resignations? Was that due to a lack of enough original paintings? What if in 1-2 years you will have at VU only people who could NOT leave for one reason or another? Is that a problem? And if it is, is it greater than losing the painting? Nobody talks in these terms...nobody cares...

[ValpoDiaspora]

Nobody talks in these terms...nobody cares...

DejaVU, I hear your pain. When I first got my own budget layoff notification, it was very painful to me that it seemed all the alumni cared about was the mascot debate. I wasn't a huge fan of the crusader mascot myself, but it seemed utterly weird to see all the energy around that, while the careers of so many of my peers were being thrown into upheaval or just destruction, and we were dealing with the sadness of students' whose programs or course offerings were cut so severely they had to face the prospect of transferring.

My hero will always be my department chair, who resigned his own tenured position (with no ERIP on the table, in those early days of the pandemic) in opposition to the hastiness of the cuts and in order to try to get the administration to do a quid-pro-quo to save my position at Valpo if it stabilized, or at least buy me more time to find a lifeboat. Truly self-sacrificial on his part.

I deeply hope there's a way to save the art and the whole university.

[David81]

if you took these steps while working for most any profit or non-profit organization, you would be immediately fired (and should be).

The following comments are meant as informative, especially for those not in Valparaiso. I want everyone to fully understand the current situation in Valpo. I hope you accept the remarks as describing the environment here, and not as argumentative.

The two figures most prominently featured in all the news stories as central spokespersons against the art sale, John Ruff and Richard Brauer, are both retired. They have continued to work for the university for free over the years. They do volunteer work for the art museum, on committees, and in tasks elsewhere on campus at the request and blessing of department officials. At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale. You cannot "fire" Ruff or Brauer, and I think you would open a whole new can of worms if the administration tried to fire Canning.

So you could ban Ruff and Brauer from campus participation, I guess. However, these are two of the most beloved members of the campus community. I have said it before, the biggest mistake made in public comments and private meetings was when Padilla pit himself against a pair of individuals the faculty and students revere and would choose to fully support every time. Together, their service to the university is almost 95 years. Ruff continues to organize and host the prominent weekly series of lectures at the museum. (In fact, on Thursday he will be introducing Canning for a presentation.) The museum is named after Richard Brauer, without whom it wouldn't exist because funding from the community was with the stipulation it be named after him. Banning Brauer from the museum would be like banning Michael Jordan from attending Bulls games. In another analogy appropriate in this forum, Brauer is like Homer Drew to the academic community, and that might be understating it.

Indeed, both Ruff and Brauer are equally beloved and have been honored in the outside communities at Valparaiso. Just last week Ruff was honored in Valparaiso by being celebrated in a "Life in the Spotlight" feature at Valpo Life. If you think proposing a sale of the artworks is creating negative public relations, banning Ruff and Brauer would cause damaging consequences far greater.

valpopal, thank you for sharing those perspectives. I've been away from VU for many years, so it helps to understand how Ruff and Brauer are so revered within the campus community today.

Personally, I would be stunned if the President banned them from campus. He strikes me as being a pragmatist who understands that you lose a lot by being seen as engaging in retribution. However, I did sense, early on, that VU thought they could make the issue disappear when it appeared to be Brauer fighting a more-or-less solitary battle. Its response to Brauer's threat about removing his name from the building was Bad PR 101 in the most condescending way.

[David81]

Nobody talks in these terms...nobody cares...

DejaVU, I hear your pain. When I first got my own budget layoff notification, it was very painful to me that it seemed all the alumni cared about was the mascot debate. I wasn't a huge fan of the crusader mascot myself, but it seemed utterly weird to see all the energy around that, while the careers of so many of my peers were being thrown into upheaval or just destruction, and we were dealing with the sadness of students' whose programs or course offerings were cut so severely they had to face the prospect of transferring.

My hero will always be my department chair, who resigned his own tenured position (with no ERIP on the table, in those early days of the pandemic) in opposition to the hastiness of the cuts and in order to try to get the administration to do a quid-pro-quo to save my position at Valpo if it stabilized, or at least buy me more time to find a lifeboat. Truly self-sacrificial on his part.

I deeply hope there's a way to save the art and the whole university.

Diaspora, thank you for sharing that very personal (and difficult) memory of what was dominating the campus dialogue as you and others were getting awful news. It does say something about what kind of stuff gets everyone's attention on a college campus, and often it isn't the most important topics.

And what a story about your department chair. I'm sure he was disappointed when his decision could not safeguard your position. That said, I will simply tip my hat to him. As much as I am grateful for an academic career, one of my disappointments is how infrequently people in protected and advantaged positions are willing to sacrifice even the smallest amounts of their privilege on behalf of anything or anyone outside of their own narrow self-interests. What he did was extraordinary.

[FWalum]

The following comments are meant as informative

And I assume that you are informing us of your opinion with this statement.

At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale.

And also the statements that have been made, not only by you, but by others quoted in the media about the terms and restrictions of the funds and endowments that would be completely unknown unless you where part of Advancement or VU's legal team. This is the area in which I work and it always amazes me the misconceptions surrounding the administration of endowments.

[valpopal]

The following comments are meant as informative

And I assume that you are informing us of your opinion with this statement.

At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale.

FW: Yes, that was informational and not opinion. Padilla has admitted he was not fully forthcoming during the hiring process. He did not inform the hiring committee or the candidate that the plan was to sell the museum's most prominent artworks. Also, you omitted the following sentence which gives context for why I included that detail. ("At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale. You cannot 'fire' Ruff or Brauer, and I think you would open a whole new can of worms if the administration tried to fire Canning.")

[valpofb16]

I get that Brauer and Ruff are very revered in the community, it's almost a microcosm of what goes on in everyday society (large can of worms don't touch)

Why not name the new dorm Eddie Brauer alumni Hall and have a John Ruff learning center within that hall? And have display cases of copy of the previous artwork owned by the university?

Make it a dorm for liberal arts students. And put it on southeast of union with limited travel to the VUCA / theater / union, more enticing for liberal arts students.


Brauer and Ruff name lives on, Artwork on display as is Valpos history of owning work, it appeases the liberal arts and gives  them their own community. Ruff and Brauer go down as heroes for the Department with unlimited access to the art museum.

Why stop there? Give Ruff and Brauer scholarships providing free living expenses for students who provide top essays / presentations / art work for the University?

Rename Core Class to John Ruff Core class.

[FWalum]

The following comments are meant as informative

And I assume that you are informing us of your opinion with this statement.

At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale.

FW: Yes, that was informational and not opinion. Padilla has admitted he was not fully forthcoming during the hiring process. He did not inform the hiring committee or the candidate that the plan was to sell the museum's most prominent artworks. Also, you omitted the following sentence which gives context for why I included that detail. ("At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale. You cannot 'fire' Ruff or Brauer, and I think you would open a whole new can of worms if the administration tried to fire Canning.")

I'm sorry, but it is your opinion, and the sentence you say I omitted has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Are you saying that the Board had already voted last spring or early summer to sell the paintings and that Padilla knew while interviewing director candidates in the spring and summer of last year that the paintings would be sold? Even if that was the case, which I highly doubt, he has no obligation to disclose that information to any prospective employees. As a matter of fact, that would have been reckless. Was Canning guaranteed that the O'Keeffe and the other two paintings would always be part of the collection? Are they not paying him the agreed amount? Is he not getting benefits or perhaps his title is different than what was agreed upon? It might be your perception that he was somehow deceived, but that does not make it so.

[valpopal]

FW: Yes, that was informational and not opinion. Padilla has admitted he was not fully forthcoming during the hiring process. He did not inform the hiring committee or the candidate that the plan was to sell the museum's most prominent artworks. Also, you omitted the following sentence which gives context for why I included that detail. ("At the museum, they work with the approval of the new director, Jonathan Canning, who was hired in deceptive circumstances and also opposes the art sale. You cannot 'fire' Ruff or Brauer, and I think you would open a whole new can of worms if the administration tried to fire Canning.")

I'm sorry, but it is your opinion, and the sentence you say I omitted has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Are you saying that the Board had already voted last spring or early summer to sell the paintings and that Padilla knew while interviewing director candidates in the spring and summer of last year that the paintings would be sold? Even if that was the case, which I highly doubt, he has no obligation to disclose that information to any prospective employees. As a matter of fact, that would have been reckless. Was Canning guaranteed that the O'Keeffe and the other two paintings would always be part of the collection? Are they not paying him the agreed amount? Is he not getting benefits or perhaps his title is different than what was agreed upon? It might be your perception that he was somehow deceived, but that does not make it so.

It is not just my opinion when members of the hiring committee responsible have openly stated they were deceived, so consequently they acknowledge inadvertently and unknowingly deceiving Canning. That makes it factual. 

"Was Canning guaranteed that the O'Keeffe and the other two paintings would always be part of the collection?" Are you serious? These were the prime works proudly displayed by the hiring committee and Padilla as the jewels of the collection, that made the museum highly regarded throughout the world and attractive as a place to come and be its director, luring Canning from a prestigious job to come here. These paintings are the museum's most famous works around which the collection has been arrayed since its inception, and as a professional curator for more than a dozen years, Canning knew it would be unethical to sell them, just as the curators' association has since declared. Padilla didn't tell Canning or the hiring committee that the process for selling the art had already begun, which it had. In fact, auction house people had already visited campus months before Canning arrived on campus. This has been documented.

And you believe that was all right? Where were you when ethics were taught in your Valpo classes? Sure, it was not illegal to conceal the information; I never said it was. However, the university president should exhibit higher scruples than a shady used car salesman trying to pull a fast one, and members of the university community also should expect nothing less than honorable behavior. If the university tried to fire Canning for objecting to the sale and encouraging everyone to speak out against the sale "to preserve the dignity of the Brauer Museum," as he does on his web page, they would further be embarrassed by additional exposure of their unseemly practice, thus the point of my second sentence being connected to the first.

[mj]

However, the university president should exhibit higher scruples than a shady used car salesman trying to pull a fast one, and members of the university community also should expect nothing less than honorable behavior.

I get that the art sale makes you upset, but you're crossing the line here. You talk about "honorable behavior" but then make personal attacks that have no basis in fact. You actually weaken your argument when you reveal your bias against President Padilla.