Valpo Strategic Plan

[valpotx]

Scheele has been empty.

There are 2 dorm buildings that were torn down much earlier by the names of Dau & Kreinheder. Those two dorms had drain pipes encased in cement and whenever there was a stoppage in the drain line the maintenance dept had to get a jackhammer and dig up the concrete until they found the problem. There was great joy in the maintenance dept when those dorms came down.

I believe the current Student Fitness Center was the cafeteria between D and K

Yes, when I was on campus, we were told that was the leftover cafeteria, but it was the Bookstore during my time, and now the SFC.

[vu72]

It seems like the administration isn't satisfied with creating a dust gathering plan, but rather is attempting to move it forward with accountability. (a novel idea!)

I'm wondering how folks like valpopal interpret this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIS5FH9tskY

[valpopal]

I'm wondering how folks like valpopal interpret this video:

Not sure what kind of response you expect from me. Since I and many of my colleagues, a number of whom appear in the video, participated in the creation of the plan, I would say I'm fine with it.   

[vu72]

I'm wondering how folks like valpopal interpret this video:

Not sure what kind of response you expect from me. Since I and many of my colleagues, a number of whom appear in the video, participated in the creation of the plan, I would say I'm fine with it.   

Didn't know that.  Was wondering how the faculty feels about whether or not this is just smoke or if the administration is actually moving forward in a positive fashion.

[valpopal]

I'm wondering how folks like valpopal interpret this video:

Not sure what kind of response you expect from me. Since I and many of my colleagues, a number of whom appear in the video, participated in the creation of the plan, I would say I'm fine with it.   

Didn't know that.  Was wondering how the faculty feels about whether or not this is just smoke or if the administration is actually moving forward in a positive fashion.

The briefing on the enrollment expectations and proposed definition of Valpo as a 3000-student institution that I attended and reported here was a part of this 3-5 year plan. If you go to the Uplift website, you will see the leadership for each of the initiatives is listed, a mixture of faculty and administrators. The success thus far in the planning can be attributed to this cooperative sense of the plan as a joint venture. Of course, as with all general academic plans, the amicable partnership between administration and faculty will need to continue without impediment, and a consensus on implementation of details will be necessary to maintain current support.

[crusadermoe]

These are great themes.  Hopefully they coalesce into a winning attitude and hopefully lead to more enrollment. 

For Moody's and the sharp eyes on this board the proof will be in the pudding on the 3-5 year trajectory.  The true measurable is quieter than the number of students enrolled. It is revenue from student enrollment. So I will hang out in the enrollment thread.

[David81]

This Uplift Valpo initiative looks promising. It's targeted and specific, it's got an optimistic energy to it, and it's on the ground level, looking at the student experience and what kind of graduate VU wants to call an alum. The website is designed to be updated, not remain a static outline. It seems to be what a good Strategic Plan should be about.

[David81]

In general, everybody wants a functional Strategic Plan. You will definitely hear the typical faculty grumbling about the Christian identity of the institution seeming pretty thin, or worrying about the genericness of claiming student-centeredness and these four values (since what university would say they're not into learning, service, leading, and thriving, haha.) But in general, staff and facutly do want the university to figure out a viable way forward, address major problems where they exist, and find a more functional way to operate, etc. So the strategic plan feels necessary for survival, and buy-in is probabably as good as you could expect in the big scheme of things in a complex institution that has been through what Valpo's been through.

VU is walking a tightrope as far as its religious identity goes. That identity is central to the University's history, important to a big share of its most loyal alumni/ae base, and a still meaningful part of its present. And yet we are at a point where the current generation of prospective students is less likely to indicate a religious affiliation than any generation in recent memory.

FWIW, each of the four prongs -- Learn, Serve, Lead, Thrive -- can include a faith element for those who seek it. I think it's about getting blend and balance right. As with so many other things we've discussed here, VU cannot afford to burrow down in one aspect of its existence, to the exclusion of others. Different pieces of this University need each other for the whole to survive and hopefully thrive.

So......this Uplift Valpo thing seems to have a strong enough frame without being banal edu-speak, but flexible enough to create room for variety. It's a lot sharper than the Strategic Plan itself, IMO.

[crusader05]

One thing that I think the University has done regarding it's balance is the Institute for Leadership and Service being tied to Chapel operations. They offer Fellowships and programming and other things that appeal to a broad demographic and highlight the idea of vocation and service to others. Yes some fellowships are with specifically Lutheran organizations but others are not or with other, broadly religious groups.

You still have the chapel life of service and praise bands and other things to partake in but, if Lutheran dogma isn't your cup of tea but religion or spirituality is you can still find that supported in a way directly tied to the religious roots of the university.

[valpo95]

This may have been quoted before, yet I came across Richard John Neuhaus' lecture given at Valpo in 2007. Those involved in deciding the future of Valpo would be wise to consider what he had to say. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/04/004-a-university-of-a-particular-kind

Today the Christian university is in crisis. At least in many institutions, there is a dying of the light. The crisis is often described as a crisis of secularization. But that, I would suggest, is not quite right. The secular, the saeculum , is the world of God's creation and redeeming love. The crisis of the Christian university is more accurately described as a crisis created by the ambition to imitate other kinds of universities that falsely claim to be universities pure and simple. It is a crisis created by competing to belong to the second tier, or even the third tier, of schools that do not aspire to be Christian universities. It is a crisis created by envying excellence divorced from truth. Enough can never be said in favor of excellence, but it is small comfort for a Christian university to be recognized as being moderately good at being what it did not set out to be in the first place.

The crisis is most accurately described, I believe, as a crisis of faith. The question that those who lead a Christian university must answer, and answer again every day, is whether the Christian proposal limits or illumines the university's calling to seek and to serve veritas "to seek and to serve the truth."

[David81]

i think i agree with you on all this David.

maybe what seems like a tough nut to crack, though, is the reality that the religious faith isn't easy to simply include in wider values conversations. it seems easier for universities to either go kind of hard-core on the religion piece and define really specifically what it means in ways that will appeal to some and turn off others; or to just be private and secular and therefore not have to answer the expectations of religious ideals at all. i worry that the lukewarm in-between thing is what often makes everybody dissatisfied since they think the university *ought* to be more authentically Christian, though you never know what anybody has in mind. That happens both on the left, when they're disgusted that the university is too sold out to corporate/elitist interests instead of  'least of these' grace-and-inclusion sorts of Christian values at every turn. And it happens on the right, when they're disgusted that the the university is too sold out to diversity instead of a more narrow euro-american lutheranism. So there is a risk that the religious affiliation, when it is retained but sweeped in as a more generic value, actually becomes toxic to social cohesion in every direction because of all these various senses that the value isn't being honored authentically and that 'a real Christian university would look like x or y.' Universities that never claimed any particular religious identity or ethic to begin with do not have to deal with this particular kind of dissatisfaction and disillusionment from students staff and faculty. i guess this is part of the 'tightrope' you're talking about.

valpo22, your response is why I've been touting the theme of values for VU, because it's meaningful enough to speak to us individually, while flexible enough to allow for different perspectives and beliefs. I strongly believe that a university like VU can be an honest broker in encouraging the lifelong development and evolution of values, without prescribing what those values must be.

In some cases, a focus on values will bring students closer to faith. If not, it's okay, and that path remains open to them the rest of their lives, as does the possibility of breaking with one's faith. But as long as students believe this is important stuff, they and others will benefit. And as long as we preach (ba dum) the importance of creating space for dialogue and individual choice (generically speaking; not a cloaked reference to pro choice!), the University has room for a lot of thoughtful students who don't get bent out of shape because they're too close in proximity to those who look at things differently.

[VUSupport]

That video wasn't anything to make me feel better about the direction or future of the university. Padilla and administration doesn't have a go getter at the head of Enrollment or realistic goals. They dropped the ball in not retaining Dr Welch, whom by the way, has made immediate strides and impact in Ohio. Her knowledge in retention has now become well known all over in Higher Education.

[crusadermoe]

You've got some good insights. Come meet us on the enrollment numbers thread?

[VUSupport]

Moe who are you replying to?

[crusadermoe]

You. Maybe you are in that thread already.

[VUSupport]

Sent you a pm

[crusadermoe]

I don't know how to get one of those.  Would prefer to just stay on the board.

[VUSupport]

I'm not in the mood to ruffle feathers or get in a pissing contest, so good luck

[David81]

valpo22, your response is why I've been touting the theme of values for VU, because it's meaningful enough to speak to us individually, while flexible enough to allow for different perspectives and beliefs. I strongly believe that a university like VU can be an honest broker in encouraging the lifelong development and evolution of values, without prescribing what those values must be.

this seems like this ought to be the right way to go, but i think a lot of us are grasping these days trying to figure out why it hasn't worked. there was so much idealism in the 90s and early 2000s about this sort of classically liberal/free approach to ed. Multiculturalism was supposed to allow difference while still affirming larger ideals of the American civic melting pot. Reckoning with the reality of pluralism was supposed to challenge us to engage different beliefs and engage in civic conversations across difference. Values-based learning was supposed to free us up from particular tribalisms in commitment to a larger common good. i think most educators still sort of believe in the ideals of all that.  it would be nice to have a society where people can actually bring real differences of experience and perspective (political/religious/class) to the table and come out with some sort of consensus about how to operate that isn't just raw self-interest. BUT the reality is that it doesn't seem to have worked. it's no longer 1995, and society seems deeper embeeded in ideologies than ever. Multiculturalism did nothing to stem the racial violence on minoritized groups we've seen continue in society, while seeming to actually super-charge society with unhelpful retrenchment into identity politics on all sides. The pluralism and civic dialogue stuff got hijacked by people screaming at each other on Facebook in digital political silos. And values-based approach became kind of a joke once universities and corporations got a hold of it and turned it into a marketing tool; you get stuff like Shake Shack touting 'hospitality' and 'family' as a core value while paying their employees crap and being really no different than McDonalds. it is in that context, i think it is an open question of whether the Christian/Lutheran identity wars --- even if left more vaguely as 'values' --- do more net good or net harm to institutional efforts to broker real conversation.

Sorry to be so depressing, but i just can't help but feel like society tried all this, and it sadly didn't work. s i see most the Millenial and GenZ students really retreating from the notion that engagement in conversation about 'values' does much at all; instead they putting greater trust in economic class analysis again. It is like a return to the Cold War/Reagan era. Either students want to be at the top of the corporate pile and make as much $$$$$ as they can; or they feel the economy/society is fundamentally stacked and broken and they some kind of socialist reform.... So in a freshman class of students born in 2005 or 2006, somem are going to be aiming to become masters at extracting as many assets as possible from society and otheres are going to be activists aiming to deconstruct society as much as possible. But all of them are pretty allergic to identity/values talk, and neither is really interested in conversation and dialogue. In both cases, they are pretty convinced that way forward is not to talk about or across different values because the task is the much grittier one of  navigating winners and losers. I can kind of understand why they feel that way, since i have seen higher ed preach all the civic values stuff for a while, and it sadly just seems not to have worked. Hence it feels like most of higher ed is graspring to figure out what to say instead now in 2023

Ya know something, I don't find your thoughtful comments necessarily depressing. Why? Because in an era where extreme views are getting a lot of air time and a lot of folks seem to gravitate toward one end or the other, therein lies the opportunity for certain schools to strike more of a balance, to be centered somewhere in the middle range (perhaps leaning right or left), while creating room for many different beliefs, perspectives, and points of view. Schools like Valpo are among them. So, rather than saying the civic values stuff "sadly just seems not to have worked," perhaps we can say instead, "it hasn't worked yet."

I would not have identified such a balancing/sorting/dialogue role for the VU of my time on campus, when it was a rather constrictive, homogeneous institution. It is a more diverse and inclusive place today. Nevertheless, while I understand that some folks here bristle at any campus initiative that smacks of being woke, I can assure everyone that Valpo is not turning into a hotbed of left activism, even if more such students are enrolled than back in my day. The core of the institution remains solidly traditional.

Point is, one of VU's central strengths is that it is well positioned to wrestle with questions of left and right, values and vocation, liberal arts and the professions, identity and cohesion, and, yes, Athens and Jerusalem. I think some people feel that VU will become a better place only if certain of these competing dimensions "win," whereas I think its distinctiveness is in holding space for them to co-exist in sort of a pleasantly uncomfortable (or uncomfortably pleasant) teetering balance.

[vu84v2]

David81 - As has been the case in some of your prior posts, you articulate my perspective more effectively than I might be able to do. Frankly, whenever I see someone post some version of "Valpo has lost its identity", I immediately think that they feel that Valpo should adopt their ideology. Valpo needs to be a place, as you suggest, where different and often opposing perspectives are welcomed...because that creates highly valuable learning and respect which will serve students well in their lives.

[Just Sayin]

Projection.

[David81]

David81 - As has been the case in some of your prior posts, you articulate my perspective more effectively than I might be able to do. Frankly, whenever I see someone post some version of "Valpo has lost its identity", I immediately think that they feel that Valpo should adopt their ideology. Valpo needs to be a place, as you suggest, where different and often opposing perspectives are welcomed...because that creates highly valuable learning and respect which will serve students well in their lives.

vu84v2, thank you for the kind words. While I'm fully ok with an array of higher ed institutions that spans the social and political spectrum, more and more I'm coming to believe that the schools providing space for different interests and points of view are the ones that can help to rescue us from the brink of extremism (on both ends). It's not that I think that everything should be safely and blandly in the middle. Rather, it's calling for the big tent approach in higher ed. So, let's say, if a school leans left (however one defines that), then it should be sure to welcome and make space for those coming from the other direction, and vice versa.

Plus, imagine the sense of relief in feeling like you don't have to win an ideological battle -- politically, pedagogically, spiritually, whatever -- at your university of choice. Rather, if the commitment is to true diversity, then folks aren't trying to trounce and cancel each other. VU can be one of those places, without losing its traditional core.

[crusadermoe]

Yeesh on the A.I. and tech idiocy.  Could someone please zap me into the 50s when things weren't so screwed up in universities and in our country in general.  I would even settle for the 80s.

The Bay area (and now silicon valley) has generally been a destructive influence on the country dating back for a very long time. Oakland is overtly fighting its police and expecting 7-figure reparations money.  I predict that aFter the movie industry leaves for Texas, Colorado, and many southern states, and the tech workers all insist on remote housing in cheaper states,  the state of California will essentially become a beautiful, but impoverished "sanctuary country."  The larger state can then thank the bay area culture and its movie industry that is warped so far outside societal norms and positive themes.

[Just Sayin]

Yeesh on the A.I. and tech idiocy.  Could someone please zap me into the 50s when things weren't so screwed up in universities and in our country in general.  I would even settle for the 80s.

The Bay area (and now silicon valley) has generally been a destructive influence on the country dating back for a very long time. Oakland is overtly fighting its police and expecting 7-figure reparations money.  I predict that aFter the movie industry leaves for Texas, Colorado, and many southern states, and the tech workers all insist on remote housing in cheaper states,  the state of California will essentially become a beautiful, but impoverished "sanctuary country."  The larger state can then thank the bay area culture and its movie industry that is warped so far outside societal norms and positive themes.

Progressives have destroyed California. And California is still a bellwether state unfortunately.

[wh]

"Valpo is not turning into a hotbed of left activism, even if more such students are enrolled than back in my day. The core of the institution remains solidly traditional."

David,
There isn't time for an Engrg. Prof in an Embedded Microcontrollers class or a Nursing instructor in a Complex Nursing Situations Theory class to sit around and pontificate about the meaning of life. The political views of these people are irrelevant.

The only "core" that matters relative to promoting specific ideologies are humanities and social sciences. If you think this group is "solidly traditional," you need to take a deeper dive. Higher education is the epicenter for the promotion of cultural Marxism and Humanities/Social Sciences is the vehicle that drives it.

Valpo is anything but "well suited" to strike an ideological balance. Thankfully, President Padilla is well suited to "re-center" Valpo's current skewed position as part of his heroic effort to save a ship taking on water to the tune of $40k a day. Talking "values" is only step-1 in cleaning up a mishmash that "traditional" families across the United States are wise to and find off putting when selecting the proper fit for their child.