These observations appear to be well thought out and articulated. Moreover, I would submit that such a list generated by current students with seemingly no axe to grind is conceivably more damaging to future enrollment than something comparable from embittered faculty members.
Sorry, I disagree. This is a laundry list of gripes, some which cannot be controlled.
Remarkable opinion article in the Torch today: https://www.valpotorch.com/opinion/article_024ea234-e511-11ef-b875-c3d928bc4141.html
If this vote is publicly available, who were the two faculty who didn’t vote no confidence?
”13. The Faculty Senate expressed no confidence in President Padilla’s ability to lead in a 15-2 vote.”
Also, this quote cracked me up: “93. The university is apparently “Grounded in Wisdom” yet has cut philosophy which is the “Love of wisdom”.
Remarkable opinion article in the Torch today: https://www.valpotorch.com/opinion/article_024ea234-e511-11ef-b875-c3d928bc4141.html
Well, you can’t say the Lutheran tradition isn’t alive and well at dear old Valpo! 😂
The Pope is now writing his rejoinder.
@usc4valpo removed link
There’s a link to the original document which has 21 sources as basis for the 95 Theses.
I have no doubt that Karson and Jsckson are thoughtful and care a great deal about the university. But frankly, they are speaking from one perspective - the College of Arts and Sciences. Opinions from students in engineering, business, nursing, etc. need to be understood and equally weighted against those of Karson, Jackson and others in A&S. My guess is rhat some of these concerns will be shared and some will be differemt.
Alos, it is much easier to list 95 theses than it is to deal with the practical reality of prioritization and cost.
@vu84v2 -very good observation backing up my objection. It was a narrow minded laundry list of items discussed over and over, where some items were bogus and some that could not be prevented for the survival of Valpo. I am glad Padilla is leaving as there is too much divide, division and lack of transparency. On the other hand, he came in with a mess from Heckler’s twisted vision.
In what world does that Student Senate get to interact with the Board of Directors for a university? Does that actually happen elsewhere? Students are only on campus for 4 years, and has no business interacting with a BoD, in my opinion. Does anyone else read their points and come to the assumption that some of the disgruntled faculty contributed to the article? This is especially evident around the art issue. Curious to know what potential team cuts students are hearing about in their rumor mill.
Terrible, lazily written article with a lot of whining, and nothing new. Valparaiso is not strictly a liberal arts university, and the technical attributes like enginnering, meteorology and nursing, are major recognized strengths we need to hype. Padilla is leaving and this list has been discussed to ad nauseum and won’t alleviate the situation.
This article was a major bitching session and I hope the writer finds it to be therapeutic to his or her well being. Suggest solutions!
The article was written by two authors: Karson Hollander, an athletic and academic standout who is a biology/chemistry major and a member of the Track and Field team; Jackson Price, apparently a theology major who plans to be a pastor and whose story was featured by Valparaiso University on its Career and Alumni web page. Their words would claim the article is suggesting a solution by listing points to "act as a guide for the Presidential Search Committee over the next year." These are the kind of students whose voices should not be easily dismissed and should be given some consideration.
Karson Hollander: https://valpoathletics.com/sports/mens-track-and-field/roster/karson-hollander/10067
Jackson Price: https://alumni.valpo.edu/s/1347/21/1col.aspx?sid=1347&gid=1&pgid=252&cid=9140&ecid=9140&crid=0&calpgid=61&calcid=7051
The Torch piece is hardly a whine. It may reflect certain strong points of view from a particular constituency within the university, but as a piece of student journalism, it's well within the bounds of appropriate commentary. And even though few, if any, of the points the authors made are new, they did a pretty good job of aggregating many concerns and criticisms over the course of the current administration.
President Padilla inherited a challenging situation, but VU was hardly in extremis upon his arrival. Like virtually every other residential university, it was emerging from the pandemic. Like virtually every other regional private university, it was facing genuine financial issues. But VU had just completed a successful fundraising campaign, and the university community generally welcomed its new President with open arms.
Unfortunately, he doesn't leave the university in a better position than when he arrived. If he leaves on the announced schedule, then his tenure as president will have been VU's shortest in almost a century, putting aside Colette Irwin-Knott's interim year. Presidents Heckler, Harre, Schnabel, and Huegli all remained in office for at least a decade.
@david81 - agree to disagree. This list was an accumulation of issues addressed over and over from a liberal arts perspective. Given the circumstances, some of the whining was actually addressed properly by Valpo leadership as there were no other viable options. Majors had to be dropped with the declining enrollment.
I get it - they are young and naive, just like us in college. But this article leaves a very bad impression and certainly doesn’t provide solutions or suggestions.
regarding the endowment - that’s nice but the funding is not available or nonexistent to resolve current issues on the laundry list.
@david81 - agree to disagree. This list was an accumulation of issues addressed over and over from a liberal arts perspective. Given the circumstances, some of the whining was actually addressed properly by Valpo leadership as there were no other viable options. Majors had to be dropped with the declining enrollment.
I get it - they are young and naive, just like us in college. But this article leaves a very bad impression and certainly doesn’t provide solutions or suggestions.
regarding the endowment - that’s nice but the funding is not available or nonexistent to resolve current issues on the laundry list.
@usc4valpo, of course it comes from a certain perspective...and what's wrong with that? It's a piece in an undergraduate newspaper, and unless things have changed a lot, students enrolled in any program at VU may contribute.
If we applied the "issues addressed over and over" standard to this board, many of us (myself included) would be on read-only status indefinitely. Indeed, by the reasoning you've used to characterize these students, this publicly accessible board, full of critical commentary about the University, is rehashing the same issues and creating a bad impression.
The students merely used their medium -- the student newspaper -- for sharing points of view in a responsible, non-hyberbolic way. Others are free to respond with letters to the editor or their own opinion pieces. That's what robust debate in a university context is all about. Insecure universities tend to resist those open discussions; indeed, the VU of my day was very unsure of its institutional standing and preferred to keep a lid on everything.
Anyway, if anyone thinks this piece will somehow hurt VU in the public eye, let me assure you that the damage has been done already, and not by the students. The media coverage of VU's ups-and-downs, ranging from the inexplicable decision of the Law School to give the New York Times a lay-up opportunity to portray it as the poster school for the challenges facing private regional law schools, to the Central Administration's participation in the ginning up of the controversy over the art sale, was enabled by the "adults" in the room, not the "kids."
Is there any actual evidence leading anyone on the board to believe that Valpo is going to pull out of this swan dive before the university crashes and burns? I’m an optimist by nature, but I don’t see a shred of evidence pointing to anything positive.
Look, here's the bottom line on this Torch piece. Yes, it was written by students. Yes, it is biased to what we assume their courses of study to be. (Note, I'm revisiting the discontinuance list and I don't see any engineering or nursing programs cut, which probably accounts for why you don't hear much from those students. Business students either understand budgetary cuts or are pragmatically keeping their heads down.) And yes, it's a laundry list of items that have been litigated to death here and elsewhere.
But these are students -- fairly young students. And this is their perception of their institution. Do we wag our finger, tut-tut them for not seeing things our way, or should the university listen to them and try to build a better Valpo?
any actual evidence [...] that Valpo is going to pull out of this
I have no idea what recruitment numbers look like this year, and I don't know that anyone can say with confidence until National Decision Day, which is increasingly an unhelpful target anyway. An outgoing VP of enrollment isn't a good sign, but an outgoing president actually is. Whoever they pick next will see the proper mess of things and will need to articulate a good vision for fixing it. And the board of directors should know that.
Contrary to what some like to claim, I don't think that Valpo's board is comprised of bad actors and deceivers, fit only for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. I think they genuinely want what's best for the university, and I think they're trying their best. They hired a disruptor who did just that but couldn't quite prove able to rebuild after he'd shaken out all the pieces.
But I do tend to agree with whomever said it earlier on this board -- this one is for all the marbles.
