@valpopal What are the catalysts for articles that condemn the art sale? I strongly doubt that New York Times journalists (or those from the main Chicago Tribune) were looking for a hot story at Valparaiso University. Instead, I suspect that the group who is against the art sale (or their proxy, the art associations who should have not say in Valpo's decisions) are sending information, article drafts, etc. to them to encourage them to publish an article. If true, such activity by university employees is unethical and (if it were in a firm or most non-profit organizations) would get you immediately dismissed.
@vu84v2 Again, nobody cares what hypothetical situations you "suspect," particularly readers of those respected newspapers, more so when you begin the next sentence revealing your own doubts and uncertainty with "If true...." Additionally, you have invented some dubious "unethical" claim, especially when concerning the topic of free speech at a university of all places. Are you really in favor of restrictions on free speech for faculty at Valparaiso University? Should members of the university be prohibited from such commentary on this forum and others as well?
I have seen posts on LinkedIn regarding the art sale. I would not be surprised if they came from this source, but I would also not be surprised if the source was inside the University or with people closely related to those involved in the art sale.
At this moment, no ones mind is going to be changed on the art sale and any conversation on the art sale sees the same end of bickering and less than civil discussion. I suggest we take a play out of the book regarding what happened with the Crusader and just let it go and drop it. This conversation is not healthy nor is it constructive in any way.
valpopal: I serve on the faculty senate at the university in which I work. I and others have disagreed with the university's actions on a number of issues, but we raise these issues in strong debate with the administration. If we don't get our way, we don't go running off to the media with the implied threat that the university better do what we want them to do - otherwise we will damage the university as much as possible. I am not in favor of prohibitions on free speech, but I do expect people to use such freedom ethically. Further, I also believe that the definition of academic freedom has been inappropriately expanded over the years.
@rezynezy - I agree, but the art sale decision is about $20M that the university needs. It is a bigger issue than changing the mascot name as the art sale has impact on survival.
@vu84v2 You do realize the administration has a legal/media team that continually works public spin on this issue, which naturally reaches beyond the university because the museum is supposed to be open to the public and is nationally renown. The university president, the provost, two university lawyers, a legal spokesperson, the president's personal spokesperson, the director of university communications—all with the power of the president's office, a full legal team, and the marketing and communication staff—have contributed comments, quotes, and press releases to newspaper and digital media to promote their version of the controversy and to publicly attack the one man standing in their way, the 96-year old wheelchair-bound former director whose name appears above the entrance to the museum. Any problems with their actions and speech?
...As I've said before, I don't think it is current students and employees who are most vocally and publicly against the art sale, since they may be upset but are also keenly aware of how much program cuts will hurt their students and their own career trajectories. I believe the most vociferous and public opposition has come from retired staff and faculty in their 70s and 80s who are no longer career-track and no longer in the trenches of life trying to teach students or pay rent to keep their families housed.
The public face of the opposition to the art sale may be Richard Brauer, 96 years old and namesake of the museum, but the Faculty Senate objections and public resolutions obviously were crafted by active faculty since each "must be a full-time faculty member who has served as such for a minimum of five years at Valparaiso University." Additionally, the petition and opposition website were created and designed by current students. The open letter in opposition was organized by current faculty in unity with Profs. Gretchen Buggein, Sarah Jantzl, Sara Gunderson, and John Ruff, all teaching on campus. That letter is signed by 75 current faculty and 17 emeritus faculty. [Full disclosure, I have not signed any of the petitions or letters.] Further, the national media response and press releases by arts organizations do not fit your description.
I do not believe that current faculty, or donors would ever do such a thing as to sabotage their own career in this manor. You can think strongly about a topic and how said topic is handled, but to go to the media as a current professor or staff member is just as VUIndiana described. I have seen social media be the most prevalent source of information regarding this sale. Social media in it of itself could be a mixture of people linked to the school, and the general public. This fiasco started when the reporter from the tribune was initially invited to the university years ago under false pretenses. Whomever invited the initial reporter would likely take the most of the blame.
With all this said, the expansive, and affluent, nature of the Valpo alumni network leads me to believe that someone did in fact call their buddy at the tribune and even called someone at the New York Times to cover the topic. The initial reporter would have had 0 knowledge of the sale without someone close to the museum tipping them off. Again, this is most likely not a current staff member, but rather someone closely linked to a current staff member who heard rumor. This sale was completely behind closed doors and kept within the university until the first article from the tribune. Once the initial tribune article was released, other sources, such as a the foundations associated with art, took the initial tribune story and ran with it. As for the NY Times, this issue was a localized issue in the Chicagoland area. It is not crazy to assume someone tipped off the NY Times reporter as well, however, the NY Times likely only got ahold of the story through various social media sources. The reporter who wrote the article in the NY Times is a know advocate for the arts.
https://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2023/03/really-it-is-ok-for-a-college-to-sell-art/
Here is an article from an arts administration teacher at IU.
The premise offered by ReZyNeZy and VUIndiana makes a lot of sense (more than my premise did), though I disagree that current faculty would be in danger of sabotaging their careers. With the current nature of academic freedom, a faculty member has literally no risk in publicly criticizing the university or encouraging someone else (the media) to do so. At our university, a faculty member ran a blog for years that consistently criticized the university and specific leaders and faculty members by name and nothing could be done about it (as distasteful and unethical as his blog was).
To the point about current faculty support against the art sale, I think it is fair to say that current faculty support against the sale is almost all from the College of Arts and Sciences. 12 of the 20 people on Valpo's faculty senate are from the College of Arts and Sciences (the College gets 10 of the 20 seats plus the at large chair and vice chair are from that College). Only six seats total are from engineering, nursing/health sciences, and business. The vote for the motion against the sale was 13-6 with one faculty member from engineering publicly and strongly against the motion.
Decisions on program discontinuances have come down from Padilla and the Board of Directors. In an email, Padilla listed 15 undergraduate and 15 graduate programs to be discontinued, but out of the ones originally marked for review in March, 5 received approval to continue: astronomy major and minor, Bachelor of music therapy and certificate, Spanish major, supply chain and logistics minor, and public health major and minor. Notably, theology is also listed as being “reimagined” and that program will be redesigned over the course of the next year.
The email also says that 98% of students will not be affected and that a “modest reduction in faculty positions” will have to take place by the end of the 2026-27 school year. He also mentions that the total number of undergraduate majors is now 48.
I have no access to the numbers and projections, which should drive such decisions, but discontinuing supply chain/logistics (undergraduate) and cyber security (graduate) seems to run counter to current and expected labor demands.
What does bolding some of these majors and minors mean? Also, what does *** mean?
