Valpo Strategic Plan

[usc4valpo]

A lot of folks have been ripping Padilla to keep this university moving in the right direction, and many don't understand the need to upgrade facilities to stay afloat.

It would be wonderful for media to report on both sides of the story.

[David81]

A lot of folks have been ripping Padilla to keep this university moving in the right direction, and many don't understand the need to upgrade facilities to stay afloat.

It would be wonderful for media to report on both sides of the story.

But to ValpoPal's point, I think the criticisms of President Padilla on this board have been measured and specific, for the most part. I think he's doing a very good job overall, under very challenging circumstances. The faculty statement opposing the art sale was careful to explain that this is not a broadside challenge to his leadership.

Also, many of us who are hoping for an alternative option to the art sale happen to recognize the need for upgraded facilities. But we're also questioning how it suddenly became a "must have" only when the art sale proposal surfaced.

Anyway, of course a reporter is going to pick up on the cheekiness of setting up an exhibition on deaccession. It's newsworthy in that regard. And given the stakes involved, the exhibit is a fair expression of academic freedom to be raising the issues in this manner.

Those who are used to, and/or favor, top-down, vertical decision making sometimes have trouble with the ways in which universities try to resolve their internal issues. At times it's messy, contentious, inefficient, and revealing of the dirty laundry. But the irony is that compared to the come and go of private businesses, universities have a lot of staying power, notwithstanding said inefficiencies. At times during its history, it has stumbled and bumbled along, but guess what? It's still here.

If Padilla can resolve this controversy effectively and without a lot of bad feelings in its wake, then we have further confirmation that he is the right guy for Valpo. He already helped foster the change in head coaches in a way that was respectful to the outgoing guy and created a ton of enthusiasm and excitement over the incoming guy -- a big win for the VU community and a lesson in how to do it right.

[wh]

Pal is right. Your wife could have sex with 3 guys at the same time while you're at work, and if you get mad and call her the "c" word, she immediately becomes the victim. Is it too late to take back calling the art guy stupid - in quotes? I hope so. If it helps, stupid in quotes means what he did actually was not stupid because no one could be that ignorant. Obviously, it was cunning and calculated, with the intent of doing irreparable damage to Valparaiso University's otherwise highly respected president and board.

As someone who has loved Valparaiso University my entire adult life and am deeply concerned about its future existence, I do hope this individual and his ilk fail miserably in their dirty deed and are held properly accountable.

[valpopal]

Pal is right. Your wife could have sex with 3 guys at the same time while you're at work, and if you get mad and call her the "c" word, she immediately becomes the victim. Is it too late to take back calling the art guy stupid - in quotes? I hope so. If it helps, stupid in quotes means what he did actually was not stupid because no one could be that ignorant. Obviously, it was cunning and calculated, with the intent of doing irreparable damage to Valparaiso University's otherwise highly respected president and board.

As someone who has loved Valparaiso University my entire adult life and am deeply concerned about its future existence, I do hope this individual and his ilk fail miserably in their dirty deed and are held properly accountable.

For the sake of comity, I will proceed under the assumption your account has been hacked. 

[vu84v2]

valpo22 - Please don't generalize the entire population of alumni from a very small sample (in this case one, who may or may not be an alum).

I do think that Canning's actions increase the likelihood of his dismissal or his resignation. Reasons:

-To my knowledge, he is classified as an administrator...not a tenured faculty member. Thus, his employment agreement is considered for renewal every one, two or three years.
-From the same assumption as the prior point, Canning is not protected by academic freedom. Only tenured faculty are protected (I am also assuming that Valpo's employee handbook is similar to most universities).
-Canning used university resources to create his protest.
-Such actions are likely to impress the people in the arena he is most concerned about - the art museum associations and other similar groups.

Some may view his actions as courageous. I can see that argument, but again have never been convinced at all that the art is anything more than highly valuable assets which are not directly related to the university's mission.

[VULB#62]

A lot of this string's content talks about enrollment decline ramifications. FWIW, columnist George Will had a few words to share about it in the Washington Post today. Catchy headline if nothing else. I hope my link works.

[The Washington Post] As enrollment plummets, academia gets schooled about where it went wrong

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/19/declining-college-enrollment-value/

[crusadermoe]

Ouch.   A very concise commentary.

Merciless comments on the business model of higher eduation, the race among mid-range colleges to offer mongolian barbecue, and the politicization of professors is ruining the humanities. 

[David81]

A lot of this string's content talks about enrollment decline ramifications. FWIW, columnist George Will had a few words to share about it in the Washington Post today. Catchy headline if nothing else. I hope my link works.

[The Washington Post] As enrollment plummets, academia gets schooled about where it went wrong

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/19/declining-college-enrollment-value/

Ahhhh....George Will. As is often the case, he mixes some sharp, insightful points -- the kinds that should make liberals like me sit up straight and think -- with some dubious swings and misses.

To wit on the latter, his trashing of a 1971 Supreme Court opinion that, in essence, held that employers cannot use testing instruments that discriminate statistically against protected groups (sex, race, etc.) UNLESS they can show that these tests are job-related. Makes sense, right? The opinion was NOT written by one of the left-leaning judges, but rather by one Warren Burger, a solidly conservative Nixon appointee. What Burger was actually getting at was concern over the growing use of standardized tests being used as gatekeeping devices. And why was Burger, hardly a social justice warrior, writing this opinion? Probably because he was and remains one of the very few SCOTUS justices who didn't go to an elite law school. Instead, he attended the St. Paul College of Law in Minnesota.

And yet Will blames this opinion for pushing employers to require bachelor's degrees instead of using employment tests, and thus pushing more and more young folks to get bachelor's degrees in order to qualify for good jobs. It's a nonsensical point. Employers can still use tests for applicants, so long as the content relates to the job in question. Many still do.

But I did like his point about schools outside the elite circle loading up on bells & whistles to attract applicants, i.e., making the "'student experience' more enticing — fancier dorms, better football, Mongolian barbecues in the food courts, etc." It's that very challenge that has prompted the art sale controversy. Harvard and Co. can still fill their seats and sell the student experience with the crappiest of dorms, but everyone else has to scramble to get the pitch right.

[crusadermoe]

Agreed with '81 on some points about Warren Burger and the employment tests. Yes, I forgot there were centrist judges in a time long ago.  There was also a need to compensate more than a bit for history. Other federal programs did generate momentum for minorities to enter the middle class in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in coastal and southern cities. So the pendulum seemed to be swinging in the right direction and people seemed to be gradually moving toward the MLK vision. (Ironically the supposedly racist south became the "new south" of the 1970s-1980s and handled integration much more readily than the northern cities.)

But now we have reversed all the 1970s-1980s progress and colleges deserve the primary blame. Senior faculty and college leaders grew nostalgic for the good old days of student activism in the 1960s and contrived updated grievances against what they had known. "Multi-culturalism" was a solution in search of a problem; a ludicrous idea that assumed that a race equated to a culture. Does a two-generation American middle class minority group of kids comprise a "culture?" It was a stupid contrivance that took deeper root in politics and then money followed it for political gain. MLK's goal suddenly went in reverse as we sadly were taught to judge an individual not by his/her character but by their identity group.  Congratulations to all the M-C devotees.  Mission accomplished.  I suspect people like '81 are not the enthusiasts who led this. They graduated in 1981 into a more normal world that had recovered from the 60s and LSD. Their seniors were the goofballs.

[usc4valpo]

George Will had a few good points, but we need liberal arts collegiate education to solve world problems in a holistic fashion.

For the class of 2027 not going to elite schools, Will is correct about the importance of amenities to entice students to enroll. After visiting college with my daughters the past few year, I strongly feel Valpo needs these facility upgrades drastically to stay marketable.  If this involves selling assets and pissing off a creative writing major and a director trying to hold on to power grab, then  so be it. 

On the other hand, facility upgrades and other amenities drive costs. This makes me wonder if students enrolling to these colleges generally care about costs and debt they will eventually pay after graduation. My feeling, for any degree, is that students need to have some plan or long term objective on what they want to do with that degree or college experience. This plan or objective can change, but they need to keep this in mind when going to college.

[vu72]

I found George Will's final note of interest:

"Almost three-quarters of Democrats think colleges have a positive impact on the nation; 37 percent of Republicans do."

When looking at the education backgrounds of the two parties it makes all the sense in the world.  Here is an article from Pew Research that does a deeper dive into the views of various groups within these parties. Specifically, the article points out that 96% of Republicans ages 65 and older who think higher education is headed in the wrong direction say professors bringing their views into the classroom is a major reason for this. Only 58% of Republicans ages 18 to 34 share that view.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/

Overall, education and gender play a big part in voter choice.  This 2020 Pew article shows that 62% of white men without a college degree voted republican while the same article shows that 62% of white women WITH a college degree voted democratic. It also points out the 57% of republican voters do not have a college degree.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/

[crusadermoe]

That's consistent with what I have read over the last 10 years too.

The incredible irony, for better or for worse, is that the very non-degreed white men who vote Republican now were once the backbone of the Democratic party as laborers in unions. They work with their hands and experience the day-to-day physical realities of the market for goods.   

Conversely, for better or for worse, the educated now have the freedom and good health to muse and opine (like me) on the fate of the world. The technology boon seems to have turbo-charged the age gap.  Since most of their friends are liberal it just spreads on and on.

[David81]

Agreed with '81 on some points about Warren Burger and the employment tests. Yes, I forgot there were centrist judges in a time long ago.  There was also a need to compensate more than a bit for history. Other federal programs did generate momentum for minorities to enter the middle class in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in coastal and southern cities. So the pendulum seemed to be swinging in the right direction and people seemed to be gradually moving toward the MLK vision. (Ironically the supposedly racist south became the "new south" of the 1970s-1980s and handled integration much more readily than the northern cities.)

But now we have reversed all the 1970s-1980s progress and colleges deserve the primary blame. Senior faculty and college leaders grew nostalgic for the good old days of student activism in the 1960s and contrived updated grievances against what they had known. "Multi-culturalism" was a solution in search of a problem; a ludicrous idea that assumed that a race equated to a culture. Does a two-generation American middle class minority group of kids comprise a "culture?" It was a stupid contrivance that took deeper root in politics and then money followed it for political gain. MLK's goal suddenly went in reverse as we sadly were taught to judge an individual not by his/her character but by their identity group.  Congratulations to all the M-C devotees.  Mission accomplished.  I suspect people like '81 are not the enthusiasts who led this. They graduated in 1981 into a more normal world that had recovered from the 60s and LSD. Their seniors were the goofballs.

Crusadermoe, I'm an old-fashioned liberal (safety net, civil rights, labor movement, strong national defense, no fan of authoritarians right or left). At my university I've been at odds with the more parochial old boys as well as the DEI/woke hardliners, though interestingly, more of the former came to respect my willingness to challenge the institution, while many of the latter see me as being disloyal because I'm not part of their cohort.

[VULB#62]

On a different tack, locally to me, UWGB just announced a corporate-sponsored endowment that fully supports a women's career leadership institute. The chair or whatever it is, boldly carries the corporate name. Does Valpo look for corporate alliances for this type of thing?  And what might be the upside of doing this sort of thing?

[David81]

On a different tack, locally to me, UWGB just announced a corporate-sponsored endowment that fully supports a women's career leadership institute. The chair or whatever it is, boldly carries the corporate name. Does Valpo look for corporate alliances for this type of thing?  And what might be the upside of doing this sort of thing?

I know the law school had some arrangements like that, e.g., a lecture series underwritten by Monsanto.

It's definitely a good thing, so long as the University has full authority on running the program or staffing the position.

I ran a funded and later endowed public service law fellowship program at my school for several years, and the donors (big name real estate family) were very involved in insisting upon quality, but hands off on admin and policy decisions. I really respected their approach -- accountability on positive results, but you run it as you see fit -- and found it to be an enjoyable challenge.

[vu84v2]

The business building at the University of Kansas is named for the firm owned by the primary donor family. Further, it is not uncommon for lecture series or endowed chairs to be named for firms and is a good practice.

David81 raises an excellent and very important point, however, regarding demands of corporate (or any) donors. If their involvement is to insist on quality (e.g., the aforementioned Kansas donation) or adhering to the agreed mission (e.g., women's career leadership), great and they can bring a great deal of valuable support. But universities need to be very careful not to let donors (corporate or otherwise) drive a particular ideology. I have experience with two specific donors (one of each side of the political spectrum) attempting to require, in the terms of their major donation, teaching a series of courses in a manner that is consistent with their political ideology. Unfortunately, some universities have accepted donations with those terms - but it is wrong to do so.

[crusadermoe]

I know I would love it if universities also didn't sell their soul to the Chinese to create...oh hypothetically...the Penn Biden Center.

[valpo64]

and all of God's children said "AMEN"!

[vu84v2]

I was specifically referring to attempts by the Koch brothers and George Soros. They offer seven or eight figure donations over time, but require the university create programs that preach their economic ideologies in exchange for their donations.

[usc4valpo]

I wonder if Oklahoma State University sold their soul to T. Boone Pickens when he donated $500m for primarily athletics and investments.

[vu84v2]

To my knowledge, T. Boone Pickens has only demanded that the athletics teams win. His expectations on the academic side are simply that OSU achieve high quality and be nationally recognized - no demands on a specific ideology to be followed in academic programs.

[valpo tundra]

T. Boone Pickens died September 11, 2019.

[David81]

Didn't know this was in the works, but saw the Torch published an article on salaries (remove 2 spaces after http for it to work):

http:  //www.valpotorch.com/news/article_963e20b6-df94-11ed-875b-1b3c3896ae2a.html

Valpo22, thank you for sharing that link. The peer school salary study findings appear to be very consistent with Diapora's personal observations about VU salaries as a former A&S faculty member.

[usc4valpo]

So we know Valpo faculty are paid below the norm. There is no denying this. The question is how this can be addressed. How about cutting some more majors for  a handful or less of enrolled students, resulting in cuts, where the revenue saved can bolster salaries?

Any solution will result in pain.

[David81]

Valpo22 speaks wisely about the likely impact of more cuts. At some point, you look around and see mostly crushed spirits and a lack of trust in the institution. It takes years to recover from that, if at all.

Basically, for decades upon decades, the University has balanced its books on the backs of an underpaid faculty. When an institution's very financial model has been grounded in low pay for the people doing its core work, a few more cuts here and there aren't going to make a difference anyway. This is a structural failure; thus, the fix won't be easy.

Absent digging into the art museum basement in search of a forgotten Picasso or Monet, there are only two ways to address this: Revenue and fundraising.