CSU Faculty Voice: Interesting Reading

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Interesting Reading

In case you missed this information about one of CSU’s potential presidents check this out as well as past articles from the Chicago Tribune of that time.

Chronicle of Higher Education, April 8, 2005
In Chicago, a Chancellor Pushes 2-Year Colleges to Change Their Ways
Faculty members voted no confidence in Wayne Watson; others praise his innovations By JAMILAH EVELYN
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i31/31a02301.htm

The following article brought to our attention by one of our blog commentators makes for a nice contrast.

Inside Higher Ed, April 1, 2009
Lessons of 33 Years as a President By Richard S. Meyers
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/04/01/meyers

4 comments:

AnonymousApr 2, 2009, 10:23:00 AM
I've been watching the blasting of two amazing candidates for the job - one who runs a $5.5 billion annual budget and another who manages 7 colleges and 10 satellite campuses with 8,000 employees and a budget five times that of CSU. Many of the people who are doing the blasting have never been able to complete their PhD's or publish or administer research grants. Talk about hyprocrisy. I guess that amusing one's self like this during the idle time between classes generates a feeling of superiority.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert MeekerApr 2, 2009, 12:17:00 PM
Required Reading -April 2nd Chicago Tribune article entitled --Chicago State University: Faculty, students criticize 2 finalists for president as political insiders
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert BionazApr 2, 2009, 1:53:00 PM
Bagolee's comment is nicely off point. The key issue here is that the process was so opaque that it fuels speculation that the selections were cronyism. Also, given the recent track record of the CSU trustees in selecting presidents, it might have been useful to have employed the faculty as something other than window dressing. The top-down, paternalistic management style that obtains at this university is one of its major problems and this fiasco is simply more of the same. By the way, I have my Ph.D. and have also published.

Bob Bionaz
Department of History
ReplyDelete
Replies
Paul GombergApr 9, 2009, 8:44:00 PM
Bagolee: "two amazing candidates for the job"? Then the insults--whom is bagowhatever insulting? No one is named, and I have no idea to whom bago is referring. In any event, if these candidates are amazing, it is in their absense of commitment to Chicago State and, in Watson's case, vindictiveness. Ask the dedicated, part-time and temporary but non-tenured faculty who participated in the City Colleges strike. I believe most were systematically eliminated from the system regardless of their teaching.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Thanks to Haki Madhabuti

"1. He/she must be a scholar of national note, with significant peer review publications and books in his or her field. There must be no doubt as to his/her standing in the community of scholars. This would also include a history of the candidate’s participation in the appropriate professional organizations.

2. He/she must have served with distinction as the administrative head of a major unit within an institution of higher learning or at the important position of Provost and/or Dean. Of course, prior service at the presidential level is preferred.

3. He/she must have a documented history of raising significant monies from the private and public sectors. At most major and research one universities it is not unusual to expect the president to come with a plan to raise in excess of half a billion dollars or more in the first few years.

4. The prospective president must have a consensus buy-in from the faculty, students, administration and staff, therefore, arriving with a unity mandate to lead by joining a University community that has bought into his or her vision for the future."

From an open letter to the CSU Community, 2009.