So, one thing I have discovered is there is most often no single right answer to things and there are often many wrong answers. Regarding the most recent tragedy to befall the university, the senseless loss of a student’s life, I believe it very easy to be caught in the whirlwind of emotions, grief, anger, fear and begin to see things less clearly than usual.
Let’s put out the facts as I understand them. A student wished to have a vigil for the victim, collect money for the family and have the event on campus. The event would be sanctioned if all of the requisite paperwork was completed and an employee from the Cashier’s office were present to collect the money. Otherwise, the university would be at risk of an audit finding, and likely a criminal investigation for mishandling money. If the student did not agree to the rules as they have been implemented for several years then that student would not be allowed to conduct that event. My understanding is that the student communicated their unwillingness to adhere to the standard protocol. The Division of Student Affairs has legal, moral and fiduciary responsibility for our students and the institution. In pursuit of those responsibilities students may not get what they want and in the long run should learn valuable life lessons about following established procedures. How that message is delivered may not always be elegant and as long as the institution follows its own rules and those rules are designed to advance the institution then we should generally support them. It is when the rules aren’t clearly established or followed that problems occur. Any follower of this forum will know that this university and its most current iteration of management has had significant challenges in this area, so much so that a monitoring report will be due to the Higher Learning Commission addressing issues of communication and the institution’s adherence to policy.
Another challenge that was highlighted for me in this situation is the absence of direct communication and a systemic mistrust of the administration by faculty and students. Your humble narrator has often written about communication challenges at this university. There are two major challenges to communication. First, is the absence of the mechanisms needed to communicate. Second is the presence or absence of the will to communicate. The university has adequate mechanisms so I am left believing that the major failing is in the will to communicate. This administration has failed the university numerous times, the declining enrollment only being the most recent. So poor communication is par for the course. Unfortunately, it has spilled over into the faculty ranks. I believe faculty don’t have the will to communicate with this administration because the veracity of the response is likely to be suspect. I am dubious in initiating communication because it is likely to result in time that I have wasted and can never get back. I clearly understand my colleagues’ frustration and as much a reminder to myself as them, we must go to the source of the problem and get the facts as understood and presented. When those “facts” don’t quite jibe with reality then we can continue to challenge.
So to my faculty colleagues I say let us be rigorous in our inquiry as we are the group at this university trained to do that. We don’t just support or oppose something or someone predicated on base self interest, like getting one’s family members hired for a job they aren’t qualified for. We critique based on sound intellectual arguments and use inconvenient things like data. We don’t throw things against the wall to see what sticks. I believe us to be better than that which we critique.
I believe this conversation should have been directed toward focusing our outrage at the senseless loss of life and not on the failings of an administration that provides little in terms of leadership to the university or the community at large.
Let’s put out the facts as I understand them. A student wished to have a vigil for the victim, collect money for the family and have the event on campus. The event would be sanctioned if all of the requisite paperwork was completed and an employee from the Cashier’s office were present to collect the money. Otherwise, the university would be at risk of an audit finding, and likely a criminal investigation for mishandling money. If the student did not agree to the rules as they have been implemented for several years then that student would not be allowed to conduct that event. My understanding is that the student communicated their unwillingness to adhere to the standard protocol. The Division of Student Affairs has legal, moral and fiduciary responsibility for our students and the institution. In pursuit of those responsibilities students may not get what they want and in the long run should learn valuable life lessons about following established procedures. How that message is delivered may not always be elegant and as long as the institution follows its own rules and those rules are designed to advance the institution then we should generally support them. It is when the rules aren’t clearly established or followed that problems occur. Any follower of this forum will know that this university and its most current iteration of management has had significant challenges in this area, so much so that a monitoring report will be due to the Higher Learning Commission addressing issues of communication and the institution’s adherence to policy.
Another challenge that was highlighted for me in this situation is the absence of direct communication and a systemic mistrust of the administration by faculty and students. Your humble narrator has often written about communication challenges at this university. There are two major challenges to communication. First, is the absence of the mechanisms needed to communicate. Second is the presence or absence of the will to communicate. The university has adequate mechanisms so I am left believing that the major failing is in the will to communicate. This administration has failed the university numerous times, the declining enrollment only being the most recent. So poor communication is par for the course. Unfortunately, it has spilled over into the faculty ranks. I believe faculty don’t have the will to communicate with this administration because the veracity of the response is likely to be suspect. I am dubious in initiating communication because it is likely to result in time that I have wasted and can never get back. I clearly understand my colleagues’ frustration and as much a reminder to myself as them, we must go to the source of the problem and get the facts as understood and presented. When those “facts” don’t quite jibe with reality then we can continue to challenge.
So to my faculty colleagues I say let us be rigorous in our inquiry as we are the group at this university trained to do that. We don’t just support or oppose something or someone predicated on base self interest, like getting one’s family members hired for a job they aren’t qualified for. We critique based on sound intellectual arguments and use inconvenient things like data. We don’t throw things against the wall to see what sticks. I believe us to be better than that which we critique.
I believe this conversation should have been directed toward focusing our outrage at the senseless loss of life and not on the failings of an administration that provides little in terms of leadership to the university or the community at large.
I am puzzled by part of what Phillip writes (with much of the rest I agree). He writes, "The event would be sanctioned if all of the requisite paperwork was completed and an employee from the Cashier’s office were present to collect the money. Otherwise, the university would be at risk of an audit finding, and likely a criminal investigation for mishandling money. If the student did not agree to the rules as they have been implemented for several years then that student would not be allowed to conduct that event. My understanding is that the student communicated their unwillingness to adhere to the standard protocol. The Division of Student Affairs has legal, moral and fiduciary responsibility for our students and the institution."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what the law is, but over the past twenty-eight years on this campus I have developed a sense of what accepted practice is. I take it the issue that concerns Phillip is the collection of $1 from people who attend the vigil to give to the family. If this is an issue, then the administration can encourage the vigil but not the collection. Still, all kinds of collections occur all the time on campus for all kinds of things: food and clothing drives are well advertised, but there are commonly collections and sales to raise money for student organizations (including the biology department's well publicized plant sales). To my knowledge the administration has never attempted to interfere with such fundraising. So I am at a loss to understand how such a collection raises issues different from these commonly accepted fundraising practices. Please explain.
I have thought the students were doing well in organizing this vigil. I have supported their effort. Should I not attend and support the vigil and advertise it among my students? Why not?
I agree with Phillip and regret the communication problems on campus and my contribution to them as a faculty member. In addition, he is correct in that the conversation has been misdirected as a result. This is not the first time that members of our community and/or our families have been victims of interpersonal violence. Chicago State is uniquely placed because of our student body and the many excellent faculty working in various ways to develop understandings and solutions to the all-too-common violence we see these days.
ReplyDeleteMy desire in my initial post was not to take away from this conversation and the work being done. Instead, it was to raise questions about relations on campus. The answers to why DOSA would not allow the student-led candlelight vigil can be found in documents related to it. These, I'm sure, can be easily accessed. An email from DOSA to a student organizer of the event did not mention the collection of money as a reason for rejecting the application for the event. Instead, it claims proper procedures were not followed. Student informant says that this is untrue. We should, as Phillip argues, conduct due diligence by examining all relevant material.
I agree with Phillip and regret the communication problems on campus and my contribution to them as a faculty member. In addition, he is correct in that the conversation has been misdirected as a result. This is not the first time that members of our community and/or our families have been victims of interpersonal violence. Chicago State is uniquely placed because of our student body and the many excellent faculty working in various ways to develop understandings and solutions to the all-too-common violence we see these days.
ReplyDeleteMy desire in my initial post was not to take away from this conversation and the work being done. Instead, it was to raise questions about relations on campus. The answers to why DOSA would not allow the student-led candlelight vigil can be found in documents related to it. These, I'm sure, can be easily accessed. An email from DOSA to a student organizer of the event did not mention the collection of money as a reason for rejecting the application for the event. Instead, it claims proper procedures were not followed. Student informant says that this is untrue. We should, as Phillip argues, conduct due diligence by examining all relevant material.
Greetngs faculty, as one of the organizers of the candlelight vigil set to take place Tuesday I am commenting on this blog to dispell all rumours and innuendo regarding this student organized event. First off, the issue of students handling money was never given as a reason for not allowing this vigil to move forward. If this issue had been raised I'm certain that those of us who endeavour to hold this event for our friend, who we did know, would have happily adhered to the rules in place regarding the handling of money in order to hold this event. Moreover, here is a fact that I would love for those who are concerned with audit findings and the institution folllowing its own rules to investigate. The Homecoming dance, which was held on January 26, 2013 the largest cash handeling event the University held in the 2013 spring semester, which was managed by DOSA, allowed a student Mr. Enrique Dunkin to collect the money,exclusively, that was paid at the door, please check the records their was no one hired by the cashiers office or any external vendor. Also, a comedy show which was held on January 23, 2013 money was collected at the door by a student at this event as well guess the name Mr. Enrique Dunkin. Clearly the issue here is an all to familiar issue, the administration picking which students it deems worthy of contributing to the University. For the record I attempted to follow protocal and submitted a room request to the director of student activities her response was no because she was holding one herself. I also invited President Watson days before the DOSA event took place my documents were time stamped as well. Telkia was my friend and a day before he was murdered I was on the phone laughing with him and talking about the upcoming semester, so for those who suggest or presume my motives are anything but genuine shame on you.
ReplyDeleteHi B.B. My reading of Phillip's post was not that your motives were in question. I believe this phrase from Phillip's post referred to my earlier blog announcing the controversy. Phillip argues that we should not "support or oppose something or someone predicated on base self interest." The assumption being, of course, that this is what I did in supporting you. What is my base self-interest, I wonder. So, it was not you in question here but, rather, it was my character impugned and my motives questioned. It was an admonishment from a senior colleague to be mindful of motives and not to jump to conclusions based on an assumption that has yet to be proven and (I am assuming, since we are now doing this on the blog) on the word of someone in admin or DOSA or some rules and regs handbook. Would that be jumping to conclusions without a full accounting of the information (call it data if you like)? Why would their word be deemed more credible by our faculty colleague than a student's word and email documentation? I believed a credible student source and documents that I saw and chose to present what I know and ask questions regarding the relationships between various constituencies on campus. This constituted 'misleading' readers and 'throw[ing] things against the wall to see what sticks' in the minds of at least two of our faculty colleagues.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe your character is in question. But, for two, at least, of my colleagues mine is. I guess the work will have to speak for itself. And if my colleagues ever find my hidden motives for attempting to help African American studies a few years ago or support the student-led vigil last night, then I would love to hear it.
BTW, the vigil that B.B. and others organized last night was very touching and healing for many of us including me, a member of this community and father. Thank you.