Thursday, October 27, 2016

Accreditation and the HLC Visit: Are We Headed for Probation?

As most of you know, the university is currently under sanction for its financial practices, with a site visit by representatives from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) scheduled for January 2017. Our financial issues are not the only accrediting criterion for which our performance is problematic; we’ve had problems in areas like communication and shared governance, and we certainly are having difficulties with our enrollment. While some of these problems are primarily caused by circumstances beyond our control, the absence of a state budget for instance, they are all exacerbated by the university’s failure to plan. Now, the HLC is asking us to provide them with evidence the university will be able to weather the ongoing storm. We are responding with bullshit.

Before discussing the problems with the report we are apparently going to submit, I must stress that this is an administrative production. Look at the composition of the University Accrediting Steering Committee (UASC). Its twenty-six (26) members include 3 faculty, 2 students, 1 staff member, and 20 administrative employees; truly a representative group. While two faculty are nominally co-chairs of the committee, the submission will be the product of our administration’s efforts.

To give readers an idea of how much nonsense this document includes, I will look at two criteria: criterion two and criterion five. Criterion two deals with “institutional integrity, ethical and responsible conduct,” and Criterion five addresses “Resources, planning, and institutional effectiveness.”


Criterion 2.A. asks for evidence that the university “operates with integrity,” and “establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and processes for its governing board, administration, faculty and staff.” The university’s evidence includes not a word about the integrity of its “academic and personnel . . . functions;” not a word about the “fair and ethical” policies that govern its “administrators, faculty and staff.” Instead of addressing those concerns, the administrators serve up this garbage: these processes are safeguarded by the Office of Compliance, or by the “professionals” in the Office of Internal Audit. The majority of the response deals with financial issues.


In reality of course, we know how “ethically” this university acts when it comes to its administrators, faculty, and staff. The recent mishandled terminations and layoffs of faculty and staff, the university’s refusal to provide non-recalled faculty their contractually mandated terminal contracts, and the evisceration of the university’s academic enterprise in order to protect the jobs of administrative employees, particularly those employees in the Provost’s Office, Human Resources, and Administration and Finance, demonstrate the university’s multiple ethical failures.

Going beneath the surface of the university’s rhetoric reveals a consistent pattern of saying one thing and doing another. Criterion 2.D. charges the university to be “committed to freedom of expression.” The evidence that the university meets this criterion is utter nonsense: the CSU Code of Excellence and the Faculty Handbook. Over the past several years, the university has made a number of attempts to silence dissenting faculty (for examples see the Computer Usage and Communications Policies, threats to the Faculty Blog, suspension of the Faculty Senate, resultant lawsuits). The Faculty Handbook threatens that “it is improper for faculty members to include materials which has [sic] no relation to their subject, or fail to present the subject matter of their course,” a perversion of the AAUP standards on academic freedom referenced in the Handbook. Those standards include an admonition that faculty not “persistently [intrude] material which has no relation to their subject.” In the hands of the censors at Chicago State, that passage becomes a blanket prohibition against deviating from the course content. Frankly, for most of the employees of Chicago State University, freedom of expression is non-existent.



Here's the note to the AAUP statement on academic freedom:






A look at the university’s reply to Criterion Five again reveals a pattern of non-responses and downright bullshit. The university can meet this criterion by providing evidence that its resources are “sufficient” to meet its educational responsibilities, and that the university “plans for the future.” The “evidence” included in the university’s response seems to be the same old song and dance that worked before. For example, the university offers only vague and meaningless explanations for its compliance with Criterion 5.A. These include: “CSU has been preparing to change its funding model away from its level of support on state appropriations (is that actually a sentence in English?).” Or this: “CSU has organization-wide workforce planning strategies to respond to enrollment declines and state funding unpredictability.” So the university will free itself from dependency on state appropriations? When is this likely to occur? Will that marvelous day come about through the efforts of Wayne Watson’s new foundation? At this point, I believe the university’s endowment stands at $5 million or so. That won’t run the university for one month, even if those funds could be used for operational expenses. Given the precarious position of the school and the steady drumbeat of bad news thanks to our board and administration, who is going to contribute to Chicago State at this juncture? Of course, the language indicates that we are “preparing to change” our funding source. When will we do that exactly? As for the “organization-wide workforce planning strategies,” the faculty and staff on the University Advisory Committee have asked for that information since March 2016. We’ve received nothing from the administration. There is no plan; a fact which some members of the university administration seem to think is a good thing. We’ll see how the Higher Learning Commission feels about that.


The university’s response to Criterion 5.B. is just plain deceitful. This criterion asks the university to demonstrate “effective leadership,” and “support [for] collaborative processes.” For that criterion, the university administration points to faculty and student organizations “require[d]” by the Board of Trustees. These organizations include the “Faculty Senate, Student Government and the University Budget Committee.” In addition, “University departments across divisions come together regularly to address problems and opportunities together. I cannot speak for student government, but the university pays no attention whatsoever to the recommendations of the Faculty Senate. Similarly, colleagues who have served on the Budget Committee indicate that they ultimately have no real input into budget decisions. As for the togetherness mentioned “across divisions,” I assume that refers to those ridiculous dog and pony show “Town Hall” meetings. If anyone can think of an occasion when the administration gave way to the judgement of either faculty or staff, please advise me. There is simply next-to-nothing collaborative about the working relationship between our administration and the school’s faculty and staff.


Criterion 5.C. talks about “systematic and integrated planning,” as a key component of institutional effectiveness. Again the university’s response features nothing definitive, no actual plan, just promises of “gearing up to enter into a new enterprise strategic planning period.” What the hell does that mean? Finally, we discover that “Innovation is encouraged and ideas are explored throughout all operations.” Brutal passive construction and again, what the hell does it mean?



In the past, we’ve been able to scam the Higher Learning Commission into accepting the garbage the administration dishes out. To respond to the most recent inquiry by that organization with the same empty rhetoric we’ve used in the past is extremely risky. If they do not buy our explanations, if they actually look beneath the surface, we may very well end up on probation. Imagine the great press that will generate. Will we skate through again, or will the pack of fools in the Cook building bring us one step closer to extinction?

A final note to our administrators. Before you submit this semi-literate document, please have someone who can write English do copy editing. Let's not embarrass us any more than you already have with your appalling communication skills.

16 comments:

  1. Many "administrators" on the committee ARE NOT "Administration." We are dedicated, hard-working staff given this unrealistic job classification by the State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not many, just a few, three to be exact. Actually, according to the CSU web site, there are 25 persons on the committee (Michael Ellison is no longer here). Here's the tally: the President, the Provost, 2 Vice Presidents, an Associate Vice President, 2 Associate Provosts, an Assistant Provost, the Chief Information Officer, 5 Deans, 1 Associate Dean, 1 Chairperson. Looks pretty top-heavy to me. Let's be clear, this fiasco will be in the lap of the President and Provost.

      Delete
    2. Those are "Administration." I am on the committee and just a lowly "administrator." I don't make policy, enforce policy. I just do as I am told because I do not have the protection of a union or civil service contract.

      Delete
    3. Also, there are many faculty who were members of each Criterion sub-committee who wrote each section of the report. There were also two faculty members who proofread the report before it went to the president and provost.

      Delete
  2. By the way, the unrealistic job classifications are given by CSU, not the state. State auditors pointed out to the CSU administration several years ago that they were classifying a lot of jobs as "administrators" that other state schools do not, making it appear that CSU's administrator-to-everybody-else ratio is higher. CSU declined to change. I'm guessing the aim was union-busting: administrators can't have union-contract protections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whomever made the classification, "administrators" at CSU are hard working, lowly people who do not have a union or civil service contract to protect them. "Administration" make and enforce policy. That is a big difference and needs to be recognized.

      Delete
  3. And why the need to press into service all these low- or mid-level "administrators" in the first place? Perhaps if the upper "administration"--Wayne Watson and Angela Henderson in particular-- did not treat the faculty who worked on the last HLC report like they were turds to be kicked to the gutter there would be more of a faculty presence on this committee. How is the Administration spinning the lack of faculty involvement this time around?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just saying that if you have a problem with "administration" don't take it out on the hard-working, unprotected "administrators.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe that to be the case in this critique. The insidiousness of the fascistic Watson administration that has remained in place has been to inculcate fear of retaliation even among those who are not vulnerable. "We were just following orders" is now an oft-used excuse by administrators who have nothing to lose.

      Delete
    3. The point is, your fight is with "administration" not the non-management administrators, yet you continue to lump everyone together and refuse to accept facts. If this is such a horrible document, why not submit your version and post it on this forum for everyone to read and give their reactions?

      Delete
    4. Because it would be a waste of time.
      In all honesty, if I thought for a second that a faculty member's version of this document would supplant whatever the administration will submit, I'd sign on. The administration, however, has made it clear that faculty are crap, that faculty suggestions are to be ignored, and under the guise of financial exigency faculty are expendable and to be eliminated. If the administration, especially under Wayne Watson, had not insisted on centralizing power in the president's office and had ever truly committed itself to shared governance on this campus, CSU would have had a chance to be great university. If we had a Board of Trustees that understood the importance of faculty voices in running this enterprise, CSU could have had a chance. Heck, if Thomas Calhoun asked me to do what you did, I'd rally and put pen to paper. But now? After the wrecking ball of Watson and Henderson and Young and Zollar has hit, faculty are supposed to pick up the pieces? How long do we continue this dance? We are FUBAR and the administration is scrambling to cobble together some semblance of a document to convince an agency (that shirked its oversight of us in the past) to forgive us our sins. What have I heard over the years here on this campus from administrators (upper, middle, and lower), from faculty tenured and non-tenured who have failed in the past to get exercised over the egregious assault on academics at CSU? "No use protesting or speaking up,'they' will never close down the only African American/minority-serving university in Illinois." The upper Admin has acted as if their actions in the past do not matter and that they will go on as before. They are clearly waiting for the cavalry to ride in--the Black Caucus? Donne Trotter? Emil? maybe the fixer from Rainbow Push? At this point, unfortunately, I think that is how we will be saved.

      Delete
  4. Sooner or later, HLC will catch on. The HLC wants an honest assessment of the current state of the University and clear plans to address current problems. CSU is better at deception and denial.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike,
    Please consider reading Professor Bionaz's message to you again. The reread your response. You are an administrator. He documents a slew of administrators on this committee. You then say that a few faculty proofread a document!!! Do you not see the problem? The faculty should be in charge of the process and they have been reduced to proofreaders. That is the problem.

    If your 'supervisors' told you that you had to deliver an electric shock to somebody, would you do as you were told, as you state in your responses? Well, participating in such an outrageous process as you have tells me that obey authority somewhat blindly. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think some of you are being unfair to Mike. If you are a low-level administrator, a director or coordinator of this or that, and you’ve seen many of your colleagues and their jobs disappear, you might not be able to say you won’t work on the committee. You might be making between 30 or 40 thousand a year, have kids at home, a mortgage; you need the benefits. Yes, you can look for a new job, but until one materializes, you’re stuck. The only choice is to serve on the wretched committee and try to bring your honest concerns to the table as best you can.

    I had the luxury of being able to retire—at some substantial cost to my retirement funds—because it literally turned my stomach to work for Wayne and his minions. Not everyone has either the protection of tenure (or Union) or the ability to quit/get fired in protest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Has anyone heard the status of the Meeks case? There was a hearing set for Oct 19th. If there was no resolution, I believe the court date was set for sometime in January.

    ReplyDelete
  8. and... this morning our prez wants to tell the world that the Tribune made one announcement about our open house. In the mean time, GSU has a real marketing strategy with multiple ads in print, on-line and on the radio to promote their open houses.

    ReplyDelete