Chicago State Hits a New Enrollment Low: Another "Accomplishment" for the Watson Administration

There it is folks, the new benchmark for failure here at Chicago State. The dismal numbers: since 2010, the university under the "leadership" of Watson has lost 2595 students (35.2 percent). The most recent enrollment drop from last spring to this fall is the tenth consecutive semester of enrollment losses at CSU. Spring will undoubtedly be the eleventh straight under Watson. The Board has already decided that the reason for this decline is the absence of a state budget. Obviously, Watson bears no responsibility for this continuing disaster, although for several months, the Board has asked Cheri Sidney and other representatives of Enrollment Management when the enrollment decline will stop. Neither she nor anyone else from that section has an answer other than vague assurances that enrollment will "stabilize" then "increase incrementally," assertions rendered false by our continued free fall. Here's my partial solution to the problem: fire Wayne Watson and root out the incompetent cronies who have orchestrated this failure over the past 5 years. If the Board is unwilling to take decisive action in the best interests of the university, what is the community to think? what are prospective students to think? what are prospective donors to think? In a city of nearly 3 million people--at a school with so many Vice Presidents that they fall all over each other, where six-figure administrators abound--we can't find even 5,000 students who want to come to school here. Pitiful.

More Job Shuffling?

So one of the things that has gone unabated in the waning days of the failed Watson regime is the rumor mill. One of the latest rumors have the former Executive Director of TRIO (and FOA) moving to an Assistant Dean of Students position. With fewer students than ever, why the need for so many administrators in that area? Is it to keep people employed as long a possible even when the grant that serviced thousands of students suddenly disappeared? It appears to be a case of lose a grant, get another position. The new AVP of Student Affairs must be flexing some muscle here to get another overpaid administrator in her area. And all of this in the midst of a state budget catastrophe.

In another area, loyal readers wish to know if the ever popular Cheri Sidney is on her way out of Enrollment Management after a disastrous tenure there? Is the directorship of the compliance office awaiting her? Given her stellar service to Watson, it only makes sense she would move from an empty office suite on the second floor of the Cook Building to the tight spaces of compliance on the third floor, an area she knows little about, even after attending conferences in Canada and DC on the taxpayers dime. The employee who lied on her job application and was not fired, in contravention of HR policy will soon be overseeing the compliance enterprise??? You can't make this stuff up.

Stay tuned.

CHI Tribune Commentary --CSU contributes to the list of schools restricting free speech on campus

Check out the commentary section of the Chicago Tribune today to see the august name of CSU on the list of "honor" for abuse of freedom of speech. The article mentions attempts to shut down the CSU blog, but it does not mention the grievous and outrageous silencing of student dissent on campus that has gone on during the reign of Wayne Watson and Anthony Young. I'm not just referring to the chokehold of Jokari Miller at one of the Board of  Trustees meetings. Ask around and students will tell you how they have been told to shut up and conform.

A former colleague alerted me to this article and suggested that whoever the new guy is coming in to take over the presidency here, he might want to heed the message. It's not worth bothering the current lame duck incumbent at this point. A leopard can't change his spots, as they say. 

Chicago Tribune, Monday Sept. 28, 2015

COMMENTARY Restoring Free Speech on Campus

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-free-speech-college-campuses-20150928-story.html

Restrictions on free speech on campus are incompatible with the fundamental values of higher education.

Censorship in the academic community is commonplace. Students and faculty are increasingly being investigated and punished for controversial, dissenting or simply discomforting speech. It is time for colleges and universities to take a deep breath, remember who they are and reaffirm their fundamental commitment to freedom of expression.

The past academic year offers a depressing number of examples of institutions of higher education failing to live up to their core mission. At Northwestern University, for example, Professor Laura Kipnis endured a months-long Title IX investigation for publishing an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education in which she discussed a high-profile sexual assault case. Just a few months later, her fellow professor, Alice Dreger, courageously resigned in protest over Northwestern's censorship of a faculty-edited medical journal.

In a similar vein, Louisiana State University fired Professor Teresa Buchanan after nearly two decades of service for her occasional use of profanity, which the university suddenly deemed "sexual harassment," and Chicago State University enacted a new cyberbullying policy to silence a blog that was critical of university leadership.

At Iowa State University, administrators censored T-shirts created by the university's student chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The Regents of the University of California are considering adopting a "Statement of Principles Against Intolerance" that would ban "derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice." Other institutions are considering banning so-called "microaggressions" or requiring "trigger warnings" to protect students from having to confront potentially upsetting ideas and subjects. Still others have withdrawn invitations to speakers who have taken positions that some members of the community find unpleasant, offensive or wrong-headed — a practice President Barack Obama criticized this month, saying that leaving students "coddled and protected from different points of view" is "not the way we learn."

Restrictions on free expression on college campuses are incompatible with the fundamental values of higher education. At public institutions, they violate the First Amendment; at most private institutions, they break faith with stated commitments to academic freedom. And these restrictions are widespread: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's most recent survey of college and university policies found that more than 55 percent of institutions maintain illiberal speech codes that prohibit what should be protected speech. For students and faculty, the message is clear: Speaking your mind means putting your education or your career at risk.

Enough is enough. Our colleges and universities should redeem the promise of the new academic year by reaffirming their commitments to freedom of expression.

Last year, the University of Chicago convened a Committee on Freedom of Expression to do exactly that. The committee issued a statement identifying the principles that must guide institutions committed to attaining knowledge through free and open discourse. Guaranteeing members of the academic community "the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn," the statement guarantees students and faculty the right "to discuss any problem that presents itself."

How should students and scholars respond when challenged by speech with which they disagree, or that they even loathe? The Chicago statement sets forth the answer: "by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose." Anticipating the push and pull of passionate debate, the statement sets forth important ground rules: "Debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

Perhaps most important, the Chicago statement makes clear that "it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive." Laura Kipnis, Alice Dreger and Teresa Buchanan would have benefited from this frank and necessary recognition.

Encouragingly, Princeton University, American University and Purdue University have already adopted the core of the Chicago statement as their own. If colleges and universities nationwide were to follow their example — either by adopting the Chicago statement or forging one of their own — academic censorship would face a powerful new challenge.

Backed by a strong commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom, faculty could challenge one another, their students and the public to consider new possibilities, without fear of reprisal. Students would no longer face punishment for exercising their right to speak out freely about the issues most important to them. Instead of learning that voicing one's opinions invites silencing, students would be taught that spirited debate is a vital necessity for the advancement of knowledge. And they would be taught that the proper response to ideas they oppose is not censorship, but argument on the merits. That, after all, is what a university is for.

Free speech and academic freedom will not protect themselves. With public reaffirmation of the necessity of free speech on campus, the current wave of censorship that threatens the continuing excellence of U.S. higher education can be repudiated, as it should be, as a transitory moment of weakness that disrespects what our institutions of higher learning must represent.

Washington Post

Geoffrey R. Stone is a professor at the University of Chicago and served as chair of the school's Committee on Freedom of Expression. Will Creeley is vice president for legal and public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Copyright © 2015, Chicago Tribune

Scorched Earth Slashed and Burned

So is it possible for an utterly failed administration to exit gracefully? In the case of CSU, apparently not. With a rumored departure of January 1st, the Watson regime cannot end soon enough. What the university will be faced with unfortunately is a scorched earth departure. Observers have seen evidence of this in recent months as micro layoffs and other superfluous reorganizations have occurred.  The elimination of security positions in the police department, the firing of the Directors of Admissions and Financial Aid, the reassignment of the Director of TRIO, the elimination of the Associate Director of International Programs all speak to an intentional policy of continuing to destroy the university. And all of this comes as the Provost continues to fail at her position and Cheri Sidney occupies an empty office suite doing who knows what besides collecting a six figure salary. The destruction of corporate memory by this administration has been inconceivable. Any person who would defend the actions of this regime is obviously someone who knows nothing about higher education, is a lackey or just plain stupid. Knowing that the run is mercifully coming to an end you might expect that there wouldn’t be a new Vice President for Administration and Finance joining this failed regime. I have it on good authority that the incumbent interim VP was told not to announce his departure or that a successor was being brought in. Given this administration’s history of incompetent hires, one can only imagine what skill set this phantom VP brings and the damage s/he wreak might in the next three months. 
I asked a colleague in a non-academic department how evaluations were conducted and the most insightful observation was that evaluation is impossible if you don’t have the tools to do the job. Watson and his minions have done everything in their power to deprive the faculty and staff of the tools necessary to do their jobs. It’s clear who the losers in this are and also clear who bears responsibility. It is the secretive body currently attempting to hire a successor to Watson. Maybe in another couple of months the Board might have a meeting and vote on the hire and then by January let the university know who will be taking over the reins. And then again maybe not. This Board has demonstrated the same propensities as the president in terms of not effectively communicating with the university.
So none of this Kafkaesque theater surprises me. It just saddens me.

The Disgrace of Illinois: Fat-Cat Politicians Grandstand While State Employees Suffer

At a recent departmental meeting, one of my colleagues asked how long other universities would be able to operate without a state budget since our administration has told the state legislators that our school would not be able to continue past January. I came up with an extremely primitive calculus that enabled me to project each school's ability to endure the state-imposed budget impasse. Here's my estimate:

Chicago State through mid-January
Eastern and Western Illinois through mid-March
Northeastern Illinois and Governors State through mid-May, possibly through the end of the school year.

I think it's important to emphasize that the fools in Springfield who have created this crisis are making a choice to do so. A look at Illinois' revenue projections for the 2016 fiscal year indicates a $32 billion income for the state. To be clear, the state's income stream continues unabated: there are billions of dollars in revenue flowing into state coffers. A look at the various categories of revenue reveals that closure of the state universities would result, at a maximum, in the loss of around $1 billion in revenue. While persons employed by the state or its various universities face the possibility of no pay, Illinois legislators have their pay and expenses guaranteed even if the state has no budget. These politicians are putting our livelihoods in jeopardy with their posturing and their sclerotic ideologies. I for one will pay close attention to who does what in this legislature.

Our Administrative Ranks Grow Again

For several months, Chicago State administrators have bemoaned the fiscal woes of our school. However, as previous posts have noted, our fiscal exigency seems to disappear where administrative hires/promotions are concerned. So it should come as no surprise that just last month, we added a new administrative position to our pantheon of managers: the Assistant Dean of the College of Health Sciences.

With a sincere apology to the blameless incumbent in this position, I again wonder how the university finds the funds to continually increase its administrative ranks. The Assistant Dean’s position appears nowhere in the 2015 Internal Operating Budget, in fact a 2014 appropriation of $50,000 for an Associate Dean in Health Sciences disappeared in the 2015 budget. Thus, the university apparently had no money allocated for such a hire. Of course, we know from previous administrative budget shenanigans that this is no impediment to hiring more and more administrators. After all, recall that funding for Napoleon Moses’s position came out of the “Internal Improvements” appropriation.

Once again, we are confronted with the contradiction between the administration’s rhetoric and its behavior. I have no doubt that the fiscal crisis in Illinois is real. However, is it not reasonable to expect some kind of restraint from a public institution ostensibly suffering the pangs of financial hunger? To be sure, here at Chicago State, restraint is for the “little people,” the “rubes.” The Watson administration continues to increase its own ranks, heedless of either the public relations consequences (sorry, I know that no one cares) or the financial implications of what seem like an increasingly brazen disregard for fiscal responsibility and the public welfare. Finally, there has been no administrative announcement of this hire that I know of.

How many other administrative hirings are in the offing?

The Watson Regime Encapsulated: What One Former Administrator Says

We now wait hopefully for the Board to announce the identify of Chicago State's new president. Since Wayne Watson's announced retirement, some persons have articulated the idea that we should look "forward" not "backward," and because Watson is leaving, that some kind of moratorium should exist on criticizing him or his utterly failed regime. Believing that understanding the past is an important component of understanding the present, I reject those propositions. In particular, I want the incoming president to comprehend the toxic atmosphere created by Watson and company over the past six years.

The vast majority of persons on this campus are either unwilling or afraid to speak out on the myriad abuses of the Watson administration. However, when people leave the CSU "family," they are often willing to reveal their feelings about the experience of working under this administration. What follow are excerpts from a document written by a former administrative employee. Judge for yourself if these remarks ring true:

In my estimation, the legacy of the Watson administration will primarily be one of shame and dishonor. Our new president must take this university on a different path.

Tell Us What You Think

All the candidates have appeared on campus. Here at the Faculty Voice, we are very interested in your thoughts/impressions. If you attended one or more of the question and answer sessions, please take a moment to send us an e-mail describing your thoughts on the candidate or candidates you saw. We'll publish the responses anonymously and send them to the Board, also anonymously. If you're so moved, please send your response(s) to either: csufacultyvoice@gmail.com, or to: rbionaz@att.net

What Little We Have on Jerry D. Blakemore

Since Jerry Blakemore has not been the chief executive of any university, there is far less data on him than existed for Dennis Fields. Anecdotally, I understand that several persons spoke of his high level of integrity, and that he has on occasion opposed the NIU president when he felt his actions were detrimental to the school. Overall, NIU has seen its enrollment decline by 13.6 percent since 2010, from 23,850 to 20,611 in Fall 2014. However, the General Counsel bears no responsibility for that drop. I am including an e-mail received from one of the NIU faculty. I must emphasize that Jerry Blakemore has not been involved in any of the problems to which the e-mail’s author refers.

“I am afraid that I really don't know anything about Jerry Blakemore. I have never met him or seen him. I assume that he is rarely actually on campus, since he seems to primarily provide legal counsel to the Board of Trustees.

That said, I cannot say much positive about the Board of Trustees or the university administrators at Northern Illinois. Simply search in Google for the news stories about NIU (other than sports) in the past several years, and you will see ample evidence of numerous scandals and administrative problems.”

Objectively, what I do know is that he has been well regarded by Republican leaders, including former Illinois Governors James R. Thompson and James Edgar, as well as Ronald Reagan. He has served as Illinois Deputy Governor and an Assistant Secretary of Labor under Reagan. Blakemore has also been heavily involved with the Illinois Board of Higher Education and has worked as General Counsel for both SIU and NIU. While he has worked in higher education administration as a General Counsel for a number of years, he is tabula rasa as far as presidential qualifications go.

A Minor Thing

So it is usually rare that a university conducts a presidential search. They are labor intensive, often wrenching processes especially when the outcome is not welcomed by the campus community. One of the activities in this already stressful process is the campus visits by the finalists. Each constituency is given time to question the applicants and make determinations about qualifications and suitability. There is a reason that each constituency is divided. They usually have different issues, concerns, needs or observations. I am curious and then angry when I see administrators at the faculty or student sessions and would imagine that administrators would not appreciate faculty attending their sessions. The presence of other groups, especially in a contentious or profoundly dysfunctional environment, can inhibit candid exchanges between the constituency members and the applicant. It shouldn't matter to tenured faculty that administration lackeys are might be hanging about. However, un-tenured faculty might be reluctant to speak candidly if their words are reported back to an already compromised administration. What is worse however is when staff, faculty or administrators attend the student session. Given the clear power differential that exists I am sure that there is an impact on the interactions of students and applicants when university officials are present. Students should be given the space to speak candidly to the applicants without fear of some reaction by the administration. I would expect university professionals to have the self awareness to stay in their lane in this process and not, even inadvertently, compromise an already questionable process.