Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Trustees and trustees...
Topic Started: Mar 6 2014, 08:57 AM (126 Views)
Quasimodo

They're meeting at STANFORD this month...

Here's part of a speech and Q & A given in 2007 about attempts to reform the Dartmouth trustees (some similarities to the Duke trustees may be noted...)


Quote:
 

http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/leadership/council/TranscriptofZywickiRemarkstoPopeCenter

Transcript of Trustee Todd Zywicki '88's Remarks
to Pope Center, October 27, 2007


On December 1, the Dartmouth Alumni Council passed a resolution condeming remarks made by Dartmouth College trustee Todd Zywicki '88 at a conference at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C., on October 27, 2007. Mr. Zywicki was a panelist on the topic "Trustees in the 21st Century." The following is a transcript of those remarks provided to the Alumni Council by William Montgomery '52.


(snip)


So what does this mean? I draw four lessons that I think are important for people in this room to think about. I try to remain hopeful, but I'm often skeptical about the prospect for reforming higher education, the way things stand today.

The first point that I cannot emphasize enough, we have to reach a point where we have to reach a point where we decide if we are serious about this or not. By which I mean that, we've heard of a lot of good things that are going on but they are basically guerilla warfare, they're basically defensive, they're basically to try to create a remnant on the campus where there is some light for students. But that in and of itself isn't going to transform the culture. It's a defensive culture, its guerilla warfare and so a couple of hundred thousand here or there or a million dollars here or there is certainly going to make a difference to some students, but when you are up against people who are writing 8 or 9 figure checks, they're the ones who are calling the shots and they're not asking questions. And we have to decide whether we are going to be all in or not because a little bit of nibbling here or there isn't going to roll back the tide. It might stop the tide a little bit but it isn't going to roll it back.

Secondly, it's sort of left liberal religion in a second way. Which is, my perception is, that those who bankroll these institutions basically use this to buy indulgences for being rich which is that they are fully embracing and happy to embrace all the multiculturalism and all the other stuff because this is their way of getting forgiveness. Of showing how virtuous they are despite the fact that they make a lot of money. So they have no quibble with the apparatus. Either they don't care about it because all they care about is the reputation of the institution or they're kind of happy with it because it allows them to deal with their conscience.

The third way in which it's a religion and I'll take a small grievance, virtually everything our speaker said at lunch there is one place I'll slightly disagree.with Dean Lewis is that the establishment within these academies is vicious, they are vicious people, they have their own dogma. If it were the case that there was no morality and there were no values being taught in the academy that would be better than what we have, which is that there is a new dogma. The new dogma is environmentalism and feminism and that is the dogma and they will enforce it viciously. We have the Spanish inquisition and you could ask Larry Summers whether or not the Spanish inquisition lives on academic campuses today. So that's why the first point is that we are either all in or we're not. It's going to be a long and vicious trench warfare, I think, if we are serious about taking the academy back.

Secondly we need to think about investing in alternative institutions or simultaneously or alternatively. Which is, that is we need to start thinking about creating and supporting alternative institutions. . . We now have a new compulsory class that first years have to take on the founders Constitution where they have to read Madison and Hamilton before they are allowed to read Brennan and Ginsberg. . . Why? Because if reform is going to come I think it's going to come from these new institutions, not from those that are already within the elite institutions. . .

(snip)

The final thing, and I can be brief on this because Candice made the point is that trustees have to take a leadership role in this. When Trustees don't act, the void gets filled by the permanent constituencies on campus, which are the faculty and the administrators. The trustees are the only ones that can look out for the institutional mission. . . A final word on that is that I met a president from a prominent university once and he said to me, "Look Todd, you need to understand. When I was president, the way I saw trustees was that they were a constituency to be managed. They're a constituency to be managed just like the faculty, the alumni, the employees. They didn't run the school. I ran the school and they were a constituency to be managed." So long as that is the view of presidents of universities and that sort of thing then I think reform is going to be fleeting.

[Is that the view of the Duke Executive Committee?]


Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


Quote:
 


Question and Answer Session. Questions from the audience

Question (male): I'd just like to ask a question, Todd, could you explain what the speech code was at Dartmouth and why you objected to it?

Answer: (Zywicki) Well, it was a pretty standard speech code which was that basically what it is that the incident rose from something involving a fraternity and the president and dean of the College said, infamously, the president said, I can't believe in this day and age we still live in a world where people think that their "right" to free speech outweighs feelings of others on campus and so they punished this fraternity and basically instituted the new rule which was that your speech will be limited if it hurts, if it might be perceived as hurting the feelings of others on campus.


FIRE downgraded the College to 'red' speech code rating at that point. Right when Peter and I were going to get elected, when it was clear that we were going to be elected, we found out later the College was able to find out what was going on with the voting during the whole period, they repealed the speech code and now Dartmouth has a 'green' rating. We still have a lot of problems with free speech at Dartmouth; now it just is a culture of bullying and intimidation, but it's not one where you can be kicked out or disciplined formally for offensive speech.

(snip)

(Zywicki) I'll just add two quick thoughts, just to elaborate on what Candice said. Trustees have neither the expertise nor the incentive to really seriously think they can govern the institution today, which is to say they don't have the expertise and they have no interest in gaining the expertise. You become a trustee because you get good seats at the football game and you get wined and dined and everybody pretends like you're a genius and all that sort of thing. . . They also don't have the incentive to actually govern institutions, which is to say that to actually govern the institution will require them to be will to deal with controversy. People don't work 90 hours a week on Wall Street to go back to their alma mater and argue. They don't want to figure out what's going on inside the classroom and they actually try to bring about reform that would open them up to a lot of controversy that has nothing but downside as far as they're concerned and especially once the faculty gets their long knives out. Then they can control what goes on; it's just not worth it to them. That underscores what Candice said is that they really don't care what goes on inside the classroom, by and large.

(snip)


(Zywicki speaks again) Let me just add one footnote to that, which is, when I got elected to the board, I got a lot of friends on the faculty and I was informed very quickly by the members of the board that I shouldn't be going around meeting outside the proper channels with people on the faculty and meeting with students; that I was too high profile around town because I was seen out meeting with students and faculty and that sort of thing. That my job was to receive what was given to me as the official line and that I was acting inappropriately as a trustee by going out and soliciting information on my own. I, ah, listened to their, ah, to their advice carefully..... and then rejected it.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



So how many of the Duke trustees took an active role in Duke's handling of the lax case?

How many (after their 90-hour work weeks) wanted to plunge into more controversy?

How many just received the "official line" and did what they were told?



And how many of them should remain trustees after that kind of inaction?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



According to Duke's bylaws:



Any student, faculty member, alumnus, Trustee, or other friend of the University may offer candidates for consideration.



IE, there is NO REASON why WE could not nominate any persons we wish to be trustees; and offer their names directly to the Methodist Conferences and the Alumni. (The rules call for the BOT to vet nominees first; but I think there is no reason we cannot petition these groups to consider other names.)

The additional rules for members of the BOT state that they are to exclude employees of Duke university (with the exception of the President).

"no person who is an employee of Duke University or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof shall be elected a Trustee."

One possible reason for that is to avoid an oligarchy with vested interests in self-perpetuation. If that is so, then that goal is thwarted by the current rule requiring BOT members to vet candidates. And so, to return to the concept of a free and independent BOT, the rule requiring candidates to be vetted by the current BOT should be relaxed.

"The Executive Committee shall then make its recommendations to the Board of Trustees, and the Board, after hearing the recommendations of the Executive Committee, and by a majority of the Trustees present at any regular meeting, shall nominate the persons to be elected Trustees"

The current rules are a joke--the Executive Committee (meaning, at one time, Steel and Brodhead and a couple of others...and "a majority of the Trustees present at any regular meeting"--meaning, not of ALL the Trustees)


I don't know how grounded in law these requirements are, or if they are only "rules" adopted by the BOT themselves. If the latter is the case, they surely can be circumvented and revised, or even ignored, by the alumni and the Methodist conferences.

Which means, that a reformist group could challenge the domination of the existing BOT, and these issues might end up in court.

But, as at Dartmouth, change IS possible.

And a great university CAN be restored to its original function and purpose. (And the alumni have the power to start making waves about this, in ways other than in just withholding donations.)





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Or, to that end, maybe we should propose a new BOT, and send the list in an open letter to the Chronicle?

With new requirements for membership?

Maybe that 'alternative BOT' should meet ON CAMPUS, and propose recommendations, whenever
the actual BOT is meeting OFF CAMPUS (say, in Stanford)?

Maybe, like a "government in exile", it should seek recognition and contest every action by the
existing BOT?

(It would be a great piece of guerilla theater, to say the least...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply