Category Archives: higher education

more about SLU

Posted on by

The Saint Louis University News last Thursday (04/25/2012) carried an account of SLU President Lawrence Biondi’s appearance at the SLU Student Government Association meeting the day before. That account, which unfortunately doesn’t appear online at present, mentions that faculty members were asked to leave the meeting (as reported first by SLU Students for No Confidence, then by local media and The Chronicle of Higher Education) but also provides the only detailed summary of the President’s remarks I have been able to find.

According to the University News it seems fair to say that Biondi defended the faculty evaluation scheme that sparked no confidence votes last fall, defended ousted VPAA, Manoj Patankar, and had this to say about students and faculty who participated in the public protest outside last December’s meeting of SLU trustees:

This got out of control. I think some of you were manipulated by the faculty. Especially when there is a demonstration on the mall. Isn’t it curious that some of the students are related to the faculty member who is giving them a grade? Is there some kind of conflict of interest

The University News story also reports Biondi to have aasserted that:

[S]hared governance at SLU has always been in place, as student and faculty voices are always taken into account, but not every proposal can be accepted. Shared governance is voicing your ideas and opinions and letting discussions take place. Just because we reject some ideas does not mean there is no shared governance . . . There is no climate of fear. I’ve asked every faculty member on various committees if they feel as though they can’t speak their mind, and they say ‘no.’

In the past, Biondi has been fairly successful in constructing faculty echo chambers for his ideas, opinions, and ambitions. But in this instance faculty were quick to react negatively, with votes to censure the president taken in the Arts and Sciences Faculty Council and the University Faculty Senate. Senate President, Mark Knuepfer, has released a statement demanding Biondi’s resignation, and the Faculty Senate has released a report that includes these observations:

. . . [B]ecause of well-known cases of retribution and the President’s tirades about particular deans and faculty, deans often are reticent. It feels risky for them to openly express opinions that contest those of the President or the former VP for Academic Affairs. Some have said they worry about the well-being of their schools and their budget and personnel requests.

The penalties for dissent take many forms . . . : raises denied, laboratory resources restricted, highly-regarded deans and department chairs fired or forced to resign, lawsuits filed or threatened against individual faculty. Others fear retribution against their academic departments, programs, or schools through budget cuts, frozen hiring, or appointment of an unqualified dean over the objections of faculty.

This systemic dysfunction hinders the ability of faculty and academic units to further the University’s academic mission. Indisputably, such a culture of intimidation is incompatible with the principle of academic freedom, the bedrock of all other academic values. It is also morally and intellectually incompatible with our identity as a Catholic, Jesuit University.

None of this is new, as many have pointed out at the SLU Students for No Confidence Facebook page. The culture of intimidation is palpable and goes back decades. What is new is that it is being exposed—in the past the SLU central administration has been able to prevent public exposure of its cruelty and cynicism. And it is also new that SLU faculty have been able to find a unified voice in opposition. In the past it has been fairly easy for the SLU central administration to punish dissent for reasons the Faculty Senate report makes clear. Now, perhaps, the worm is turning. One can only applaud.

back at it

Posted on by

Progress Missouri has posted a new report on the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Missouri. As of March 2013, 45 corporations and six non-profits — for a total of 51 private sector members — have publicly announced that they are cutting ties with ALEC, according to a report from ALEC Exposed. But the organization continues to make inroads into the politics of states like ours. The Progress Missouri report makes quite a read. What’s most disturbing about it, from my perespective, is that the ability of this organization of corporations to affect legislation is roughly parallel to the ability of huge pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations to control and corrupt research about, and increasingly the production, and distribution of, food and drugs. If ALEC’s influence is waning, the influence of pharma and international agribusiness continues. And it is interesting, to say the least, to read a defense of ignorance such as this one at a blog whose subtitle is “free minds and free markets.”

Meanwhile, SLU Students for No Confidence are reporting a disturbing incident at last evening’s meeting of the SLU Student Government Association. Apparently two faculty members were ejected from the meeting. I’ll quote the rather lengthy anonymous eyewitness report posted just a short while ago:

I arrived at approximately 5:02pm. The opening prayer was being given when I arrived, and I did not enter the room until after the prayer had ended. I stood outside with a small number of people who had also arrived during the prayer. As I stood outside, I noticed a uniformed officer standing in the vicinity of the Senate Chambers. I noted this as odd at the time, but did not think much of it after that (I did not look over this individual closely, but I assume is was a DPS Officer). I entered the Senate Chambers shortly before Vice President Alberty began taking attendance. Prior to my arrival, one faculty member I recognized was already present in a corner of the Senate Chambers. Shortly after I arrived, a second faculty member joined the first in that same corner. After attendance was taken, there was some discussion about adjusting the night’s agenda due to Fr. Biondi’s presentation.

At around 5:20pm, Fr. Biondi arrived in the company of Fr. Stark. He and SGA President Blake Exline began speaking shortly following his introduction by President Exline. The conversation occurred in hushed tones, but was clearly audible. He was requesting that the two previously mentioned faculty members be removed from the meeting, citing their presence as “inappropriate” because the SGA was a meeting of “student representatives.” The two faculty members had not caused any sort of a disruption. They were sitting quietly in a corner. Following Fr. Biondi’s request, President Exline immediately turned toward the two faculty members and asked them to leave. No protest was made by President Exline, by the SGA Executive Committee, by the SGA Advisors, or by the SGA Senators. The faculty members left willingly and without protest. The entire situation lasted less than 20 seconds from Fr. Biondi speaking with President Exline, to the two faculty members exiting the Senate Chambers. It happened so quickly I believe most people in the room did not even initially realize what had happened. My own initial reaction was to walk out of the room in protest, but I believed at the time that I would be better off remaining in the room. I admit my own regrets in not standing up and protesting the removal of two faculty members from a meeting which is open to the public, as I believe that I failed to live up to my own expectations.

Following the removal of the two faculty members, the presentation by Fr. Biondi progressed smoothly. There were no interruptions of any sort. Fr. Biondi was presented with questions which had been submitted to the Executive Committee the week before by SGA Senators. I will not provide a play-by-play of the presentation, as that would be far too long and I did not have anything with me to use for taking notes.

I will, however, mention one particularly prominent portion of Fr. Biondi’s response to the second question presented to him, which asked him why he believed the No Confidence movement had started and why it grew the way it did. The majority of his answer was slanted against the faculty of SLU, and intended to make the faculty appear irrational and vengeful. Eventually, he reached the point in the No Confidence narrative when the first major protest took place in the Quad. It was at this point that he referred to the students who were participating as being manipulated by the faculty who were taking part in the movement, and even went so far as to say that students were going because their professors (who controlled their grades) were taking part in the movement. His clear and obvious inference was that students were participating in the No Confidence protest because they hoped to get a good grade from their professor.

This week’s University News is just out. I was hoping for more information about the SGA meeting, particularly with regard to what else President Biondi may have said—but see nothing. Perhaps the online edition will provide some details in due course.

CORRECTION: This week’s University News is not out yet. I was looking at last week’s edition. Perhaps by the end of the day.

Two cheers for SLU faculty

Posted on by

A few weeks ago I posted about events at Saint Louis University. Since then we have been told that the executive committees of the Faculty Senate and the Trustees are talking to one another; but the discussions (if indeed there are such) are being kept secret on the advice of Fleishman-Hillard, a high-priced PR firm the Trustees have retained to help them manage the crisis on campus. Reasonably good summaries of recent events at SLU may be found here and here.

The SLU faculty have now produced a report detailing grievances against the University President and Vice President for Academic Affairs. It reveals the dark side of Saint Louis University with which inslders have always been familiar but which has until recently been hidden from the public at large. It’s good to see this excellent report, produced by many hands, some of whom have chosen to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal. That discretion is well-advised, as we have it on good authority that enemies lists are presently being drawn up and punishments prepared. But the SLU faculty seem to have united after years of abuse during which the careers of those who have opposed the tyranny have been wrecked, their salaries frozen or lowered, their requests for earned leaves denied, their travel funds withheld—and that’s only the surface. By far the worst part of being punished at Saint Louis University is that one becomes a pariah, marginalized in one’s own department, shunned by colleagues and former friends. This excellent faculty report is most welcome—it’s just a good many years too late, perhaps permanently too late with respect to collegial relationships that have been destroyed.

Post Dispatch columnist, Bill McClellan, has referred to Fleishman-Hillard as “mess Busters” in a recent column, not failing to note that the firm is also consulting for the embattled Missouri HIstory Museum in the midst of scandal over a dubious land purchase. The cases are similar in that both involve secretive executives, captive boards, and official stonewalling in the face of public criticism. But there’s been no suggestion of graft at SLU, at least so far, though some prominent trustees regularly do business with the university. And McClellan, himself, points to another difference: “Unlike the History Museum, SLU is a private institution. [Trustee President Thomas H.] Brouster does not have to communicate with the public.”

But SLU does have to communicate with accrediting agencies. The SLU law school is presently out of compliance with a number of accreditation standards relating to President Biondi’s high-handed appointment of interim law dean, Thomas Keefe. And on another front an instructive parallel might be drawn with the University of Virginia, whose board’s high-handed firing of President Teresa Sullivan six months ago has now occasioned a warning from the Southern Association, citing the board for “compromising the university’s integrity, not having a formal policy for involving faculty in making decisions and not following its governance requirements, which forbid a small number of members from controlling the board”—ethical and governance violations that are only too familiar to members of the academic community at Saint Louis University.

The SLU Trustees meet this Saturday, December 15. SLU Students for No Confidence are sponsoring a march. We’ll see what happens.