An average UI undergraduate student sees the Chancellor twice in his college career: convocation and commencement.  There is no meaningful interaction, only massmails that are used to maintain the University’s public relations image.  As students with rising tuition and fees, however, we did pay his $350,000 base salary.

When I was college shopping during my junior year in high school, I remembered a tour guide at a pretentious east coast school exclaiming that her university’s president hosted a weekly coffee hour open to any student.  Another tour guide told us that the president of her school invites graduating seniors in small groups to a dinner at his home.  I do contend that these are very different schools, with populations of around 9000 students compared to our 42,000.

The average student here probably doesn’t know who the Chancellor is/was, let alone that a Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement even exists.  Sure, we need to keep our surrounding community engaged and interested in order to prevent a civil war between the UI and the greater Champaign-Urbana area.  But what about student engagement? Our needs and concerns need to be considered equally important as those of the donors who keep this institution afloat.  As students, we should at least be treated like constituents or consumers.  Why is it a prerequisite that a student who wants to voice a question or concern to a member of the administration must be savvy at navigating through a bureaucracy?  Perhaps this is why the rate of student giving at the university is so low.

Image courtesy of CITES at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Students and members of student government shouldn’t have to come to the administration, the administration should come to students.  What kind of place do we attend where administrators handpick student senators to serve on “campus committees”?  When tough questions need to be asked both on these committees and around campus, it may be difficult after that administrator gave you the resume booster of serving on the Campus Lighting Committee or the Public Safety Advisory Committee and even a letter of recommendation for your law school application.

There is a simple fix to this solution- holding office hours or even a quarterly forum open to all students and publicized accordingly.  Hey, I can see a purposeful use of the massmail system!   While we’re at it, let’s actually make good use of the term that President White so often recycled during the admissions scandal.  A firewall needs to be set up to protect ISS and the Office of the Student Trustee from administrative influence so these two units remain accurate voices of the student body.

Remember in elementary school when we once believed that our teachers lived at school?  It’s funny that you never run into the Chancellor or any of the Vice Chancellors around campus- not once have I bumped into any of them while waiting in a Campustown food line.  I’m starting to look back at this grade school superstition and think that our administrators must live in the Swanlund Building.

We don’t yet know who our next Chancellor is going to be and what kind of a leader they are.  Let’s hope that he or she steps out of the Swanlund Building and decides to take a serious look at these issues and practices.

I learn something new each day-  today I learned that “ROTC discriminates against gays”.  (Not something I would doubt)

I also learned on my first day that Chancellor Herman’s admission, in the view of some, should be denied.  Not quite sure what it really means, but I always get a kick out of it when I see it written on sidewalks and benches.

I especially enjoy the calls to “end rape”, “save the environment”, and “protect human rights”, but my favorites are the random sayings adhered to telephone poles and street lights.

Just thought I’d give a shout out to the guys and gals who help lift up my spirits after many sleep-inducing lectures.

Max

The new members are:

1. Former Springfield Mayor Karen Hasara
2. Timothy Koritz, a staff anesthesiologist at Rockford Memorial Hospital
3. Pamela Strobel, retired executive vice president and chief administrative office of Exelon
4. Carlos Tortolero, the president of the National Museum of Mexican Art.

So here’s the question:

If you heard on the news tomorrow that Ira Carmen were arrested, what crime would you be most likely to assume he committed?

Have fun with it.

At the core of the position of Chancellor and President are the following roles:  the public face, the fundraiser, the community leader, the provider of values and vision, and the public servant.  White and Herman can no longer effectively play these roles.  Both have violated the public trust, forever tainted their own integrity, diminished their effectiveness as fundraisers, embarrassed themselves and the university, and enraged lawmakers in Springfield who are now less likely to fund us (with the added excuse of not wanting to pay inflated salaries of these jokers).  There is no question that White and Herman cannot provide the people of Illinois with the best possible leadership of the University of Illinois. This is the most important criteria the BoT and Pat Quinn should use when determining whether White and Herman should be retained.

Although anytime any leader of a bureaucracy the size of the University of Illinois is replaced there will necessarily be a transition period, here the resulting administrative hiccup would be much less damaging than retaining Richard Herman and B. Joe White.  White and Herman aren’t exactly steering the boat alone.  The University has an ever-expanding  army of senior administrative personnel who can keep the wheels going round even if we had to name an Interim-President and Interim-Chancellor tomorrow.

White and Herman have lost the public confidence.  They are forever diminished within the community, within the University, within the state, and within the academy.  Had the vote not been postponed, there was a strong probability that the U of I faculty-student senate would have recommended the removal of White and Herman.  The students and faculty are the heart and soul of a University, not the bureaucrats and administrators.   The U of I is a public institution committed to shared governance, which operates best when students, faculty, and administrators work together and respect one another.  White and Herman have irreparably lost the confidence of a large number of students, faculty members and alumni.  In difficult financial times, they’ve given too many alumni another reason not to give back.

At a world class research institution, and the flagship public institution in Illinois, we have a huge pool of talent to choose from to replace Herman and White, many of whom could hit the ground running on day one.  Just to illustrate some of the possibilities, I compiled a list of names from several friends who are former student leaders of folks who would do a good job as  either President or Chancellor on an interim or permanent basis:

Stan Ikenberry

Jim Edgar

Stan Levy

Ruth Watkins

Bruce Smith

Vernon Burton

Mrinalini Rao

John D. Wiley

Peg Rawls

William Berry

Al Bowman

Glen Poshard

These are just a few off the cuff suggestions from former student leaders.  Please feel free to suggest others in the comments.  Imagine the list of names a committee of current faculty and student leaders could generate in a few hours.   Without the crippling weight of the clout scandal any number of individuals could serve the University more effectively than White and Herman.  Their weakness is apparent without even addressing the other reasons to doubt White’s basic competency, Herman’s commitment to any values whatsoever, or the prowess of either as a fundraiser.

White and Herman seem to think they are entitled to a chance to right this wrong, and they plead ignorance to the overt corruption that smoking-gun emails prove they actively engaged in.  Both have been duplicitous as hell in their public statements, before they realized just how demonstrable their involvement would become to the public.  It isn’t in the best interest of the people of Illinois to give these two another chance after they displayed such an abhorrent lack of respect for public integrity. This wasn’t a mistake, it was a clear lack of character.  This shouldn’t be about whether they deserve a second chance or a chance to make things right, as Herman contends.  This should be about one thing, and one thing only: what best serves the interests of the people of Illinois.  The answer to that question is showing both Richard Herman and B. Joe White the door.

She’s not a housing resident (as she mentioned in her letter) and lives in a house.  Frank can in no way compare her situation to our situation at Allen.  Living in a house means that the resident is responsible for most maintenance issues.   Living in University Housing means that the University is responsible for all maintenance issues.

In her letter, Frank noted that “At the beginning of his letter, Max claims that there was no effort what so ever made by the maintenance staff, but later on states that teams of county workers came and dried up the standing water.”  She has it completely wrong.

Yes, “housing workers” came from all over “Champaign county” (in the words of one assistant director of housing).  But this didn’t happen until 2 or more hours after the flood hit.  Much of the damage was already done.  Before she writes a response, Frank might consider reading my letter in its entirety.

Is Frank an employee of University Housing?  Is one of her parents?  Was she paid by University Housing to write this response?

Why didn’t University Housing submit a response of what went wrong in its own words?

Dear Professor Fireman,

I’m currently enrolled in your Stat 100 class at UIUC.  Thank you for your policy on textbooks.  When I entered your lecture on the first day, I had with me a copy of the 4th edition of “Statistics” by Freedman.  This book was listed as “required” by the Illini Union Bookstore, and carried a price tag of over $90 dollars.

After class started, you asked us if anybody had purchased the book.  I raised my hand, and you told me to come down to the front of the lecture hall.  You asked me how much I paid, and I said $95.  Your response…?  “You just paid $85 too much for that book.” 

Thank you Professor Fireman for advising me to return that prohibitively expensive textbook and instead consider purchasing a used copy of the previous edition on ebay for only $5.

Thank you Professor Fireman for telling us that the only thing you required were the “Incomplete Lecture Notes” since they contained all the material needed for the course.

Thank you Professor Fireman for letting us know that you have copies of the textbook that can be borrowed while we’re studying in the statistics lab.

And to folks at the Illini Union Bookstore— SHAME ON YOU!!!  Why didn’t you guys have used copies of the 3rd edition?  And to professors who require new editions of books that haven’t changed much—SHAME ON YOU TOO!!!

Best regards for a wonderful year,

Max

Obviously not in the view of the University of Illinois.

The scene in ground south soon after the waters began rushing in

Hi!  I’m a political science major living in Allen Hall (and am a freshman).  I look forward to blogging about what I think is right and wrong with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  First off… what happened at Allen Hall last night?

It seemed to be an idyllic evening for me- no homework, no reading, and no studying.  I was even able to spend a few enjoyable minutes camped out in the CRCE hot tub.  The rain came, and us carefree college students enjoyed a moment of uncomplicated bliss splashing around in the four inch puddle that was beginning to form.  Where would those puddles go you might ask?  All of the residents of ground south and the staff members in the Unit One hallway would soon find out.

Returning to my room from the rain dance, I found a large group of fellow Allenites crowded around the ground south hall.  A piercing siren was going off, and a wide stream of water was dauntingly advancing down the hall.  Some students lined their doors with towels and took all of their personal belongings out from under their beds.  Many simply sat in front of their doors, begging the water not to cross through their doorways.  Amid the chaos there was no effort by maintenance staff or building service workers attempting to slow the advance of the water or suck up the large puddles that were forming over the carpet.  Where were all of the staff members that are paid Illinois taxpayer dollars to ensure that our state facilities are operated smoothly and safely?

We were herded out by our diligent RAs and were told to gather up some personal belongings for the next day.  We would be spending the night in the Allen Hall main lounge.

After a few more matches of residence hall slip-and-slide we ambled up into the lounge and were greeted by an upper level Housing director who went on to explain to us that in a few hours “extraction teams” from all around Champaign County would be converging upon our rooms, sucking up the water, and bagging up/laundering our soaked possessions.  She explained to us the bureaucratic red-tape that we would have to cross in order to receive claims for our damaged goods.  In an oh-so not motherly voice, she explained that the process for claims could take up to months because of all the departments that are required to review those claims.   She also noted that though residential life staff would be contacting the emergency dean, our teachers would be “in no way obligated” to make any accommodations for us.

After an uncomfortable night of “sleeping” on the floor of the main lounge, we were allowed at 6:30 a.m. to return to our rooms.  The standing water was (finally) gone, the hall reeked of mold, and the carpeting was soaked.  Thankfully my room and possessions were spared.

What I’d love to know is first why weren’t BSWs (building service workers) dispatched immediately after the first notice of flooding?  Why did it take over an hour to disable the alarm that was going off in the basement, and why did it take in excess of two hours to begin extracting the standing water that was doing irreparable damage to hallway carpeting and residents’ possessions.  And finally, why instead of ripping up the carpets that will soon be laced with mold is housing maintenance simply aiming fans at the floors?  University Housing- I’d love to hear your side of the story!!!

A Tribune investigation which included FOIA requests uncovered hard, damning evidence that the U of I is admitting unqualified students, while turning away qualified students.  The Trib cites a clout list of over 160 students, but even one student getting special treatment is too many.

Leading a state university is a position of public trust.  Administrators have a duty to use basic fairness and equality when admitting students.  Richard Herman and B. Joe White are accountable to all the people of Illinois–to all taxpayers–not just the ones with clout.  Imagine if they were outright selling admission to our competitive law school or business school–trading a seat in the class for an envelope of cash.  In truth, trading for political influence isn’t altogether different.  Especially when those they are catering to are the same people who set their over-inflated salaries.

While it’s true this practice predates the current administration, it doesn’t excuse our leaders from compromising their principle and tarnishing the integrity of the institution.  Whether or not we traded clout for admission in the past, the practice is wrong and must stop.  Whether or not other schools do it to, the practice is wrong and must stop.

If Richard Herman and B. Joe White were men of character they would acknowledge that they owe an apology and an explanation to all of the rejected students with credentials superior to the “Category I” admittees.

But what do they get instead:

From Richard Herman, we get outright lies, excuses and obfuscation.  And he makes two contradictory arguments:

Herman said Category I applicants may have a higher rate of admission “simply because we have more information” about them.  “We are a public institution and I think we have to answer to the state and that means those who support us perhaps through their elected representative, the board who is our governing body, and all the parents who call me up. I feel I have to be able to respond,” he said.

First, Category I applicants are admitted “simply because we have more information.”  This is obviously bullshit.  In the majority of cases, the only new information is someone with money or power wants the student admitted.  That is wholly irrelevant to the young man or woman’s qualifications for admission to the University of Illinois.

Second, which is essentially, the state supports us so we have to trade political favors in exchange for state support.  His constituency is the people of Illinois, not just the Illinois General Assembly or the the members of the Board of Trustees. Shutting down “Category I” won’t shut down state support, it will just make things fair.  And I would love to hear his argument why turning down requests of members of the board, members who have a fiduciary duty to the institution, will harm the institution.

As I mentioned, his second argument contradicts his first: Arg 2: we admit these students as a political favor, Arg 1: they are simply admitted because we have more information about the candidate.

From B. Joe White we have the hugely wasteful Global Campus, an initiative that has enraged faculty members while wasting tens of millions of dollars of resources.  It was a failure of vision, a failure to recognize we were late to the market, and a stubborn refusal to live with that reality on White’s part that cost the University so dearly.

Subsequently, White embarassed the University by botching a political speech issue.

President White is trying to pass the buck instead of accepting responsibility.  And he’s hiding behind the same absurd “more information” argument Herman uses.

President White said it’s not unusual for selective universities to receive input on applicants from interested parties, and it’s important to have a system to track the requests. The additional information can help the admissions office make a more informed decision.”

White is outright lying on the radio when he claims political pressure is not leading to “jumping the que” by less qualified students.  Too late, the Trib busted you.  White argues “we do not admit strictly on the numbers” and he cites legitimate factors like grade trends, overcoming adversity, etc.  However, a name being forwarded by a board members or a political official is not a legitimate factor. He was enabling the process, and his mendacity on the radio is shameful.

Today is a disappointing day for the University of Illinois, and a day where we should all be ashamed of our leaders.  However, there are some encouraging elements, like the courage shown by admissions officers who push back against unethical pressures, all while knowing that Richard Herman is a feckless authoritarian who hates to be disagreed with almost as much as he hates bad publicity.  Also, White’s promise that the practice will be corrected is encouraging, but like everything else he says, I’m not confident we can take him at his word.

I reject the notion that the University has to have a special process for “Category I” students.  If the purpose is just “tracking” then have someone in a clerical role share data with interested parties, instead of someone with decision making power who is likely to be influenced.  I do wonder if there are any privacy concerns with releasing the status of an applicant to a third party, but that is an issue for another day.

UPDATE: For those of you who are not on the University’s mailing list, I have posted Chancellor Herman’s response to the Tribune’s article. It is a rather weak response that makes little substantive or potent defense of his words or admissions habits.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Chancellor Richard Herman <chancellor@illinois.edu> wrote:

Dear Campus Community

I am writing you to respond to today’s story in the Chicago Tribune
regarding admissions policies at Illinois.

Let me state at the outset that I have full confidence in our Office of
Undergraduate Admissions and its professional and dedicated staff led by
Associate Provost Keith Marshall and Director Stacey Kostell. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has an admissions process based
on integrity and fairness, one that produces an incoming class that ranks
among the best academically in the nation. Our graduates go on to do great
work in the world and, in turn, they reward us through their support and
loyalty as Illinois alumni.

It is no secret that competition for admission at Illinois is stiff.
Thousands of people contact University administrators and others with ties
to the university every year in regard to the admissions process – 2,300
calls alone are received by the admissions office on the first decision
day. This year, the university received 26,000 applications for only about
7,000 seats in the incoming class. For the Class of 2013, the average ACT
score was 28 and the average high school class rank was in the 88th
percentile. We are proud of this tradition of academic quality.

As a land grant university we remain committed to be inclusive and
accessible in our pursuit of academic excellence. We seek to represent as
closely as we can the full demographic of the state. With that in mind, we
will continue to look at academic qualifications and other pertinent
information included in each application while asking whether we believe
the student will succeed at our university.

Admissions is not a science. However, we welcome the challenge the Tribune
story presents to make every possible effort to ensure the integrity our
admissions process.

But given our high retention rate and the many successes of our graduates,
we believe we mostly get it right.

Richard Herman
Chancellor