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.

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

First story:  The university is projecting over a billion dollar shortfall in their budget.  They are in the red by over a billion bucks!  Not good.  They cite budget trouble in Springfield, talk about probable tuition raises, cuts, etc.

Second story:  The university is building trans-gender bathrooms on campus.  How large a percentage of the student population are we catering to here?  Now as you all know I am a pretty simple guy, but have we developed a third sex or something that I am unaware of?  I really don’t get off the farm too often, but I thought that the way this thing worked was as follows:

1. Approach a restroom.
2. Look into your pants and determine the brand of tackle you are equipped with.
3. Following this self-examination you make a decision as to the little boys room or the little girls room.  There is no third choice.

Now if we were flush with money (bad pun) maybe ok, but we are a billion in the hole and are wasting money in the name of political correctness?  Is this really a necessity?

There are certain compromises that society dictates that frankly we are stuck with.  (like if you are a boy you go peepee in the boys room and if you are a girl you …..well you know.)  The system has really worked pretty well since the creation of indoor plumbing if you think about it.  I for one wish I could dress like a Spartan in the 300 (cool movie), flowing red cape and loin cloth, maybe strap AK-47s on my back, and partake in public fornication.  Unfortunately, societal norms frown on this type of public interaction.  Certainly my university does not fund the construction of special facilities to cater to my needs in this regard.  Most unfair it now seems.

Third Story:  Some University tenured professor feels the need to waste his tax-payer funded time applying for George Ryan to get a Nobel Peace prize for freeing all the murdering rapists (ok alleged murdering rapists – wait – Convicted murdering rapists) on Illinois’s death row.  Again, call me simple, but I thought we paid our professors to do things like TEACH.  If we are a billion in the hole and we have an overpaid liberal activist drawing professor pay – well I have a problem with this.

Summary:  We are over a billion dollars short on the budget but we have monies to build transgender potties and to pay a guy to promote giving an award to a convict.  Folks – something has got to give here.   All this in a half hour news segment.  It is just too much.