I am afraid this may just be the first step in a series of moves that will sacrifice the integrity of the university on the altar of expediency, or perhaps as more recent news seems to indicate, the altar of moral, spiritual, and intellectual malfeasance. And I wonder about the extent to which the claimed “financial crisis” may be the result of mismanagement by the current administration along with an attempt by the administration and certain trustees to justify a shifting of funds away from the Logsdon endowment to meet other needs rather than honor the intend of the donor. This is a very serious matter, both with respect to the integrity of the university and also with respect to prospective donors who (like me) have designated gifts to the university in wills and trusts, or pledges to a campaign, but may now wish to direct those funds to benefit another institution that does, in fact, honor the intent of its donors.
Also, my understanding is that those who are the instigators of this movement intend to bring about the end of tenure, a necessary safeguard to protect the academic integrity of the university in all its fields of study (not just Logsdon) from attacks by religious and political zealots who feel threatened by the honest inquiry and critical thinking that are integral to, and at the heart of, the academic enterprise and thus the very nature of a university.
The essential component of a quality university worthy of the name is not impressive structures, but an impressive community of scholar-teachers who engage students in a creative encounter with the information and ideas that have shaped the world, past and present, and equip them to deal not only with the insights of the past, but also with the new information and ideas that will emerge over time and shape the world of the future, and to do so both responsibly and faithfully. It is this kind of experience that expands knowledge, builds competence, and deepens faith.
In my former role as Executive Vice President and Provost of the university, and later during two terms as President of the Faculty, I could confidently declare that the integrity of the university was not for sale, not to anybody and not for any price. But now, I fear that I may no longer be be able to make such a statement. While my suspicions are not yet proven, more recent events appear to support a developing worst case scenario consistent with the fears expressed by rapidly growing numbers of students, faculty members, alumni, donors, and others whose long term support and encouragement for what has been a strong, well grounded, and faithful to its mission university may be reversed in light of valid concerns.
Having been associated with the university in one way or another since March 1, 1979, I have been had the privilege of seeing it from a variety of perspectives for almost 41 years. I clearly remember that during my time as it’s chief academic officer, working closely with Dr. Jesse C. Fletcher, one of its most talented and visionary presidents, one of the most significant of the many gains during those years was the further development and enhancement of an already strong faculty and a quality academic program that became the envy of our peers. That good work, continued by others in subsequent years, constituted the promise of the future.
Last year, however, many of our best, brightest, most committed, and most valuable faculty members were terminated while new facilities were opened, apparently without sufficient funds to heat, cool, clean and maintain those facilities. So it appeared that the university was exchanging key people for facilities in a transaction that enhanced the campus, but reduced the strength and vitality of many of its academic programs. I am well aware that universities are labor intensive organizations, and that one of the easiest, but most destructive to the enterprise, ways to cut costs is to cut faculty, and this is apparently where we are today. But I wonder what happened to those strategies that in the past helped us to anticipate events and avoid this fate?
Why were not both administrators and trustees involved sufficiently in critical assessments of the potential impact upon the university of social, political, religious and economic developments relating to the environment in which the university would be expected to function?
And why, in the crisis stage, were not all of the trustees, especially those whose committee assignments related specifically to Logsdon, an integral part of the evaluation process, and not ambushed by a secretive plan for which they had no opportunity to prepare?
And why should the university fall victim to a scheme reminiscent of the denominational wars of the past? Surely, even the most religiously partisan trustees do not wish to utilize ungodly means to achieve partisan ends. And surely trustees who claim loyalty to the God revealed in Jesus Christ can be open to an above board reconsideration of what was clearly a precipitous action, gain a more fully informed awareness of the essential nature of a university and how it can best serve the faith, and then revisit this momentous decision.
I hope and earnestly pray that it may be so.
Ron Smith, Senior Professor Emeritus of Theology and former Executive VP and Provost