Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 21, 1995 TAG: 9501240075
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: SAM G. RILEY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
What's at work here is a reaction against a sort of academic Devil's Triangle: three interrelated failings at work in higher education today. The first is a naive assumption, as regards colleges and universities, that whatever is, is wrong. The second is trendiness. The third is what might be called "the overlay of the Grand Scheme."
"Whatever is, is wrong" would appear to be the motto of certain educators who'd like to place their personal stamp upon higher education, American-style; of certain book authors highly critical of nearly everything now being done on U.S. campuses; and of political leaders who want to massage public opinion in such a way as to make it more acceptable to squeeze higher education for funds wanted for other uses. We call the result "faculty bashing."
The funny thing is that, in opinion polls, the general public has given professors a clean bill of health. And according to ratings students give their own professors, faculty members in general are doing quite a good job indeed. Also, the U.S. system of higher education, imperfect as it is, still enjoys the reputation of being the best in the world. Were this not so, we at Virginia Tech, to pick the only example for which I have recent figures, wouldn't attract students from more than 96 other nations.
Consider also the unfortunate tendency of the modern campus to succumb to the latest thing in trendy ideas and programs. This tendency has to do with the desire to attract not only money, but publicity. Substance often steps aside for show as campuses jump on board the latest bandwagon. One such trend has been internationalism. Anything with the label "international" (or "global") attached to it has enjoyed special glitter of late. It becomes easy to automatically assume that a program, a course or a book with "international" in the title is better than one that focuses on matters closer to home.
The Grand Scheme is the culminating step. Seeking support to strengthen an existing program, such as a political-science or history department, attracts little excitement and few headlines. If campus leaders want new funds, their best bet is to erect a Grand Scheme of some sort. This usually takes the form of a program that will exist apart from the standard academic units on campus. (Remember: whatever is, is wrong.)
A really good Grand Scheme will create a large new entity, to be superimposed on the campus' existing organizational structure like a giant plastic overlay. It will usually necessitate a new building or buildings, and the creation of well-paid administrative posts complete with associate and assistant administrators, each with staff support and secretarial help.
Such plans will probably also involve importing faculty "experts" (here, "expert" is defined as ``someone from someplace else'') at salaries nearly double those of the "worker bee" faculty who teach in the older programs on campus. Is it any wonder that anger and resentment result?
From where I stand - on the mezzanine of the ivory tower - I see an almost perfect parallel between a major problem of our federal government and the governing of the modern campus. Let me explain:
When our nation was founded, no one foresaw the emergence of the professional politician. It was assumed that a person would be elected for a term or two; then return to farming, banking or whatever that individual had done for a living prior to being elected to office. Today, of course, we have scores of career politicians who have no intention whatsoever of returning to their former work life - at least not if they can help it. They've become part of what deserves to be called "the political class."
The same thing often happens on campus. A person cuts his/her professional teeth as a teacher/scholar; then gets a better-paid administrative post. If this works out well, even higher administrative posts might result, and voila! a member of "the administrative class" is born, never to return to the classroom.
The point is that we might be better off if individuals would occupy high office, in government or on campus, for a limited span of years; then go back to doing what they did previously. Otherwise, autocratic behavior will quite likely result. It has, it does, and it will. I think these factors go a long way toward explaining faculty approval when the Global Studies College went down in the academic Devil's Triangle.
Sam G. Riley is a professor of communication studies at Virginia Tech.
by CNB