Chancellor's Response on March 8th: who put the fence around common ground?

The UNCG Chancellor responded to a 116-6 vote of no confidence in the Provost by the College Arts and Sciences today. In his response, as he should, he defended the provost. He also took responsibility for the APR process stating that the provost was being personally attacked for his decisions. 

Yet, I found the response to be quite ironic.  Where were the Chancellor and/or the Provost in defending Dean Kiss from the vote of no confidence from CAS faculty? In fact the Chancellor and Provost said repeatedly that the programs that were being eliminated were based on recommendations from the deans  without influence from above (except for the PhD program in Math which the Provost took responsibility). Neither he nor the provost opted to convey to the CAS faculty that the decisions on program eliminations were theirs and to defend Dean Kiss from "personal attacks" and a  vote of no confidence by the CAS faculty. 

He also wrote the following paragraph:

 It’s deeply disappointing that Provost Storrs has come under personal attack over programmatic decisions that ultimately came from me. Such maneuvering comes amid pressing work for the University: identifying and executing solutions to our immediate and long-term challenges. I welcome — and encourage — all community members willing to collaborate with me in confronting these issues. The University must move forward, and we are.

I would like to make two points (never concisely enough):

1. If the chancellor had paid attention to the numerous op-eds and blogs he would recognize that there is little if anything that is a personal attack on the provost, or simply a personal attack for the decisions on the APR. (And, by the way, the Chancellor had no trouble making personal attacks about me aimed at destroying my career that were not about my ability to do the job).

I was a good senior academic administrator for 25 years. As a member of the UNCG faculty, and somebody, who cares deeply for its future- just as deeply, if not more than the chancellor or the provost- It is incumbent on me as a member of this community to point out what I see as failures of leadership in the university that I think put the university at risk.

My blog lays out (see this post re: my reasons for a vote of no confidence and see this one re: my concerns with APR and false dichotomy created by the chancellor) what I think are specific failures of leadership of the provost (and possibly the chancellor). As the chief academic officer the provost is fully responsible for academic affairs and the leader of the faculty. She was responsible for the processes of the APR. She is responsible for decoupling authority and responsibility of deans. And, she is responsible for weakening the research enterprise at UNCG, even though that strength is critical to our reputation and fueling the economy of GSO and the State. She is responsible for using metrics that don't make sense. She is responsible for the decision to announce by email that all professional faculty contracts would be reduced to one year. She is responsible, as the leader of the faculty, to inspire faculty for the future. She has the responsibility of making faculty feel valued. And, it is well known in any business that there a strongly positive correlation between how valued employees feel and how well they do their job. In all of the Chancellor's and Provost's attempts to defend their decisions, they have not once addressed the major criticism:  How exactly are the results of this process going to benefit UNCG for the future and not throw the university into a death spiral? Instead the chancellor relies on using a metaphor that faculty are maneuvering to stage some sort of coup or simply relying on ad hominin attacks, or just that any change, is good change.

2. The part that angers me most in his response is this: "I welcome — and encourage — all community members willing to collaborate with me in confronting these issues. The University must move forward, and we are."  The most frustrating part of the process is the idea that those of us who disagree with the chancellor don't want to collaborate moving forward.  I have been sharing my thoughts for nearly two years-- not once has anyone in the provost's or chancellor's office asked me about them. or how I think something might be improved in the current process. The Chancellor and Provost met with AAUP leadership. They listened to various collaborative proposals but ultimately told AAUP leadership to work through the Faculty Senate, whose resolutions concerning the APR process were dismissed by the chancellor and provost. The provost declined (very politely) to meet with me individually, at a time when I was not that angry, and asked if she would be interested in having me share my experiences as a senior administrator. Yes, the provost and chancellor had small group meetings with faculty with no agenda. But, for faculty who went to those meetings that I know, they did not feel heard and their opinions were not asked.

Those of us on the faculty who are scared for the future of UNCG from what we see as bad leadership in the provost (and the chancellor) are left with only one option right now to be engaged and listened to: a vote of no confidence. As I have said before, I don't view the only good outcome of a vote of no confidence in the any senior administrator solely as the individual leaving their role.  There are many responses that can be made to a vote of no confidence. One positive response would be a recognition of what others believe are failures of leadership and to reflect on those and work to rebuild confidence. Another, but bad, response is to ignore the reasons for the vote. Another, even worse, response is to not only ignore, but to find faculty that are supportive of UNCG leadership, bring them into the inner circle, and place them in leadership roles. Another terrible response with respect to the mission of the university is to terminate, fire, make life miserable for those who expressed their opinions. Unfortunately, that is what many of us believe will be the response. And, there is of course the response where the chancellor reflects whether a chief academic officer can effectively serve as the leader of the faculty when a significant proportion of the faculty have expressed no confidence in the provost's leadership.

To me, the Chancellor and the Provost created the dichotomy of "you are either with me, or you are against me," or "you are either agents of change, any change, or luddites defending the status quo."  The faculty who supported the resolution of no confidence in the College of Arts and Sciences, and those that wills support it on March 13, are not the people who created the dichotomy. The chancellor has the power and authority for the entire university. The provost has the power and authority in academic affairs, as designated by the chancellor. In power relationships, those with the power are the people responsible for creating a culture of collaboration. As I wrote in a previous blog, the narrative of dichotomy that the chancellor created of "good" vs "evil" has to change.

Every single person on this campus that I know wants UNCG to succeed well into the future. I am scared about the future for UNCG with a leadership that does not seem to understand, or at least does not articulate, that our mission in a few words would be "we build people up!" Instead they seem to believe that tearing people down so we can sell credit hours more efficiently, is the path to success. I don't think there are  many cases where organizations can  simply cut themselves to sustainability, let alone excellence. I understand the need control costs, but survival/thriving will be based on revenue generation. There is been barely a peep about how that is going to happen.

Many of my colleagues and I understand the "headwinds" facing higher education. We all have common ground in wanting UNCG to succeed. Common ground is where I want to stand. I am not sitting in the audience heckling the chancellor like Marjorie Taylor Green did to President Biden last night with a goal of simply blowing things up. Consistent with a university's mission, I want to see the university, the faculty and the students built up and UNCG to continue to serve a talented and extraordinarily diverse student body and to continue to enrich the region, state, nation and the world with research, scholarship and creative activities that matter. When I worked with the Chancellor, he shared that goal. To me, that is the common ground we all want to stand on. But, that common ground is a place that the Chancellor has fenced off. Only  people who agree and/or passive are allowed to stand there.