Kennedy: Hogan will respond to faculty concerns

Kennedy: Hogan will respond to faculty concerns

URBANA — Saying he wants to ease faculty tensions over enrollment management reforms, Board of Trustees Chairman Christopher Kennedy is promising the University of Illinois' top professors that a detailed report and formal response from President Michael Hogan is on its way.

Hogan's report is expected within the next month and will be shared with the University Senates Conference, a group made up of faculty leaders from the UI's three campuses, Kennedy said in a letter Monday to scores of faculty who wrote to trustees in January with their concerns about enrollment management.

In recent months, faculty have raised a number of questions about possible reforms for how the UI recruits, admits and offers financial aid to students on all of its campuses.

"In the meantime, in order to relieve a little tension, I should make it clear, as the president has said, that all admissions decisions and the establishment of standards will be made at the college or unit level as they are today," Kennedy wrote.

Decisions regarding class profiles for entering students will be made at the college or unit level, decisions about scholarships and financial aid will be made at the campus level, and faculty and deans will be involved in the same way as they are now, according to Kennedy.

"Campus identities will remain as they are today. All existing branding will remain unchanged," he wrote.

The initial faculty letter sent to Hogan and the UI Board of Trustees was signed by 125 chair-holding professors out of 230 on campus. Others followed from the executive committees of major colleges on the Urbana campus.

Recent administrative changes and proposals, including those having to do with centralizing enrollment management, undermine the creative diversity of the three campuses, the initial letter said.

The letter's author, Ed Kolodziej, director of the Center for Global Studies, said on Wednesday he appreciated Kennedy's effort to talk about what Kolodziej called "real problems," including those related to enrollment management, such as the need to enroll more students from underrepresented groups and to recruit the best and brightest high school students.

However, the chair-holding professors are concerned with "not just the enrollment management issues. It's a series of actions taken by President Hogan that seem to be developing a centralization and bureaucratization of the university system."

That kind of governance would impede the faculty's, students' and campus leaders' "capacity to pursue the mission of teaching, research, and public service at the highest levels of performance," Kolodziej said.

The faculty letter was sent on Jan. 12, a little more than a week after Lisa Troyer, Hogan's chief of staff, resigned amid an investigation into anonymous emails sent to members of the University Senates Conference from her computer. The subject of those emails revolved around how the conference would respond to an external report, commissioned by Hogan, that recommended various changes in enrollment management. The conference ended up voting 13-2 in favor of a report that endorsed three recommendations, requested further discussion and analysis on some, and rejected other recommendations. Kolodziej said the letter was already being drafted before Hogan's chief of staff resigned.

Professor Nicholas Burbules, who's been a vocal critic of the external enrollment management report, welcomed Kennedy's letter and call for ongoing dialogue, as did other faculty.

"I think it is a very productive step forward, and a demonstration of good will and engagement that I think has been missing in this process," he said Wednesday.

The letter follows Kennedy's Jan. 13 meeting with the University Senates Conference and Hogan, in which Kennedy led a detailed discussion of the 21 recommendations in the enrollment management report, asked faculty to elaborate on their concerns and promised an administrative response to each.

It was, Burbules said, "by far the most frank and productive exchange we've had on this issue."

Kennedy sent a 34-page summary of that discussion to the conference members and subsequently said some proposals, including the "branding" issue, would be re-evaluated. Hogan, while meeting with the Senate Executive Committee last Monday, said he would take the re-branding proposal "off the table."

"It seems to me now that our concerns and questions are being heard and taken seriously. I wish that we'd had these kinds of exchanges at the start of this process. We could have avoided some really unnecessary arguments and frictions," Burbules said.

Burbules, who has worked as a consultant, said he has never seen a case where an external consultant's report was taken as "a blueprint for action," as with enrollment management. It's usually a starting point for those inside the institution to develop a plan, he said.

"The process Chairman Kennedy has laid out, in which the external report is taken as a starting point, and then adapted to our different campus needs and the issues expressed by the campus senates, the university senates conference, and by campus administrators, is much more likely to produce the outcomes we want, and much more likely to gain the broad base of support necessary for these reforms to be successful," Burbules said.

Kennedy wrote he hoped the letter relieves some of the "tension around the misperception about the intent of the enrollment management review and future plans for that important concern." He also wrote that he hoped to continue to have a dialogue about issues important to the university.

Professor Michael Biehl, who wrote the campus senate's response to the enrollment management report and co-authored the senates conference report, also praised Kennedy's letter.

"In my opinion, it is very encouraging as it seems to advocate for exactly the type of collaborative, productive enrollment management discussions that our EM Task Force report, the united campus senates, and a majority of the faculty have been asking for," Biehl said.

Biehl had advocated for a collaborative approach, and he was distressed when an email he sent to colleagues describing the more forceful views of other professors was cited by Hogan as evidence that faculty were trying to force a confrontation with administrators.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Lostinspace wrote on February 02, 2012 at 10:02 am

The Troyer problem and other problems would be less likely to occur if administrators were present at faculty committee meetings only by invitation of the faculty.  The presence of administrators obviously influences open discussion.  It is amazing, for instance, that administrators are members of curricular committees.

The administration clearly has the right to form its own committees, with or without faculty members.  The faculty, especially with regard to academic policy, should have the same right, and its policy decisions should not be recommendatory, but binding.

read the DI wrote on February 02, 2012 at 10:02 am


Also, Hogan needs to face the faculty, not hide behind a report. This is NOT going away.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 02, 2012 at 11:02 am

Aye, his lordship has spoken due to pressure.....  Appeasements will be made.  What about the Troyer, Ting, and Hogan ethics question though?  If Dr. Hogan gets a new dog, will a new civil service classification have to be created?  They will have to hire someone to call his dog for him.  Who will ever believe anything he says after this covered up scandal?

Lostinspace wrote on February 02, 2012 at 7:02 pm

Hundreds of faculty members and no comments here.  Interesting, no?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 02, 2012 at 10:02 pm

They are upset the same as the rest of us.  They may talk privately, or in groups; but not in public.  Their main objective is the admissions issue.  Dr. Troyer, Dr. Ting, and Dr. Hogan will skate through this.  Something might happen over time like money paid to go away; but it will be private, not public.  Sadly, the public will continue to see the university as non-transparent, and hypocritical.  Yesterday, I was glad to not hear the recent university Law School Scandal mentioned in the national news covering test score scandals across the country.

jwr12 wrote on February 03, 2012 at 12:02 am

Lostinspace comments there are no faculty comments here; Sidsaltfork says they only talk privately.  The thing that should be realized is that the faculty are talking quite loudly and very publicly, just not here in the NG comments section.  If you don't believe me, watch the live video of the UIUC Faculty Senate meeting, or read any of the three harshly critical resolutions passed by the senate on presidential ethics, or Joyce Tolliver's statement about all of the ethics issues discussed in the past few weeks.  These are all people who have actual things to lose by speaking out using their real names, and yet they do.  So I think it's not fair to criticize faculty "silence" when actually they have been speaking out, just not in this particular forum.

Local Yocal wrote on February 03, 2012 at 8:02 am
Profile Picture

Bark, bark, bark goes the faculty. Nothing will change unless faculty and students really put it on the line and shut the school down until Troyer and Hogan are escorted off the campus.

One dollar bet the lawyer who represented Joseph White and Richard Hermann has already reminded the Board of Trustees of what the ethics of a legally binding contract can cost. Another one dollar bet says the Psychology Department will issue a letter of apology/excuse to the effect: "It would be too costly to challenge Dr. Troyer's contract and we welcome her expertise in the field of organizational psychology.  We believe she will only enhance our department's prestige. (And Hogan has promised to leave our budget alone for awhile.)"