skip to main |
skip to sidebar
From
The Washington Examiner:
In 2015, Evergreen hired a new president. Trained as a sociologist,
George Bridges did two things upon arrival. First, he hired an old
friend to talk one-on-one to members of our community — faculty, staff,
and students. We talked about our values and our visions for the
college. But the benefit of hindsight suggests that he was looking for
something else. He was mapping us, assessing our differences, our blind
spots, and the social tensions that ran beneath the surface. Second,
Bridges fired the provost, Michael Zimmerman. The provost, usually
synonymous with the vice president for academics, is the chief academic
officer at an institution of higher education. Zimmerman would have
disapproved of what Bridges had in mind and would have had some power to
stop it. But he was replaced by a timid (though well-liked) insider who
became a pawn due to his compromised interim status and his desire not
to make waves.
Having mapped the faculty and fired the provost, Bridges began
reworking the college in earnest. Surprise announcements became the norm
as opportunities for discussion dwindled.
The president took aim at what made Evergreen unique, such as
full-time programs. He fattened the administration, creating expensive
vice president positions at an unprecedented rate, while budgets
tightened elsewhere due to drops in student enrollment and disappearing
state dollars. He went after Evergreen’s unparalleled faculty autonomy,
which was essential to the unique teaching done by the best professors.
All of this should have been alarming to a faculty in which
professors have traditionally viewed administrative interference in
academic matters with great suspicion. But Bridges was strategic and
forged an alliance with factions known to be obsessed with race. He
draped the “equity” banner around everything he did. Advocating that
Evergreen embrace itself as a “College of Social Justice,” he argued
that faculty autonomy unjustly puts the focus on teachers rather than
students, and that the new VP for Equity and Inclusion would help us
serve our underserved populations. But no discussion was allowed of
students who did not meet the narrow criteria of being “underserved.”
Because of the wrapping, concerns about policy changes were dismissed as
“anti-equity.” What was in the nicely wrapped box turned out to be
something else entirely. (Read more.)
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment