The Carroll saga....

Another illuminating letter in the continuing saga at Carroll College. It is a little out-dated, but interesting nonetheless.

Dear Colleagues:

I think we can agree that the Faculty Meeting on Monday could prove to be
important. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing from the FEC and the
exchange of views.

For what it's worth, I'd like to offer the following thoughts in advance of
this meeting.

This is my fifth (and final) year working at Carroll College. Five years ago
I was pleased to accept an offer to teach at "Wisconsin's Oldest College."
Like others who have agreed to offer their services to Carroll, I was eager
to join the faculty of an institution which was publicly proud of its
Liberal Arts heritage, "the Princeton on the Prairie" (I was told).

My own story is not unique: I uprooted my family to move some 3000 miles
from Oregon to take advantage of this opportunity. My wife gave up her law
practice so that I might pursue my career in teaching. My two kids were
thrown into a new community.

I remember very well arriving at the College in a Ryder truck, parking it in
the lower lot because I had no other place to put it. I remember, too, the
generosity of Gary Stevens, John Clausz, Tim Fiedler, and others, in helping
me move our stuff into our rental in the Pebble Creek development. I felt
welcomed by Carroll. (The only discordant note was the fact that, upon my
arrival, I learned that the man who had actually hired me, Bob Black, had
been replaced, seemingly while I was on the road.)

So, like all of us, I threw myself into my teaching and my scholarship and
tried to make a positive contribution to the College. The first hint of
serious trouble came in the Spring of 2000. The English Department had its
annual meeting with the Administration, this time with both Dennis Mick and
Lynne Bernier. My English Department colleagues and I had spent a great deal
of time in advance of this meeting coming up with ways to "contribute
significantly to our goals of strengthening Carroll College," to quote from
Frank's most recent missive. We hadn't gotten more than four words out when
Dennis and Lynne responded, in unison, that there was simply no money
available to support our ideas. (Remember: this was the Spring of 2000, at
the height of our recent economic fortunes.) I was concerned enough about
their reaction that I formulated the "Draft Resolution on Institutional
Priorities and Liberal Arts Instruction at Carroll College." In order to
underline the concern over the direction of the College, I circulated the
Resolution only among junior faculty members, more than a dozen of whom
signed the thing. You will recall, too, that I approached all three academic
divisions with this Resolution in an attempt to spark a discussion
concerning the priorities and values of the College.

Since the Spring of 2000, the agenda of Tom and Frank has become
increasingly clear. While mouthing platitudes about "a strong, broad-based
liberal education" at Convocations, Commencements, and in directives from
Voorhees, this Administration has actively pursued policies which serve only
to downsize the College's commitment to offering a strong Liberal Arts
curriculum. The recent Strategic Directions Task Force report, clearly
manipulated by the Administration's data inputs, rubrics for manipulating
data, and choice of participating members, is merely a final, and public,
unveiling of its unfortunate Master Plan for the College.

I would like to suggest that we would do well to distinguish between the
different issues which are in play at the moment.

The first issue concerns what it might mean to be a "Liberal Arts College,"
or a College with "a strong Liberal Arts core," or some such. As a community
we have batted this ball around quite a bit since I got here five years ago
(and I'm quite sure that ball was in play well before). Tom and Frank and
their minions have argued over and over again that the changes they have in
mind do not represent a threat to our definition as a [strong] Liberal Arts
College. Indeed, they have even argued that these changes actually
strengthen the College's commitment to its Liberal Arts "core."

The fact that the Faculty of the College has, to its credit, consistently
rejected these claims has not dissuaded Tom & Frank & Co. Thus one stasis
point: the Administration arguing for one definition (as it "downsizes" and
"reallocates"), the Faculty insisting on a different definition.

The second, and more important, issue concerns the processes we have engaged
in working out our notions of what Carroll is, or ought to be. I think it is
fair to say that this Administration has claimed a tremendous amount of
authority in charting our common course. I have read the edicts handed down
from Voorhees. I have tried to work with representatives of this
Administration on governance committees. The clear message has been: it's
the Administration's way or the highway.

I understand that there are relevant historical reasons for the posture of
the Administration (and the Faculty). For good or ill, a Devil's Bargain was
agreed to in the early 1990s in response to very real economic problems at
the College. In this Bargain the Faculty ceded authority over curricular
decisions (and thus the status and direction of the College) to the Board of
Trustees (and ultimately to the Board's designee, the President).

Those of us who signed on to the College after this Bargain was struck have
never been comfortable with its terms (and, generally speaking, have not
felt bound to it). (We are not alone.)

Given all of this, I think it is understandable why many (Junior and Senior)
Faculty members have reacted negatively to the Administration's exercise of
its power.

We can argue until the cows come home whether or not Carroll, in whatever
guise, qualifies as a [strong] Liberal Arts institution. For myself, and for
many of my colleagues, I suspect, the real question concerns HOW we come to
answer this question.

If I may speak bluntly: until this Faculty decides collectively to challenge
this Administration's exercise of power and authority, nothing will change.
As we have seen, the Administration is quite eager to redefine the College
(bolstered by wonderful new books on setting our priorities, ecstatic
visions of the Promised Land, etc.) If this Faculty doesn't have the stomach
to challenge this power and authority, I don't think there's much to discuss
on Monday; we ought better to shut up and proceed with our jobs as
"employees" of the Board and its Administration.

The alternative, of course, is to reclaim our historic (and, I would argue,
appropriate) authority to chart the academic life of this institution.

Until recently, even the Board and Frank acknowledged this authority (or at
least paid lip service to it). If you read carefully the statement released
by Frank today, however, you will notice that some slippage seems to be
occurring even as we speak. Frank notes that the Board "cannot agree to
relinquish final authority for all decisions." This is a logical fallacy, of
course, and one with pernicious import. To my knowledge, the Faculty has
never expected, or demanded, "final authority for all decisions."
Rhetorically, this establishes an unreal opposition: either we agree with
Tom & Frank's Master Plan (and are thus moderate and reasonable) or we
disagree (and are thus placing extreme demands on the College and its Board
of Trustees, demands which will implicitly ravage the College economically).


Let us state the case clearly: the real threat to the economic (if not
intellectual) livelihood of the College has NEVER been posed by those who
have advocated a continued (even increased) commitment to our Liberal Arts
core. All the talk of "entrepreneurial nimbleness" notwithstanding, Tom &
Frank's Master Plan has represented, and continues to represent, the single
greatest threat to the continued viability of Carroll College. Ask your
students. Ask their parents. Ask yourselves . . .

But I am speaking of process here. Process matters. Some questions I would
like to have answered at Monday's meeting:

1) If what we are engaged in is a rational (let alone ethical) process, how
can we explain the fact that about 18 months ago (well in advance of the
"Prioritization" analysis) the chair of the Chemistry Department was told by
Lynne Bernier that only two of its three junior members would, a priori,
stand a chance of being granted tenure?

2) Why did Lynne Bernier explicitly threaten my own position during my
4-year review last Spring (again, well in advance of the supposedly
objective "Prioritization" effort)?

{these were NOT boiler-plate, cover-the-College's-behind statements--ask
your colleagues in the Chemistry and English departments, or members of the
T&P committee}

3) What business does the Strategic Directions Task Force (or Frank, for
that matter), have in dictating how ENG 170 ought to be taught? You will
recall that the proclamation has gone out across the land that forthwith ENG
170 will henceforth focus on "basic skills." No more mucking about with,
e.g., fostering written reasoning or critical thinking (which can only yield
citizens who might, e.g., object to the brazen and egomaniacal exercise of
raw power by our President (which one, you ask? I, too, grow more confused
by the day . . .)

4) Are we doomed to repeat history? It's time to recognize the facts of the
case. Which of these claims is in dispute?:

a) Frank Falcone lost his previous job after alienating key constituencies
(including
Faculty and Students)
b) Frank Falcone lost his previous job by attempting to "reshape" his
College according
to his unique vision
c) Frank Falcone was hired by Carroll College because nobody else would take
the job
d) Frank Falcone has completely alienated key constituencies at Carroll
College (including Faculty, Students, Alums, Emeriti, Parents, etc.)
e) Frank Falcone has completely alienated key constituencies at Carroll
College by attempting to "reshape" it according to his unique vision
(reified by the power handed him upon his ascension to the throne)

We all know, however, that should Frank abdicate, Carroll College would not
be out of the woods. Frank is Tom's creature. As long as Tom exercises his
power on the Board of Trustees, Carroll will be graced by the Frank
Falcone's of the academic backwash. Doesn't Carroll College deserve better?
Don't you, and your partners, and your kids, deserve better? More to the
point, don't the students (and their parents) who pay $22,000 for the
privilege of attending Carroll College deserve better?

As I said, nothing will change at the College until the basic distribution
of power and authority is challenged (and "reallocated," to use the word of
the moment). Looking at the agenda for Monday's meeting, I can't really
predict what will happen. But I'm eager to find out.

Dave

David W. Gilcrest
Assistant Professor of English
Carroll College
Waukesha, WI 53186
262.524.7262 (office)
gilcrest@cc.edu