Does this college president imagine that students are going to apply next year to Mount Saint No Mercy?
If a college accepts a student who isn’t prepared or capable from day one of doing the work set out in its curriculum, then the admissions procedures are flawed. It is ridiculous and unethical to accept students and “unaccept” them a few weeks later after they have committed to the college.
Non-elite private colleges like Mount St. Mary’s who serve ill-prepared students do have a dilemma. They need warm bodies in the seats because they have tuition-driven budgets, but they also need to provide costly services and support for students who are going to struggle, or the college loses credibility and goodwill. The tough part is to identify the students who can make it even if they are likely to struggle for a while.
My employer uses a questionnaire at orientation to identify potentially at-risk students so that these can be offered more intensive advisement. The "red flags’ are not necessarily things like learning disabilities (students diagnosed in high school or earlier are often quite adept at self-advocating and accessing appropriate supports). The main predictive element of struggle is family educational background. Students whose parents have a high school diploma or less are frequently unaware of the “hidden curriculum” of college. Resentment of educators is another factor; one question asks, basically, whether you liked your teachers in school or not. “No” is a red flag for academic trouble in college.
Ironically, because I’ve been part of this conversation I’ve been getting ads for Mount St. Mary’s on my screen.
3a°. yes we don’t care that we’ve wasted the time of students - we also don’t care we’ve caused them to lose time they can’t recoup by foreclosing any possibility of them choosing/transferring to other colleges by expelling them a month into the semester.
Former student highlight how at oddswith the university’s brand/mission, that idea of kicking students after a couple weeks is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/25/mount-st-marys-alumna-says-its-not-a-bunny-eat-bunny-world/
Summarizing:
The college newspaper’s editor and the director of the Honors Program, both long tenured and distinguished, one a former board of trustees member, were FIRED under the very weird reason “lack of loyalty”.
The college confirmed this, so this is HUGE DEAL, because faculty at the college have tenure protection including right to free speech and dissent.
This is not going to end well.
^ also the provost was fired. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/08/provost-who-opposed-mount-st-marys-presidents-plan-cull-students-loses-his-job
Another article that discusses all 3 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/09/mount-st-marys-president-fires-two-faculty-members-one-tenure
Seems like someone failed to understand the concept of “loyal opposition”.
What will they do if the bad press dissuades applicants, resulting in a weaker applicant pool, which will force them to either shrink or admit a weaker incoming class that likely includes a higher percentage of students who are “bunnies to be drowned” early, or at risk of dropping/flunking out later?
Or the President and his supporters completely reject it like many autocratic political or corporate leaders such as Donald “You’re fired!” Trump.
You know, the historical and current basic reason for tenure is to allow faculty (who are part of the governance structure of colleges) to be “disloyal” in this way and speak up to those higher up on the organizational chart.
In fact, there are certain specific legal rights about this thing that come with the status of tenure in many jurisdictions—I don’t know Maryland’s laws on the subject, though, but depending on what they are, the president and board may be in a spot of trouble now.
Tenure has limits. The American Association of University Professors write the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” essentially the guiding document on the subject. One item says this:
I would argue that by publicizing this matter, and quoting what should have been considered private remarks, the whistle-blowers crossed the line.
I don’t write this as an administrative toady. Not many years ago, I was the disloyal faculty member who blew the whistle on something my college president was doing that I found dubious. I asked a well-known newspaper reporter who wrote a sort of whistle-blower column to keep my identity a secret as he made the behavior public. Had my identity been released, I have no doubt I would have been fired and that no one could have saved me.
It’s a lot like civil disobedience. You can stand up for the right cause, but if they want to put you in jail, you’re going to jail. You have to know that when you start the process.
I didn’t see dfbdfb’s post when I posted. He’s right of course that tenure permits certain kinds of dissent. I sit on my faculty senate, and there have been many times when I have openly disagreed with presidents and vice presidents. Even as a “normal” faculty member I have done so. But it was always understood that I was acting within the boundaries of my position – which are a lot more flexible than those of people who are not faculty. But there is a difference between dissent and disloyalty.
Absolutely appalling.
Thirty years ago Northeastern University in Boston was an “easy to get into, hard to graduate from” school. In the past 20 years they have dramatically increased admission standards. This has resulted in a 96% retention rate and an 84% graduation rate.
The response from Boston area wags (many of whom flunked out decades ago) and others has been that Northeastern is merely “gaming the rankings” by only admitting students who are likely to succeed.
This is so bad for the college; I don’t see how the Board of Trustees can possibly be supporting this, yet they are.
Hm, wonder how many transfers out of St. Mary’s there will be this year.
Is this legal? Do they have a lawsuit on their hands?
<== Time to bring out the Dead Bunny Flag! :ar!
If I was that faculty member, I would be one hard to find academic…someone who “forgot” to charge his/her phone…
Kudos to the President and Board for making a bad situation, even worse.
I don’t see where the professors failed any of those, though.
They never indicated they were speaking for the institution, they were accurate (this was even confirmed by the president’s backers), exercised restraint, and expressed their opinion respectfully.
This would be considered pretty normal dissent in the college-verse, where people can be much less respectful and much more vocal for much less important things. In any case I believe that this falls under the protections offered by tenure.
What was reported was true and while the president’s backers are trying to cover their behinds now saying it’s all for the good of the students, I don’t see how anyone can believe them - if the students were too weak to succeed, why admit them in the first place? If within 6 weeks it became evident they they needed help, why was it not provided? If the program was helpful and legit, why was it administered under false pretenses? How will that help students when they become “failed freshmen” who must now apply elsewhere with a blotch on their record and have nowhere to go in October of their Fall freshman year? (Also note that tuition will be reimbursed, but not room&board, fees, or purchased texbooks - and the tuition reimbursement was cited AFTER the story broke.)
I do agree some students would be better off in a Community College rather than in a 4-year college, but the moment to realize this is during Admissions. Not six weeks into the semester.
Also, remember that this is a college that parents choose over, say, Salisbury or Towson, because it’s nurturing and pays attention to students who may need more hand-holding. (Likely,now, I should write: “chose”).
Add to this that one of those fired was the director of Honors. Kids who were not in the best position as high school students, were selected by a faculty member, supported by a program, and graduated to good jobs, are likely very grateful to the faculty - and while Honors Students have no self interest in this fight… they’re also those with the most drive and thus most likely to take it up a notch with the power they have now acquired as alumni.
1st Amendment question:
Can students be expelled for what they write in the college newspaper, such as their support for the former newspaper adviser? Can they start their own “online” paper or can they be expelled if they do that? Can a college expell many students, en masse, if they publish a blogposts or an unofficial “college gazette” that is critical of the current president?
@romanigypsyeyes: I was wondering the same thing. I don’t think the professors were outside the protection of tenure, the professors at this university have tenure, therefore I don’t think firing them is legal. But… I’m no lawyer. Whether this idea has merit or not, I do see a nice lawsuit for whoever wants to take it up, along the lines of defending freedom of speech and the importance of tenure, etc.
@Gator88NE: How did you find the Dead Bunny Flag?
You’re right, this is one professor whose phone lost its charger and who’s now on a religious retreat for 3 days, no contact with the outside world :D.
This adds ridicule to the situation!
@MYOS1634 Here you go…lots of images of dead bunnies are available, it seems to be an internet thing…
http://www.artflakes.com/en/products/dead-rabbit-1#show-zoom
Apparently there are grumblings the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities would issue a statement.
(If this comes to fruition, it’s unlikely to support MSMU’s president, methinks).
@Gator88NE: thanks!