[Alumni-chat] Antioch Pres. is CEO of University if Chancellor Posit

[alanbenard (alanbenard at pobox.com)]

>Good grief, I think you're talking about me.  I think I'd rather be a whipping boy than a "conservative gradualist".
Conservative and gradual in terms of changing the campus and its structures. Reports are that you put your head down and pulled hard in the harness -- raising money, fostering community, setting a tone. The stuff I think a president should do, rather then either swinging a mighty sword of vengeance (or tooting an ineffectual kazoo of indecision), or constructing a superstructure over the governance process and building a throne room in it, with space for the privy council, and moving in. I regret being imprecise -- I wasn't referring to personal politics. However, you did make the effort to show up at all time in a suit and a smart haircut and role model the kind of person who can get things done. 

>The truth is that I taught the entire time I was President, and had perhaps more disagreements with Guskin than did Crowfoot (he wasn't fond of the trimester calendar, thought the co-op stipends were wacked, wasn't sure we could pull off a summer program, thought I made some big personnel mistakes).  To his credit, Al encouraged taking the risk of putting the library on line and wiring the campus, even though the money wasn't there, and respected the lines I drew around the autonomy of campus governance.  Unlike my predecessor, I had some rapport with students, was able to build retention and enrollment and was able to raise money and even balanced the budget a couple of times.  Obviously we got along well, but probably with more disagreement than agreement.  I've been a persistent and vocal critic of the Renewal Plan, and I think Al's letter to Toni was deplorable....but consistent.  From the comfort of a golden parachute I think it's easy to forget the damage caused to students,
>to faculty and to staff.
Even when I was mad as hell at Alan Guskin, I did thought he deserved respect. It's too bad that he seems to be a mover and shaker behind a profoundly disrespectful decision. I hope that there are people he will still listen to who can remind him of what decisions taken in the throne room can do to the peasants shoveling dung out in the pasture.

>Here's the thing about Al.  People forget that the College was six months away from closing its doors in 1984, in a circumstance similar to where we are now -- low enrollment, diminished fundraising, a capital plant that was in far worse shape than the current campus -- and he managed to bring it back from the dead.  Without Al Guskin and Leo Drey we wouldn't be dealing with our current angst because there wouldn't be an Antioch College to revive.
Granted all of that and with our gratitude understood, I'm saddened that he does not seem to want to follow through and strengthen and preserve what he saved. No, I'm not sad. I'm furious.

>At the risk of motive-mongering, I don't think I could ever trust ANYONE who WANTED to be President of Antioch College.
>
>Bob
If the motive is to use it as a experimental platform for crack-brained management plans intended to impress the other Ed.D.'s of the world, no, they are not worthy of trust. 

Alan