[Alumni-chat] Re: [SaveAntioch] University Structure

[Sistersara at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/12/2007 1:29:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
Michael-David at BenDor.Org writes:

My  senior seminar (Level III) was on Governance in Higher Education  with
Morris Keaton and James Dixon in 1967.  At that time Antioch was  setting up
centers in many locations.  Governance was a really big  issue that did not
get resolved.



Yes, 1967 was the critical year, but a huge and tragic piece of the  
Governance issue was resolved.  The powers of the Faculty Senate were  profoundly 
reduced, including the power to individually vote on the granting of  degrees via 
a direct recommendation to the President and the Board to grant  (insert name) 
either a BS or an AB, the rights to vote on all matters of  curriculum and 
degree requirements, sending such a recommendation forward to  Adcil and then on 
to the BoT,  and the final recommendation to Adcil and  the BoT on tenure 
matters.  The Faculty Senate's role in determining the  organization of 
Departments and Programs was also eliminated, and handed over to  the President and his 
council.  In essence these changes removed most of  the formal powers of 
Faculty to either strongly influence or control Antioch's  Academic Programs.  At 
the time this was understood as very progressive,  and was essentially 
supported by the younger faculty who in the Faculty Senate  outvoted what were then 
viewed as the conservatives.
 
Dixon's vision for financing the expansion of Antioch into the Network  
(which is what it was called then) depended on access to both Foundation Grants  -- 
of which there were a number, and on numerous Great Society Programs that  p
rovided revenue streams for either students needing tuition funds, or for  
experimental programs.  The problem was that while this was pragmatic in  1967, in 
1968 Richard Nixon was elected President, and was determined to  eliminate 
LBJ's Great Society, with much support from machine Democrats such as  Richard 
Dailey.  Nixon sent Cap Weinburger to HEW, and send Cheney and  Rumsfeld to 
OEO, and they had Great Society Programs cleared out in  one budget year.  
Foundations which had made grants on the assumption of  these foundation funding 
sources as matches for Federal Funds pulled out over  the years immediately after 
1968, leaving Dixon's assumptions high and dry --  but it also left an 
institution that profoundly believed in its mission, and was  unable to reverse 
gears when projects were not financially sustainable.  It  was relatively easy to 
do this after 1967, because the powers of the Faculty  Senate had been 
minimized if not eliminated.  For a few years Dixon was  able to combine tuition 
hikes with borrowing against the endowment and tuition,  but after the strike of 
1973, it was all downhill, and enrollment tanked and  never really recovered.  
 
I would contend that unless we understand this pattern of causes and  effects 
in a clear way, we cannot really read the origin of our problems.   
Personally, I was on Jim Dixon's side back in those days -- after all, I was  Director 
of a Civil Rights Organization, and fully expected the whole Federal  
"affirmative action" program to go forward, and along with anyone involved in  working 
for all that -- I just accepted perhaps a little fine tuning, but  continued 
progress.  In retrospect, John Sparks argument that any new  program had to be 
financially realistic at least in five year terms (a degree  program) from 
internal financial resources, remains one of those bad dreams that  should have 
been carefully comprehended.  John Sparks knew a hell of a lot  more about the 
proclivity of Congress and new administrations to change focus  and defund 
programs than I did at that point -- I think it is only if you are a  cotton 
farmer or drilling for oil, that you might want to design anything  dependent on 
continuous Federal Program Funds.  And -- if you add to this  the fact that J. 
Edgar Hoover had targeted Antioch for destruction, and was  running 
COINTELPRO programs against the college in the late 1960's -- something  no one seems 
to want to really explore as a cause of some of our problems -- we  have a 
major piece of American History to comprehend.  It just ain't  simple.  
 
I have not yet read Ted's critique of structure -- but in my mind what we  
have to do is simplify as much as possible, and arrive at a structure that is a  
balance of powers.  We need to totally re-invest the core faculty in the  
direction of the academic program, yet hold them responsible for it.  It  should 
never be in the hands of administrators or a board.  Of course  students and 
administrators ought to have an avenue to influence or request --  but in the 
end you hire faculty because they are the teachers, and the core of  college 
relationships are between the teachers and the students wanting to  learn.  
Structure ought to honor that.  
 
Modern World -- Presidents of Colleges raise money in service to students,  
the institution and Board, and the reputation of a College.  It would be  nice 
to have an intellectual star in that role, but institutional financial  health 
is the name of the game.  In the past I have suggested someone  like Retired 
General Wesley Clark as Antioch's next President (I think he will  probably 
become VP of a slightly larger organization next year), but one can get  the 
general idea.  Someone who has a track record on both organization and  pride in 
accomplishment, and someone with the desire to be president of a  college and 
raise crazy amounts of money to make it work, and takes a delight in  working 
with young students.  The whole thing has to be a balance of power  -- 
Students, Faculty, Administration + Board, and because Antioch is small --  and 
probably will always be relatively small, the superstructure should also be  as 
small as possible.  Faculty can also administer special programs while  also 
teaching in a smallish organization.  You don't need to overload with  costly 
administrators, and there should be no rules at all about who can have a  
conversation with whom.  The real irony right now at Antioch is the use of  McGregor 
as the name of the new fashion Antioch, who among other things was an  advocate 
of comprehending informal avenues of communication within bureaucratic  
organizations.  
 
Again, (from me) the only serious study of "what went wrong" is the Everett  
Wilson and Joan Yalman piece that resides in Antiochiana in the custody of 
Nina  Myatt.  Many may disagree with their analysis, but it is about 900 pages of 
 data and analysis, and is a starting point.  It is piecemeal, but it is  
slightly over 20 years of history that needs comprehension.  The Wilson  heirs 
apparently agree to publication, the Yalman's do not.  I don't know  how to 
solve that problem -- but if we want to solve our problems we need to ask  the 
kinds of questions they asked.  Ev Wilson allowed me to make a copy for  my own 
use, (I was one of his students) but not for publication.  I wish  someone at 
the Olive Kettering Library would solve the problem and make it  available.  
One thing is worse than being intellectually and financially  bankrupt -- and 
that is the failure to make it easy for interested parties to  actually read 
about the history as it evolved, and how a full professor who also  held an 
Antioch Degree (class of 39) actually comprehended it.  Being open,  honest and 
transparent ought to be the model for the future.  
 
'It was at a later time that Antioch University was formed with the goal  of
creating a fiscally responsible structure.  Those moves  obliterated
self-governance for Antioch College.  We (alumni) were  outraged by that move
enough to create the Antioch Independence Fund.   The strategy was to
exchange money for influence."
 
Antioch University was formed during the Birnbaum era -- about 1976.   
College self governance was eliminated much earlier in fact, but never was  really 
understood till after decisions in 1992 during the last years of  Guskins.  The 
Alumni Board had the opportunity to review the proposal -- I  was on the 
Board then -- and many of us had huge reservations.  At least  during my service 
from 1988 till 1994, I developed a huge aversion to anything  that struck me as 
spin or public relations.  I saw the proposal that took  control of the 
college away from a college president in that vein.  It was  presented at a time 
when the Republicans were attacking Hillary Care with a huge  complex chart of 
how many barriers anyone needing health care would have to  surmount -- and I 
thought the new Antioch Structure was inspired by that  source.  We need to 
learn to simplify in the name of delivering good  classes and teaching and 
mentorship to students.  That's the game.  
 
I have a friend who has served in the Minnesota Legislature (far out  
liberal) since the early 1970's who has a theory that the smaller the piece of  turf 
one is fighting over in the Non-Profit world, the more intense and dirty  the 
fights over small mites of power.  I think we are a grand example of  her 
theory.  Doing victories for Humanity is about knowing how to play on  the big 
turf -- the place where real power resides.  It isn't about the  small patch.  
Since the days when the strike -- which really should have  been focused on 
Nixon's policy -- was focused on college administrators, we have  been acting 
without an analysis of real power relationships.  Time to  understand this, and 
really -- time to change.  

">From my point of view, they are killing and sterilizing Antioch  College (if
you know Antioch, it's not simply a set of buildings and real  estate but a
living entity) by getting rid of all the students, faculty and  staff (4
years is necessary to extinguish any claims to tenure or other union  jobs).
When I asked the then President of the College why the official  telephone
number wasn't being answered, he did not answer my question.   What better
way to kill a college then to take away their ability to answer  their
telephones?>"
 
Yes, I think Sterilizing Antioch is part of the Agenda.  I think some  of 
that needs to take place.  I simply don't think the Antioch of the past  10 or 15 
years demonstrated the ability to attract enough students  necessary to the 
needed infrastructure (or budget).  I do not favor  sterilizing by any means.  
But I do think a critic of the current student  culture is very much in order. 
 We had a meeting here in Mpls, and someone  raised the matter of "Toxic 
Environment" and all, and most recent grads totally  defended what was, including 
the practice of "calling out" -- without any sense  of what pluralism would 
mean, and why "calling out" might not really attract  students who could benefit 
from Antioch even if they were not politically  pure.  My own sense is that 
if Antioch were large enough, there would be  many groups on campus, and no one 
would really feel in and out group  pressures.  But you can't get there 
unless you are willing to comprehend  pluralism.  
 
Back in 1992 when I was on the Alumni Board, and we all attended one of the  
Friday Night Forums, I raised the issue of the utility of Identity  Politics.  
I did it in two contexts.  I worked from my experience in  DFL and Democratic 
Party Politics, and also on the question of whether identity  translated into 
economic or class interests.  I got the feeling that my  analysis was somehow 
from Outer Space in that venue, even though in most  political circles in 
those days, this was really a most contemporary  question.  Identity Politics 
just wasn't questioned at Antioch, nor was any  other element of seemingly 
settled culture.  Antioch just needed much more  diversity, including much more just 
plain mainstream middle and working class  American culture who would have 
resisted patterns of "calling out."  It  needed more students who selected the 
college because, as in my generation, the  co-op plan actually provided a means 
to work one's way through college, and  leave with little debt.  It needed a 
realistic political economy.  And  yes, a progressive agenda -- but that does 
not need to exclude realistic  economics.  
 
"I don't think the University plans to revive Antioch, but replace it  with
something more corporate; without the messy part of  community,
self-governance, etc.  They have as much as said that they  don't plan on
tenured faculty, union staff or a community government (with  any power to
self-govern - perhaps a fake "student government" where students  get a small
budget for their social activities)."

Nor do I think they plan to revive Old Antioch (1990-2007)  -- but I  think 
we can make them want to revive something of the College at least as far  as it 
is reproducible for the conditions of the 21st century.  Do you think  that 
the Alumni who won a Nobel this week studied at a college that did not have  in 
depth Science?  The ability to prepare him for high level graduate work  and 
post doc?  The point of a college is not exactly just experience in  community 
governance -- though that is clearly part of it.  It is also  about the 
scholarship on offer.  The two have to be combined.  Does it  have to be corporate? 
 Not necessarily, but one darn well better know how  corporate systems work.  
 
Is Tenure necessary?  I think long term contracts and protection  against 
firing for reasons unrelated to effective classroom teaching or bad  research are 
absolutely necessary.  Tenure, not necessarily.  I  believe the investment 
that academics have in their education and credentials  which are personal 
attributes need to be recognized, but at the same time, in a  world where personnel 
are interchangeable, it is impossible to defend  traditional tenure.  But 
students need to be assured that if they enter a  college with a degree plan in 
mind, that they will have the assets to finish  that degree.  The fact that 
most academics actually pay for much of their  own education beyond the 
undergraduate level, but have little guarantee of  employment needs study and 
examination.  We need advanced students -- how  does our culture support this need?  
Antioch isn't even in the arena on  this debate.  
 
"Hopefully we'll be more successful with the Revival Fund than we were  with
the Antioch Independence Fund."

Michael-David (Mike  Rogers) BenDor, '67 (CM Winter-Fall '65)

Well lots of folk though those  of us who invested in the Independence Fund 
were nuts, but maybe now some of  them have reconsidered given the agenda.  
 
 






************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com