UPDATE: College Faculty Reject Wagner ‘No Confidence’ Motion

College faculty have rejected the motion of “no confidence” in University President James W. Wagner.

The result was sent via email to College faculty Friday night by Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Governance Committee Chair Stefan Lutz.

The ballot asked, “Should the faculty of Emory College of Arts and Sciences adopt the motion of no-confidence in President James Wagner?” The final tally showed that 39.8 percent of voters, or 133 faculty members, voted in support, while 60.2 percent, or 201 faculty members, were opposed.

Of the College’s 530 faculty members, 63 percent — or 334 members — participated in the voting. Polls opened Monday and closed at 8 p.m. today.

If the majority of the faculty had voted “no confidence,” the result would have had no direct effect on Wagner’s employment as University president but would have expressed the faculty’s belief that Wagner is no longer fit to lead.

“This is an important vote for the president,” Lutz told the Wheel. “I think it shows that there are a number of faculty that are happy or satisfied with the current system, and I hope that we all as a community can come together now and try to work out our differences and move forward together.”

In a University statement released Friday night, Wagner said he respects the faculty’s “right to express concern” about his leadership and the direction of the University.

“I take to heart the significance of this vote,” he said in the statement. “Faculty governance and faculty responsibility for the future of Emory University are essential. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the administration and with the faculty to carry out the mission of this great institution.”

College faculty voted last month to hold the “no confidence” vote via electronic ballot. While faculty governance bylaws prohibit electronic votes for such motions, those in attendance voted to suspend the rules due to the limited representation of the entire faculty present.

At that meeting — which was held after Wagner addressed College faculty at a meeting the week before — some who were in favor of a “no confidence” vote cited Wagner’s Emory Magazine column regarding the Three-Fifths Compromise as well as his role in the department changes announced last semester. Other faculty members defended Wagner by stating that he had made a mistake or that many issues were out of his control.

Some faculty members believed holding this vote would place the University in a negative light and would send the wrong message to students.

In February, the College faculty voted to censure Wagner over his controversial column. A censure, one faculty member at the meeting said, is stronger than a reprimand but not as strong as a vote of “no confidence.”

Laney Graduate School students will participate in a similar vote this Tuesday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on emory.edu/vote. The Graduate Student Council passed the bill allowing the vote earlier this month. Laney students will have a choice of “yes,” “no” or “abstain,” and the vote will also include a text box on the ballot, enabling them to explain the reasoning behind their votes.

The Student Government Association (SGA) failed to pass a bill last month that would have added a “no confidence” vote to the student government elections electronic ballot. At the SGA meeting, the bill was amended to focus on the direction of the University in general rather than Wagner specifically.

Students, faculty and alumni have also created an online petition at KeepWagner.com that went live on Wednesday night and now has more than 750 signatures. Meanwhile, the Student Re-Visioning Committee (SRC) gathered on the Quadrangle Wednesday to urge faculty to vote “no confidence.” The SRC is a group of students that formed in opposition to the department changes and that has protested since the fall.

An in-depth version of this story will be available in Tuesday’s issue.

— By Karishma Mehrotra

Updated at 9:38 p.m. on April 12, 2013.

 

  • Michael

    The Wheel needs to mix up their pictures of JWags. It’s about time that they use some new ones.

    • Robin For Men, the Award Winning Fragrance

      Seriously he’s been eating shit all semester his grin should be like four times bigger than now.

      James Wagner, the man with an adamantium brain.

  • Pingback: Emory faculty rejects “no confidence” motion against university president | Get Schooled

  • http://www.facebook.com/ticklishmusic Andrew Chang

    i’m gonna say that those who didn’t vote technically voted no, because they didn’t think wagner was doing a bad enough job to actually vote no confidence in him

    • Crafty’s Brother

      Sure, they’re not actually endorsing him is “technically” the exact same thing as their actively voting in his favor.

    • Sure – OR

      OR they didn’t trust the voting process OR they are disgusted with this institution and think its beyond saving OR they are doing field research abroad OR they are on sabbatical and not following the situation OR they just didn’t vote because they didn’t think their non-binding vote would have any impact, because Presidents at places like NYU and elsewhere have taken NC votes in stride.

      But, sure, yeah, what you’re saying makes total sense.

      • Crafty

        The fact that 37% of the faculty doesn’t care about the vote one way or the other is still an indictment against StopTheCuts’ persuasiveness.

    • use your prefrontal cortex

      Do you understand what “abstention” means?

  • Crafty

    Blame for the loss lies solely with the student organizers of the “Stop The Cuts” movement.
    They turned what should have been a clear, simple narrative abut administrative dishonesty and academic due process into wild accusations about the cuts’ racism and invoked an unwinnable “liberal arts v. everyone else” debate. By the time the 3/5ths compromise quote came around, they had already lost too much credibility. When they pounced on the mis-statement, the student body collectively groaned in exasperation. Simple as that.

    • Raoul Dukakis

      Crafty we have no idea what the student body as a whole thinks because their ability to vote was nixed.

    • Crafty’s Brother

      Bro, I think it’s more the case that the only reason faculty felt emboldened to have a vote at all was because of the space created by student dissent. And insofar as Wagner wrote his essay (sorry, but “mis-statement’ is too precious by half) about compromising over the cuts, and the week after students occupied his office, I think they deserve some credit for precipitating his screwup, too. You’re looking at things totally backwards – do you really see faculty successfully voting No Confidence (and even having a vote in the first place) against the backdrop of a silent campus, without any protests? Students brought attention to the cuts and kept it alive in the media – without their efforts, the issue of the cuts, and of the administrative violations of bylaws, would have been buried by the end of Fall, guaranteed.

      • Crafty

        False binary. The choice was not between what STC ultimately did and having a silent campus.

        • Crafty’s Brother

          bro do you actual think Emory had a robust, proactive faculty governance BEFORE the cuts happened? the cuts wouldn’t have happened if it had. and do you really think the 3/5ths thing would have been yielded a no confidence vote if there hadn’t been continuous controversy since the fall? wagner WROTE the 3/5th essay about that controversy in the fist place. and all that was fueled by student activism.

          dude don’t be niave. you may have found the stop the cuts people obnoxious but they kept this alive. they polticized this campus. faculty governance is not going to be the same going forward, and wagner’s days in office are numbered

          • Crafty

            …STILL debating the same false binary. The argument is not between student activism and no student activism. The argument is whether or not the student activism ultimately chose a successful, politically winnable narrative. They didn’t.

          • Crafty’s Brother

            Please, enlighten me as to what this successful alternative narrative would have been. You appear to have all the answers, bro – or do you just second-guess?

            Also, answer the question: if there had been no student activism, where do you see this situation having ended up? Please, indulge me in this binary – since you seem to have no intention or idea of offering a third option or a competing narrative. Humor me.

        • SRC member

          Since you seem to know so much about the “STC”, why don’t you enlighten us with how you would have successfully created the perfect space for faculty to speak up freely and without retribution on behalf of their true feelings on Wagner’s leadership?

          Counterfactuals are definitely a legitimate way to debate this issue, so knock yourself out.

          • Crafty

            If you’re just going to be snide about counterfactuals in general, what’s the point? Your mind is made up already.

          • Crafty’s Brother

            Crafty, my bro, don’t be coy. Lay out a viable counterfactual.

          • SRC member

            That’s the point – counterfactuals are extremely difficult to defend. My question still stands – what would YOU have done differently and why do you believe that would have worked better – and finally, what outcome did you want to see?

            I think you are against a vote of no confidence – which is your prerogative – but I don’t think you are actually concerned about whether or not SRC actions lowered the chance of a no-confidence outcome. I think instead, you are pretending that you are concerned about it so you can point to the SRC as a failure. That’s probably easy and fun from your armchair, but I’m curious – what are your beliefs on the issue? Have you spoken out, or spoken with, both unaffected and affected members of the Emory community? Have you taken action if you have seen something you are concerned about, or do you simply nod and agree with the machinations of Emory admin and then pat yourself on the back when things go their way?

            It’s certainly easier than speaking out, taking action, and putting yourself on the line. But what baffles me is you then attack others who are doing good faith work to raise consciousness about their concerns. What’s the goal there? And why does community action and protest bother you so much? And if you do agree with the SRC’s point of view, what would you have done differently – and why didn’t you try to do it?

          • Crafty

            First of all, I did speak out.

            Second of all, how I did it is, quite frankly, none of your business. I did it as best I could given my constraints, so there’s really no point in you trying to big-time me.

            Third of all, what you’re presenting is really just a permutation of the, “If you don’t like it, move the Africa” fallacy.

            And fourth of all; there were plenty of things I would have done/not done.

            For one thing, I wouldn’t have alienated the rest of the university by playing up the “liberal arts v. the rest of the world” angle. I would’ve made an effort to see that ridiculous editorials about how Wagner allegedly slapped a woman in the middle of a negotiation meeting. I would have spent FAR more energy focusing on Wagner’s record as a president who spends his time building shiny new buildings as opposed to actually trying to make Emory better, instead of just calling him names. And I would have made far more of an effort to get Greek Life engaged (instead of immediately excluding them by making certain linguistic/stylistic choices) seeing as how a great deal of them were probably in the Econ department to begin with. A “Greeks Against the Cuts” movement would have gone a long way in ending this. The tone of the meeting could have been handled MUCH better -Wagner should never have had the excuse that the student leaders didn’t follow agreed-upon the schedule of points to be discussed, instead of get out of the schedule after the fact.

            And that’s just off the top of my head. The least you could do is admit mistakes were made, instead of biting the heads off of people who criticize the students’ tactics. You are not above critique. You’re not Nelson Mandela.

    • SRC member

      Could you elucidate what you find “wild” about the accusations that race played a role in the cuts?

      • Crafty

        The idea that the cuts were racially motivated because Education was cut.

        There’s a difference between discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Davis

        • Crafty’s Brother

          If you think the SRC advocacy was about attributing racism to the person of Jim Wagner and attributing discriminatory intent to the cuts you haven’t been paying attention. Voices did say that, but the case has all along been about impact. The impact may well have stemmed from systematic cases of failing to consider race in the cuts (IE, having an all white CFAC, for example, a concern the AAUP has echoed), but much as in the case of Wagner’s failure to consider race in penning his blockheaded essay the concern has always been that that sheer ignorance inevitably will have and has had a discriminatory impact that is unacceptable.

          • Crafty

            They were attributing racism to the intention behind the cuts. Hence the protest signs, “Stop the Racist Cuts.”

        • SRC member

          Um, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. No one said the admin explicitly intended to make decisions that are discriminatory. People are pointing to the impacts on diversity as evidence for flaws in the process (impacts were not considered) and the narrow-minded and secretive nature of CFAC and upper admin in approving the cuts – small numbers of unelected faculty members with little to no non-white members can lead to this outcome – not intentionally, but precisely because there aren’t individuals there sensitive to these issues who could have alerted decision-makers before they rubber-stamped the Forman plan.

          Why do you feel the need to defend cuts which will cause us to shed 1/4 of our faculty of color? Just curious.

          • Crafty

            Who’s defending cuts? I’m attacking the failed strategy which led to this outcome.

            And no, that is not what people were pointing to. The line was that the cuts were racist. And that even a lack of consideration for such factors was inherently racist.

          • SRC member

            Yeah, it’s called “institutionalized racism”. It means people don’t have to explicitly harbor racist intentions for outcomes to be tinged by the legacy of racism via the institutions they have created.

  • Raoul Dukakis

    ““This is an important vote for the president,” Lutz told the Wheel. “I think it shows that there are a number of faculty that are happy or satisfied with the current system, and I hope that we all as a community can come together now and try to work out our differences and move forward together.”

    Yes, Stefan. Only 40% of voting faculty thinks that our President should lose his job. It’s a ringing endorsement of the “current system.”

    • Query

      Wonder how many of those faculty were from departments getting cut?

    • Stop Trying To Make Something of Nothing

      What do you want him to say? “This was a shitty vote that doesn’t mean shit lol #EmoryCuts4Lyfe #LynchWangner”? Look at the vote – 60%, a majority (albiet not a HUGE majority, but a majority nonetheless, and one that beats the majority on which recent national presidential elections have been won, and with greater voter participation), does not think Wagner is deserving of a no confidence vote, so Dr. Lutz clearly is trying simply to make something positive out of what he obviously can recognize is a bad situation for the university as a whole.

      In the quote you commented above, Dr. Lutz is saying that he sees that a majority of the faculty does not believe that that Wagner should lose his job, and he says he wants people to come together to resolve what we can and move forward as one cohesive unit, an idea which I think is much more plausible than the “liberal arts vs. everyone” Emory Cuts movement which is trying to divide the campus into two battling factions.

      • SRC member

        Why does having a viewpoint mean that you necessarily are trying to divide people? Look, you can agree with Emorycuts, or disagree. You can also do all kinds of things in between. There is a #KeepWagner movement – you are free to join up with them.

        I don’t see how a group of people trying to preserve certain liberal arts programs are pitting themselves against everyone else. No one is saying “let’s keep liberal arts and shut down the medical school”.

        I’d much rather voice my dissent than support people I disagree with just so YOU don’t get upset.

  • Tony Toni tone

    GOOD FOR HIS AZZ

  • Steven Lang

    Pretty simple math here.

    75% of the faculty either voted against the ‘no confidence’ initiative or apparently didn’t care enough about it to vote in the first place.

    25% voted ‘no confidence’.

    In the words of Casey Stengel, “The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate you away from those who are still undecided.”

    So congrats to President Wagner on keeping the disapproval rate low. Especially given an environment where the departments that are targeted for those cuts have a far greater means to issue out hateful propaganda.

    To be brutally blunt about it, President Wagner is not a racist. Sorry. I am willing to bet that the alumni are even more strongly unified against what has been nothing more than a race baiting exercise.

    However… there is one thing that Emory should consider in light of all of the race baiting and hate mongering that has taken place.

    The reasons for why certain departments were given the axe back in 2012 should be made public.

    Let the Emory community know the specifics. We understand that most academic institutions don’t want to share the failures, shortcomings and limited growth opportunities of specific programs with a greater audience.

    But there is now a wonderful opportunity for permanent closure here at Emory. Sometimes the best way to move forward is to bring the decision making rationale out there for all to judge.

    • Concerned for Emory

      There are a lot of assumptions in this “pretty simple math.” The number of non-votes/abstentions was 196, as against the 201 who voted against no confidence, and 133 who voted no confidence. As I see it, the 133 voting no confidence expressed an opinion about Wagner specifically *and* a willingness to see the university destabilized as a consequence of that opinion. For all others, either doubts about the case against Wagner *or* unwillingness to see the university destabilized were enough to oppose the motion, or not vote at all.

      I would not underestimate faculty aversion to destabilization as an important reason for the results. In a year of already great instability, and in the climate of fear that the administration has created through non-transparent, dictatorial leadership, it is not surprising that many faculty would elect to err on the side of non-change. I don’t see this vote as an endorsement of Wagner so much as an expression of the paralysis that has resulted from the complications and tacit threats of the cuts, and the miserable morale in which the faculty are grappling with the situation.

    • SRC member

      “The reasons for why certain departments were given the axe back in 2012 should be made public.”

      I agree with you on this point (only), with one caveat. I would replace “made public” to “made available to Emory college faculty”.

      Fortunately, the faculty have developed a committee to conduct a full investigation on the issue – what criteria were used, how they were implemented, and what the standards under each criterion were. Right now all we know is that decisions were made by a small non-representative faculty committee, (probably) in violation of multiple governance by-laws. On this point alone, the process was flawed – and the parts of the process continue to be obscured by administrators need light shed on them, too.

  • Abstention Does Not Equal Support

    Why are Wagner’s supporters so desperate that they want to claim people refusing to cast a vote as support for him?

    Some faculty have indicated that they are disgusted with Emory and are busy looking for work – that they literally no longer care what happens to the institution. Others didn’t trust the transparency or anonymity of the voting process and were afraid to vote No Confidence but refused to vote Confidence. And other faculty are on sabbatical, doing research abroad, etc, and not closely following the situation at Emory.

    To claim abstentions and non-votes as signs of support for Wagner shows how desperate his partisans actually are. Even after winning a vote, they realize that with 40% of voting faculty willing to take a risk and say he isn’t fit to lead Wagner cannot hold legitimacy and lead this university forward.

    Smart money says he announces plans to move once his contract is renegotiated.

    • Andy

      Dear Abstention,

      The vote was taken and the resolution did not pass.

      “The Emory University Board of Trustees extends its strong and undivided support to President James W. Wagner.” – Ben Johnson III

      To those faculty you claim are looking for work, I wish them well. Some may have been misplaced at a multi-school University, where the College is not the center of attention.

      The fact is, there are 9 schools within the University that have ~3000 faculty. 8 of the 9 schools (representing ~ 2500 faculty members) saw this as a non-issue and did not even consider votes of no-confidence. In the College, 1/3 of the faculty chose not to vote at all. The majority that voted came out against the resolution. So, 133 faculty members of 3000 (<5%) voted no-confidence.

      The desperate ones are not Wagner's supporters (or those that are agnostic toward him). You can rationalize all you want, but this story is over.

      Andy

      • Dooley votes no confidence

        Hey guess what? A tight vote of no confidence is not the same thing as “Emory College faculty support the President” and it certainly has no bearing on Ben Johnson III’s financially motivated statements.

        Also, did you know that universities need colleges to educate their undergrads? Did you know that the majority of undergrads are paying $57,000 per year for the privilege of being educated by college faculty? Did you know that tuition money is the bread and butter of private institutions of higher learning? Did you know that college faculty often also teach and mentor graduate students, and run graduate programs in their departments as well? Did you know that faculty looking for work are doing so because it’s preferable to getting re-assigned to a department which is not appropriate for their field of expertise? Did you know that trying to extrapolate the unknowable votes of a large number of faculty who were not given an option of voting is completely illegitimate? Did you know that Ben Johnson III, President Wagner, and the rest of admin could give two shits about your support?

        • Andy

          Exceptionally well argued, Dooley. You’re certainly getting a great return on your $57K/yr investment.

          Tuition money is not ‘the bread and butter of private institutions of higher learning’. It is, however, the bread and butter of the College. To see how the College sizes up within the University, see:

          http://www.emory.edu/president/annual-report/ar2011/ar-images/financial-statements.pdf

          I am well aware of how graduate education works here in the LGS and elsewhere.

          “Did you know that trying to extrapolate the unknowable votes of a large number of faculty who were not given an option of voting is completely illegitimate?”

          Now you’re grasping at straws. There was no outcry from *any* unit other than the College. The ~2500 faculty members in those units didn’t see Wagner’s leadership as an issue. No extrapolation of their thoughts is necessary.

          The College chose to vote and the vote failed. If you believe that there is a silent majority of other University faculty members that have lost faith in Wagner, you need to get out more.

          • Dooley votes no confidence

            “Tuition money is not ‘the bread and butter of private institutions of higher learning’. It is, however, the bread and butter of the College.”

            Last time I checked, the College was part of the University. By the way, 20% of tuition money does get funneled outside of the College (http://www.emorywheel.com/college-to-end-fiscal-year-2013-with-balanced-budget/). If it wasn’t important, the BoT wouldn’t bother increasing it every year, Emory wouldn’t spend so much money recruiting undergrads, and Wagner wouldn’t keep harping on Emory as a “destination University”.

            “I am well aware of how graduate education works here in the LGS and elsewhere.”

            Then explain why you believe that College faculty’s interests and talents are only useful in the College? I quote: “To those faculty you claim are looking for work, I wish them well. Some may have been misplaced at a multi-school University, where the College is not the center of attention.”

            “No extrapolation of their thoughts is necessary.” Then why did you feel the need to do it? I quote: ” So, 133 faculty members of 3000 (<5%) voted no-confidence."

            "If you believe that there is a silent majority of other University faculty members that have lost faith in Wagner, you need to get out more."

            Um, I didn't say there was, I said that we can't know either way because they didn't get to vote. You, on the other hand, explicitly believe that there is a silent majority endorsing Wagner, or, as you put it, have faith in him. I choose to believe that he is in fact a fallible human being who has demonstrated in multiple ways why he is no longer competent to run Emory. If you want to have 'faith' that things can turn around, that's your prerogative – but I'm surprised this faith requires so much motivated interpretations of nonexistent ballots.

          • Andy

            Dooley,

            Do you know why the money gets funneled out of the College? Who pays the graduate students in non-grant supported fields (largely the humanities) that teach undergraduates? The LGS. Where do they get the money? From the College for performing a service. Who pays for the libraries? All of the units—yep, more money from the College. IT support? Handled at the University level, contributed to by the units, such as the College.

            You have only a superficial idea of how the University as a whole works.

            You keep saying that ‘they didn’t get to vote’. The faculty of each unit have governance models that allow them to hold such votes. The College did. It failed. While it’s technically true that the other units “didn’t vote”, the only way they could have voted was if they themselves called the vote. Since they didn’t bother to take up the issue, why do you think the faculty are somehow disenfranchised?

            If you’re curious, head down to Grady hospital, find any Assistant Professor of Medicine from Emory (i.e., a clinician). Ask them about Wagner’s leadership. The likely response will be ‘Wagner who?”.

          • Dooley votes no confidence

            “The likely response will be ‘Wagner who?””

            Yes, exactly. I agree that the research portions of the university do generate their own funding – that’s not what we’re debating here.

            I’m contesting your claims about the lack of legitimacy of College faculty voices. I get it – you see the university as a purely capitalistic system. I tried to meet you halfway by pointing out that the College does produce revenue, does produce an essential service, and is composed of faculty whose voices should be seen as valuable as any other organized group of faculty.

            But perhaps we should just jettison the entire College. I mean, they aren’t producing enough profits for you, right? And they certainly do seem to be annoyingly persistent with voicing their opinions on the direction of the University. If only they’d understand in our new venture capital model, divisions that aren’t profitable enough in the short-term should be axed.

            I guess all the professors in the college are just not as intelligent as the small number of people in power – the BoT and Wagner – and you! – even though they outnumber them by a significant amount, have PhDs and a place at a top-20 university. Silly College faculty.

          • Andy

            Dooley,

            There is no ‘lack of legitimacy’ about College faculty votes. The majority of those that voted chose not to vote ‘no-confidence’.

            For what it’s worth, most College faculty meetings are poorly attended. The recent ones brought out enough faculty to fill 208 WH (~200) out of over 500.

            The faculty received many, MANY emails regarding the vote. They had 5 business days to vote. After logging into BB (instructions were provided), the voting itself required clicking one button (yes or no) and to press submit.

            Those that cared to vote did (turnout was 63%); those that didn’t had ample opportunity to do so. Abstentions are non-votes—they carry no weight. The majority of College faculty members that voted rejected the motion (by a 20 pt. margin) with a far greater turnout and mandate than most presidential elections, for example.

            There is not a new ‘venture capital’ model, just a realization of economic realities. $57K is a lot to attend Emory College (and about $20K/yr greater than it was about a decade ago). Colleges can’t keep raising tuition the way they have in the past. To continue to provide what they have (and more), they will rely increasingly on philanthropy, something that Wagner has been successful at securing.

            Andy, a silly college faculty member at a top-20 university

          • Dooley votes no confidence

            I admit I’m surprised you’re a college faculty member, given how much contempt you seem to have for your own colleagues.

            And I beg to differ with you on the current situation as a “realization of economic realities”. Your chief arguments have been financially based – are the cut departments economically viable? That says to me that you’re invested in higher education as a commercial venture, not as a public good. And yes, it becomes “venture” when you cut longstanding departments hastily and with an opaque review process for short term economic gain. Did you know that the amount we’re ostensibly saving via the cuts, $4.5 million, is dwarfed by the surplus we attained over the fundraising goal this year? Also by the $100 million dollar investment return on our endowment – much higher than expected?

            The real reason the College is always strapped for cash is administrative bloat. Faculty salaries are stagnant, we have increased reliance on adjuncts, while tuition skyrockets. Where’s the money going? Into larger and larger number of hires in middle and upper management (check out http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-21/the-troubling-dean-to-professor-ratio) and absurdly high salaries for upper admin and the President – the latter, who, by the way, saw his salary increase at rates faster than inflation during the recession, while – as I’m sure you know – faculty were asked to donate back 5%.

            If you want to participate in the downfall of your own profession, that’s your choice. I’m just sorry it has to impact everyone else just starting out on that journey.

          • Dooley votes no confidence

            By the way, Andy, were you on CFAC?

          • Andy

            Dooley,

            I don’t have contempt for my colleagues. I (and many others) disagree with their opinion of Wagner.

            Consider this: Why are top-20 institutions considered top-20 institutions? In the US News rankings (flawed, but everyone pays attention to) there are objective things (SAT scores and GPAs of entering classes) and subjective things (academic reputation).

            The model you espouse (the public good) is just one model. We can try to be all things to all people.

            There are other models. The one that Wagner has proffered for many years is that our programs should be essential or excellent.

            The former model is typically applied to public institutions (especially community colleges); the latter is more typical of private institutions.

            Would you rather attend a school whose programs are limited, but uniformly excellent, or a university that covers everything but the quality varies. (That you’re posting here suggests you made that decision already).

            As the Dean has pointed out, the savings are relatively small, but they will allow the College to invest elsewhere. The process may have been flawed, but there are two faculty committees looking into it. I would love to see the Dean outline the rationale for the specific cuts (reflecting a post by Steven Lang earlier). From what I hear through the grapevine, the specifics would not reflect well on many of the cut departments, but that’s just hearsay.

            You should know that the endowment is not specifically for the College, but the University as a whole. One of Wagner’s priorities has been fundraising for the College.

            Finally, there is administrative bloat to be sure. However, much of that results from increased external scrutiny (SACS) and internal demands, many of which are student oriented. Should there be administrators in charge of ‘sustainability’ (something unheard of 25 years ago)? I don’t know, but here we are.

          • Andy

            Dooley, I was not on CFAC, GovCom, or any other College committee at the time of the cuts (notice, we’ve moved on from Wagner to College specific issues). But I pay attention. Many faculty members don’t.

          • Dooley votes no confidence

            “many faculty members don’t”. Yep, no contempt there.

            Thanks for buying into the admin talking points. Yes, I’ve heard them all, “Lifting all boats” – “eminence vs excellence” blah blah blah.

            Here’s an example of an essential program that was cut: Visual Arts. Art History is having a pretty tough time figuring out how to get their students to graduate without the core courses in that department.

            And how does one define “essential” or “excellent”? That’s the real question, that’s where we disagree – and admin is using these terms without qualification as an excuse to hack first and ask questions later, in the name of profits and rankings – the two are inextricably twined – without considering the people doing the educating, the students financial investments, and the future of academia in this country.

            Btw, the administrative bloat problem isn’t just a small crunch – it’s a crisis. But have fun going down with the ship.

          • Andy

            Dooley,

            Good people can agree to disagree. Emory once had a geology dept. Many schools had zoology and botany departments, or home economics. Should any program that was started have to last in perpetuity?

            My ‘many faculty members don’t” remark is not contempt. People choose what’s important to them (the Kardashians, cricket, their research, or university governance). Many faculty members are not engaged in the goings on at the university. C’est la vie.

            Those that worry that this is a sinking ship are free to leave. Many are happy to stay.

            Andy

          • Dooley votes no confidence
  • The people have spoken

    This vote shows that even ultra-liberal professors are getting tired of black peoples’ victimization ruse. The supreme court made a huge mistake in allowing affirmative action to continue in the University of Michigan case. People who benefit from affirmative action are completely ungrateful of the fact that this country suppresses the will of the majority to give them special privileges. They also want us to ignore the constitution and put limits on free speech. Black people need to remember the story of the boy who cried wolf. If you falsely accuse people of racism too many times, eventually people aren’t going to believe you anymore.

    • Logic

      Thank you for enlightening us about what ALL black people think. I wonder if ALL white people agree? (i’m going to go ahead and point out that saying that a school of thought that represents an entire population… is slightly racist)
      You are making assumptions with your statements:
      – that all ‘black people’ are born in the same privileged part of society you are (i’m sure you have seen some black people in your neighborhood or in your schools…. doesn’t mean they got there with the same opportunities)
      – that the vote in question was only based on the ‘3/5th compromise statement’ (it’s not because it happened after it that it happened because of it). During his tenure, President Wagner has overseen many questionable decisions which have lead to this vote to take place, including the recent cuts (which he was writing about when praising the ‘3/5th compromise’.
      – that someone that makes a mistake like that after years of being president in the South is unrelated to anything else. African American students and faculty have seen their fair share of racism that they need to overlook in order to go about their day (including insidences on Emory’s campus).

      All of us need to be mindful of our prejudices in order to not make statements like president wagner’s (that can affect all the decisions that he makes… which is what many are concerned with) and like yours.

      • The race scam

        The good old I’m a victim, you’re a racist response. You just reinforced what the previous poster was saying; Black people are all victims, they deserve special privileges and people shouldn’t be allowed to express opinions that offend black people. Why does it matter that Wagner is a President in the South? Is he from the South? Were his ancestors slave owners? Should people be judged based on their distant ancestors actions? Are black people grateful that northern whites had ancestors who died to defeat the Confederacy. Remember the Duke rape scam. The University’s administration threw their own students under the bus because they didn’t want to be accused of being southern racists. The case was supposed to be a perfect example of white privilege. In the end it was a complete scam. The University took the word of some crazy, drug addict over their own students because of political correctness. Well now even the ultra-liberal professors are tired of black people’s bullshit. Black people are going to pay a very large price for their constant lying and gaming the system. When the supreme court strikes down affirmative action, Universities will be happy because they will have an excuse to cut back on financial aid that is draining their budgets. Huge deficits at the national and local levels are going to lead to huge cuts and most tax payers aren’t going to want to spend more money to educate ungrateful inner city kids when their own parents are being asked to sacrifice with Medicare and social security cuts.

        • wow

          I hope you make an appointment with a therapist, stat. That kind of hate and paranoia must make you miserable.

        • Crafty’s Brother

          ” Why does it matter that Wagner is a President in the South? Is he from the South? Were his ancestors slave owners?”

          It has nothing to do with Wagner’s personal history and ancestry – but everything to do with Emory’s history. You realize that Emory was built by slaves, right?

          You’ll forgive me if I don’t venture into the brackish waters of your understanding of how the response of Duke to a police investigation is relevant here. I do though find it interesting that you seem to a have a lot of insight of the actions of people desperate to prove that they are not “southern racists” or who are afraid of being so identified. I presume you find yourself in that position all the time. Are you a white supremacist? And aren’t the you the same person who said they have a relative or something who does putt-putt with a supreme court justice, and thus you have secret info on when Bakke is going to be overturned?

          Also, I don’t think you and “The People Have Spoken” are different persons. I admit I’m worried not just by your racism at this point, but at your aggressive, nonsensical agitation.

  • JaJa

    The current financial model-high tuition, generous aid, scholarships for students capable of paying their way, an endowment where the bulk is reserved for medicine, a college faculty that moan about teaching two classes a term, and schools (Graduate, Oxford) that don’t generate tuition revenue-all of this is unsustainable. JWAGs knows it as does the BOT. These departmental cuts are just the beginning of a significant retrenchment. JUST FOLLOW THE DOLLARS….more specifically follow where there are no dollars.

    • Crafty’s Brother

      Do you think Wagner and the BOT might ever even consider lowering tuition?

      I sure as hell doubt it. The future is adjuncts, more departmental cuts, and even higher tuition for students. This is an exploitative, unsustainable bubble – and the corpocracy that runs CocaColaU is getting rich of it.

    • those dollars are going somewhere

      You know why tuition is skyrocketing but the university is having liquidity problems? It’s called “administrative bloat”. Try googling it. The ratio of deans to professors has quadrupled in the last fifteen years. THAT’S what’s unsustainable.

      We had a consultant from Bain & Company come by two months ago to give a talk to the University Senate faculty and administrators. They said the same thing – and by the way – most people in the system don’t even know what all these new upper level management people are doing – besides collecting nice fat paychecks.

  • JaJa

    The message to the dissenting faculty seems to be “Don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out”

  • Pingback: Confidence games | Stop the Cuts at Emory

  • Pingback: jbzscmngbvsbbfbghv

  • Pingback: Emory prez gets 3/5 support in faculty vote |