Wow, I don't usually agree with you, Jim; but that is well written. here here!

(Reply) (Thread)

I always saw one of the problems with CWRU being that donors wouldn't give unrestricted funds. That is that the biggest donors were meddlesome and worked counter to goals set by the active CWRU community. This wasn't entirely their fault. The administration shouldn't consider itself god-emperor making decrees without explanation. And also granted that some of the goals that the administration set were stupid window dressing when as you say "the timbers were rotting."
I agree that the atmosphere of CWRU has become to corporate and focused on the profit or the bottom line. That doesn't work to well in an academic community where, for example, English might not bring in the $$ but they teach critical skills for the disciplines which do bring in the $$. Have the alumni really helped change that though by making this a struggle over how their money is spent? English (an other humanities disciplines) have really suffered both at the hands of directed alumni donations and the administration's policies. I'd say that when I was there that a lot of grad students really resented the alumni groups because they meddled even though they weren't on the ground in the trenches really talking to the people on the bottom of the totem pole.
I think that might be one of the big dysfunctionalities here. The alumni really aren't connected to what is going on at CWRU. That connection has been muddled and fubared by the administration struggling with CAA for control of that conduit to the alumni. The administration has lacked depth of vision.
I have to disagree that the distributed power structure (or "every tub on it's own bottom" as it's known in Adelbert Hall) works. It means that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I'll say it again: CWRU needs strong arts and humanities to be a university. Otherwise it is just a confederation of trade schools. It's ITT Tech on steroids. CWRU has one of the best Art History programs in the nation and no one hears boo about it. There are grad students who literally think it is worth starving to stay in that program because it is so good but why should they? Think how strong that program could be with a little more support to pay its teaching assistants a decent wage, even though it isn't a money maker that will generate marketable patents. The arts and humanities aren't going to get stronger in the every tub on its own bottom model.
CWRU needs leadership that isn't going to cram their vision down everyone's throats. They need someone who is going to sell it. They need someone who can clean house of administrators at the school and department level who can't see beyond the end of their nose inside their little fiefdoms. CWRU needs more than a new president. They need new school and department heads who see value in the disciplines beyond their own immeadiate interests and play as one big team rather than hundreds of smaller teams all squabbling over their piece of a shrinking pie.

(Reply) (Thread)

I certainly agree the humanities have suffered under the buisness model. Personally, my favorite soapbox is infrastructure. The arts are a part of that infrastructure. Spending a lot of money making sure the stuff you've already got (infrastructure) is running smoothly isn't sexy and that's part of the problem. We need a leader who wants to put effort and time and money into the stuff that's not sexy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You raise multiple issues here that I'll try to address separately.

First, I agree with you entirely that Case needs a strong arts and humanities presence, and that innumerable opportunities have been squandered over the years. On the other hand, it's hardly the CAA's fault -- or the alumni in general -- that it's not being supported. At least in CAA's case, it was established and is run exclusively for graduates of the Sciences and Engineering. The lack of a strong, effective alumni organization from the arts and humanities side of the school is hardly grounds to cast stones at organizations that are strong and effective. It's simply not part of their charter. Someone in arts and humanities needs to step up and build something like the CAA to effectively fund those operations, and remove responsibility from the clearly-ineffective University bush-beaters.

Now, regarding whether funds should be restricted or unrestricted, I think this has made a vital difference to the school. It forces the University to put its money where its mouth is, so to speak. They can't pay lip service to building a new systems lab, and then funnel the money to plant trees on the lawn where Baker used to stand. In many cases, that sort of thing is precisely what happens to unrestricted funds. While it is more or less true that "the rich get richer" under this scenario, I think it's a terribly hard case to make that ANY project funded by the CAA is pork. The systems lab, for example, is the first advancement being made in that area of the Engineering school in 18 years. You're quibbling about the difference between the Poor and the Very Poor.

Now while I also agree that a fully distributed power structure is a bad idea, there are organized entities at the school that do have serious smarts, and the ability to get things done. If you've any doubt about that, find Professor Ken Ledford's roughly 14-page treatise on the State of the University. The Faulty Senate Budget Ctte, the external Development consultants, and several other groups have all be prophesying this day for over a year now, and their fairly compelling recommendations and solutions have gone entirely un-heeded. Every horse needs to have a head, but if that head starts turning around and chewing off its own legs, the whole body isn't going very far.

In other words, why ask those folks for advice if your focused course of action is to continuously ignore it?

Inter-departmental squabbling is unavoidable in lean times, and its true to a certain extent that only the strong will survive. That much is inevitable now. But I fully advocate cutting off everyone in a driving position from the Deans up -- and getting rid of about 80% of the folks with the words "Vice President" in their titles -- and starting over. The short term disarray could not possibly be worse than the long term stagnation we're currently hell-bent on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Not Dean Robinson!!

OK, I have no substantive opinions on anything else. But I always loved Dean Robinson. Then again, being in charge of undergrads at a university whose mission isn't all that undergrad-focused is maybe not a "driving position." :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Margie retired 2 years ago. ;)

Otherwise, I would certainly advocate a plenary indulgence on her behalf!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry - 1 year ago. Time seems faster than it is. G and I bumped into her on an airplane from Minneapolis about a year ago, and talked for a short while. =)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

WHOA!
How sad! Well, I hope she's happy, wherever she is! (presumably not still on an airplane from Minneapolis.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

D.K. Robbie Rob in da' Hizzouze!!!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You say that the CAA being just for Engineering and Sciences and how the Arts and Humanites can go out and get their own. Connect that in your head with how you agree with me that CWRU needs strong Arts & Humantites to be a real University. I think that the CAA can't hide behind it's charter here. The real problem with the University is the rotting timbers. The Sciences and Engineering are realy well supported but if the CAA continues to just support them and leave the rest to someone else... well can they complain?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The Sciences and Engineering are reasonably well supported BECAUSE of the CAA. It's not "hiding" behind its charter, it's doing precisely what its own masters are requiring it to do. CAA donors are made up of Sciences and Engineering alumni. When they give us money, they specify that they want it to go to their old departments, or to student scholarships, or to a major development project. Rarely - Infinitesimally rarely - do we get a donation where the giver just says "oh you kids just do whatever you want with this money".

Plus you can't just ignore the charter. Them's the rules. Don't like 'em, the membership has to vote to change them. Let me just disillusion you of any possibility that might happen.

I understand the problem. I lament the problem. But the solution to the problem is not to say "oh well we'll just take the money from over here, and put it over there." Liberal as Universities are, they don't run on Socialism. It really is up to someone in those schools to organize an effort -- and if someone would, I suspect they would receive outstanding support. Currently, there's simply no conduit for that money and energy to be effectively focused on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think your use of "Case Western" to mean, presumably, Case Western Reserve University, is odd given that you say you are working for the Case Alumni Association, which is the alumni association of graduates of Case Institute of Technology.

What word do you think "Western" modifies?

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll take a stab at this anyhow...

CAA was indeed founded as the alumni association for CIT students. When the various UC entities merged into one college (behind closed doors, in the dead of night), I know a lot of faculty, students and alumni felt terribly betrayed. But, the unavoidable fact is, the school is now CWRU, and those old wounds simply don't hold a lot of relevance to about 75%+ of the surviving faculty, students, and alumni - with that number shrinking every year as new classes matriculate. CAA represents not only students of the current Case School of Engineering, but also the "sciences" portion of the college of Arts and Sciences.

Despite the erstwhile re-branding initiative -- which I suspect interim President Greg Eastwood is going to downplay significantly, as he has already purposefully started calling the school CWRU again -- most of the folks on the planet still know this institution as Case Western Reserve University.

Sooo, I'm not really certain what the disconnect is between CAA being a legacy of CIT, and the fact that we're unavoidably CWRU now. Did I come even close to answering your question??

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)