New University System of Georgia Chancellor

[picard]

Would love to get your thoughts on Sonny Perdue's appt as Georgia University System's chancellor and how his appointment would've impacted the Peach State's public universities.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/16/georgia-regents-tap-sonny-perdue-system-chancellor

Students Against Sonny, a group fighting Perdue's imminent appointment, has organized protests, phone banks and petitions urging the regents to drop Perdue as a candidate. Students across the state fear that Perdue will defund the university system and contribute to the increasing political interference in academia, said Alex Ames, a sophomore at the Georgia Institute of Technology and organizer of the group.

"My parents are public school teachers. I am a public school student. I grew up dealing with the consequences of having a governor and a state Legislature that defunded our education system by over $10 billion in two decades," she said. While Perdue was governor, he decreased funding for public education, was sued for underfunding historically Black colleges and universities in the state, and supported reinstating a state flag with a large Confederate symbol.

Faculty members say Perdue is unqualified for the job. They are also concerned about his history as a climate-change denier and his political background.

"Perdue has no [sic] absolutely no experience in higher education leadership," the American Association of University Professors said in a statement Monday. "Moreover, during his tenure as secretary, the Department of Agriculture reportedly buried publicly funded, peer-reviewed research showing the dangers of climate change to agriculture and public health, and cherry-picked for promotion studies that favored the meat industry, damaging the credibility of the department and allowing politics to intrude into what should be nonpartisan scientific research. In interviews, Purdue has expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change despite overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus."

And here's the full AAUP's statement about the appointment:
https://www.aaup.org/news/aaup-denounces-lack-transparency-politicization-georgia-chancellor-search

[Aster]

Political appointments have a tendency to be heavily abused.

[Caracal]

Political appointments have a tendency to be heavily abused.

It's hard to say. You can end up with someone who comes in with an agenda and axes to grind. On the other hand, if you have a legislature dominated by a party inclined to be hostile to higher education, it might help to have someone with connection there, both for budgets and batting down bad ideas.

I'm not sure it really matters that much if someone has a background in higher ed for these kinds of jobs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't need to be a doctor, the Secretary of Energy doesn't need to be a scientist, etc.

[picard]

Political appointments have a tendency to be heavily abused.

I'm not sure it really matters that much if someone has a background in higher ed for these kinds of jobs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't need to be a doctor, the Secretary of Energy doesn't need to be a scientist, etc.

That is true, but having said this, I also think someone who was a medical doctor (for HHS/health secretary) or academic (in the case of university presidents or chancellors) might have a better understanding about the everyday issues academics are facing and the institutional memory of why certain rules (e.g., tenure) were implemented in the first place, rather than an outsider who doesn't understand what tenure is really about, then would be more likely to sponsor new rules (w/state legislatute & governor's backing) that would further weakens, if not abolishing it altogether.

Come to think of it, has there been recent academic studies on whether university presidents from different professional background (both academics and non-academics - ex-business CEOs, politicians, etc) are more/less likely to: 1) adhere or ignore collegiality rules with other academics when making critical decisions for their institutions, 2) pushing drastic measures to dramatically change their institutions (e.g., restricting or eliminating tenure, reconsolidating/merging dept units while forcing some faculty members out of their jobs, etc).

If someone found some examples of such studies, I'd love to read them. Thanks in advance.

[apl68]

Political appointments have a tendency to be heavily abused.

It's hard to say. You can end up with someone who comes in with an agenda and axes to grind. On the other hand, if you have a legislature dominated by a party inclined to be hostile to higher education, it might help to have someone with connection there, both for budgets and batting down bad ideas.

I'm not sure it really matters that much if someone has a background in higher ed for these kinds of jobs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't need to be a doctor, the Secretary of Energy doesn't need to be a scientist, etc.

Our state's largest public library system has a history of hiring non-librarians with "connections" for their number one spot.  One did a fantastic job of building up the system in the long-term by persuading voters to approve a series of bond issues to build new branches and such.  His successor seems to have navigated the system through the pandemic fairly well.  It's worth noting, though, that neither was imposed upon the system from without, and both went to school and got their MLS after they were hired.  They got to really know the environment and profession within which they were working, instead of "moving fast and breaking stuff."

[Hibush]

Two that turned out OK:

Janet Napolitano at the University of California. The university needed to get the state legislature to stop screwing around and actually fund the university system to do the things the legislature said they wanted. A savvy politician was able to make good progress there. As far as I know, she didn't try to micromanage academic programs.

Mitch Daniels at Purdue. I thought this was going to be a catastrophe, but he also used his political skill to build support for Purdue and advocated for its academic and land-grant missions.

One that was widely expected to be terrible was John Thrasher at Florida State. He just retired. How did that go? The university press releases are all positive, of course, but don't mention things that really matter.

[histchick]

I don't know anyone at my institution who is happy about this appointment.  Given the action that the Board of Regents has taken with tenure, as well as Perdue's stated goal of bringing "conservative values" to higher education, as well as Governor Kemp de facto removal of some regents in recent weeks, and current legislation in our General Assembly that may affect how we are teaching our courses, the folks I know at our place and in our extended network throughout the state have serious concerns about this move. 

[mahagonny]

The AAUP doesn't like him because he's a republican. They complain that he's not a career academic. They don't complain when  a democratic politician takes the job as university chancellor or president.
I wouldn't especially fear a republican politician as a high ranking administrator. They might turn out to be a union buster. But in my experience democratic politicians-turned-university bigwigs already do. So at least you'd be getting a wolf in wolf's clothing.

[histchick]

Previous USG chancellors have been Republicans, so that's not the only factor in play here. 

[mahagonny]

Previous USG chancellors have been Republicans, so that's not the only factor in play here.

Transparency. Again, a non-issue for me, since there is never any for adjunct faculty.

[histchick]

Previous USG chancellors have been Republicans, so that's not the only factor in play here.

Transparency. Again, a non-issue for me, since there is never any for adjunct faculty.

All of us are affected by the decisions of the Board of Regents. Every single employee in our system is affected by them.  By adjunct faculty, I'm not sure if you mean part-time instructors or any NTT faculty (including full time).  In my experience as a part-time instructor and then as a full-time NTT faculty member in this system, I've not found transparency to be an issue.

It's entirely possible, though, that I didn't understand the comment about transparency, and you meant from the AAUP.   

In any case, we'll see about Perdue.  I hope he's not as bad as most seem to think he will be.  I do wish he would outline what he means by "conservative values," though.  I don't think that means limiting academic freedom in my history class, but if it doe, I'd rather know now than later. 

[mahagonny]

Previous USG chancellors have been Republicans, so that's not the only factor in play here.

Transparency. Again, a non-issue for me, since there is never any for adjunct faculty.

All of us are affected by the decisions of the Board of Regents. Every single employee in our system is affected by them.  By adjunct faculty, I'm not sure if you mean part-time instructors or any NTT faculty (including full time).  In my experience as a part-time instructor and then as a full-time NTT faculty member in this system, I've not found transparency to be an issue.

In my experience, lack of transparency in the process of selecting the right president, from the perspective of the tenure track professor, would be an issue to them, whereas what they would prefer would be a process that is transparent to them and invites their feedback but not ours. So the way this president was chosen is no different from how any president is chosen, from the vantage point of the part time professor. For me to worry about the lack of transparency being mentioned here, I would have to be thinking of someone else's problems and interests as though they were my own. Or I would at least have to care deeply about how happy they are in their position when I already know they don't have to stay in that position. That is all.

[histchick]

Previous USG chancellors have been Republicans, so that's not the only factor in play here.

Transparency. Again, a non-issue for me, since there is never any for adjunct faculty.

All of us are affected by the decisions of the Board of Regents. Every single employee in our system is affected by them.  By adjunct faculty, I'm not sure if you mean part-time instructors or any NTT faculty (including full time).  In my experience as a part-time instructor and then as a full-time NTT faculty member in this system, I've not found transparency to be an issue.

In my experience, lack of transparency in the process of selecting the right president, from the perspective of the tenure track professor, would be an issue to them, whereas what they would prefer would be a process that is transparent to them and invites their feedback but not ours. So the way this president was chosen is no different from how any president is chosen, from the vantage point of the part time professor. For me to worry about the lack of transparency being mentioned here, I would have to be thinking of someone else's problems and interests as though they were my own. Or I would at least have to care deeply about how happy they are in their position when I already know they don't have to stay in that position. That is all.

Thanks for clarifying.  I can't speak for institutions in the entire system or for any others, but my experience (at two institutions in the system) is that part-timers were included in invitations for feedback/surveys, etc.  I've never felt that my feedback was not invited.

In this particular appointment of a system chancellor, though, I'm thinking about it as an employee as well as a voter.  I was actually sitting the fence in the gubernatorial race, but this latest move has made the case for my voting choice this fall.

As I said, we'll see.  Now I need to stop procrastinating and finish my taxes. :-)

[mahagonny]

Political appointments have a tendency to be heavily abused.

I'm not sure it really matters that much if someone has a background in higher ed for these kinds of jobs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't need to be a doctor, the Secretary of Energy doesn't need to be a scientist, etc.

That is true, but having said this, I also think someone who was a medical doctor (for HHS/health secretary) or academic (in the case of university presidents or chancellors) might have a better understanding about the everyday issues academics are facing and the institutional memory of why certain rules (e.g., tenure) were implemented in the first place, rather than an outsider who doesn't understand what tenure is really about, then would be more likely to sponsor new rules (w/state legislatute & governor's backing) that would further weakens, if not abolishing it altogether.

What I get from your post is there is no way to be against academic tenure unless one doesn't understand how it works.

I don't see how anyone can bring conservative values to a university without butting heads with the faculty. However, not all of the faculty are liberal, but in all probability, most are.

[mleok]

Two that turned out OK:

Janet Napolitano at the University of California. The university needed to get the state legislature to stop screwing around and actually fund the university system to do the things the legislature said they wanted. A savvy politician was able to make good progress there. As far as I know, she didn't try to micromanage academic programs.

Mitch Daniels at Purdue. I thought this was going to be a catastrophe, but he also used his political skill to build support for Purdue and advocated for its academic and land-grant missions.

One that was widely expected to be terrible was John Thrasher at Florida State. He just retired. How did that go? The university press releases are all positive, of course, but don't mention things that really matter.

Janet Napolitano was fantastic as UC President, I'm less enthusiastic about Mitch Daniels. All I have to say is that I am happy I left Purdue for a UC before he took over. A big part of it is that the UC system is large, but relatively uniform in that all of the campuses are research universities. More importantly, she understood her role as an advocate for the university system, and as you say, did not try to micromanage the academic side. I can't really say the same for Mitch Daniels, who continues to demonstrate that he doesn't understand academia, but insists on expressing his opinion nevertheless,

https://www.wlfi.com/news/mitch-danielss-annual-letter-to-purdue-receives-backlash/article_1ad15d90-7e5f-11ec-891b-6b6c54d24990.html