ISSUE: Firing the SCSU president

OUR VIEW: Controversial action puts heat on SCSU trustees

Congressman James Clyburn reacted with shock Tuesday at the South Carolina State University board's decision to fire President Andrew Hugine Jr. He made specific reference to the need for continuity of leadership at his alma mater.

Clyburn's words should not go unnoticed by state legislators as they consider the future of governance at the Orangeburg institution. The state Legislature elects the trustees who are now being criticized from nearly every angle for a controversial decision regarding Hugine, who has been president since 2003.

Continuity in leadership has been lacking at SCSU since the two decades of leadership by the late M. Maceo Nance. In the 20-plus years since his retirement, the university has had four presidents and an interim leader. During that time, critics have said the university lost key support in state government and saw its campus and facilities suffer.

For his part, Hugine appeared to have reversed those fortunes. He was widely praised for straightening out SCSU's finances, long a subject of critical state assessments, and guiding a revitalization of campus facilities. His and the university's fortunes never seemed higher than eight months ago when SCSU was the host for the first-in-the-nation Democratic presidential debate.

Clyburn himself referenced the event as a turning point for SCSU, a revitalization. Record enrollment followed as the university enjoyed a high national profile.

As 2007 closes, the future is cloudy.

Trustee Charles Williams of Orangeburg called Tuesday a dark day for SCSU. Trustee John Bowden of Orangeburg is resigning the board in protest of the Hugine action, calling it a lynching. Orangeburg Rep. Jerry Govan said the board is out of control. Clyburn, who engineered the debate in Orangeburg and has been behind key support for SCSU from his position as U.S. House majority whip, made clear his opposition to ousting Hugine and disappointment in the board.

These are not the kinds of assessments from leaders that the university needs. Momentum gained over the past year is being lost in the cloud of controversy surrounding Hugine and the board.

The trustees contend the Hugine action was based on a new academic assessment of SCSU. There certainly is more, with most believing tension between Hugine and board Chairman Maurice Washington was at the root of removing Hugine, who must depart by Jan. 4 even though his contract extends through June.

The public at large, and specifically SCSU alumni and supporters, are owed more than the scenario that has played out over the past month. Reports via email indicated a board decision to oust Hugine was made outside the arena of a public meeting, and that appears now, despite denials and whether formal or informal, to be accurate. Just this past week the board heard publicly from the national alumni leader and others criticizing actions regarding Hugine. Then came Tuesday's session conducted by conference call -- a surprising way to make a decision on the president. Govan called it cowardly.

For his part, Hugine under the state's Freedom of Information Act could have requested that the debate about his future and his evaluation be conducted in public session. Sad that he did not, as the picture of what is actually taking place at SCSU might have become clearer. Is the board micromanaging? Is there a power grab by the trustee chairman or others? What's the real story behind the Hugine ouster?

The questions need answers. Lawmakers should demand them. As much as there is the board's vote of no confidence in the president, there is decided doubt at this juncture about confidence in the board and its leadership.

You must be logged in to comment.