In many professions, when colleagues are attacked, there is generally a group that will come forward to their defense. The recent Mitchell Report with numerous allegations of steroid use in baseball has caused the player's union and many individual players to begin to speak out, criticizing the entire process. Even in higher education, the American Association of University Professors readily s.jpg in to address what it perceives as issues impacting faculty, even downsizing created due to Hurricane Katrina.
But for college and university presidents, there is no such advocacy group. The lonely president is often left to fend for him or herself in situations where they are treated unjustly. It just seems that some group should step forward in such situations to publicly raise questions about the treatment of the president.
In fact, I am not aware of many instances where individual presidents speak out on behalf of their colleagues. Indeed, it is not the norm. However, I am not the normal college president, and as a member of the hip-hop generation (the children of the Civil Rights generation), I cannot allow this atrocity to occur without weighing in as someone who does the job on a daily basis, and one who has a functional knowledge of higher education.
The South Carolina State University Board of Trustees made a tremendous mistake in removing President Andrew Hugine. Although I am not there, I reviewed the numerous news reports that are available courtesy of the Internet. The news stories, whether we like it or not, represent the "truth" regarding this fiasco for those of us not there. The impression created for those of us on the outside (due in part by comments of those on the inside) indicates that the board has used its power poorly.
My first concern is one of basic fairness. It was reported that both President Hugine and Board Chair Maurice Washington acknowledged the existence of an agreement that would have allowed the president to resign Dec. 15 and continue to serve until the end of his contract. The chair indicated that a trustee "leaked" the imminent departure of the president in hopes of saving his job. Later, Washington accused the president of mounting a campaign to save his job.
It seems if the president violated the agreement, that would have been said immediately, not days later. So which one is it? Maybe Washington realized the problem of penalizing Hugine for the actions of a board member and tried to spin it. I'm not buying it.
Second, the chair indicated that the removal of the president was due in part to a report provided by the Education Commission of the States. This organization's mission is "to help states develop effective policy and practice for public education by providing data, research, analysis and leadership; and by facilitating collaboration, the exchange of ideas among the states and long-range strategic thinking." The board of trustees engaged them in an audit to "to assess the extent that the University's programs are adequately preparing graduates for participation in the rapidly changing, knowledge-based, global economy," as stated on the commission's Web site.
They are not an accrediting agency. In fact, South Carolina State is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and will be up for re-accreditation in 2010. The commission's report should have been used as a tool for planning, not one to evaluate the president. But this board decided to use a report from an organization that focuses on statewide policy development (not individual institutions) as an evaluative tool.
Ridiculous.
Speaking of accreditation, we must recognize that board actions can lead to sanctions. In 2003, Auburn University was placed on probation stemming from actions of its board, which included small numbers effectively controlling the board, and "illegal meetings" held where important decisions were made.
Finally, the chair suggested that the performance review of the president was a factor. That remains to be seen. By checking many performance indicators, it appears the university is doing well compared to its benchmarked peers. If one goes to the Education Trust Web site (www.collegeresults.org), search for South Carolina State, compare it with the 25 most similar institutions, you will see an institution that ranks second in terms of six-year graduation rates for students who started in 1999. This graduation rate is above such peer institutions as North Carolina Central, Tennessee State, Morgan State, Virginia State, Alabama State and Delaware State.
In addition, the university is ninth for retention rate for fall 2004 freshmen enrolled the following fall. This is one of few statistics that can be solely attributed to Hugine's administration. This would have been the second freshman class admitted during his presidency. Any judgment about graduation rates during his administration will have to wait until 2009 when the first class completes six years following their entrance. I know. I am anxiously waiting for my first freshmen to graduate to see improvements, as I don't want to be held accountable for students not admitted during my tenure.
The real gains in Hugine's tenure -- the surplus, new buildings, record enrollment and increase in accredited programs -- were attributed to the whole, including the board of trustees. The problems ide.jpgied were created by one person -- alone! Funny how that happens; the president gets little of the credit and all of the blame. He was unable to complete these achievements alone but miraculously able to create all the problems.
It should be clear then that what we have here is a kakristocracy. An ill-informed group decides to remove President Hugine instead of waiting less than a week to at least give an appearance of normalcy. Now there are multiple stories, editorials and blogs that will create a picture of the university sure to deter any thoughtful candidate from applying.
Who wants to go work at a place with a recent history of trumped-up charges, public board dissension ending in multiple resignations and "leadership" with questionable character? Only someone fascinated with being a president, and that's not what you need. In the end, South Carolina State University loses. I hope that there will be a concerned group of supporters brave enough to challenge this poor decision. The future of the university depends upon you.
While I was watching ESPN's coverage of the Scripps Howard Spelling Bee this year, a young lady indicated her favorite word was kakistocracy. The meaning appeared on the screen below. I made note of it, knowing I would use it again at some point.
Thanks to this group for that opportunity and for epitomizing its meaning.
Walter M. Kimbrough, Ph.D. is president of Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark.