University President James W. Wagner faced criticism on fronts ranging from the department changes announced last fall to his controversial column this spring and a widening disconnect between the central administration and faculty at the College faculty meeting Wednesday.

Given that the faculty body had censured him at its last meeting and tabled a motion on whether to hold a vote of no confidence, many saw the meeting as pivotal for Wagner’s future as president. Most recently, the departments of psychology and English submitted letters to the Board of Trustees asking them to “reflect deeply on what accountability for such damages would entail from an ethically-engaged university.”

But after Wagner made his remarks and had tense exchanges with various faculty members, the body voted to postpone the discussion of no confidence at a special meeting to be held in two weeks.

While a vote of no confidence would not directly affect Wagner’s position as president of the University, the move would mean that faculty no longer believe he is fit to lead.

At the meeting, Wagner said he has spent the past few weeks consulting with faculty, students, alumni and community leaders like Congressman John Lewis and former President Jimmy Carter. He said he has sought to understand other perceptions of the column, which used the Three-Fifths Clause as an example of political compromise, as well as how the Emory community fell short of its goals and what steps should be taken for healing and for advancement.

“I regret whatever biases may have kept me from seeing the essay as problematic from the beginning,” he said.

In apologizing for the column, Wagner mentioned the importance of “sustained attention on the issues of our community” and listed off ideas that ranged from hosting afternoon conferences to having educators and other university presidents coming to campus to provide expertise.

Wagner also stressed that the University has been hard at work on these issues, citing the work of the Office of Community and Diversity, the James Weldon Johnson Institute, the Transforming Community Project and several presidential commissions.

“Do not misunderstand … I offer these examples not as a defense for my mistake and my shortcomings. Instead I offer them as evidence that we have much to draw from and build upon. We have improved, and we can and must continue to improve,” he said. “… I’m sorry, but I am confident in our future … and I am committed to my personal growth, and I pledge to work more effectively to help secure the kind of community at Emory to which we all aspire.”

Faculty Take the Floor

Once the floor was open for questions, faculty members asked Wagner about the intentions of his column, with many referencing the department changes announced last fall.

One faculty member asked Wagner about what connection he was trying to make in his column and whether he was calling on the liberal arts faculty to compromise in light of the department changes.

Wagner responded that the column was first meant to demonstrate the importance of compromise in reference to the state of politics in the country.

The column’s connection to liberal arts was only that Emory “has a responsibility to prepare people for that ability,” Wagner said.

Another faculty member asked Wagner about his involvement in the specifics of the department changes. Wagner reiterated Emory’s strained resources and a need to redistribute funds to invest in existing strengths. The specifics of the plan, Wagner said, were entrusted to College Dean Robin Forman.

At this point the discussion, faculty members shifted from questions to harsher criticisms.

One faculty member questioned how Wagner could be a proponent of the future of liberal arts when he had no clear vision on the restructuring of the Institute of Liberal Arts, which lost its graduate program in the new plan. The faculty member also held Wagner responsible for the “very low” morale on campus.

“It’s very low because we hear the very lofty ideals that you speak of – the ethically-engaged university, the community involvement – and yet we in our ordinary lives see none of that,” the faculty member said. “… We seem to be moving toward a corporate model in which we of the liberal arts, fine arts and humanities are worried that we are the three-fifths.”

Wagner responded that the specifics of restructuring are the responsibilities of the deans, but that he can still talk to alumni and others about the impact Emory would like to have in these areas. As for morale, Wagner admitted it is low across higher education, given the economic climate. The best way forward, Wagner said, requires an attention on innovation in education.

In one of the tensest moments of the meeting, the next faculty member to speak refocused the attention on Wagner and his column. The faculty member blasted Wagner for portraying Emory to people across the country as “Southern” in a “caricatured way” and for giving people the impression that “such a lack of understanding” actually reflects the mindset of the University.

“Something has been taken away from Emory,” the faculty member said. “So the question that haunts all of us – those of us who believe you to be a good man – is whether you will be able to be the leader on this issue and be able to represent Emory effectively.”

As applause died down, Wagner said he regretted hurting Emory’s reputation and urged faculty, as they deal with students, to distance themselves from his mistake, for which he has been “vilified.”

Taking a broader critique, one faculty member said his confidence in Wagner’s leadership has been on the decline since 2009. The real problem doesn’t concern the column, the faculty member said, but an overall “style of leadership that has created such a gulf between the president and the faculty” in the past few years.

The faculty member first criticized Wagner for his reluctance to build personal relationships with faculty, opting instead to work through the Media Relations office.

The faculty member said concerns started in 2009 when faculty were asked to take a pay cut.

While some faculty and administrators did so, Wagner did not. Citing a Dec. 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education article, the faculty member said Wagner’s salary between 2008 and 2011 increased to make him the 22nd highest paid University president in the country.

“[This happened] precisely during the period when faculty salaries had been flat, when staff were being laid off, when programs were being closed and throughout this country when people unemployed can’t get a job because they can’t afford bus fare to the job interview,” the faculty member said. “I’m saying this to you not to demand an apology. I’m trying to explain to you why your calls for ethically-engaged leadership sometimes fall in counter-cynicisms.”

Given the contradictions over salary, the faculty member concluded by expressing concern over how Wagner will oversee further cuts in the College.

Following strong applause, Wagner first said he has always enjoyed the “richness the faculty provide” before admitting that he doesn’t “pay much attention” to salaries. Wagner said he has never asked for a raise, has on occasion declined raises and in the two past years, accepted only half of the raise that he was offered.

Regarding the department changes, Wagner said the College could not “cut its way to excellence” and must look to other avenues for growth as well, including aggressive fund raising.

At the end of the session, other faculty members continued to point out a disconnect between the faculty body and the central administration. One faculty member perceived the central administration as working “on a distant planet.”

Wagner agreed with the criticisms and shortly after the faculty body voted to end the discussion with him.

Once Wagner had left the room, faculty briefly debated about whether they should discuss the motion of no confidence at the next faculty meeting in April or at a special meeting before that.

As the hour grew late, more faculty left the room. One faculty member then presented a motion that they electronically vote on whether or not to have a vote of no confidence at their next meeting.

The remaining faculty ultimately decided to discuss the motion for a vote of no confidence at a special meeting, which will be held in the next two weeks.

Editor’s Note: Names of faculty members who spoke during the meeting have been omitted, in accordance with the terms that allowed the Wheel to attend the meeting.

– By Evan Mah 

+ posts

The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.

The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.