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
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.
Some of us workers here feels like 3/5 of a person. And it’s the changes that making it hard for the worker here. And I believe it’s not the prez here but the chain of commands here that making it harder for us. And with the prez here saying what he said makes it worse
Juxtapose this:
“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.”
With what Wagner actually wrote:
“Part of the messy inefficiency of university life arises from the intention to include as many points of view as possible, and to be open to the expectation that new ideas will emerge… At Emory of late we have had many discussions about the ideal–and the reality–of the liberal arts within a research university. All of us who love Emory share a determination that the university will continue trailblazing the best way for research universities to contribute to human well-being and stewardship of the earth in the twenty-first century. This is a high and worthy aspiration. It is tempered by the hard reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless; our university cannot do everything we might wish to do, or everything that other universities do.”
Whatever the gestures he made to the Fiscal Cliff situation as a topic, Wagner’s essay was also clearly and undeniably about the recent controversies at Emory RE: the College Plan. To say otherwise is to flat-out lie to the entire assembled faculty.
“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.”
No, he won’t.
The president simply dug himself in deeper during his time at the meeting with the College Faculty. The issue was his leadership and his damaging actions, of which the “3/5 column” was but one example. Throughout the meeting, he kept falling back on canned answers that must have originated in fundraising campaign speeches. He deflected even the most pointed and clear questions and just gave his usual non-answers. Let me take the issue of his salary: He did not give back any money in 2009–despite the fact that other university presidents around the country were giving back money quite publically, and despite the fact that faculty and staff at Emory were being strong-armed to give back some of their salary to get Emory through the crisis. Instead, his salary has allowed him to rise in the rankings of the most highly paid university presidents–at a time when faculty and staff have been cut and salary pools have stagnated. (How many years now without raises of any real sort in the College pool?) President Wagner said that, over the course of his career he had never negotiated for more salary and had never asked for a raise. He seemed to think that was an appropriate set of facts and an appropriate reply to the question. He even appeared proud of that answer, that there was something honorable in the idea that his compensation packages had always been high enough that he did not see any need to negotiate. The point being made by the colleague, however, was that because Pres. Wagner did not give money back when asking faculty and staff to do so (and when many faculty and staff did, when other deans gave back), the president had destroyed any sense of solidarity here at Emory and any faith in his ability to lead.
Moreover, Pres. Wagner’s reply only further confirmed the belief that he and the trustees live on some other planet, where executive compensation remains excessive, where those executives believe that they somehow deserve that money, while the pay of the other 99% falls far behind. What can one conclude?
White elite male privilege: 1
Ethically-engaged leadership: 0
It’s good to hear that he still sees himself as dedicating his work to helping and hearing those who feel excluded. It’s bad to see that he doesn’t get how this is not just about “feelings” but structures. It’s good to hear that he has learned a lot in recent weeks about race and difference. Did that add to what he learned from the many other programs at Emory during the past 10 years?
Yes to Betrayed’s scorecard. Yes to Tony and workers. Yes to CB for pointing out the blatant lie/dodge before the assembled faculty.
Another score:
White paternalism: 1
Understanding race, class, difference, & how to make a difference: 0
At the March 20 college faculty meeting with President Wagner, I asked the first question, which the Wheel nicely summarized as follows: “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.”
The Wheel reports that “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.”
What Wagner said is simply false. Here is how Wagner closed his magazine article:
“At Emory of late we have had many discussions about the ideal–and the reality–of the liberal arts within a research university. All of us who love Emory share a determination that the university will continue trailblazing the best way for research universities to contribute to human well-being and stewardship of the earth in the twenty-first century. This is a high and worthy aspiration. It is tempered by the hard reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless; our university cannot do everything we might wish to do, or everything that other universities do. Different visions of what we should be doing inevitably will compete. But in the end, we must set our sights on that higher goal–the flourishing liberal arts research university in service to our twenty-first-century society.”
One doesn’t need a humanities degree to read the meaning of what he said in between all the rhetorical clichés: the “ideal–and the reality–of the liberal arts within a research university” is a “worthy aspiration” but it needs to be “tempered by the reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless.”
Now, no reasonable person would disagree with this. But it is astonishing that Wagner stood before the very faculty who teach the liberal arts and denied that this is what his column was about. And it is also astonishing that, as one faculty member after another asked him tough questions about his style of leadership, he never grasped the major concern: that the faculty entrusted with the liberal arts curriculum should be fully aware and part of any process of reaching a compromise, not shut out and blown off. I have no confidence that he has the capability or willingness to ever get this.
“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.”
-I think that I speak for a vast majority of alumni, when I say that I’m not donating another cent to Emory. I was at an alumni gathering the other day and every single person there was fed up with how the University spends money like its going out of style. Wagner should have said that the College can’t spend its way to excellence. That’s painfully obvious if you look at Emory’s recent history. Emory needs a business man as president, not a liberal arts professor. That would be an bigger disaster than Wagner. The problems Emory is facing now are in large part the legacy of William Chase and his pin-headed ultra-leftist policies. Emory’s endowment soared in value in the 1980s and 1990s. And Dr. Chase decided the best way to spend it was by increasing affirmative action and giving benefits to partners of gay faculty members. He was told by several people that this wasn’t what the donations to Emory were intended to be used for. But he was a stubborn intellectual snob, and was sure that by increasing diversity Emory would build a great national reputation. Instead, other Universities have caught up with Emory in terms of monetary resources and Emory’s reputation has sunk to a new low. And now what is everyone proposing to fix this mess? These professors want to throw more money down the toilet. The reason Emory’s professors haven’t been getting raises is because the University wastes a ton of money by taking on the role of a welfare organization in Atlanta. Yet the people who benefit from the University’s generosity (or giving away other people’s money to stroke the administration staff’s egos) have been entirely ungrateful. And when Dean Forman saw this ridiculous situation at his new employer and told the professors that the University would have to live within it’s means, all hell broke loose and the staff basically threw a temper tantrum. I visited Emory with my son when he was applying to colleges. And he hated it. The racial tension was worse than any place I’ve ever been to. And everyone in the administrative staff seemed to have sub-90 IQs. They also all seemed to be flamboyantly gay, which might have something to do with Dr. Chase’s reverse discrimination jihad. There was this one career counselor Andy Rabitoy, who was the dumbest person I’ve ever met working in an educational institution. I work on Wall Street and I can tell you that this guy didn’t know the first thing about finance. Anyways my son decided to go to Washington University in St. Louis and he loves it. He even convinced one of his friends who went to Emory to transfer and his friend said that difference between the two schools is like night and day. I was still a proud Emory though, until this year when the shit hit the fan. Now I realize that it wasn’t just a series of bad experiences when my son visited the school. The University’s incompetence has gotten national attention. And one more thing; Wagner said that he consulted Jimmy Carter about his comments. What moral authority does Jimmy Carter have? That guy is basically a Nazi. He wrote an entire book attacking the Jewish people. And he completely made up facts just to make Israel look bad. Ken Stein called him out on his lies. Then he refused to debate Alan Dershowitz, because he was too much of a coward to stand behind his accusations. I never held it against Emory for having Jimmy Carter as a professor, because they didn’t know that he was a rabid anti-semite when the hired him. But it’s absurd that Jim Wagner would consult him about his column like he was some kind of wise sage. This is an example of the blind leading the blind. In conclusion:
STOP ASKING ALUMNI FOR DONATIONS.
“What moral authority does Jimmy Carter have? That guy is basically a Nazi.”
Man I was on the fence about this until I recently saw a candid photo of Carter without his toupee on. Would you believe that he has a Iron Cross and a pair of Swastikas tattooed on his forehead? But of course you probably saw through his tawny hair and position on the Palestinians and managed to figure it all out way before me.
Also, speaking of Nazis, I love this part of your comment the most: “And everyone in the administrative staff seemed to have sub-90 IQs. They also all seemed to be flamboyantly gay, which might have something to do with Dr. Chase’s reverse discrimination jihad.”
Cool story, bro. It totally doesn’t hit the exact same notes that a white supremacist / eugenicist would! Do you have any thoughts on the percentage of sexual minorities and the mental capacities of staff at Washington St Louis?
I didn’t know Rush went to Emory!
Why would you call Jimmy Carter a Nazi immediately after venting your spleen about gay people? Don’t you see the least bit of irony there?
Hey Richard! Brah I think I speak for the vast majority of the internet when I say I would love to hear more about where else you’ve been that you’ve had a sense of “racial tension” and how that sense was activated at Emory. I’m sure your thoughts on race are deeply nuanced and perceptive and I think you’re depriving everybody on the internet of them by simply restricting yourself to expressing your thoughts on homosexuals, ultra-leftists, Jimmy Carter, and a college career officer you met a few years back whom you despise so much that you remember his name. So yeah don’t hold back man!
Jimmy Carter isn’t going to come out and say that he’s anti-semitic. Even David Duke and the President of Iran use the Palestinian as an excuse to criticize Jewish people. But Jimmy Carter not only demonized Israel in his book, he also implied that the reason more people don’t criticize the country is because the Jewish lobby controls the US government and media. And he supports Hamas, which the US government labels as a terrorist group. He once said that Hamas suicide bombings were justified. So while he isn’t a Nazi with a Swastika tattoo, he does believe that the Zionist lobby controls the government and supports killing Jews. He just waited until he was old and out of politics to make his views know to the world.
Hi Kes,If the trouble is often a username/password difficulty and you can’t log in then I am not sure what’s wrong. I tested it a second ago and it seemed to be working fine. Could you check all over again and see if it’s ok now?