American ‘terrorists’

Richard Fulton

Time gives a chance for less emotional evaluation of the events that have shaken the University of Missouri in recent weeks. It seems to me there are at least five takeaways from those events.

One. There is general misunderstanding about the way in which universities, especially milt-campus state universities, operate. They are large bureaucracies with multilevel responsibilities.

Few note that the president of the university system is not in charge of the day to day operations (leadership) of each campus of the system. Tim Wolfe had overall leadership responsibilities but the day to day belonged to Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin.

While Wolfe seems to have had a tin ear when it came to understanding each of the campus institutions, it was Loftin who was responsible for leading the Columbia campus. He served Wolfe poorly in projecting the many problems that led to both of their downfalls.

Perhaps university leaders should not come from executive suites of corporations but should have extensive experience in, and thus knowledge of, higher education.

Two. There were more than the racist issue fermenting on the Columbia campus that led to the resignations of the two top leaders.

Little is said of the call for the resignation of Loftin by several of the deans of colleges within the university. That is a serious warning bell concerning the administration of the campus.

Bubbling just below the surface was the issue of the cut in pay and health benefits of graduate students. It is not well recognized that graduate students teach a majority of the basic undergraduate classes at the Columbia campus. This exploitation underwrites the costs of graduate faculty.

Three. The Columbia campus has a worse record of inclusion than any of the other M.U. campuses. Only 7% of the students are black. Role models for these students are few as well. The faculty is only 2.8% black, 3.2% hispanic, 13.1% Asian, and 74.8% white. This means on this vast campus only 55 faculty are black and only 20 of them have tenure (the protection that might allow them to speak out more forcefully). These numbers were the same as they were 20 years ago.

The vigorous recruitment of black athletes are a significant percentage of black students: a fact that indicates why the football team had such a large impact on the resignations. They are on the whole, the more visible blacks on campus as well.

Four. Students at universities are in the process of defining who they are. These years are by and large the “freest” years of their lives. Cut off from family and familiar friends and environments, students must decide who they are and what they want to become.

In this environment many students emphasize their idealistic impulses. They challenge authority and champion their growing sense of society’s imperfections. Universities should be places of open searching and challenging of ideas and lifestyles.

Other students take a more pragmatic pathway. They focus on preparation for employment and their place in the world. They often fail to see the imperfections of society or just take them as given.

Neither type is inherently good or bad. Both often go to extremes or act inappropriately. They are young and growing. Both will have the opportunity to lead their communities in the future. Which makes it important what is being taught to them. It is interesting to note that both proclaim an abiding loyalty to their university.

Fifth. Too many people blame the victims when faced with racism. Thus the often vicious social media threats and put-downs that followed the demonstrations. Even mainstream media folks have attacked the students for being naive and coddled.

Educational institutions are unique places; they reflect the world around them while simultaneously challenging that world. Long may they prosper.