University’s own report card in need of much improvement

Originally published December 15, 2009 for the Daily Illini’s fall 2009 semester-in-review edition.

Here we are at the end of another semester, final exams the only thing standing between students and their grades. After agonizing over last assignments, projects, and now tests, we still get to play the torturous waiting game until grades are posted.

Thankfully, the University doesn’t have to wait for its report card. I’ve taken the liberty of compiling some of the biggest areas of concern this fall.

So, without further ado, U of I’s final semester grades:

Efficiency: D.

Notes: Hey, remember Lincoln Hall, that building people used years ago for class or something? It’s been closed for so long most people can’t remember when they had a class in there. Of course, the building was closed for important reasons—namely, sitting unused until the legislature and Gov. Quinn sort of maybe approved the idea of funding for renovations in July and December 2009. The university began relocating classes in the fall of 2008, doesn’t plan to begin renovations until 2010, and won’t be finished until the fall semester of 2012.

Integrity: F.

Notes: Ex-Chancellor Herman sent out a mass e-mail way back in May the day the Chicago Tribune broke their “Clout Goes to College” series, which publicly revealed the existence of a clout list used in the university’s admissions process. The scandal continued into the fall, rocking student and university legislative bodies way more than the mostly-apathetic student body.

At some point, many of the members of the Board of Trustees got the hint and resigned. At least Joe White knew when to throw in the towel.

But not Herman! He hung on until the bitter end, and for his efforts, was reward with a year of paid sabbatical and a cushy teaching gig with a $240,000 salary.

The moral of this story: you can make big bucks tarnishing the reputation of a public institution founded as a land-grant university. You can also make big bucks being an untouchable Illinois legislator, none of whom were punished for their explicit involvement in the clout mess.

Budgeting Skills: F.

Notes: Speaking of Herman’s professorial salary, let’s consider the university’s ability to manage its finances.

We can apparently afford $115,000 paychecks and greater for people like Niranjan Shah’s (the ex-president of the Board of Trustees) future son-in-law, who was going to be employed here for less than nine months. But we still needed to raise student fees in November for the next academic year, and though the tuition rate is still a nebulous issue right now, I can guarantee that next fall’s new students will face a price hike.

Not to mention, of course, that since the Graduate Employees’ Organization’s contract ended in August (and well before), the University argued that it could not afford any increase in salary for TAs and GAs.

Knowing that the request for increased payment would anger people without adequate information on the strike situation (read: undergraduates), the University purposely argued that the proposed wage increase was the primary issue at hand.

Ouch, U of I. Sounds like you’ve got some room for improvement—no Dean’s List this semester. Try again in the spring.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Student outrage missing in response to admissions scandal

Originally published June 8, 2009.

After the Chicago Tribune broke its story on U of I’s admissions clout list over a week ago, several parties expressed mild dismay. The Sun-Times requested that the university eliminate the list (which has, at least for the time being, been suspended). Illinois House representative Mike Boland called for legislative hearings and the resignation of all University officials and trustees who encouraged the continued usage of the list. And of course, the DI’s Web site presented the opinions of several students and graduates, whose responses were mostly variations of “I worked hard to get here, and I would be upset if an under-qualified applicant had gotten my spot.”

Among all this talk, students haven’t really expressed much anger, let alone any demands that the specific people involved with the clout scandal take responsibility for their actions. Even journalists seem afraid to demand that the people who need to be punished the most are state legislators.

For many students, it seems that the sheer fact that they were admitted is enough to balance the blatant inequity created by the clout list. They can view their acceptance as clear proof that the admissions process was fair in their circumstances. Few seem inclined to pursue the matter of responsibility for the clout list any further.

Even the Daily Illini has hesitated to rile anyone to action over the matter. Its news coverage of the list has included a generic AP article somewhat absolving U of I administration and staff of blame for its actions since it’s not the only University that engages in them.

To top it off, we’ve also given a full article’s worth of space to paraphrasing the mass e-mail Chancellor Herman sent the day the Tribune story broke, as if he needed more of an opportunity to offer his perspective. His letter, I might add, attempted to obscure the matter at hand in the Tribune article by offering unrelated data as a response (including the total number of applications received for next fall and their average ACT score) and essentially approved of the implementation of the list.

Aside from a single editorial, the DI’s coverage selection seems to admit that well, yeah, the University did a bad thing. But it’s not like we’re the only ones! It’s not that big of a deal. And even the editorial only generically requests that University officials and state legislators get their act together.

It’s as if students are convinced that even explicitly mentioning, much less blaming, Richard Herman and B. Joseph White will incur some horrible administrative wrath.

I don’t think anything should be able to match the wrath of a student body that’s discovered even one applicant was admitted to the University based on political leverage.

But more importantly, everyone—journalists included—needs to legitimately consider the involvement of state legislators in this entire clout process. Should White and Herman have caved in to political pressure? No. The trustees? The admissions staff? No. But as employees of the state’s flagship public institution, they are at the mercy of the murderous circus that is Illinois politics. Our politicians, after all, hold the purse strings.

Rep. Boland needs to turn his pointed finger of blame elsewhere, toward people like the all-powerful Michael Madigan, speaker of the house and, according to the Tribune’s follow-up article, the clout behind more U of I applicants than any other legislator in the last five years.

Before heads start rolling among University administrators, we must confront those politicians who have essentially created the clout list and administer swift and decisive punishment. And we—the tuition- and tax-paying student voters—must lead the charge.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Chancellor should curtail Chief event

Originally published November 13, 2008.

I don’t need to explain “The Next Dance” to anybody–or the fact that quite a few people have an opinion about it. That number includes Chancellor Herman, who released a statement in Monday’s DI, and Robert Warrior, the director of the American Indian Studies Program and the Native American House. Warrior referenced resolutions against American Indian mascots from national organizations and urged “people of conscience” to oppose the rally and the attitudes behind it.

Herman, on the other hand, said that while the University does not support “The Next Dance,” students involved have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. And to an extent, this is true: The Student Code does not bar registered student organizations from sponsoring events that could be considered discriminatory, so long as no one is prevented from attending any event.

In 2006, however, similar circumstances went a little bit differently. Many members of the campus community have some idea about the “fiesta”-themed exchange (read: “Tacos and Tequila”) held by a couple of Greek organizations. People were outraged and staged demonstrations. The Illinois Student Senate passed a resolution condemning racist behavior. And finally, judicial sanctions were enacted against the two houses responsible for holding the party.

At that time Herman voiced his concerns about students’ freedom of speech in the same way he has done regarding “The Next Dance.” Despite punishment being levied for other reasons- namely alcohol-at least something was done. Because of the blatant racism of the party and the uproar it caused, many students would not have accepted a lack of penalization. Others still believed the disciplinary sentence was too lenient.

“The Next Dance” has generated just as much of a stir, partly because of Chancellor Herman’s indifferent attitude in regards to its occurrence. Before chalking up another incident to the first amendment, he should consider the possibilities for citation.

The University has already declared that Students for Chief Illiniwek cannot advertise for the event using the name “Chief Illiniwek,” as it is a trademark of the school. The Code specifically states that “no registered organization shall be permitted to use the name of or any symbol identified with the University.” If someone supposed to be the next Chief performs dressed as him at an RSO rally, it could be interpreted as usage of a University “symbol” under this ambiguous decree. This becomes especially problematic when the RSO is charging an admission fee-that is, making a profit-on the usage of this symbol.

The other possible problem presented by the Student Code lies with the type of funds used to pay for the event. If organizational funds (money from the RSO’s on-campus “bank account”) were used, the argument could be made that the money is paying for a rally that is not “related to the educational goals and objectives of the University,” i.e., goes against the institution’s efforts to create a nondiscriminatory and equal learning environment for all of its students. Such a claim is justified by the American Psychological Association’s resolution on mascots in 2005: Research concludes that the educational experience of all students, not just American Indians, is negatively impacted by the usage of American Indian mascots.

The University has landed itself in a sticky situation. Despite Herman’s denial of support for “The Next Dance” or a reinstatement of the Chief, the potential lack of punishment threatens to undermine the standard set by the University’s “commitment to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity” stated in the Student Code.

Without action, the University renders any damaging expression of discrimination of any kind acceptable under students’ rights to freedom of speech, so long as anyone can participate and no one gets busted for alcohol. And by allowing this RSO to march out “the next Chief” without penalty, the University condones his continued appearance following “The Next Dance.” If the higher-ups can wash their hands of responsibility by saying “we don’t support this,” then students can apparently compromise the educational experiences of all to whatever extent they like.

This isn’t just about stereotyping. It’s about establishing our school as a place in which everyone has access to an equal atmosphere and equal opportunities to learn. The chancellor must do more than talk, and so must we.

Chelsea is a senior in English and creative writing and believes it’s time to break with tradition for good.