The Infrastructure of Political Correctness at Marquette

From the Louis Joliet Society, a blog post that takes off from the fact that Marquette is going to impose a five percent tuition increase, in spite of the fact that inflation has been running at 2.5 percent.

And what is the reason? Not to provide more scholarship money for students. Not to pay for more faculty lines, so that students can have smaller classes, more attention from faculty and more class choices.

No, a large part is to support a massive infrastructure in political correctness.

For starters, Marquette’s Office of the Provost carries a staff of at least 65 individuals, many of whom are presumably well-compensated, holding titles like vice-provost, vice-president, executive director and dean. Clearly, a number of the functions performed by these individuals are entirely legitimate for the successful administration of the university. But, in some cases, we have our doubts. 

For example, one entity under the Provost’s watch is the Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. Myers created this office in 2015 “to elevate the importance of equity, diversity and inclusion at Marquette.” But, alas, despite a lengthy and lofty strategic plan and numerous initiatives and programs, Marquette is still pretty much all white and evidently, still racist (also here and here). The office’s Hispanic Initiatives include resources for undocumented students, not the least of which are university-funded grants and scholarships for non-citizens. The Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion also houses Marquette’s Title IX coordinator who is presumably responsible for selecting the LGBTQ-agenda advancing Title IX vendor employed by the university.

Another entity under the Provost’s office is the Division of Student Affairs. While the division has been around for quite some time, Myers expanded it in 2015 to include a new LGBTQ Resource Center (host of the infamous Pride Prom). Also added to the division in 2015 was the Office of Intercultural Engagement, which, as far as we can tell, is a source of institutional reinforcement and reiteration of the race and LGBTQ agendas on campus, and is not to be confused with the CENTER for Intercultural Engagement which provides still more reinforcement and reiteration of the race and LGBTQ agendas on campus. Lastly, under the Division of Student Affairs is the Office of Residence Life, which championed the introduction of “transgendered bathrooms” at Marquette in 2015 and was recently exposed for forcing Resident Assistants to participate in Leftist “social justice” indoctrination in the student dorms. 

Other entities under the Provosts Office include the Office of Community Engagement and Social Responsibility, created in 2016 as “a central clearinghouse for community engagement activities and promotion of the scholarship of engagement.” Got it? As an interesting aside, the Executive Director of the Office of Community Engagement, Dan Bergen, serves on the board of directors of the Cream City Foundation, an organization whose mission is to “mobilize philanthropic resources by harnessing the pride, passion, and commitment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their allies to advance the human rights and respond to the human needs of LGBTQ+ people in Southeastern Wisconsin.” As for what the Office of Community Engagement has actually accomplished in its two years of existence is anybody’s guess; all activities listed on its webpage appear to have already been in motion by 2016. 

Marquette’s Center for Teaching and Learning is also under the auspices of the Office of the Provost. This center is charged with teaching Marquette teachers how to teach. It is also charged with teaching non-Catholic and under-catechized faculty and staff about the history and importance of Catholic higher education. The director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, however, is openly homosexual. So much for Catholic teaching.

Also inaugurated by Provost Myers in 2015, but not as part of his office, is the new and improved Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies (to replace the ignominious and disastrous Gender and Sexualities Resource Center). Like the Provost’s LGBTQ Center, Office of Intercultural Engagement and Center for Intercultural Engagement, this center also provides institutional reinforcement and reiteration of race and LGBTQ agendas on campus. (Are we seeing a pattern here?) 

We move now to the Office of Mission and Ministry. This office is, presumably, most directly charged with preserving and advancing Marquette’s Catholic identity. And yet, despite some good efforts, through the Office of Mission and Ministry we get: anti-Catholic Marquette Mission Weeks, LGBTQ Glitter Ashes on Ash Wednesday, LGBTQ Masses, LGBTQ+ prayer services, LGBTQ indoctrination from the university’s Center for Ignatian Spirituality, and a Center for Peacemaking which for nearly ten years has been little more than a training center for progressive political activism.

The post summarizes by asking:

• How much do all these positions, offices and activities cost and where does the money to pay for them come from?
• What demonstrable value do they bring to the education of students or the betterment of Marquette’s culture as a Catholic, Jesuit university?
• Why does a Catholic university invest so heavily in things that have little to do with/are often contrary to its Catholic identity?
• Why should students not transfer to public colleges and universities which offer the same secularized higher education at half or less the cost?

In the meantime, however, you and your families better get busy finding those extra tuition dollars.

Conclusion

It’s typical of higher education today that university bureaucrats build a huge bureaucracy dedicated to political correctness. It’s slightly less expected that a large part of that bureaucracy at a “Catholic university” should be engaged in trashing Catholic teaching. But only slightly.

Two things are behind this trend. First, there is the felt need by campus bureaucrats to pander to every politically correct victim group on campus. Such groups will be supported by leftist faculty capable of making noise if the demands are not acceded to.

Secondly, all bureaucrats want to build their little empires. But the faculty are never the “empire” of any bureaucrat — faculty control their own affairs.

So to build an empire, you need lots of “initiatives” and staff to “implement” those “initiatives.”

This quickly leads to whole university offices where most of the staff are involved, not in some useful work, but in pushing political correctness.

Taking Provost Myers to Task: Young Americans for Freedom

From The New Guard: An essay about Marquette Provost Dan Myers, whose bureaucrats have arranged an absurdly biased program of speakers on racial issues, and then hypocritically wrote an op-ed opposing the one conservative speaker who has been on campus this year:

Last week, the Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette held a wildly successful talk featuring Ben Shapiro. Two lecture halls were filled beyond capacity, even as Marquette staff attempted to sabotage the event behind the scenes.

The first time any Marquette administrator publicly addressed students about the Shapiro talk was in an editorial in the campus newspaper on February 14. Provost Dan Myers —who once carried a sign that labeled conservatives as homophobic, transphobic & biphobic—penned an op-ed pleading for “critical thinking” when considering conservative speakers like Shapiro.

His message was simple: the conservatives who came to hear from Ben Shapiro failed to think critically.

According to Myers, Shapiro’s visit “produced some controversy.” In reality, it was university staff that ginned up the controversy. Myers argues that campuses “should not avoid controversy.” Instead, he wants the campus to challenge “controversial” views. Myers, as the second in command at Marquette, has made it his duty to challenge exclusively conservative views the few times they are allowed to be heard on campus.

Interestingly, Myers did not even attend Shapiro’s lecture, but this did not prevent Myers from responding (presumably, he watched the video provided by YAF).

In his contradictions of Shapiro’s assertions, Myers leans heavily on fallacies. When Shapiro remarked that “institutional racism” is no longer the norm, Myers wrote that targeting “legacy” students is racist. He continued, asking whether the legacy advantage “replicate[s] that racism in the next generation.” That is, Myers believes recruiting students who are more likely to attend Marquette because of a prior family connection is racist. Surprisingly, Myers never mentions Marquette’s expressed desire to slant the admissions process in favor of Hispanic students, despite the fact that he himself supports a policy which would require Marquette’s racial demographic to reach at least 25% of all enrollments.

A quick recap of Myers logic reveals a troubling conclusion:

To recruit legacy students, those whose parent or sibling attended Marquette University before them (regardless of race), is institutional racism. But to set a goal of creating a Marquette where 25% of the population is Hispanic (potentially at the expense of other qualified minority students) in order to seek federal funds is not institutional racism.

That’s right Marquette alumni: The provost of your alma mater does not want to recruit your kid, younger sibling, or grandkid in the name of some warped version of Jesuit social justice.

Marquette’s desire to welcome more Hispanics is laudable – but not through this scheme. Skewing numbers to fleece the feds and pander to progressive pieties will throw off other diversity metrics, including socioeconomic status, religion, sex, and many more. Note that intellectual diversity is never part of any initiative promoting inclusion on the campus of Marquette University.

Doubling down on his accusations, Myers argues that Ben’s promotion of the Brookings Institution’s Three Simple Rules to Join the Middle Class is also racist: Graduate from high school, avoid early pregnancy, and get a job. Myers says not all races have equal opportunities to finish high school, get into college, or, evidently, avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Myers offers no solutions to address this broad institutional charge of racism. For decades, conservatives have advocated school choice that would benefit minority students. Yet progressives dramatically opposed Betsy DeVos for the Department of Education, despite her plan to expand to expand choice for impoverished children.

Milwaukee Public Schools (serving the residents who live around Marquette) have been run into the ground by progressive unions for decades. Perhaps left wing unions are the example of institutional racism Myers was seeking?

Myers writes, “Healthy skepticism is at the very foundation of active learning.” If Myers is genuinely interested in interaction with active learning, perhaps the Young Americans for Freedom might bring Shapiro back for a debate.

In fact, Young America’s Foundation has a strong reputation of supporting dialogue on Marquette’s campus. The Foundation has sponsored Attorney General John Ashcroft, Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Stossel, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Allen West, Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Christopher Horner, and many more.

Additionally, the Foundation has sponsored two debates at Marquette. Marquette’s own liberal theologian Dan Maguire backed out of a debate on pro-life issues with conservative Mike Adams.

The Foundation also paid for Liz Cheney to debate Howard Dean prior to the 2012 election. Marquette was one of only a handful of campuses to host such a debate. The Foundation paid for both speakers.

Non-progressives are left to wonder if Myers is planning to write a similarly scathing op-ed after Shaun King appeared on campus this week, or well-known domestic terrorist Angela Davis appears next month. We won’t hold our breath. As Myers pointed out in his op-ed, a “variety of speakers” were on campus last week. Myers singled out the conservative.

What does it say that, on the Marquette campus, it is usually conservatives who arrange debates, but the Marquette administration arranges only one-sided programs? It must mean that, deep down, the people running Marquette sense that they would be at a disadvantage in an open, balanced debate.

If they were confident of their views, they would welcome having those views be shown to be superior in head-to-head competition.

No doubt they are confident of their moral righteousness. But somewhere deep down they know that there are things they don’t want aired, else people start having doubts about the “social justice” agenda.

[Update from YAF]

YAF-Marquette chairman and adviser reached out to Provost Myers for a meeting. Through his chief of staff, Myers denied the request because he was too busy. Myers’ office said they could direct the YAF chapter to another person on campus. At this point, Myers is unwilling to defend his actions directly to conservative students.

We can’t imagine Myers refusing to meet with representatives of any politically correct victim group. But he refuses dialogue with conservative students. That’s the Marquette version of “inclusion.”

Marquette Provost Touts “Critical Thinking,” Then Repeats Politically Correct Clichés

That Marquette’s administration is dominated by politically correct leftists is shown by the fact that Provost Dan Myers took to the Marquette Tribune to argue against conservative speaker Ben Shapiro, who appeared on campus last week.

Myers claims to be making a plea for “critical thinking,” but in fact simply demands that people not critically examine politically correct shibboleths. He focusses on the notion of “institutional racism,” a notion that Shapiro challenged.

There is a lot to address there, but let’s focus on three critical questions before we express agreement. First, has the institutionalized racism of yesteryear really disappeared? Take one instance in our own world of higher education. It is widely accepted that back in the bad ol’ days, universities had racist recruitment and admissions practices that severely disadvantaged African Americans. That disadvantage is gone in our new enlightened era, Shapiro says.

But is it? Consider this: Almost all universities have long had recruitment and admissions practices that target legacy students (the children and relatives of its alumni). If the parents or grandparents were admitted using a racist standard, then doesn’t the legacy advantage replicate that racism in the next generation? Haven’t these legacy practices built racism into the access to higher education? Maybe it’s possible that racial advantages still exist more than we think.

Does Marquette target legacy students? If so, Dan Myers, you are the Provost, why don’t you stop it?

But of course, targeting legacy students is not racial discrimination, even if it has a differential racial impact. Universities target good athletes too, and (at least in “revenue sports”) this benefits blacks. But that’s not racial discrimination either.

Then there is the huge advantage racial minorities have with affirmative action. It typically is (as Shapiro reported) in the range of 250 SAT points (Verbal plus Quantitative).

School Choir

Myers then offers an example of a bad person: a choir director who systematically excluded black students from a highly desirable program.

Myers seems not to understand that this simply isn’t “institutional racism.” There was nothing about the “institution” of the choir that discriminated against blacks, but rather one bad person who did.

And Myers admits he is now dead. So much for this as any sort of example of contemporary racism, institutional or otherwise.

Individual Agency

Myers continues:

By denying institutional racism, Shapiro can boil racial differences down to individual agency: if Black people just tried harder and made better choices, they’d do just as well as Whites. Simply finish high school, avoid early pregnancy and get a job. If you do, you’ll be OK. Seems reasonable, but let’s pause again. Does everyone (regardless of race, income, where they live and family circumstances) have the same chance to finish high school? Does every high school produce the same results (learning, skills and chances of getting into college)? Does everyone have the same chance of getting a job? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” we must rethink whether individual agency is the only thing that matters.

Myers is oblivious to the fact that he is demeaning black people. They are, he seems to be saying, so beaten down that they are unable to make good decisions. For example, today about 72% of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Poor beaten down black folks can’t make good decisions about sex, birth control and marriage, according to Myers.

But in 1955, only 20% of black babies were born out of wedlock. Why could blacks make good decisions in the 1950s, before the civil rights legislation of the 60s, but can’t now? The generation of blacks that had kids in wedlock in the 50s was the generation that marched with Martin Luther King. What has happened in the black community? It hasn’t been the rise of “institutional racism.”

That blacks are, on average, in poorer schools than whites is certainly true. But it is leftists like Myers that are the staunch defenders of poorly performing public school monopolies in central cities, and the opponents of charter schools and vouchers schools.

It is, in other words, the people who whine about “institutional racism” who are defenders of the clearest form of institutional racism that harms black kids: the inner city public school monopoly.

Unemployment

Myers goes on to talk about unemployment, and claims that if the “jobs were there” black people would take them. He points to the fact that the black unemployment rate is consistently higher than the white unemployment rate.

But is this “institutional racism?”

In the first place, because blacks tend to have less human capital than whites (because of poorer education), they are at a disadvantage.

Secondly, because blacks tend to have less human capital, they are more likely to be lured into dependency on government programs, which compete too well with actual employment. (The same thing happens with poorly educated whites, but it is less noticed.)

Here are the data on dependency on means-tested programs, by race.

Here are the data on dependency and family structure. Married couple families are quite unlikely to be dependent on government programs.

One of the many things that politically correct types won’t talk about is the fact that the black/white gap in unemployment was, in an era where “institutional racism” was undeniable, nonexistent. This chart, from the linked article, tells the story:

Hypocrisy on Critical Thinking

But the most blatant, bizarre thing about Myers and his bureaucrats is that, instead of promoting critical thinking, they have promoted one-sided political correctness.

Critical thinking involves confronting diverse, often conflicting ideas. But the programming coming out of Myers office (and offices under his control) this year has consisted of nothing but leftist indoctrination.

And Myers, uncomfortable with Shapiro challenging his one-sided programming, goes to the Tribune to try to debunk Shapiro.

Marquette Students Ignoring Climate Survey

An e-mail from Kimberly A. Newman, Executive Administrative Assistant in the Provost’s office:

The Climate Study Working Group seeks your help in getting more students to complete the Marquette University Climate Survey. As of today less than 10% of our undergraduate and graduate students have taken the time to complete the survey, falling short of what we need to get the pulse of students’ experiences and observations of life at Marquette. And with a new President and Provost, what information students provide will go far in setting priorities for the future of Marquette.

Faculty are then asked to encourage students to take the survey. Students should be assured, for example, that even if they are Freshmen and relatively new to campus their input is wanted. The survey only takes a few minutes. And further, students should be told “That by ‘climate’ survey, we are asking about what they’ve experienced and observed at Marquette and not their opinions about the weather.”

Good to get that cleared up.

Of course, if students were paying any attention, they would notice some questionable things about the enterprise. For example, Newman assures people:

All responses are anonymous. There will never be an analysis of the findings that might identify any individual who completes the survey, and safeguards have been taken to assure both confidentiality of information and anonymity of responses.

But then you have this:

Why do some demographic questions contain a large number of response options?

It is important in campus climate research for survey participants to “see” themselves in response choices to prevent “othering” an individual or an individual’s characteristics. Some researchers maintain that assigning someone to the status of “other” is a form of marginalization and should be minimized, particularly in a campus climate research that has an intended purpose of inclusiveness. Along these lines, survey respondents will see a long list of possible choices for many demographic questions. It is impossible reasonably to include every possible choice to every question, but the goal is to reduce the number of respondents who must choose “other.”

So students who are asexual or of Croatian ancestry might get alienated if they don’t see that choice in the response categories offered.

But then you have this:

How is a respondent’s confidentiality protected?

Confidentiality is vital to the success of campus climate research, particularly because sensitive and personal topics are discussed. Though the survey can’t guarantee complete anonymity because of the nature of multiple demographic questions, the consultant will take multiple precautionary measures to ensure individual confidentiality and the deidentification of data. No data already protected through regulation or policy (e.g., Social Security Number, campus identification number, medical information) is obtained through the survey….

That’s very reassuring.

But the fundamental problem with the survey is that we know perfectly well how it will turn out. The outside consultant who is doing it (one Dr. Susan Rankin) is in the business of making surveys turn out the way campus administrators want them to.

First, it will not be determined that the “campus climate” sucks for everybody. That would be bad publicity for Marquette. But it will be determined that there are “problems,” almost certainly problems for some politically correct group. It’s completely inconceivable that (say) devout Catholics will be found to face a “hostile climate” as their views are demeaned, or that males will be found to chafe under anti-male sexism from feminists.

These “problems” will need to be “addressed” by more programs, more mandatory “training,” and more “initiatives.” All of which will justify the budgets and staffing of various bureaucracies at Marquette.

The game is pretty transparent.  Except to administrators at Marquette, who probably believe their own rhetoric.

[Update]

From a comment, information on the firm that is doing the survey. Is there any doubt that the “fix is in” as to how this survey will turn out?

Marquette’s Sex Obsessed Climate Survey

Everybody at Marquette is encouraged to complete a “climate survey.”  At the beginning of the survey is a list of definitions of terms used in the survey.

Most of the definitions are sensible enough.   For example: “Disability: A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.”

But where sex is concerned, the list goes wild and defines all of the following:

• Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual.
• Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth.
• Gender Identity: A person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both or neither. The internal identity may or may not be expressed outwardly and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics.
• Gender Expression: The manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female.
• Intersex: A general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.
• Pansexual: A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.
• Queer: An umbrella term for LGBT people that advocates breaking binary thinking and seeing both sexual orientation and gender identity as potentially fluid.
• Sexual Identity: Term that refers to the sex of the people one tends to be emotionally, physically and sexually attracted to; this is inclusive of, but not limited to, lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, heterosexual people and those who identify as queer.
• Transgender: An umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity or gender expression (previously defined) is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth (previously defined)].

This seems a bit silly, and for the most part, that’s what it is.

But it does reflect the obsession of the politically correct, especially among college bureaucrats, who slice and dice the population into the most narrow groups possible. Each group, of course, is supposed to have a list of grievances, and each group needs a bureaucrat in the Provost’s office or Student Affairs to cater to their grievances.

Missive From Provost: More Gay Indoctrination For Students, More Reeducation?

An e-mail to all Marquette faculty: You can read the whole thing here, and it’s mostly boring stuff. But some parts stand out as potentially dangerous:

But first, some boring introductory things.

May 12, 2014

Dear colleagues:

As we wrap up finals week and another academic year, I wanted to share some updates related to academic life at Marquette. We are poised to begin a new chapter with President-elect Lovell, who attended the University Academic Senate meeting earlier this week. President-elect Lovell brings a new sense of energy and enthusiasm to our collective pursuit of academic excellence, and is looking forward to working closely with UAS and the academy. Many of us in the room were moved by his remarks at the meeting and his collaborative philosophy, which he said is based on the African proverb: “We can go fast alone or we can go far together.”

Shedding more light on this year’s major milestone for the university – our successful reaffirmation of accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission – the HLC report brief is now available and it documents the review team’s high regard for education at Marquette. Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Gary Meyer, vice provost for undergraduate programs and teaching; the more than 200 members of our campus community who served on committees and volunteered their time and talents during the past two years; and the more than 500 faculty, staff and students who met with the HLC site team while they were on campus; Marquette is reaccredited through 2023-24.

But then we get to the politically correct stuff:

The one area that the HLC visit team recommended for improvement is “operationalizing our commitment to diversity.” To help us make strides toward that goal, Dr. William Welburn, associate provost for diversity and inclusion, has accepted my invitation to lead the development of a campus-wide diversity plan. Components of this plan will include a campus wide climate study conducted during the 2014-15 academic year; a new, anonymous bias incident reporting and response system for students; and enhanced student education on diversity beginning in fall 2014 and administered by the Division of Student Affairs. This will be a campus-wide effort, and I’ll be calling on many of you to help lead this important initiative, which is also a key objective under the strategic theme “Formation of the Mind and the Heart” in our Beyond Boundaries strategic plan.

Of course, a “campus wide climate study” is going to be a survey to see whether students harbor any politically incorrect attitudes about any politically correct group. Gay and lesbian students will be asked to report instances where anybody let on that they think that homosexuality is not a normal condition, or that homosexual acts are sinful or immoral.

In other words, any instances where some student might let slip that they accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality. That can’t be allowed at a modern Catholic university.

And of course, student activists can be counted on to seize on even the most trivial slight or “micro aggression” to make into a grievance. That’s what the grievance mongers do.

Likewise, if a student lets on that they think that problems in the black community are not the result or white racism, of if a white student fails to “own” his or her “white privilege,” that will count as an example of a “hostile” and “non-inclusive” climate.

Admittedly, by the time they come to Marquette, most students have either been indoctrinated into the politically correct way of viewing these issues, or at least gotten they message that they better keep quiet about their views. But there might be a few hold-outs who are bold enough to speak out. Reeducation is what they will likely face.

Another inclusivity effort initiated this year, the Action Group on Campus Conversations on Gender and Sexuality, has met throughout the spring semester to discuss how to improve dialogue on campus related to issues of gender and sexuality and our Catholic, Jesuit mission. That group is organizing campus forums this fall for faculty, staff and students to share their thoughts, and I urge all of you to participate in these meaningful discussions.

Such discussions, of course, will be dominated by secular politically correct types (as all previous such discussions have been) and will doubtless reach a consensus that Marquette should adopt the entire agenda of the campus gay lobby and the campus feminists.

Finally, I want to thank you for your support this year. Serving in dual roles has been eye-opening, demanding and rewarding – sometimes all at once. I appreciate your kind words, prayers and constructive feedback, and look forward to continuing our work this summer and fall until the search for a permanent provost is completed.

Marquette blessings,

Dr. Margaret Faut Callahan
Interim Provost, Marquette University
Dean and Professor, College of Nursing

But will this be much of a change from what students already face? Not necessarily.

In the first place, students already face a good bit of indoctrination and reeducation, at Freshman Orientation, for example.

But secondly, this may turn into an example of what journalist Charles Peters famously said is a key motto of bureaucracy: “Make believe equals survival.” Thus, an accrediting agency goes through the motions of demanding more “diversity” and a more “inclusive” climate — meaning a climate more friendly to politically correct groups, but also more hostile to non-conforming students. Marquette bureaucrats then go through the motions of implementing “programs” to promote “diversity” — those programs being a great excuse for meetings and reports, and a good way to keep bureaucrats in places like the Provost’s office and Student Affairs busy.

But given the increasing intolerance that marks Marquette (as it marks most U.S. universities) one can’t dismiss the likelihood of real persecution of the few students who hold (and are bold enough to express) independent views.

Marquette Honors Program Will Not Sponsor FemSex

We have it from Andy Brodzeller, of the Office of Marketing and Communication: the Honors Program will not be sponsoring the FemSex Program this semester. This reverses an earlier decision of Honors to do exactly that.

Brodzeller explained that “the context from last semester” was “shared with the Honors Program,” by the Office of the Provost, and the Honors Program “decided” not to sponsor FemSex.

Was the “Honors Program” — meaning Director Amelia Zurcher — hiding in a cave last semester, such that the program didn’t know the context?

Or were they flatly ordered by the new Acting Provost, Margaret Faut Callahan, not to sponsor the program.

Last semester, the program was to be sponsored by the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. After an uproar in the local media, and numerous complaints, the Administration canceled the sponsorship by that Center.

Brodzeller said that the women who wanted to mount the program had been in discussions about other ways of getting it on campus, for example, via Student Affairs. Presumably this would mean that a recognized student organization might sponsor it.

[Update]

Andy Brodzeller sends the following response to this post:

I did notice you have a blog post up already, and want to clarify it was academic leadership in the college that met and shared the context from last spring with the Honors Program. – Andy

[Update]

Chris Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs says:

We have received no inquires with regard to this program.

This, of course, does not mean that it won’t happen.

[Update]

The University released the following statement about the decision:

As a Catholic, Jesuit university, Marquette supports the educational and intellectual exploration of issues regarding gender and sexuality. Early this week, a student-led Female Sexuality workshop was promoted on campus with sponsorship from an academic program. Following a discussion with the program about academic sponsorship, including the requirement of faculty presence, the program chose not to continue sponsoring the Female Sexuality workshop.

While it was evident that changes to the workshop outline were made since spring, additional changes were needed to align with Catholic teaching. We understand that our students engage in discussions on gender and sexuality, but when they happen as part of a university-sponsored event, we must address these topics in the context of our Catholic faith. We continue to be confident that we will find mutually respectful ways to engage in these important discussions in a way that is consistent with our mission and identity.

That is quite a good statement, so far as it goes.

The problem is that this program got as far as it did, first getting sponsorship from the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, and then (when that was pulled) from the Honors Program.

So when subject to extreme provocation, and when an attack on the Catholic nature of the University creates enough of an uproar, the Administration will come down on the side of Catholic teaching.

But it remains disturbing that several parts of the University (Honors and the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center are far from the only ones) are flatly opposed to Catholic teaching on sexuality, and will undermine that teaching when they can get away with it.

Marquette Warrior Blogger Threatened, Bullied by Provost, Dean and Department Chair

We just got out of a meeting with Provost John Pauly, Interim Arts & Sciences Dean Rev. Philip J. Rossi, and Political Science Department Chair Barrett L. McCormick.

This was the meeting we were summoned to by Pauly.

Pauly, in an e-mail to us, said the meeting was about “some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist.”

The bottom line: all three – Pauly, Rossi and McCormick – want us to entirely stop blogging about student organizations. Well . . . not entirely. Pauly made it clear that it is fine with him if we commend student organizations. That’s right: a former journalism instructor is demanding biased journalism!

Pauly claimed to have no problem with our blogging about faculty and administrators, but claimed our blogging about student affairs has been out of line. How much of this was a genuine concern (some of it probably was) and how much was the result of an ideological bias from liberal administrators toward a conservative blogger (there was almost certainly some of that too) we can’t say.

Two specific instances were mentioned. First, we called the listed home number of a student, talked to (apparently) her father and left a polite message asking for a return call, explaining that we were working on a blog post about The Vagina Monologues (the student was listed as the Marquette contact on vday.org). Apparently, the student’s parents freaked. All three administrators (Pauly, Rossi and McCormick) condemned the call saying that faculty should never call the parents of students. They said that the parents should have been in Fr. Wild’s office loudly complaining about it.

We replied that we were calling the listed number of the student (and had no way of knowing that she was living with her parents), and that it’s standard practice for a journalist to call a potential source at home. But Pauly, Rossi and McCormick explicitly stated that we should somehow have known that the parents would freak. We were accused of merely offering “rationalizations.”

All thee insisted that we don’t have any of the prerogatives of a journalist, since the role of a professor trumps that of a faculty blogger.

The other issue raised was the fact that we had mentioned a student’s research paper, and were accused of “criticizing” it. In reality, we did not mention the student’s name, and the point of the blog post was that “‘gender studies’ has been added to ‘women’s studies’ [which] signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer . . . .” The blog post was, quite simply, a comment on the fact that the Women’s and Gender Studies program has begun to slip “queer studies” into the university.

Pauly, Rossi and McCormick lamely replied that people could find the name of the student (we included the title of the paper, which could be googled), and that some people knew that we had supposedly “criticized the student.” In fact, nothing was said that was favorable or unfavorable about the student.

A Sandbox?

McCormick, using a metaphor that was supremely insulting to students, insisted that student activities are a “sandbox,” and that faculty should never comment on what student organizations do.

We pointed out that, in the issues they brought up, Marquette as an institution had been the issue. The Vagina Monologues will be sponsored by Social and Cultural Sciences, and the post that “criticized student research” was about the Women’s and Gender Studies Program.

We further pointed out that when students do high-profile public things, there is a legitimate news interest in what they do. In fact, it serves students well to learn that when they do highly visible controversial public things in some official role, they might get criticized.

Further, what student organizations do has consequences for the University. When Fr. Wild announced that Marquette is going to provide domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, he explicitly cited a resolution calling for that from Marquette University Student Government. If student organizations can affect Marquette University policy, it’s hard to see how they should be exempt from scrutiny.

As the meeting moved on, Rossi and McCormick became more ad hominem, Rossi accusing us of having a “blind spot,” and McCormick asserting that nobody he knew felt that our blogging about student organizations was acceptable. Since we’ve gotten multiple supporting e-mails, that says more about McCormick’s circle of friends than about what “everybody believes.”

All three implied (and sometimes stated) that we had been guilty of some violation of professional ethics, but could not explain what that would be, beyond McCormick’s “sandbox” metaphor, and the general notion that faculty should never publicly say anything negative about a student, even a student in a very public role doing something controversial.

We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names. (It typically isn’t that significant who the student is anyway.) But that wasn’t enough.

They hung tough with the position that we should never comment on student affairs, and we were threatened by both Pauly and McCormick saying that we would “be here [in a meeting like this] again” if we persisted in blogging about the activities of student groups.

Needless to say, we will continue to blog about activities on campus, and when the actions of student organizations have substantial news interest, we will report them. And we will be critical when appropriate.

Marquette Warrior Blogger Harassed by Provost John Pauly

We’ve been pretty critical of various Marquette officials on this blog, so it wouldn’t be surprising to get some pushback. We’ve particularly been critical of Provost John Pauly.

Pauly was the key figure behind the attempt to hire activist lesbian dean candidate Jodi O’Brien. But even worse is the fact that Pauly initiated a policy of putting more classes at 8:00 a.m. This was vastly unpopular with both students and faculty, but Pauly claimed that was necessary to better utilize Marquette’s physical plant, and claimed that the choice was between offering more 8:00 a.m. classes and building new buildings.

We showed that this claim was bogus. A little research turned up the fact that there were plenty of classrooms available at 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., and this without any pressure to move classes to 8:00 a.m.

When our blog post circulated around the campus, Pauly simply doubled down on his plan, producing a PowerPoint presentation that supposedly showed our data were wrong, and surreptitiously showed it to deans and department chairs.

We got wind of this, and did a new analysis, taking into account all the claims that Pauly had made about our initial analysis, and continued to find many available classrooms at more desirable times. Eventually, Pauly had to cave, and in what must have been a humiliating retreat, rescinded the 8:00 a.m. mandate.

Pushback From Pauly

Thus we were not entirely surprised when we got the following e-mail from Pauly.

Hi, John,

I have asked my assistant, Kim Newman, to set up a meeting between you, me, Barry McCormick, and Phil Rossi. My concern is that the recent case of Anahi Sanchez illustrates some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist. My hope is that our conversation might clarify some of those role expectations going forward. A half hour should do the trick.

Best wishes!
John Pauly
Provost

The Pretext

So just what was the deal with Anahi Sanchez?

Back in February, we learned that “The Vagina Monologues” is to be performed on campus. A source tipped us off that Marquette performances were listed on the vday.com website. We checked that out, and found that feminist activist Anahí Sánchez was listed as the Marquette contact.

A link on the vday.org website led to her e-mail. So we sent her an e-mail, asking for confirmation, and especially under what auspices the play would be performed. This was an issue in 2007, when Student Affairs refused to let a student group sponsor the play (which is wildly at odds with Catholic teaching about sexuality). But academic units are free to mount whatever programs then want, and thus the Honors Program was the sponsor.

Here is our e-mail:

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 9:24 AM

To: Sanchez, Anahi

According to the Vagina Monologues website, there are going to be performances on campus, and you are the contact.

Can you confirm that this is the case?

Under what auspices will the performance be staged (a student organization, Honors Program, etc.)?

Any information you can give me will be appreciated. If you want to call me at 288-3425, I’d be happy to talk.

John McAdams

Department of Political Science
Marquette Warrior Blog

When we hadn’t heard from her in a few hours, we found her home phone number at Peoplefinders.com, and called it. A fellow, sounding to be middle-aged (her father, perhaps) answered and we left a message asking her to call us. We shortly got an e-mail from her:

The Vagina Monologues will be performed on campus through the women of Empowerment.

If you would like to know more feel free to ask me through email or if you feel the need to call me please do so on my cell phone (414) [redacted]. I know you called my home earlier today. I don’t recall putting that information up on the website but if I did that is not correct, so I apologize for that.

Anahí Sánchez

National M.E.Ch.A. Co-chair

Marquette University ‘11

We, of course, were happy with this response, since it clearly implied that she was willing to share information. But we had no information yet, and so put up a post with the information we had.

After learning that Social and Cultural Sciences would sponsor the event, we learned that it had been removed from the vday.com website. So we wrote her again on February 28.

Hi, Anahi,

Could you tell me what the current deal with The Vagina Monologues is? . . . The Marquette performance is not now listed on the Vday website. I’m just trying to do an update on this, and wondering what the deal is.

John McAdams

We got no response. We tried calling her cell phone three (if memory serves) times, but it rang off the hook. So we gave up.

On March 9, we finally got around to putting up another blog post on the event, with the time and date having been gotten from Special Events. But Sánchez appears to have somehow felt aggrieved, since she complained to university officials (and eventually to Pauly), not that she has been harassed, but that she did not know whether we were trying to contact her in our role as a faculty member or our role as a blogger!

Given the innocuous nature of the information we were asking for, a stray person off the street had the right to e-mail her (again her e-mail was listed on the vday.org website). This, it seems, was a sufficient pretext for Pauly to summon us, Political Science Chair Barry McCormick and Interim Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi to his office. The meeting is set up for this Friday, and we will report on it here.

Pauly Is Badly Compromised in Dealing With This

We sent Pauly this e-mail on Monday (2/28) explaining the problem he has:

John,

The problem is that you are badly compromised in dealing with this issue, since I’ve been quite critical of you on my blog. So when this breaks it will look for all the world like you are seizing on some trivial issue as a form of “payback” for the tough time I’ve given you.

That, at least, is the appearance, and appearances matter.

You might also ask yourself whether this would look to anybody like any kind of substantial issue. What you have is one . . . young lady who complains that she didn’t know whether I was making an inquiry as a professor or a blogger. But that didn’t matter. I had a right to ask in either role. Indeed, since she was listed at the Marquette contact for the Vagina Monologues on the vday.com website, a stray person off the street had every right to contact her and ask innocuous questions about the forthcoming performance.

So that’s going to look like a pretext, rather than a problem of any sort.

Clearly you should recuse yourself from this “issue.” If you really think it is an issue, kick it down to Barry and Phil.

You should also call one or two of your former colleagues in journalism, and ask them whether they see any issue here.

Given that you could have simply called me, and we could have talked about this, your e-mails, involving Barry and Phil looks for all the world like harassment.

And if you insist on summoning me over to talk to you three, I can only interpret that as further harassment.

You could just let this drop, or you could just call me, and I’ll be happy to listen to any concerns you have.

Please think about this. Just trying to give some friendly advice.

John

Pauly hung tough, and insisted on a meeting with us, McCormick and Rossi. Remember, on the 8:00 a.m. class issue, Pauly hung tough on an untenable position.

But of course, we don’t know what his position is here. At one point in the e-mail exchange, he implied that our signing the initial e-mail “Department of Political Science/Marquette Warrior Blog” was the issue. Is it all this trivial?

Clearly, blogging is an academic activity, protected by the canons of academic freedom. Many academics have blogs, including those in the Marquette Law School, Mark Johnson in Theology, Matt Wion in Philosophy, and Steve Byers in Journalism. National blogs run by academics include Althouse, and The Volokh Conspiracy.

Virtually all academics have a legitimate interest in public affairs, including the internal politics of the institutions where they work. And blogging is a form of publication, although admittedly more like a newspaper op-ed that an article in a scholarly journal. But academics have a right to academic freedom in writing op-eds and articles for the popular press, as Marquette’s heretical theologian Dan Maguire demonstrates with great frequency.

But university bureaucrats don’t like being criticized, and especially don’t like being criticized by those supposedly “below” them in the hierarchy. We’ll find out, soon enough, what Pauly’s position is.

Provost Pauly Caves, Rescinds 8:00 a.m. Class Mandate

Below is an e-mail, sent to various University offices by Anne Deahl, a staffer in the office of Provost John Pauly.

It’s inconceivable that she had the authority to do this by herself, so Pauly is obviously hiding behind one of his employees.

The Backstory

We blogged on this issue back in February. Provost John Pauly required that all departments increase the number of classes offered at 8:00 a.m. We showed that plenty of empty rooms were available at 9:00 a.m. (or 9:30 a.m. Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly and the Registrar (Georgia McRae) surreptitiously briefed various administrators on the issue, disputing our analysis. Of course, neither Pauly nor McRae bothered to share their claims with us — obviously knowing that they could not withstand the scrutiny we would give them.

We found out about this, and did a new analysis dealing with all the issues they raised. We found empty classrooms to be plentiful at 9:00 a.m. (9:30 a.m on Tuesday-Thursday) and at 1:00 p.m. (12:30 p.m. on Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly promised to raise the issue with McRae, and to respond to our new analysis, but failed to do so.

The E-Mail

Colleagues,

This is a follow-up to my previous email and subsequent discussion at CAPS regarding the revision of the Course Scheduling policy. I have discussed this critical issue at length with the registrar, vice provosts and the provost. We have heard your comments and taken into consideration all of the needs expressed, as well as each college’s unique scheduling issues.

Upon further review, given your feedback, we have determined that the proposal many of you recently requested to maintain the 9% maximum in each time block and eliminate the 7% requirement at 8am is a viable solution.

Some background here may prove helpful. Several years ago when this 9% metric was our guideline, we did not strictly enforce this as a policy, nor did we require courses to be offered in approved time blocks. As classroom capacity became a concern two years ago, the guidelines became policy. There had also been a provost initiative at the time to more evenly spread courses throughout the day and the week to benefit students. Given these factors, we implemented a scheduling policy that included required 8am courses, and was conservative, to ensure adequate classroom space to meet our current and potential future needs for growth.

Having considered your input over the past year, we realize that while teaching more 8am sections does help distribute courses more evenly throughout the week, this may not outweigh the challenges it presents to both faculty and students. Your willingness to work within the 9%, and to work together in schedule-building, both within and across colleges has allowed for greater efficiency in scheduling as well. Eliminating an 8am teaching requirement will, however, mean some flexibility on your part and we would ask your continued collaboration and the following:

1. There is a limited number of particular types of classrooms available in each time block; therefore, staff in the Office of the Registrar may come to you at times and ask that a course be moved into another time block, or, if this is not an option, then it could mean that the class will be assigned into a classroom that does not meet 100% of the pedagogical needs of the instructor. We would ask your forbearance and accommodation during these times.

2. When there are ADA issues that must be addressed, we may need to move more than just that one class, as has been our practice in the last year, to accommodate those needs. As more of our classrooms become accessible, we expect this issue to diminish over time.

3. Your understanding that these recommendations continue to be predicated on several assumptions:

a. The total number of course sections will remain relatively consistent (i.e., no college/school designs major structural course changes that would reduce class size, but double the number of sections needed, etc.)

b. We will retain the current inventory of General Pool Classrooms (121), or its equivalent.

c. Some colleges/schools will continue to teach some courses at the 8:00am hour by choice, as they did prior to the implementation of the 8:00am requirement.

d. Your continued cooperation to work across colleges/departments to maximize the use of each time block.

With this change and your help, the Office of the Registrar will make every effort to keep the commitments made earlier:

1. Priority in scheduling a classroom is given to faculty who have a specific piece of equipment/software installed in a classroom that is needed for a particular class.

2. Priority in scheduling classrooms in the building in which a college/school/department resides is given to the faculty in those colleges/schools/departments.

3. Priority in scheduling a classroom within the same building is given to faculty who teach back-to-back classes.

4. Priority in scheduling a classroom that meets the enrollment and pedagogical needs of the class.

5. The University’s commitment to follow the ADA regulations and move those classes with students/faculty with ADA issues to an appropriate classroom.

Knowing many of you are beginning work on your fall 2011 schedules, we will implement this policy now and you may follow it for fall 2011 schedule building. It is our hope that this change will be amenable to you and meet as many of your needs as we can reasonably meet. Please share with me any comments or questions you might have.

Thank you.

Anne Deahl

Associate Vice Provost for Academic Support Programs and Retention
Marquette University
Zilber Hall 454 C
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881

It’s easy to understand why campus scuttlebutt holds that Pauly will occupy the Provost’s office for only a “decent interval” before being given the axe. The most important piece of baggage he has is his central role in the attempt to hire a lesbian dean candidate who was outspoken in her opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality.

The current fiasco goes beyond showing bad judgment in pushing a policy that was both unneeded and anathema to the vast majority of students and faculty. Pauly defended the policy with bogus data, and when challenged stonewalled for six months.

Our initial suspicion was that Pauly was simply bamboozled by Registrar Georgia McRae, and would relent in the face of good information. But instead, we found that Pauly was responsible, and was rigidly attached to the policy.

Provost John Pauly Stonewalls On Use of Bogus Data to Support 8:00 a.m. Class Mandate

Back in February, we learned that Provost John Pauly and Registrar Georgia McRae were demanding that more classes be offered at 8:00 a.m.

Since neither students nor faculty like 8:00 a.m. classes, this was not good news.

But, we wondered, was there any need to demand more 8:00 a.m. classes, or was this the sort of bureaucratic silliness that is very common at Marquette.

With a little research, we found that there were plenty of empty classrooms at 9:00 a.m. So why force anybody to take an 8:00 a.m. class when 9:00 a.m classrooms (and presumably rooms at other times) were readily available?

Our blog post got some serious attention from the Provost Pauly, who had staffer Anne Deahl research the issue. Georgia McRae insisted that all the 25 classrooms was had identified in preliminary data we had given to the Arts & Sciences Dean were really in use.

(In reality, we had found 44 free classrooms at MWF 9:00 a.m., and 34 free classrooms at TTh 9:30.)

This claim was not shared with us, but was surreptitiously shared with administrators (including department chairs) around the University, complete with an elaborate PowerPoint presentation. In effect, they were claiming that “McAdams is wrong,” without ever giving us a chance to respond.

A Second Cut at the Data

Of course, we found out about this, and asked Pauly for the data that supposedly refuted our data.

He gave us a response, which we posted, claiming that (1.) some of the rooms we had counted as “open” were labs, (2.) some had fixed seats, (3.) some are occupied only one day a week due to discussion sections, (4.) some are scheduled by departments, and not by the Registrar, and (5.) two lack acceptable video equipment.

Knowing this analysis was bogus, we did a new one, that took into account the issues Pauly raised.

We found that Pauly’s claims were simply baseless.

Our data are found in a spreadsheet here.

We identified available classrooms as follows:

• MWF 9:00 a.m. – 39
• MWF 1:00 p.m. - 48
• TTh 9:30 a.m. - 19
• TTh 12:30 p.m. - 21

We did not survey literally every building where a class might be held, but only the ones with the largest number of classrooms. Thus the actual number of available classrooms is almost certainly a bit larger.

And quite obviously, there are lots of classrooms available at times we did not survey.

With only two partial exceptions, the classrooms we listed as “available” are scheduled by the Registrar, and not by any department. Only one is a “lab,” and it is configured so it could easily be used as a classroom if not in use as a lab (Cudahy 145). Further, all except three have video equipment. A large number have movable seats.

Unfortunately, our post on this was quickly overshadowed by the brouhaha over the attempt to hire lesbian Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien.

Asking Pauly For an Explanation

We wrote Pauly for an explanation of his assertion that Marquette was short on classrooms, and he put us off – at first reasonably. He wrote us on 4 May 2010, for example, explaining that Georgia McRae was tied up and that it would be “next week” before anything would be available.

We heard nothing for several weeks.

Then, in response to another prod from us, he wrote on 28 August saying:

Georgia tells me that she has, in fact, completed her classroom study and plans to share it with Anne Deahl and me next week. As soon as we look at the data, we’ll be able to answer your question.

We have still heard nothing.

It’s Been Pauly and Not McRae All Along

Pauly, while failing to provide any data showing a shortage of classrooms, did explain why he thinks that a mandate for 8:00 a.m. classes is necessary. In a 28 August e-mail he asserted:

My only position on all this has been clear from the beginning. The course schedule was getting bunched up at certain times of day in ways that were making it harder for the registrar to accommodate all courses and for students to design the schedules they needed. This has happened at many, many universities. Rather than spend money on just adding general classrooms every year or two, we needed to work harder to live with the classroom pool we currently have and spend new money on classrooms that better fit the new pedagogies faculty want to use.

I asked Georgia to reexamine this issue this summer because I wanted to know whether we are meeting those goals in a reasonable way. If faculty and deans agree to other ways to meet the goal that students might find acceptable—e.g., more evening classes and fewer 8 a.m. classes—then I am happy to consider the alternatives.

Pauly, in fact, is pretending that his initial claims of a classroom shortage are correct, while flatly refusing to deal with the actual data.

But notice the threat: we might consider letting faculty and students off the hook for 8:00 a.m. classes if they will accept night classes instead.

Pauly’s claim that “we needed to work harder to live with the classroom pool we currently have” is close to bizarre. In fact, we have been living with the classroom pool we currently have quite nicely, with several dozen empty rooms at 9:00 a.m. (MWF) and 9:30 a.m. (TTh) and 1:00 p.m. (MWF) and 12:30 p.m. (TTh).

Pauly fired off another quick e-mail to us on 28 August, saying:

One quick point. Our freshman classes have increased the last few years. We have been aiming for about 1950 freshmen the last three years. Fall 2010 will likely end up between 1940 and 1950.

In spite of the claim that “our freshman classes have increased the last few years,” the enrollment at Marquette has increased only 2.6 percent between 2006 and 2010. And most of this increase happened before we found dozens of empty classrooms last spring.

In fact, Freshman enrollment actually declined a bit between 2008 and 2010.

It’s a Bureaucratic Thing

It’s obvious why Pauly and Georgia McRae will not deal with the issue of the empty classrooms.

Pauly cooked up the kind of “initiative” that bureaucrats love. It sounds so nice to say we are rationalizing things. That we are “fully utilizing our resources.”

Bureaucrats enamored with some pet initiative are unlikely to ask hard questions about whether the initiative is really needed.

Regardless of whether the issue is “diversity” or a soft drink monopoly or “outcomes assessment,” bureaucrats can convince themselves that it’s a great idea. And if they are isolated from faculty and students (which most bureaucrats at Marquette are) they can get away with being entirely heedless of the effect their initiatives have.

Most of the time, they face only minor grumbling. Most of the time, asymmetries of information mean that people will accept their claims — even if not happily.

But what happens if somebody (say, a faculty blogger) takes up the issue? What happens if just a bit of research shows the claims of a “need” for the initiative to be bogus.

The bureaucrat is likely to hunker down, stonewall, and hope the issue will go away.

The fact that Pauly finds himself in that position does not speak well for him.

University Officials Produce Bogus Data to Support Diktat on 8:00 a.m. Classes

The recent demand from the Registrar that more classes be offered at 8:00 a.m. was received by faculty with a decided lack of enthusiasm. It was obvious to all of us that there is no shortage of classrooms during the more desirable hours. To know this, one only needs to do what faculty regularly do (but university bureaucrats don’t) and walk down the halls of any academic building.

To be a little more systematic, we analyzed the availability of classrooms in seven buildings (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Lalumiere, Engineering, Business and Math/Computer Science) during the 9:00 a.m hour on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the 9:30 a.m. time slot on Tuesday and Thursday.

This is for the current (Spring) semester.

(Why not more buildings and more class times? We didn’t want to squander scarce research assistant time proving the obvious.)

We found 44 free classrooms at MWF 9:00 a.m., and 34 free classrooms at TTh 9:30.

Our post got a fair amount of attention among university officials, and the Registrar produced an elaborate PowerPoint presentation rebutting out post, which was shown to deans and department chairs.

The presentation was not shown to us, rather we learned out it third hand. We accosted Provost John Pauly about it, and he kindly sent us an e-mail explaining the response he and the Registrar made. We’ll quote it entire.

Below is an excerpt of the memo my office sent to the deans. Feel free to use as you like.

We examined the usage data for 41 classrooms. Professor McAdams had specified 25 classrooms where he thought there might be a problem; for our assessment we also added an additional 16 in Cudahy, to make sure we understood the full scale of the issue.

Here is the breakdown of what we found:

• Nine of the 41 classrooms are restricted or are laboratories, and thus not part of the common pool available for scheduling by the registrar.
• Twelve of the 41 are in fact being used, having a course scheduled or a discussion/quiz section at least one day per week.
• Of the remaining 20 classrooms, eleven (four of the 11 on MWF and 11 of the 11 on TTH at the times cited), are unused due to their characteristics. Three have capacity under 20 (most classrooms of that sort are typically used for graduate courses later in the day); five are large (70+) but have fixed layout and furniture that most faculty now find unacceptable, except for large lectures. One is large (60+) but even with its movable desks is not a classroom preferred by most faculty for average size classes. One room is not smart and one is very limited smart, and neither has proved very acceptable to most faculty.

Of the 41 classrooms cited, we found nine not being fully used in the timeslots mentioned. But only five of these are available in those timeslots on TTH, and seven on MWF. Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

As everyone knows, classroom scheduling is not an exact science, and each choice we make involves a trade-off between competing priorities. Our overarching goals are to meet faculty’s pedagogical needs, maximize use of available classrooms, and offer courses evenly enough throughout the day so that students can more effectively schedule required courses. To the extent possible, we have also tried to allow a small number of classrooms to remain “restricted” to accommodate use by the colleges or departments.

The classroom scheduling system uses the following purposeful priorities to guide classroom assignments:

• Allow faculty to express preferences with regard to the type of classroom they need, given their chosen teaching pedagogy. This involves not only smart classroom requests, but needs for certain room formats, such as movable desks/tables and chairs, etc.
  
• Give college faculty some priority in the assignment of classrooms in their building (e.g., business courses get scheduled first in all of the classrooms in their building, then other courses are filled-in for the remaining times).
  
• Allow for any faculty who teach back-to-back courses to be scheduled in the same building.
  
• Ensure some classrooms are reserved each term for changes that need to be made with regard to ADA compliance and last-minute changes to class size.
  
• Accommodate course formats that, by their nature, result in a vacant classroom one or more days a week, including:
  
  
  
  • Discussion or quiz sections that are not coordinated with those of other departments may use a room only one day a week, resulting in an empty room the other day(s) of the week.
    
  • Four-credit language courses that meet four days a week, leaving a room vacant the fifth day.
    
  • Large lecture courses that have been modified so that they meet two days per week rather than three (with an associated lab), leaving the classroom vacant the third day of the week.

This is a slightly more elaborated version of the information Georgia McRae provided you. Hope this helps you understand the parameters that affect how the registrar schedules classrooms. The registrar and provost’s office are continuing to work with deans to make the classroom scheduling grid manageable for faculty.

Best wishes!

John Pauly, Provost

We frankly did not believe these assertions, and asked Provost Pauly and Registrar McRae for the raw data that underlay the claims above, but our request was ignored.

A New Analysis

Faced with the issues raised by the McRae/Pauly analysis, we did our own new analysis. This time, we use the classroom scheduling data in Checkmarq to confirm that classrooms we classify as “available” were in fact available for all three (MWF) or two (TTh) days of the week. We also added the 1:00 p.m. MWF hour, and the 12:30 TTh timeslot.

We still limit our analysis to the seven buildings listed above.

Our data are found in a spreadsheet here.

We identified available classrooms as follows:

• MWF 9:00 a.m. – 39
• MWF 1:00 p.m. - 48
• TTh 9:30 a.m. - 19
• TTh 12:30 p.m. - 21

With only two partial exceptions, the classrooms we listed as “available” are scheduled by the Registrar, and not by any department. Only one is a “lab,” and it is configured so it could easily be used as a classroom if not in use as a lab (Cudahy 145). Further, all except three have video equipment. A large number have movable seats.

And note that this is for this Spring semester. The diktat on 8:00 a.m. classes will create even more empty classrooms at 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and presumably other times too.

Now let’s review the statements we got from Provost Pauly.

We examined the usage data for 41 classrooms. Professor McAdams had specified 25 classrooms where he thought there might be a problem; for our assessment we also added an additional 16 in Cudahy, to make sure we understood the full scale of the issue.

Actually, we identified a total of 78 classrooms that appeared to be available at the 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m hours. Apparently the number 41 came from partial data we supplied to the Dean of Arts and Sciences under time pressure before all the data were available.

Of the 41 classrooms cited, we found nine not being fully used in the timeslots mentioned. But only five of these are available in those timeslots on TTH, and seven on MWF. Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

This is a rather bizarre assertion. Since Pauly has failed to identify the 32 classrooms that he thinks are being “fully utilized” it’s difficult to know what he means by this, but there are vastly more than nine classrooms available in the timeslots we analyzed.

Nine of the 41 classrooms are restricted or are laboratories, and thus not part of the common pool available for scheduling by the registrar.

Again, the failure to identify which classrooms these are makes it hard to know what he’s talking about, but none of the classrooms in our new analysis is a lab (again, with one partial exception). All (with two minor exceptions) are assigned by the Registrar.

But note the irrelevance of the “scheduled by the Registrar” claim. If a particular classroom is scheduled by a particular department, that department should have the option of using it for a class that might otherwise meet at 8:00 a.m. An empty classroom is an empty classroom. Also, there will be no increase in classrooms controlled by departments this fall. So why won’t what has worked this spring work in the fall too?

Allow faculty to express preferences with regard to the type of classroom they need, given their chosen teaching pedagogy. This involves not only smart classroom requests, but needs for certain room formats, such as movable desks/tables and chairs, etc.

Likewise:

Give college faculty some priority in the assignment of classrooms in their building (e.g., business courses get scheduled first in all of the classrooms in their building, then other courses are filled-in for the remaining times).

It’s interesting that the Registrar is willing to accommodate faculty desires for movable chairs, or to teach in their own building but not desires to avoid 8:00 a.m. classes.

Perhaps faculty who want movable chairs or especially want to teach in their own buildings should be given the option of having what they want during an 8:00 a.m class, or a bit less than they want some other time. But in fact, there is no shortage of rooms in any of the buildings in our survey, and no shortage of rooms with movable chairs.

Twelve of the 41 are in fact being used, having a course scheduled or a discussion/quiz section at least one day per week.

In the first place, this is untrue – or at least irrelevant since our new analysis shows numerous classrooms available all week.

But note the bizarre logic here. A discussion or quiz section is allowed to be scheduled one day a week, pushing a class that meets three (or two) times a week to 8:00 a.m.! Why not put the discussion/quiz section at 8:00 a.m.? In reality, of course, there are plenty of classrooms available at later hours.

Finally, we have this:

Our overarching goals are to meet faculty’s pedagogical needs, maximize use of available classrooms, and offer courses evenly enough throughout the day so that students can more effectively schedule required courses.

The implication here is that the Registrar needs to protect the students from academic departments, which will (left to their own devices) oppress students by preventing them from taking classes at 8:00 a.m.

But departments have every incentive to accommodate student needs. Students don’t like 8:00 a.m. classes, as enrollments in these classes show. Departments have an incentive to increase their enrollments by offering classes when students want to take them, and by spreading classes throughout the day so that (for example) majors have no difficulty taking the classes they need to complete the major.

Bogus Data

What we have here is bogus data to support a policy that university officials somehow want, but which students and faculty don’t want.

Why would they do this?

Why are they so attached to a policy that faculty dislike, students dislike, and the data don’t support?

What we appear to have here, as with so much that happens at Marquette, is another of the sort of bureaucratic pathologies that we political scientists tell our classes about. The most revealing sentence in Pauly’s e-mail is the following:

Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

Note the reference to “the scheduling grid.” The Registrar’s software is based on a “grid,” and she and Pauly are attached to “the grid” regardless of what faculty and students think the schedule should look like.

This is known as “goal displacement:” Bureaucrats lose sight of their real goal, and become attached to the procedure they are using to (supposedly) promote the goal. When the procedure comes to conflict with the goal, the bureaucrats cling to the procedure and lose sight of the goal.

This is particularly disappointing in the case of Pauly, who has gotten high marks from the faculty. We have toyed with the idea that he has “gone native” in an administration which is dominated by the “business side” of the university to the detriment of the “academic side.”

In fact, we think this is mostly the result of inattention on his part. A Provost, who certainly has a lot of other things to worry about, has depended on the work of his staff which in turn has been based on information gotten from the Registrar. On this particular issue, he needs to be more assertive.

Most Recent Developments

We sent a copy of an earlier version of this data to both Registrar McRae and Provost Pauly this past Thursday, asking them to identify any mistakes they think should be corrected. We reached Provost Pauly this morning, and he forwarded our data to Registrar Georgia McRae, who promised to get around to reviewing it next week.

We will continue to report on this issue.

Developing . . . .

Why Was Provost Madeline Wake Fired?

One thing we have to admit right up front: we don’t actually know.

We do know perfectly well about a long list of mistakes and blunders Wake made, and about the view among faculty that she simply wasn’t “up to” the task of running the academic side of a major university. But what actually provoked Fr. Wild (with perhaps some prodding from trustees and donors) to actually let her go? We can’t be sure, but we know the sources of discontent were multiple and deep.

A Nursing Dean as Provost

Particularly among the Arts & Science faculty, it’s believed that Wake suffers from the lack of a background in the humanities, social sciences or natural sciences.

If this sounds like an irrational prejudice, the reality is that Wake has given a lot of evidence that she doesn’t “get it” where a liberal education (the sort that any Jesuit university aims to provide) is concerned.

Consider, for example, a comment she made at a March 7, 2003 meeting of the Core Curriculum Review Committee. In the words of the person writing the minutes:

Provost Wake stated that as faculty member of the core curriculum committee in 1993, she experienced tension between Liberal Arts and Professional Education. With Phil & Theo, baccalaureate graduates aren’t prepared to continue doing work in those areas, but in clinic lab science and business graduates have a profession upon graduating.

The honing of professional knowledge, skills and dispositions is mandatory.

These minutes were circulated by faculty members who noticed this passage, and took severe exception. You don’t dis philosophy and theology in a Jesuit university!

Other faculty point to the lack of people with mainstream academic credentials on Wake’s staff, and even her own somewhat suspect “Ph.D. with a major in urban education and a minor in nursing” from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Worse, Wake seems to be an enthusiastic supporter of something called “outcomes assessment.” The notion behind “outcomes assessment” is that a university has to be able to prove that its students learn something. The fact that they write papers and exams that get passing grades is not considered enough proof. After all, faculty already grade students, so there is no bureaucratic busy-work involved in that. So you have to invent a procedure that does keep some bureaucrats busy.

The policy has been vastly unpopular with the faculty, with our own Op-Ed in the Tribune in the fall of 2002, and our colleague Lowell Barrington’s essay in Academe being only the tip of the iceberg.

Supposedly, this policy has been forced on Marquette by the North Central Association, which could theoretically withhold accreditation if the University fails to jump through its hoops. (In reality, any institution of Marquette’s standing that faced down the bureaucrats would probably win.)

The problem is that Wake seemed to like and enthusiastically support the idea.

Perhaps this was a product of her nursing background. After all, you can in fact make a list of things that a well-trained RN should be able to do, and you can meaningfully test to see whether they can do those things.

In the liberal arts, quite obviously, it doesn’t work out nearly so neatly.

Worse than that, the initial attempt at assessment was blundered. Not only was it a bad idea to begin with, the North Central Association came in and said, in effect, “you’ve been doing it all wrong!”

Not “The Decider”

One chronic problem is Wake’s inability to make decisions. Issues seem to sit on her desk for weeks or months.

One example affects the Political Science department right now. We last year got approval to hire a faculty member specializing in national security. As one of our colleagues pointed out, America is at war right now, and we have a lot of ROTC students champing at the bit to take a political science course in the subject.

We interviewed job candidates last year, and failed to find one with whom we were sufficiently impressed. We decided not to hire anybody, but rather to come back and try again this year.

But we have yet to get approval to hire for that position this year. Like a lot of things, the issue sits on Wake’s desk. And it’s getting late. To recruit effectively, we need to get a notice of the job opening to the American Political Science Association (which will make it known to literally everybody in the country seeking a job in the field).

The perverse incentives this sort of behavior creates are obvious. Rather than holding out for somebody “really good,” departments would be well-advised to hire whoever is available. If you fail to hire you may lose the position.

Other Issues

A variety of other issues, some of them small considered in isolation, but which in the aggregate produced an image of fecklessness may have played a part. There was, for example, a mistake last year in the amount of financial aid offered to entering freshmen – a million dollars more than had been budgeted was offered. The incident resulted in Financial Aid Director Daniel Goyette leaving the university, but the general view is that Wake was at least somewhat at fault.

Wake cancelled the South Africa program, and then, in response to the uproar the decision created, ordered it reinstated.

And this happened after Marquette announced the success of a 300+ million dollar fundraising effort. What, after all, is the purpose of raising all that money if it doesn’t allow you to maintain popular and worthwhile programs?

Wake (and her staff) have a history of sending out ill-advised e-mails to faculty. One, in 2004, advised faculty to schedule a quiz or assignment on St. Patrick’s day to discourage student drinking. Further, faculty were told to promote the cause by “Not making jokes about drinking on St. Patrick’s Day.”

In January 2003, a memo went out signed by both Wake and Senior Vice President Greg Kliebhan telling faculty not to give any information about “a myriad of topics, e.g., your job, your co-workers, financial or other data, University policy” without checking with University administrators.

The policy had to be “clarified” within 24 hours of being issued.

Wake and the “Business Side” of the University

Most of this probably has only a tangential connection with Wake’s firing, although the cumulative effect of a constant series of blunders and a continual image of ineptness could have been important.

But the key factor in Wake’s firing may have been the discontent of people on the “business side” of the University, and particularly Greg Kliebhan, the fellow who heads that part of the Marquette bureaucracy.

Now, a key point: it is the job of the Provost to do battle with people on the business side of the University administration. Since the culture of the institution was changed by late and unlamented President Albert J. DiUlio, the business side of the University has been highly bureaucratic, rigid and quite frequently arrogant toward the “academic side.”

But if it is the Provost’s job to do battle with the business side bureaucrats, it is also the Provost’s job to win those battles. Wake never fought those battles particularly well, but it appears she has lost out anyway.

Coming to a Climax

As recently as a few weeks ago, Marquette President Fr. Robert Wild appeared to firmly support Wake. But discontent bubbled up, reaching top university officials, donors and trustees. Apparently, Wild finally decided he had to move.

The fact that the University is embarking on a new major fundraising effort may have contributed. Wake simply did not seem effective as the public face of Marquette – as somebody who could sell a vision to people who might write very large checks.

So the ax fell.

A Final Irony

What is so unfortunate about all this is that Madeline Wake is a very nice person, and she cares about Marquette. She has served the University for 30 years. In the long historical perspective, her 25 years in the Nursing School count for a lot more than her five unfortunate years as Provost.

We blame Wild, who promoted her to Provost, more than we blame Wake.

And we wish her well.