Will the Administration Retaliate for Criticism: A Case for Appropriate Paranoia

One question that came up in relation to the list-serve idea was whether the administration would retaliate against anybody who criticized the audit or criticized the administration's carrying out of the audit?

To be a little bit more precise, would Provost Hughes or President Andrews retaliate against the programs of any faculty member who criticized them on a faculty list-serve or blog?

My opinion is that the jury's still out. Consequently, the situation therefore calls for "moderate paranoia."

I haven't had enough contact with either Andrews or Hughes to have much of a read on their personalities. From what I've seen and heard, they both seem a little on the thin-skinned and prickly side. But not unreasonably so. After all, senior administrators are the targets of a lot of complaints from all kinds of parties and a fair percentage of those complaints have little or no foundation in reality. Likewise, they don't seem nearly as thin-skinned as former President Eaglin.

I'm interested in what other people think but I don't see a basis for expecting retaliation from what I've seen in the upper administration and therefore no reason for "total paranoia."

At the same time, I don't see any reason to dismiss the possibility of retaliation either. To dismiss that possibility, I would have to see Andrews and Hughes as having strong reputations for integrity, objectivity, and fair-mindedness.

Frankly, I don't see any basis for that either.

My current interim chair refers to Hughes as a "straight-shooter," but I don't see where Hughes has made a lot of decisions under pressure (perhaps others have). She's only been on campus for nine months. Likewise, the "Andrews Era" hasn't been characterized by very many big events that would test the upper administration's honesty and integrity. As a result, I couldn't say that I expect Andrews or Hughes to act with a lot of integrity when the heat gets "white hot" (as politicians say).

But the academic audit/restructuring is going to change that. The academic audit/restructuring will give everybody a chance to see whether the upper administration has a great deal of integrity, moderate integrity, or the normal lack of integrity. There's going to be a great deal of build-up and expectation, the decisions are all going to be public, there's potential for big decisions, and there's a fair number of well-known "sacred cows" that people on the faculty think will be given special treatment despite protestations to the contrary.

How the upper administration handles the audit/restructuring will go a long way to determining whether they have reputations for integrity or not.

Until then, it will be hard to know what to think about the fairness of the process, whether to view the people making the decisions as having any wisdom or competence, or forecast the extent to which the audit/restructuring is going to make Morehead State a better university.

In fact, I have a hard time being certain about anything.

Given the high level of uncertainty, I think "moderate" and "appropriate" paranoia" is the most reasonable attitude to adapt. And I rate myself as "appropriately paranoid."

Introduction To This Forum

I have created this blog because there was some interest in setting up a forum for MSU faculty to discuss the academic audit and what might perhaps be an upcoming restructuring of the academic units at Morehead State University.

I prefer that this blog be limited to MSU faculty members, but this is a public forum. If there is heavy faculty participation in the "MSU Audit and Restructuring Forum," there is some chance that students, reporters for the student newspaper, and administrators will monitor blog posts and comments. Those who comment on the blog can use their real names (that's what I'll be doing), nicknames (one of my favorites is "Keep a Clear Eye), or just click "Anonymous." On a "blogger" blog like this one, it's actually more convenient to sign in as "Anonymous."

I am the administrator for the "MSU Audit and Restructuring Forum" blog. Currently, I am also the only "contributor." Consequently, I am the only person who has the ability to enter a top post. Those who would like their contributions displayed as top posts have several possibilities at their disposal. They can be included in the list of "contributors" who can top post by letting me know of their preference for inclusion. If the MSU Audit and Restructuring Forum" blog does get off the ground, I would hope that we would have a large number of contributors. Faculty members who wish their comments to be top posted can also express their preference to me in their comment, or e-mail me at r.caric@morehead-st.edu or riccaric@hotmail.com.

As blog administrator, I also get to set the "rules of the road" for posting. Currently, I only have only rule and that's "no personal insults" concerning other commenters. I reserve the right to delete posts or comments containing such insults.

I'll start off the posting by posing a series of questions that I've heard or asked myself in relation to the academic audit. One bit of self-revelation. I'm a government professor in the Department of Geography, Government, and History and I was the audit team member for the government program.

Does the Conduct of the Audit Reflect on the Competence of the Upper Administration?

Is There Going to Be a Bias Toward Liberal Arts? Art and Music? The Sciences? Business? IRAPP?

Does the Administration Already Know What It Wants to Do?

Was the Audit a Waste of Time?