AUG 29, 2024 | NEWS | By Pierce Sullivan
Last spring, the faculty of Colorado College voted to support expunging charges against students who were reprimanded for engaging in a peaceful demonstration within the Tutt Library. Of those who voted, the faculty supported the students 77-2.
Think about that number. Nearly every faculty member believes that expunging the charges is the right thing. Yet, at that time, the dean of the school and then president, L. Song Richardson, disagreed. It strikes me as odd that these two disagreed with so many of their peers.
On Nov. 9, The Catalyst reported on a conversation between Former President Richardson and members of Colorado College Students for Justice in Palestine, in which she stated, “For me, it is my duty as president to be a voice for the whole CC Community. You will never know what my own opinions are.”
In a Feb. 7 email announcing she would be leaving CC, merely two years after her tenure here began, President Richardson noted, “I find myself increasingly torn between my desire to pursue that work as an academic with the freedom to fully engage in these debates, express my personal views, and challenge the status quo, and my responsibilities to CC as president.”
At the risk of extrapolating any reasoning here, there is a connection between these two statements. It feels like a safe bet to assume that Richardson is not the one who was driving this crackdown on students.
The president of a college is traditionally the face of the institution. But it’s deeper than this. They are the scapegoat for the Board of Trustees. They are the one who bites the bullet when the Board is cowering behind their rickety exposure and business prowess.
It seems a strange phenomenon, that an academic institution, especially one like CC, where there is such an emphasis on learning for the sake of learning and curiosity, is run by a group of people far removed from the world of academia.
The Board President at Colorado College, a CC alum and parent, is a very successful and upstanding businessman and community member — a fine choice for chair of an institution that runs itself like a business, like most colleges do.
Nonetheless, while a college is a business, with a high operating budget and a lot of moving parts, running a college purely with the minds of those versed in the world of education and academia would simply not be feasible. Especially when there are readily available experts with doctorates in the fields of economics or business to consult on such matters.
It seems the only reason that colleges are run by business people of outdated times is because it is the way things have always been done.
This does beg the question, however, when has CC done anything just because it’s ‘the way things have always been done?’ To name just a few: dropping out of the U.S. News and World Reports, the Block Plan, becoming the first carbon-neutral campus west of the Mississippi — the list goes on.
If any school were to restructure its administration in a way that treats a school like what it is — a place to learn, not a business that caters to unknown forces behind closed doors — it should be CC.
The biggest issue preventing this, it seems, can be found by examining our current board chair. Try finding something problematic about him on the internet. You won’t. That’s what the key is for the big job these days, not pushing anyone’s buttons.
The College’s mission statement encourages us to “to develop those habits of intellect and imagination that will prepare them for learning and leadership throughout their lives.”
It is abundantly clear that a traditional board structure, like the one that has governed CC for years, is not in the best interest of this mission.
How can we be expected to learn lessons on leadership when those who lead us are silenced by the board?
Furthermore, habits of intellect and imagination cannot possibly be developed in an environment where students are prohibited from standing up for the values that they believe in, and faculty are shunned for supporting them.
If Colorado College is to operate in good faith in pursuit of its mission, the current governance structure can no longer stand.
What if instead, this was a school run by highly opinionated experts, those with genuine beliefs, backed in logic and fact, who lead the way for discussion from the top down, and listen to faculty whose opinions are based on expertise and decades of knowledge? We could be a school run by those who know what happens in the halls of a college — or maybe even a school run by those who read the student newspaper.
The faculty votes in support of these students cannot be overlooked. Seventy-seven to two, the faculty supports these students. The administration does not. It is clear that something has got to change, and CC is exactly the type of school that is in the position to do so.
Mt. Sullivan’s opinions are those of a childlike mind which doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. He has no idea what an institution’s governing body does, nor how it differs from a faculty or an administrative system. He also presumes that his fantasy body of opinionated experts would be filled with opinions that he likes rather than those he rejects. All in all, he might want to recognize his authoritarian mindset before he steps out into the world and starts to break things.
I appreciate your perspective and see some merit in your point.
It is worth noting, however, that the outlandish nature of this argument is by design. Tom Robbins explained it best, reminding us that “humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature.”
Thanks for taking the time to read and engage.
This author has to learn correct spelling and grammar. It’s “Board” and not “Bored”