CHANCELLOR LOBBIES STUDENTS TO LOBBY CAPITAL

She must be at her wits end. Why else would Chancellor Martin take what could easily be a completely illegal action--lobbying her employees AND HER STUDENTS, using public email, to lobby politicians? I understand that in the past she has urged support of her initiatives by distributing cookies to students on Bascom Mall and scaring her deans with threats that she might be fired if her initiatives didn't pass. This, however, takes the cake.

I seriously thought it was a scam when I first got it. I deeply wish it were-- scare tactics and coercive actions do not a leader make.

And by the way, here are the rules according to UW System:

"...Certain university employees holding highly visible positions, or those who serve in a liaison capacity with state and federal legislators, should be aware of the ethical and practical consequences of political campaign involvement as well as the basic legal issues, such as the application of state and federal lobbying rules to the activities of state university employees....because of restrictions on state lobbying and personal use of state resources, individual employees should not use state work time or state resources to engage in political activities unless expressly designated with this responsibility on behalf of the institution....For example, advocating for governmental action or legislative change, at a local, state or federal level, may be political although not related to a political campaign. "


From: Chancellor Biddy Martin
Subject: Update on New Badger Partnership
Date: April 6, 2011 3:30:19 PM CDT
To: Sara Goldrick-Rab
Reply-To: Chancellor Biddy Martin
Security: Signed (Chancellor Biddy Martin)

Dear Faculty, Staff and Students,

I write with an important update on the New Badger Partnership and also with a call for action.

Last Thursday, I attended the higher-education briefing of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance at the State Capitol. UW System President Kevin Reilly asked several chancellors from other campuses to make a case for the new System plan for increased flexibilities. The co-chairs of the joint committee then asked me to answer questions about the proposal that is already in the budget bill -- a new public-authority model for UW-Madison. I was happy to do so, and I believe I was able to clarify a number of misperceptions about our proposal. Near the end of the meeting, Senator Luther Olsen urged UW System and UW-Madison to work together and find a plan that would work for both parties.

The following day, in response to Senator Olsen's request, I invited my fellow chancellors and President Reilly to meet for a discussion of a third option. The invitation included a draft amendment to the governor's bill that would provide much-needed flexibilities to the other campuses. It also included an offer to be open to their new ideas about how to move forward. The amendment would add flexibilities for the other campuses and System without subtracting from what UW-Madison would gain through the existing budget bill. Prior to issuing the invitation, I spoke with several chancellors who expressed interest in
discussing the merits of this approach.

Some have already asked why the suggested amendment did not compromise on public-authority status for UW-Madison. I believe UW-Madison needs all the flexibility that the governor's budget provides if we are to continue competing with the best research universities in the world. There is a clear nationwide trend toward differentiation in higher education. The American Association of Universities, an organization of top research universities in the country, has on its meeting agenda for next week a discussion of the urgent need to preserve the quality of public flagship universities. If we can't preserve their
strengths with innovations in our mode of operating, it will harm not only UW-Madison and other great research institutions, but also the states in which they are located and the nation as a whole.

President Reilly sent an email announcing that System would need to respond with a written analysis before discussions with other chancellors could take place. He then sent a System-wide communication promoting the Wisconsin Idea Partnership, the details of which will be presented to the Board of Regents for the first time this week. I asked for a brief period of time at this week's Regents' meeting to present the amendment to the existing budget bill. I was again denied the request on the grounds that System first needs to provide a written analysis of our tentative proposal.

System's new plan does not come close to doing for UW-Madison what public-authority status would. First, with one exception in facilities management, the plan does not delegate any new statutory authority or flexibility to UW-Madison
or to any other campus. President Reilly's explanation of the plan states that System and the Regents will "press down" the flexibilities they gain, where appropriate. Second, there is, therefore, no acknowledgement of the unique needs, competitive position or the capacities of a major research university. Third, our legal staff is skeptical about the claim that the university system could remain a state agency and get its non-tax-dollar revenue off the books. Public-authority status for UW-Madison would give us ownership of our non-state-tax-dollar funding, allowing us to use it flexibly and avoid having it swept. Fourth, the statute changes proposed by System do not allow for a redesign of our personnel system. If successful, it would introduce some helpful changes, but does not go nearly as far as public authority does.

In response to concrete concerns from other chancellors and the public about the future of transfer agreements, research collaborations, shared infrastructure and a shared brand, we have responded with Memoranda of Understanding that
pledge not only the continuation, but also the enhancement, of our collaborations. To those who say we would not maintain transfer agreements over time, we have pointed out that our most robust transfer programs are with Madison College, direct campus-to-campus agreements. We do not need yet another layer of administration to ensure that we do what is mutually beneficial and good for the citizens of Wisconsin.

To those who have claimed that we would raise tuition higher than it would be raised within the System, we have shown that the increase for next year would be the same. In response to those who worry about prestige, we have ensured, from
the outset, that we continue to share the name "University of Wisconsin" with every other campus. To those who have said that the terms of the members of the new board are too short, we have agreed and begun work on an amendment to lengthen those terms.

We have spent well over a year developing the analysis, strategy and tactics that would create what is no doubt a once-in-a-lifetime chance for UW-Madison and for the other campuses. For many years, the System and Madison chancellors have talked about the need for flexibility. Making the case in a holistic plan and getting it into the governor's budget have created an opportunity that I do not believe we should forego. The most effective approach to getting all the campuses the flexibilities they need would be to support what is already in the governor's budget -- amended to provide other System campuses the flexibilities and forms of local decision-making that make sense for their institutions -- and then to move forward together to persuade the public and the Legislature of the need for what we have fought so hard to obtain.

During the past several months, I have tried to proactively communicate as we move forward in what I believe is a critical chapter in UW-Madison history. I have continually asked for your feedback. But I am also asking you for action. If you agree with me that the New Badger Partnership and the public-authority model are crucial to the future success of UW-Madison, I urge you to express your support more openly and vigorously. There are those who do not want this to succeed, and they are reaching out to the Legislature. We need you to do the same.

Here [linked] is contact information for the Joint Committee on Finance, President Reilly, and the Board of Regents. It can also be found at budget.wisc.edu.

Time is of the essence. Ask for their support. Please note that I am asking you to speak out as individuals, citizens and taxpayers, and not on behalf of the university. With your own time and resources, tell them we need their support of the public-authority model in the current state budget, not only for the good of UW-Madison, but also for the good of the state.

Chancellor Biddy Martin

Academic Freedom-- According to Alumna Lynne Cheney

Under the New Badger Partnership, Governor Walker will appoint at least 7 UW-Madison alumni to the Board of Trustees. Who might these fine folks be? What might they believe about academic freedom? We might as well get educated. Here's the first in a series.

"Academic Freedom" by Lynne Cheney

"In the last few years, people intent on using the curriculum and the classroom to advance a political agenda have become very frank about their purpose. In an article in Harvard Educational Review, a professor at the University of Wisconsin insists that professors like herself should be very open about their intention "to appropriate public resources (classrooms, school supplies, teacher/professor salaries, academic requirements and degrees) to further various 'progressive' political agendas." This professor describes a class she teaches at the University of Wisconsin called innocuously enough "Curriculum and Instruction 607," but it has an anything but innocuous purpose. Students are taught to demonstrate in Curriculum and Instruction 607—and then they actually demonstrate, as the professor describes it, "by interrupting business as usual (that is social relations of racism, sexism, classism, Eurocentrism, as usual) in the public spaces of the library mall and administrative offices." All this, and students get three hours credit, too. Which is certainly a marked change from when I was at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s. Students demonstrated then, but nobody ever thought of giving them credit for it."

She's talking about Elizabeth Ellsworth, a professor in the School of Education from 1984 to 2002, and now an Associate Dean at the New School in New York City.

"Ideas are powerful, and those that emanate from our colleges and universities carry a special authority. That is why it seems to me particularly important that we have a free and open discussion of the relationship between knowledge and politics. There are good people on our campuses trying to initiate these discussions, but they often find themselves marginalized, and they need support."

"Those of us off-campus need to make our concerns known as well. When it is time for us to help our children choose a college, we should ask hard questions about which campuses not only allow but encourage a diversity of opinion. When it comes time for us to make contributions as alumni, we should ask how well the college attended is doing at making sure all sides of controversial issues are heard. Those who serve on boards of trustees should encourage discussions of academic freedom of both faculty and students."

Agree with her, disagree with her -- do what you will. But ponder this: Lynne Cheney is an alumna who clearly feels she has a right--and indeed an obligation-- to tell faculty how and what to teach. Under the NBP Scott Walker can simply appoint her to govern this institution.

Speak now, or meet Mrs Cheney.

Someone's Not Listening...

I have a four-year-old and a one-year-old so I'm used to people who don't listen. I repeat myself, say it more firmly, and find new ways to express the same message.

So let's try this one more time--

Governor Walker and the Legislature:
The State of Wisconsin is doing a very poor job of securing the future of its citizens by investing so little in public education at all levels, including higher education. However, if it has such poor judgment so as to slash education at this critical time, it is in the best interest of the state to give the institutions some additional flexibilities as outlined in the Wisconsin Idea Partnership (WIP). It is, however, not in the state's best interests to allow UW-Madison to be swept from the UW System and placed under the direction of its own Board of Trustees.

Chancellor Martin:
First, what you have proposed in your new "compromise plan" is a scary version of the WIP. Why scary? Because now it's just even more painfully clear: You seek to privatize UW-Madison, period. Why else would you seek to ensure it keeps all of its own revenue and is governed by a new board that is led by Scott Walker and his appointees as of July 1? Under the WIP you could get a nice set of flexibilities minus those that directly threaten Madison's future as an accessible public institution: tuition-setting authority, full financial management, and the Board of Regents. In order to control tuition, keep all the cash, and install people appointed by Scott Walker, you are willing to divorce System. That's it, I'm done wondering whether this could be about money. This isn't about money nearly as much as it's about power.

Second, your campus community has made it abundantly clear that we want to know what's going on. Sending a letter proposing a compromise to other chancellors and the Legislature without bringing it to us first is not ok. Finding out in the newspaper--only after a reporter has to do some sleuthing --- NOT OK.

**********

Compromise is a good thing. The Board of Regents has shown a remarkable ability to compromise by proffering the Wisconsin Idea Partnership to everyone, including Madison, while not simultaneously demanding Biddy Martin's resignation. Can such a partnership be implemented with her present? I guess that depends on whether she starts following her own request for input and starts listening.


UPDATE: Biddy Martin tweeted this at me: "Not meant to be a compromise; a third option that adds, not subtracts."

Does anyone see any value-added in this? I sure don't.

Tell Her About It

After more than two hours of sitting in small hard wooden chairs on this blustery Monday afternoon, Faculty Senate at UW-Madison finally got interesting. In the midst of a discussion led by (I kid you not) "Committee of the Whole Discussion of Fiscal Models for the Proposed Public Authority, and Institutional Governance and the Proposed Board of Trustees," Chancellor Biddy Martin appeared to have had enough.

She'd taken numerous questions from faculty who seemed uncertain about the implications of her proposed New Badger Partnership (including a series of questions proferred by yours truly), and seemed to have reached the end of her rope. Red-faced, she looked at the crowd of 100 or so, and said:

"I'm out there on my own on this one...Regents and chancellors are against it...If the faculty, staff, and students of UW-Madison aren't supportive [of the NBP] then it makes no sense for me to continue. I'm tired. I don't need to be out there on my own. You need to let me know if you aren't behind it."

I almost--almost--felt bad for the lady. After all, she's just trying to do what she was hired to do. It's not her fault that she's been setup to dismantle a wonderful, public institution and to make it appear the dismantling is due to financial constraints rather than a power grab by conservatives.

But I didn't feel bad, and here's why. Her seemingly honest desire for the airing of objections is offset by her actions. This is a chancellor who excludes, at least as often as she includes. She convenes small groups of powerful folks, and keeps the vast majority on the outside. She has hired and promoted people who pledge allegiance to her for fear of doing otherwise. She has managed to make people support her agendas even when they feel incredibly uncomfortable doing so. We're in a financial crisis and they need their jobs-- and love this university.

My guess? People won't share their objections to NBP with Biddy Martin. Not because the campus agrees with this move, but because, quite frankly, people are scared of her.

I know this for a fact because over the last three months I have received several dozen emails, text messages, phone calls, and even drop-in office visits from university colleagues who have told me they feel as I do but are unable to attach their names to these sentiments. I notice the same at the public forums where the chancellor is present-- hands shake when questions are asked, no one pushes further when a question isn't directly addressed. This, more than anything else, is destroying our campus. Morale is low, and faculty and administrators are afraid to speak their minds and oppose a proposal to fundamentally alter how our state's flagship university does business.

In fact that says it all. Folks, the NBP isn't about money at all. It's about power.

The silence is deafening.

You Call Yourself a Cadillac

"Chancellor Martin asked Governor Walker for a Chevrolet, and he graciously offered her a Cadillac. We [the Badger Advocates] are here to make sure she gets that Cadillac."

This is the explanation offered by Pete Christianson (Badger Advocate chairman and immediate past-president of the Wisconsin Alumni Association) for the emergence of a private lobbying group devoted to advancing Chancellor Biddy Martin's New Badger Partnership. He made the statement at a Friday afternoon meeting of PROFS.

Listening to Pete go on about the virtues of the Martin-Walker partnership, Robert Nighthawk's old blues song immediately came to mind..."You call yourself a Cadillac but you act just like a T Model Ford...You call yourself my baby but you still don't treat me right..."

What we the people of Wisconsin deserve to know is what's under the hood of that Cadillac?

Seems like a reasonable question, but all we're told is that the NBP runs on flexibilities. It provides funding to UW-Madison as a block grant, allows the university to retain all of its revenues and set policies for use of that money, lets the Board of Trustees (rather than the Regents) establish tuition, eliminates oversight from OSER, and puts us into direct contact with DOA.

What does all of that accomplish? More specifically:

What exactly are the cost-savings? For whom?

What do we gain in terms of power and control over the protection of academic freedom? Shared governance?

Who in particular will have greater say-so over Madison? Who benefits from that change?

The answers to these questions are largely unclear. We have not been given hard data to prove that we will save a substantial amount of money. We have not been shown the savings relative to other cost-saving measures. Instead we're just told that the current system doesn't work and we need flexibilities to solve problems. We have not been shown where costs will increase--e.g. who will foot the bill. We are simply told that tuition will go up and this will--somehow--save students money.

The Badger Advocates told PROFS that the NBP brings no gains in terms of protections for academic freedom or shared governance. Faculty emails will not be more secure under the new plan. Here are Pete's own words (written in response to my initial recollection of his words, relayed on the first version of this posting):

"Whoever is Governor will control the Board of Regents and will also control the board created to govern the Madison campus. Since the merger occurred in the 1970's, no Governor has done anything to further [protect] academic freedom or shared governance or make faculty emails more secure. If you have a complaint in this area it is with every Governor who has served since merger."

Well there you have it-- no gains for any of these important public university protections will come with the NBP. Next "advantage"?

In terms of who will gain more power with a public authority model, the answers are unspoken but not at all unclear. The Chancellor will have more power. So will the alumni and students and faculty named to the Board. Unsurprisingly, those are the folks lobbying for the change. I remain struck by the insistence of both Biddy Martin and Pete Christianson that we have nothing to fear from the Board of Trustees since it will be dominated by alumni. Our alumni are a vast, heterogeneous group of individuals. They include Lynne Cheney, J.B. Van Hollen, and David Keene, incoming president of the NRA and founder of CPAC. What reason do we have to believe that a few years attending Madison convinced these folks of the merits of public higher education and committed them to preserving all of its missions? If anything, it may have convinced them it needed to be radically changed. During Keene's days at Madison, he was “practically as right-wing as the Students for a Democratic Society are left-wing.” Walker could fulfill his commitments and increase his chances for conservative, political success by placing Keene on the Board of Trustees.

What's especially amazing is that the alumni who oppose the NBP are being silenced. Take a look at the array of negative comments made by alumni from all over. That page of comments has been deleted from the WAA website and whitewashed with a "thanks for your good dialogue and we support the NBP" positive statement.

The closer one looks at the NBP, the more questions arise. The most common argument made by its defenders are "If not NBP, then what?" That's the wrong question. Choosing the NBP in its Cadillac form -- the Cadillac created by Governor Scott Walker--means upending a System that has been in place for 40 years. Smart policymakers do not dismantle public policies or social programs without proof that (a) a new system has demonstrable benefits and (b) those benefits outweigh the costs of a radical change. The only substantial benefits to the NBP accrue to those who wish to see education privatized, and liberal education demolished. There are numerous such individuals throughout the United States and indeed the world, and they laid out specific plans for ending tenure and academic freedom decades ago. Those plans closely resemble the elements of this Cadillac. Why else is Walker expending his limited political capital on op-eds supporting the end of UW System and a major change in governance of UW-Madison? What we are seeing now is their manipulation of our chancellor and other leaders of public higher education, forcing them to deal with drastically unfair financial constraints and backing them into an untenable corner. It is from that highly compromised position that they are advancing a proposal that makes them feel like they are accomplishing something and protecting Madison from an untimely demise. If we do not look under the hood of this Cadillac, we are doomed.

Maybe that's a bit too dramatic. So let me end on with the words of a slightly older, much wiser colleague. "Once upon a time, the dream was to have a Chevy with a Caddy motor in it -- looks like nothing but flies like a bat out of hell. After not too long, people were dropping V8s into Vegas and things like that. That's what UW has traditionally been: Plain and modest-looking, but extremely powerful. Folks, what we've got here is a 1980s Coupe de Ville with a lawnmower engine."

Note: This post was updated at 750 pm on April 2 to reflect the input of Pete Christianson.

For homeschoolers, education reformers, and open-minded citizens: a paraphrase of Montaigne

Our teachers never stop talking, as if they were pouring water into a funnel. Our task is only to repeat what they told us. Teachers need to stop doing this and instead begin have student try to do things, choose among options, make decisions for themselves, and let them find their own way. Schools want to take different students who have different ways of thinking and make them take the same courses and tests. It is no wonder that most children really learn nothing from this experience. I wish that actors or dancers could teach us to do what they do, simply by performing before us, without us moving from our seats. I wish that we could be taught to cook, or to play the piano, or learn to sing, without practicing at it. School wants to teach us to judge well and speak well without having us practice either speaking or judging.

This is a paraphrase in modern terms of Michel de Montaigne's thoughts on education taken from Essays:Book One published in 1572.

Governor Walker Hearts Public Higher Education

I'm so happy our Governor Scott Walker loves public colleges and universities. I'm now convinced he knows what's best for us. Full speed ahead.

After all...

‎"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other."

Ayn Rand (from "Atlas Shrugged")