Primary concerns
By: William McNutt
Issue date: 9/25/09 Section: Opinions
As Furman looks to select a new president, a few things should be considered:
First, it is crucial that the right people make the decision. Specifically, I feel that professors should have a very limited role. Any faculty influence will only serve to advance faculty interests, not those of students and alumni. Often in academia, members of the faculty forget that they are employees of the university, hired as teachers and not as executives. Imagine if FedEx allowed its truck drivers to choose the next CEO. You would find that holidays and paid vacation had replaced shipping packages as the priority. If professors are allowed on the selection committee, then janitors and DH workers should be too.
Second, in terms of policy, athletics should be a priority of the next administration. The support for revenue sports at Furman leaves much to be desired. Facilities for student athletes are below those of our competition. School spirit could be greatly improved with a little help from the administration. While I realize that some at Furman believe that minimizing athletics somehow improves our academic standing, we students feel otherwise. Stanford University had more athletic national champions last year than any other institution and their scholastic credibility is never questioned. Our next president should demonstrate more support for our athletes and facilities, as they can be great advertisers of Furman to those who would otherwise never know its name.
Lastly, fiscal responsibility needs to be restored on campus. Many amply funded projects at Furman are unnecessary and stray from the university's purpose. The idea of "sustainability" at Furman has become obnoxious and frivolous. Although well intended, it strays from our mission, and adds unnecessary burden to tuition. A president is hired not for his or her ability to run ecosystems, but successful universities. By focusing on the environment instead of students, Furman's president oversteps his bounds as an executive, and imposes a tax on students without our consent. Asking students to pay for projects outside of Furman's educational mission is unethical and undemocratic.
Like it or not, Furman is a business first and environmental ethics project last. While Clemson or South Carolina may choose to spend their funding on fads that take away from academics, they will still be there next year as they are funded by tax revenue. Furman, unfortunately, does not have that luxury. If it continues to ask students to pay higher tuition for the same education in the name of saving the planet, it will find itself out of business. $45,000 is already too much. Improving dorms, raising teacher pay and lowering tuition would be much better allocations of funds than solar panels and low flush toilets. Students attend this university prepare for successful careers. Yet every time classroom lectures are dedicated to "sustainability" instead of core academics, it wastes the precious money of students, parents, and alumni. We already can be preached to for free on Sunday.
First, it is crucial that the right people make the decision. Specifically, I feel that professors should have a very limited role. Any faculty influence will only serve to advance faculty interests, not those of students and alumni. Often in academia, members of the faculty forget that they are employees of the university, hired as teachers and not as executives. Imagine if FedEx allowed its truck drivers to choose the next CEO. You would find that holidays and paid vacation had replaced shipping packages as the priority. If professors are allowed on the selection committee, then janitors and DH workers should be too.
Second, in terms of policy, athletics should be a priority of the next administration. The support for revenue sports at Furman leaves much to be desired. Facilities for student athletes are below those of our competition. School spirit could be greatly improved with a little help from the administration. While I realize that some at Furman believe that minimizing athletics somehow improves our academic standing, we students feel otherwise. Stanford University had more athletic national champions last year than any other institution and their scholastic credibility is never questioned. Our next president should demonstrate more support for our athletes and facilities, as they can be great advertisers of Furman to those who would otherwise never know its name.
Lastly, fiscal responsibility needs to be restored on campus. Many amply funded projects at Furman are unnecessary and stray from the university's purpose. The idea of "sustainability" at Furman has become obnoxious and frivolous. Although well intended, it strays from our mission, and adds unnecessary burden to tuition. A president is hired not for his or her ability to run ecosystems, but successful universities. By focusing on the environment instead of students, Furman's president oversteps his bounds as an executive, and imposes a tax on students without our consent. Asking students to pay for projects outside of Furman's educational mission is unethical and undemocratic.
Like it or not, Furman is a business first and environmental ethics project last. While Clemson or South Carolina may choose to spend their funding on fads that take away from academics, they will still be there next year as they are funded by tax revenue. Furman, unfortunately, does not have that luxury. If it continues to ask students to pay higher tuition for the same education in the name of saving the planet, it will find itself out of business. $45,000 is already too much. Improving dorms, raising teacher pay and lowering tuition would be much better allocations of funds than solar panels and low flush toilets. Students attend this university prepare for successful careers. Yet every time classroom lectures are dedicated to "sustainability" instead of core academics, it wastes the precious money of students, parents, and alumni. We already can be preached to for free on Sunday.