Daily Lobo Culture Editor
Brad Hall, the Communication and Journalism chairman, says everything's fine like someone just asked him if his day is going OK.
He says essentially that the accreditation team had some concerns, but really, it doesn't matter because accreditation is an archaic and outdated technique used by bureaucrats to glean money from unsuspecting universities.
Brad Hall will tell you that no one goes to a University program based on its accreditation, that people will not evaluate the accreditation of a university in the hiring process and that the decision not to reapply will not affect the students in the department.
But hold on - if accreditation is not important in any sense, is expensive and innocuous, than why make plans to reapply in the future?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
It is obvious to me that accreditation means something to a university like this one. Hall is quick to point out that UCLA and Stanford don't have accredited journalism programs.
But UNM is not UCLA, and the name itself doesn't really scream authority.
Maybe, like he says, the actual stamp of approval is a red herring. Then really, the major concern should be this - what is wrong with the journalism and mass communication programs that the faculty members should throw up their hands and not even apply this year?
Hall will tell you that the program is not dying. But analyzing the journalism program in a historical sense is like watching something shrink. In 1992, the Journalism Department merged with the Communications Department in what some considered a "shot-gun" wedding. Hall said this was an attempt to save the department to begin with.
If you project a future for this non-accredited department - which by the way is surrounded by accredited ones like NMSU - it involves a chance of lower enrollment. And if enrollment drops, how does the department intend to gather the funds to address the concerns presented by the accreditation team? Problems that have existed since the last time they came around in 1997, that remains un-addressed by a lazy, double-talking, head-in-the-sand-style department.
So what exactly are the problems? Well, the unofficial report sent out by the team that did not even finish its evaluation before we withdrew will not be public knowledge until it has gone through Hall's committee of spin-doctors.
He mentioned something vague about student/teacher ratios. He skimmed over some concerns that were remaining from 1997 about the involvement of women and minorities in both administrative and student capacities. He mentioned something about needing to track graduates - as the department has no clear picture of how relevant its program is - and providing more information on possible internships. He thinks, vaguely again, these points should be addressed, but has outlined no clear plan as to how.
I am outraged that the issue of re-accreditation will not be viewed from the perspective of the students, but rather from some team of administrators. This code of operations is what caused the withdrawal in the first place. Maybe the problem with this department is that it is detached from the needs of its students, and operates in a most self-serving fashion.
There is no way to tell what the complaints of the accreditation team really are or how any of it is going to be fixed, but Hall seems to think everything is OK.
