President David Schmidly and company have accomplished something not seen since the regents attempted to hire the utterly unsuitable John Elac as president a quarter century ago: He has stirred the normally quiescent faculty to serious protest. He characterizes the outraged faculty circulating a petition for a full faculty meeting as a "small (and by inference, radical) minority," when given the long history of faculty apathy, yet more than 200 signatures are in fact an overwhelming sign of disgust with this administration. It is also revealing that this protest did not originate in the ever-ineffective Faculty Senate, which does its best to imitate the Weimar Parliament.
Schmidly claims the huge growth in the administration is due to a growth in the University's budget, blithely implying that this has generated enough extra work to justify almost tripling the number of vice presidents. This is a vacuous argument, and anybody with the least familiarity with bureaucratic culture knows that administrative efficiency is only undermined by multiplying the number of bureaucrats. Equally ludicrous is the notion that a 42.1 percent (Schmidly) or 71 percent (Journal) increase in central administration compensation in only five years is justified because "management responsibilities grew even faster during this period." As I have observed, ancient Athens ran an empire with a smaller administrative establishment.
Regarding the transformation of the athletic director into a vice president: "Athletics should be an integral part of the University." In the eyes of the regents and public, athletics is the University, so this is certainly a tautological statement. And for the politically correct and inherently racist, I suppose creating Hispanic and female vice presidents is an achievement the president may be proud of. And once again the tired old argument: Compared to peer institutions our administrators "are paid at or below market," to which one might respond that perhaps most university administrators are paid too much. Indeed, increasingly bloated and expensive administrations are a major driving force behind the steady growth of tuition costs. In any case, contrary to what Schmidly says, the faculty and staff are inevitably below all our peer institutions in compensation.
Reacting to the faculty petition, spokeswoman Susan McKinsey said, "There is just too much at stake for the University community to be divided by this." Apart from the echoes of George W. Bush and every other leader who has tried to cover malfeasance with an appeal to unity in a crisis, this statement is completely misleading. The majority of faculty, staff and, I dare say, students are united in their opposition to the huge amounts of money being poured into a growing gaggle of administrators.
But worst of all in this parade of whining "educational" leaders is regent Jamie Koch, who has demonstrated only contempt for the faculty when confronted with their legitimate concerns. For people like him, faculty, unless they are bringing in big grant money, are simply a nuisance.
He is right in implying that a faculty vote of no confidence, like the vote some years ago to abolish varsity football and basketball, has no binding force, but it would be an embarrassment to the University. Administrators do not like anything that brings negative attention to the University (as I well know). And attempting to turn students against the faculty is completely reprehensible for a governor of the University. Yes, many faculty members are less than accessible, but perhaps this has something to do with an institution that emphasizes and departments that reward research and work with graduate students and treats undergraduates and their education with little enthusiasm (as I also know well).
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
I have spent years criticizing the faculty for their lack of courage, but I now applaud them. A no-confidence vote would be symbolic, but you do what you can and fire Qassam rockets into Scholes Hall.
Of course, this should all have happened a year ago. Let me suggest something more serious. The faculty has the authority and duty to approve grades and grant degrees, and while this is treated as a mere formality, they could simply refuse to do this at the end of the semester. Such would force the administration to compromise or blatantly violate the University's rules and create a contractual problem with the entire faculty, which, according to the Faculty Handbook, has this power.
I am solidly bourgeois, but there is a limit, and as the proletariat of the University, the faculty must raise the red flag.
Richard M. Berthold is a retired professor of classical history at UNM. He is the author of Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age.
