Schmidly did some good and Frank will do more

Editor,

This letter is in response to a reaction to an op-ed column I wrote, “Optimism for Changing of the Guard at UNM,” published in the May 27 issue of the Albuquerque Journal, by which an “Albuquerque resident” seems horrified. The gist of my response is to reiterate optimism for our discourse paradigm and it is fitting to do so in the Daily Lobo.

The resident reacted online as follows:

“This guy’s belief that Schmidly’s tenure ‘sensitized deans and department chairs to hire more minority faculty and enhance diversity’ and that it ‘ended on a positive note’ makes it plain that the damage done by Schmidly is deeper than most of us realized. How can Frank, or any incoming UNM president, bring any sense of reality or proportion to a place so comprehensively divorced from the real world? Heaven help UNM.”

That is all he or she wrote, unsubstantiated.

The resident reacted to my op-ed as if he or she is a campus guru of UNM’s inner workings, but offers no evidence of permanent damage that Schmidly caused, begging the question, “Where is the beef?” To say that my op-ed represents a deep loss of sense of reality and proportion that Schmidly brought to UNM and imply that I was somehow under Schmidly’s “spell” is erroneous, to put it kindly.

For the resident’s information, I was not in Dr. Schmidly’s corner when he was a candidate for president because I had a “horse” in the race: Herman Lujan, my former graduate adviser and mentor.

I first met Schmidly at his interview forum, and again two other times that he met with black faculty and staff. I appreciated his gesture to make time and speak to us, but was not brainwashed or bamboozled, as the resident’s reaction implies.

The resident also stated that “(UNM) is comprehensively divorced from the real world” and wished “heaven help UNM.” This assertion is hopelessly pessimistic and void of value. The fearmongers need to come to grips with the objective truth that the institution and place we know as UNM is intact and operational within its physical and social realities.

If correctly read, my op-ed stressed the positive, but did not absolve Schmidly from criticism. His mistakes, I would argue, could not have been intended to cause UNM irreparable harm, which, if true, means he must have had the cooperation of the “watch dogs,” which is not true of the Faculty Senate, at least. Contrary to the resident’s gloomy opinion, Frank will find that Schmidly did some good to which he can add more good. In fact, he is already adopting of one of Schmidly’s legacies: the president’s weekly bulletin.

According to the June 3 issue of the Albuquerque Journal, Dr. Frank is a goal-oriented and compassionate individual, evidenced by his dedication of a section of his Ph.D. dissertation to his laboratory animal, which died before the experiment was completed.

We are told that he voluntarily settled for a salary $100,000 less than that of his predecessor.

While I advocate for optimism, it would be disingenuous of me to say I am UNM’s ultimate optimist. Frank is here for the Lobos, and the tidbits above spell optimism and suggest that he would have compassion for critters on campus and empathy for students, faculty, staff, Lobo fans and the citizens of New Mexico.

Admasu Shunkuri
UNM faculty member