For Politico, Evan Mandery writes a story about internal conflict at UATX last year. He wants to create a narrative in which “right-wingers” battled “pluralists.” I think that over-simplifies and distorts the events, which sound to me like what I call corporate soap opera.
If you read the article, take it as people who are unhappy about how things turned out for them personally taking their gripes to the media. Actually-existing UATX is doing fine without them.
My remarks:
In my experience in organizations, personality conflicts get blown out of proportion by the parties involved. Staff imbue their power struggles with profound cultural and historical significance. Never under-estimate the extent to which something portrayed as a deep battle over principles is mostly just a clash of egos.
The issues that are in play at UATX go much beyond the question of how the school approaches DEI. Like every other campus, we have divergent views on AI, and there is passion on all sides. There are disagreements about the curriculum. Some commitments that were rashly made a couple of years ago are now widely regretted.
I strongly believe that the new administration, while not ideal, is likely better than the one that got driven out. At a personal level, I would never have gotten an opportunity to teach here under the old regime. And if they had stayed, I think that this place would be in worse shape. I get the sense that they were over-invested in the faith that going back to teaching courses on the dead white males is sufficient to revive university education.
My personal opinion is that UATX needs more bureaucracy. Faculty hate that word, and in most established universities the bloated administration is a big part of the problem. But the way it appears to me, UATX suffers from a lack of dependable internal processes.
Among faculty and students, there are a variety of visions for what would make a great institution. The way that this plays out today is that everyone goes out and tries to execute initiatives that fit with their own vision. After two weeks, I have my own strong opinions about what I like about UATX and the direction I would prefer that it take. My younger self would have launched a crusade, causing a lot of pain and stress to myself and to others.
Academic culture in general tends to produce professors who are self-centered and immature. The start-up atmosphere here inclines people to act as if anything is possible, ignoring resource limits, trade-offs, and the need to prioritize. I see this as a recipe for intense internal conflicts. Given the lack of formal mechanisms to forestall these, I could see corporate soap opera continuing to be a source of discomfort.
But I am just a short-term visiting professor, who showed up after the drama discussed in the Politico article played out.
Who was it that said something like this: the intensity of disputes in academia are in direct proportion to their insignificance?
"My personal opinion is that UATX needs more bureaucracy. Faculty hate that word, and in most established universities the bloated administration is a big part of the problem. But the way it appears to me, UATX suffers from a lack of dependable internal processes."
Looks like they need an experienced senior bureaucrat who is expert at creating dependable, and fair internal processes and managing them efficiently (i.e., anti-bloat), and whose personal commitments are very much aligned with their mission. I gather it's very hard to find such people.