Controversy rocked both Ohio University and its prestigious visual communications school in April 2003 when former director Larry Nighswander was accused of sexual impropriety by former OU student Rebecca Humes, leading to a civil suit against both Nighswander and the university. After what now appears to be an incomplete internal investigation, OU's abrupt decision to offer an ultimatum --resign or be fired --to the embattled Nighswander is a reversal from the university's defense of the professor and reeks of a public relations move designed to save face before the beginning of the Roderick McDavis era.
No court has ruled that Nighswander did anything wrong. However, the professor exercised poor judgment by not taking precautions during the shoot in the first place. Humes was not one of Nighswander's students, and he did not have her sign a release nor did he go through a student intermediary to contact her. No witnesses were present during the shoot. But, after defending Nighswander throughout this process and dismissing Humes' initial complaint in November 2002, leading to the suit which names OU as a co-defendant, the university seems to be trying to wash its hands of the matter. Its inconsistency in the defense of one of its own must be troubling to other professors both at OU and at other institutions.
By calling for Nighswander's resignation with the removal of tenure if he refuses, OU is making clear it wants to distance itself from the professor. But, even if they do succeed in making Nighswander go away quietly (unlikely considering if he chooses not to resign the tenure removal process can take up to nine months), what happens if Nighswander wins the suit?
Because the university is a part of the suit, they cannot wave a magic wand and remove themselves from the verdict. Why pull the carpet out from under Nighswander with the result still in doubt? These are questions with few apparent answers in an already bleak public relations situation for the university. Granted, OU might have specific reasons for their decision, but having spent so long offering a modicum of support, cutting the ties represents the most fickle of decisions. OU, after embroiling itself in this sticky situation, should stay with it, if only to tell its faculty that it will not abandon them when times appear tough.
Standardized greed
Groggy Saturday mornings of No. 2 pencils, inane instructions, similes and square roots are not likely to be helped by more time spent planted in the bucket-seat of a crumbling high school desk. But no one ever said high school students' arch-nemesis, the College Board, keeper of the dreaded SAT, had any concern with comfort. Unfortunately, the company's zeal for the bottom line is more disconcerting than their disregard for the mental health of college applicants. A harder test is acceptable; banal and unbalanced additions to its standardized test are not.
The SAT is adding a composition component to its test. The 45-minute long essay, ostensibly added to test the writing skills of potential college students, instead seems only to be a thinly-veiled attempt to integrate the barely-used SAT II writing test into the regular exam. This way, the College Board can charge everyone the additional $10-$12 for a test that few previously had to pay. While the monopolistic College Board can wax poetic about creating a better test they can also line their pockets with the hard-earned money of cash-strapped high schoolers and their parents.
The fringe issues of the new test notwithstanding -including questions about how the test will be implemented and why it is being added in the spring of 2005 as opposed to the beginning of the year -pale in comparison to accusations that the standardized test is unfair and ethnocentric. It is fairly apparent that the addition of this new component does little to solve that problem. Essentially, the SAT loses credibility because its point is to be standardized and objective. Adding an essay makes it even more subjective. These changes to the SAT do not make it a better test, and they appear to be yet another cash grab by the College Board.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
