I believe you owe Interim Provost Kathy Krendl an apology. Not necessarily because you believe she is an unacceptable choice to be Ohio University's next provost -different people will have different opinions -but because your justification for such an assessment employed, at best, selective use of evidence and, at worst, unethical journalistic practices.
First, while you highlighted the fund-raising records of the other two candidates as evidence of their qualifications for the job, you omitted the phenomenal fund-raising work that Interim Provost Krendl accomplished as dean of the College of Communication. Such an omission is either evidence of sloppiness or indicates a willful desire to avoid fair comparisons.
Second, Carol Kellett's one year of experience at OU is lauded as an important qualification, yet Interim Provost Krendl's extensive experience here is apparently a mark against her (and let's not forget that OU was a much different university in 1996-97 during Kellet's visit). Similarly, Kathryn Seidel's desire to incorporate research with teaching is highlighted, yet Interim Provost Krendl's established record of teaching and research as a full-time Dean is not mentioned (nor is her teaching during this academic year noted).
Third, a serious misunderstanding, or worse, of the dean's evaluation process is evident in your reasoning. As a former chair of the dean's evaluation committee in the College of Communication, I can assure you that earning two-thirds support of a faculty is a sign that a dean is doing a good job. The reference to the percentages of the other deans is analytically flawed in two ways: (1) If all deans on this campus are effective, and the evidence seems to indicate strong faculty support of the deans in each college on campus, then you cannot use those rankings to claim that someone did a poor job; (2) Even if the first item was not true, then the plus/minus error rating based upon the number of faculty respondents (not all faculty choose to complete evaluations of their deans) should indicate that those rankings cannot be taken as completely accurate.
Fourth, Interim Provost Krendl -and her predecessors for that matter -were not responsible for the tensions surrounding the proposed General Education changes; those proposed changes were generated, revised, and approved by faculty groups (namely, the General Education Council and Faculty Senate). As a member of the General Education Council from 2001-04, I can assure you that faculty across campus had doubts about the proposed changes well before Krendl moved into the provost's office. Similarly, the fault for strained relations between faculty and administration cannot be put upon Krendl's doorstep. In general, faculty/administration relations on any college campus are strained, especially in tight budgetary times; this is not a unique indictment of Interim Provost Krendl. In particular, the strains felt at OU have more to do with actions taken, and not taken, by President McDavis's predecessor than with anything that has occurred during this academic year.
Perhaps the most telling line of your editorial was the vague, a desire for change is in the air. The who in this sentence is obviously omitted -faculty, administrators, the editorial writers? If you want change, say so, but do not tarnish a person's reputation through omissions, distortions, and generalizations in so doing. I hope Krendl hears from you soon.
-Roger Aden is a professor in the school of communication studies. Send him an e-mail at aden@ohiou.edu.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
