The past couple of days I’ve been at the Institute on Global Service-Learning up at Cornell. That hasn’t kept the news of the recent drama about Cevallos’s recent statements regarding Gen Ed from my attention, though. I got a call and several emails on Thursday after faculty read the story in The Keystone, titled simply enough, “Gen. Ed. Changes.” This coming week is the week that all the three governance bodies–APSCUF, Senate, and the University Curriculum Committee–will vote to approve the new Gen. Ed. model. If the Gen. Ed. model passes, it will the first model to pass in three attempts over the past 20 years.
Unlike the most recent attempt at passing Gen. Ed., this time around APSCUF-KU gained a signed agreement that no jobs would be lost or programs cut as the result of Gen. Ed. reform. We were also able to ensure that no faculty would be forced to teach outside of their area of expertise. The Gen. Ed. Task Force also worked with the three governance bodies to ensure that the process for approval was transparent and that all the bodies were on board.
Now, just a few days before the bodies begin voting, President Cevallos stated to the student newspaper, The Keystone, that “he will be signing the proposal, regardless of what the bodies decide – overriding their decision if it’s against the reform.” Excuse me??? So, apparently, shared governance is irrelevant to Cevallos. His statements over the past several months indicating a commitment to shared governance, apparently offered just to appease people. Yet, this resent statement seems to point to his actual feelings on the matter.
Yesterday, apparently recognizing the potentially negative impact of his words, issued a “clarification” to faculty via email. The question remains, which version it accurate? Clearly, his email offers a rational reason for why he would be “left with no other option” other than approving the new Gen Ed model. And this statement would be consistent with Cevallos’s past claims that all of his decisions are the result of external factors beyond his control–that he is a victim of circumstances. But it does leave questions in the air about what kind of commitment he has to shared governance and where decisions are actually coming from.
We should recall, after all, that Cevallos’s recent moves to retrench faculty, programs, and departments turned out to be his decision. He was not “forced” to take this action. He was the decider on eliminating faculty jobs. In any case, it would be nice to not have go through this dance of misstatements, retractions, restatements, and distrust for once. I guess we’ll be waiting a while for that.
Kevin,
You wrote your commentary in such a way to leave the impression that this Gen Ed statement was a direct quote for Dr. Cevallos.
The statement appeared in the Keystone, sans quotes, and it was clearly attributed to KU student Dan Walker:
“According to Walker, President F. Javier Cevallos has already stated he will be signing the proposal, regardless of what the bodies decide – overriding their decision if it’s against the reform.”
You, on the other hand, leave your reader with the impression that this is a direct quote from Dr. Cevallos:
“President Cevallos stated to the student newspaper, The Keystone, that “he will be signing the proposal, regardless of what the bodies decide – overriding their decision if it’s against the reform.” Excuse me???”
I think the Keystone is improving. And I also really do appreciate that you have taken it upon yourself to keep us informed of the facts as you see them. We often learn more about APSCUF issues from you, and in a more timely manner than we do from either side in Harrisburg.
Best,
Kevin McCloskey