budget - THE RECORD

‘SteamCil’ Leaves Red Faces, Disheartened Members

ComCil discussion on installation REB to go into new round this week

by Kim-Jenna Jurriaans

“This could very well have been the best ComCil I’ve ever been to.” An impromptu processing session and cigarette consumption on the steps of Main Building revealed the nerve wrecker that was last week’s ComCil meeting. In a heated session last Thursday, discussion on the latest proposal for a Record Editorial Board (REB) turned into a power-measuring exercise that left many members of ComCil disillusioned over the outcome. Still, several members referred to last week’s ComCil as one of the most vibrant in a long time. The meeting was finally adjourned and discussion was tabled until next ComCil, which takes place as this paper goes to print.

Members left last week’s meeting disillusioned after a two and a half hour discussion on the REB proposal, that was brought to ComCil two weeks ago, failed to bring a clear outcome on the installation of the interim board. Instead, questions arose on ComCil’s power to block the proposal, which were initially met with evasive answers by vice-president Rick Juraseck and Dean of Faculty Andrzej Bloch.

Bloch, who together with the vice-president and CM Levi B. Cowperthwaite had brought the proposal to ComCil, stressed the need for accountability beyond RAB in the form of an extra, editorial, board.

In response to Events Manager (EM) Melody Mackowiak’s repeated inquiry whether the initiators would go thru with the installation of the board regardless of ComCil’s decision on the proposal, Jurasek answered by pointing out the need to “fill an editorial gap”.

Feeling that her question was not answered properly, Mackowiak again asked for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. The vice-president finally answered, saying there is a need to set editorial policy and that they, the initiators, will go on to create a body that can take on that task. His answer was met with loud gestures of surprise and disbelieve from both members and guests. Many voiced similar feelings as Corri Frohlich, who posed the question: ” what exactly are we doing here If you are not going to listen to us anyway?”
EM Melody went on to ask whether the proposal was at least open for negotiation. Vice-president Rick Jurasek commented: “This document asks for suggestions. We want to launch a process. There is an editorial gap and this proposal is brought forward to fill that gap.” Jurasek underlined that the board will be temporary while “starting a broader conversation in the process of building a community paper”.

In its effort to “build” a community paper, the president’s office has taken it on itself to hire a journalism teacher in order to provide staff-writers and editors of the Record with the necessary journalistic background and to help in supervising the Record. In addition, Jurasek offered to provide the Record with the means to update its close to nostalgic IT-facilities, which, according to co-editor Foster Neill had narrowed down to “a computer and a half” in the course of last week. Neill, however, friendly declined the offer, stating he’d rather work with the limited funds CG can provide than lose independence of the paper: “I’d love to have a new computer and we could definitely use it right now, but if taking on the offer means the Record will become more dependent, I’d rather not have it. I can’t speak for future editors, but I, for my part, will definitely not take it.”

Reflection

Issues over the nature of the publisher, CG or Antioch College, arose, yet again, and remained unresolved. Again, the fact that the Record is payed out of student activity fees was brought up to point out community ownership. The Dean of students countered by saying: “We cannot collect a penny of the students as long as the budget is not approved by the board of trustees.” In response to Andrzej Bloch’s statement that the newspaper carries the Antioch name and is therefor regarded by the outside world to reflect the College, Neill, who is in charge of the layout for the Record, posed the question how The Antioch Review, that also carries the Antioch name can be regarded as reflection of the community.

Andrzej Bloch went on to make a distinction between Antioch College on one hand, and the College Community on the other. He elaborated on his idea of REB and RAB functioning next to and with each other, each representing one of the two entities. Given the inequality in authority installed upon both boards, however, this was met with skepticism by the members of ComCil, who fear erosion of the functions of RAB. In addition, the idea of having two similar boards was widely seen as impractical, “adding layers on top of layers”, as Katrina Dorsey described it.

In light of the efforts to bring more journalistic knowledge into the record newsroom, the need for top-down editorial enforcement was also questioned and, according to Bob Devine, is contrary to the co-op premises set out for the editors, which consist of “learning by experience, being forced to wrestle with complex practical and ethical issues and to make determinations for which they must be accountable.” (from: October 2nd written reaction to REB proposal). Devine underlined his views in last week’s meeting, stating that the Record was a lab Newspaper to learn, adding: “how do you think the editor of the New York Times learned what is appropriate.”

Vice president Rick Jurasek stressed the temporary nature of the board, pointing out the option that: “The editorial board can disappear in time.”

Respect

Gradually the conversation moved towards reviving RAB rather than installing the REB. ComCil member Chelsea Martens pointed towards the Legislative code in front of her and urged the Dean of Faculty and Vice-President to please respect the code, with its strong roots in Community Government, and to respect the efforts that had been made to create it. Martens was backed up by fellow ComCil member Bryan Utley, who underlined that the installation of an ad-hoc board without approval of ComCil would be disrespectful of the deliberative Body that is ComCil. Martens also raised questions on the issue of accountability. More specifically, “how can a board consisting of two students and two staff members be a better representation of the community than RAB with seven members and direct accountability to ComCil?”

In order to provide Antioch College, as institution, with the requested representation in matters concerning the Record, RAB members present brought forward the proposal to write one or two extra seats into the RAB outline in the Leg code for institutional representation to take seat in.

Room temperature rose even more, when a motion to deny approval of the Proposal was tabled and second by another member of ComCil, then however taken off the table again, in order to keep open the option of bringing in an amended, more detailed, proposal into next weeks ComCil meeting. the initiators where give the advise to consult sources outside of the college’s legal council and present a proposal that goes into more detail about the editorial policy that the interim board is burdened to establish, the sources that it will used in the process and the place and amenability of this new policy in future terms. As the discussion goes into yet another round, the meeting, taking place as this edition goes to print, is expected to bring the awaited verdict on the installation of an Editorial Board for the Record, the consequences for the Community’s Newspaper and future role for its current Advisory Board.

Bringing Censor Back!

Record awaiting installation of new Editorial Board

by Kim-Jenna Jurriaans

Awaiting ComCil’s vote on last week’s proposal concerning the installation of an editorial board for the Antioch Record, hopes persist that this week’s ComCil meeting will bring more clarity about the future outline for the community’s newspaper. The board, if approved, will function interim for the fall term 2006 only, until a permanent board is established by the beginning of spring term 2007.

Dean of Faculty Andrzej Bloch, Vice President Rick Jurasek, and Community manager Levi B. Cowperthwaite, in reaction to recent controversy over student’s answers to “the Question of the Week�?, in the September 15 issue of The Record, brought the proposal to ComCil last week. According to a memo sent by President Lawry to advisers and staff on September 18, several resonses to the question “What would you say to the Narc?” were seen by the College’s Lawyer as “high-threat messages” entering “high-risk legal territory”, thereby putting Antioch in danger of liability charges being pressed against the College. This, in combination with strong feelings within the administration that The Record is missing a clearly defined editorial policy, led to discussions about, and eventually putting down on paper of an outline for a new, empowered board to take responsibility for the Record’s content.

REB vs. RAB
The proposal, sent in to ComCil last Thursday, foresees in the installation of a Record Editorial Board (REB) to set out and enforce editorial policy, to be carried out by The Record’s editors. In doing so, the new Editorial Board would take on the role of the little, but more powerful, brother of the existing Record Advisory Board (RAB), which has been functioning as the main source of advice to editors and staff in previous years. So far, the existing Record Advisory Board only had the power to advice on editorial policy, without having the authority to enforce it. The new board, which would not replace but function in addition to RAB, would cover this authority-gap, in favor of more structured, institutional, control over printed content.
When asked about the reasons for installing the new board, Andrzej Bloch answered: ” It is our job to represent the interests of the school as an institution. Everything that is printed in the Record has the Antioch name on it and it reflects the school as an institution. The same applies if a faculty member would do something outrageous in class. The question is always, how do you balance academic freedom with respect of the institution.”

Educational value

In another memo, sent to the college faculty two days after his first testimony of concern about the content of this newspaper, President Lawry urges faculty to “be supportive and responsive” to requests to join the editorial board. In the memo, forwarded to the Record by various members of faculty, Lawry states that: “The college is the owner and publisher of The Record, which functions as part of the College’s educational mission. As an educational institution, we are responsible for the ethical and educational development of young people. Too much of the content of The Record suggests to me that we are failing in that mission.”

It is precisely this educational development, which the president urges so strongly, that others fear will be the first victim of the new policy. Community manager Levi B on ComCil concerns to the proposal: “There are several parts of the proposal that ComCil isn’t happy with. For example, why have two boards? Why put energy into this reactionary ad hoc board instead of investing in the old one? But there’s also the educational side. Part of education is taking risks. Taking away that option is taking away part of the educational value.”

According to Levi B, the CM, the number of seats on the board and the way they are filled is also an issue that worries ComCil. The proposal mentions the board as consisting of 4 members, 2 members of faculty and two students, who will be appointed collaboratively by the College President and the Community Manager. The latter mentions ComCil’s view that this board is not representative of the community.

Continuity

One major problem that RAB seems to have been struggling with in the past is continuity. Finding former editors to take a seat in the Advisory Board, for example, has been difficult at times. Introducing a system of stacked appointment in the board is one of the goals Andrzej Bloch sees for REB. The interim editorial board doesn’t solve the problem of continuity; it merely bridges the gap until negotiations over the form and authority of a permanent Editorial Board have finished. The administration sees a permanent Editorial Board as the best means to guarantee continuity and future implementation of the new editorial guidelines that will be set out by the interim board this term. So far, a lot of questions about the approach that the interim board will handle and what the permanent board will eventually look like, remain up in the air. Hopes are that a decision on the interim board proposal will be announced in this weeks ComCil meeting, with or without amendments.

Where it started

Back to the roots

Going back to what has started the argument about “bad editorial judgment” and the need for a cleaner editorial policy, the administration’s reaction to the comments printed in the September 15 issue of the Record managed to surprised many on and off campus, including faculty and people from the Yellow Springs community. And for many, it is seen as an example for the iron wind of change that seems to be blown thru the Antioch campus recently, to radically clean up whatever leaves of campus culture are still left lying in the grass, that characterize a college identity that doesn’t fit into the vision of the clean cut suburbia lawn that is set out for it.

Reports of students being called into the Dean of Faculty’s office, Memo’s to student advisers, urging them to meet with their advisees to denounce “hostile street-language” and “menacing speech”, in addition to the need for a midnight proof-read of a recent issue of the Record to protect it from further repercussions, are widely perceived as ways of intimidation and signs of an institutional tour de force to streamline the college.

Jen Parnell, who’s comment was found to be most damaging by the College’s lawyer, was called into the Dean of faculty’s office to discuss the possible consequences of her comment. “I was told that my statement was found prosecutable and felonious by the college lawyer and if the ‘Narc’ would feel offended, he could press charges. I had been in contact with my lawyer, who told me that since there is no clear and present danger to specifically named person, there is no liability. Andrzej insisted that that wasn’t true and that I had to watch what I say.” Denouncing rumors around campus, Andrzej Bloch made it clear to he Record, that “Jen’s comments were never and will not be a reason to expel her from school.”

Phone calls to the Civil Liberties Union, as well as attorney Mike Hiestand, legal consultant for the Student Press Association, also point towards the absence of liability in Jen Parnell’s specific case. Mike Hiestand: “even if the ‘Narc’ would make himself known and claim to be offended, that is his problem, not the student’s. There is no liability here.” This stands in strong contrast to the college’s legal council, that, according to the September 18 memo, said “these responses clearly signal that an unnamed person has cause to fear serious physical harm. This is intolerable as it is illegal.”

Since the school is a private institution, the 1st amendment, which prohibits censorship by government officials doesn’t apply. Actions to prevent certain material from being printed are therefore left to the discretion of the college. “Even so,” Hiestand continues,” Although actions against a student or the student paper would in this case not be illegal, it is still highly out of proportion.”

In an issue of the Record, printed in June of this year, last term’s editor William Parke-Sutherland was already voicing his concern about what he called efforts to censor the Antioch Record, calling it “a path down which I refuse to walk.”

Unclear

An interesting point of attention will also be the choice of sources that the interim board will turn to for information to base the new editorial policy upon. Levi B: “I don’t know the specifics yet, but I say we will look at Internal policy, the Honor Code, the Civil Liberties Code and advice from lawyers. The idea is that the board sets editorial policy to create a relationship of trust. It will not have hiring and firing power.”

Although they both tabled the proposal for the interim board, when it comes down to the appointment and position of the permanent REB in the community, the Dean of faculty’s view seems to be different from that of the Community manager. In answer to the question what procedure will be followed to install the new permanent board, Levi B. says: “My understanding is that it goes thru Comcil and that a rewriting of the legislative code is necessary. That means there has to be a two third majority in two different terms before it can get installed.” Contrary to CG’s views, Dean of Faculty Andrzej Bloch says he does not see the need to write the new Permanent board into the College leg-code: “Actually, I see this as business for AdCil rather than Comcil. The suggestions for appointments should be made by AdCil, with final appointment by the president.” Community manager Levi B.: “The Record comes out of activity fees, not part of the annual operating budget. Appointments don’t represent the community ownership. “Installing the interim board for this semester only requires temporary suspension of the code, which can be done with a majority vote. Following regular procedure, the permanent board should have to go thru a tougher procedure in order for REB to be written into the Leg-code. Whether a proposal for the permanent board will be presented to ComCil or not will likely be the result of discussion between the Community manager, the Dean of Faculty and the office of the President. This and other issues, including whether REB will have hiring and firing power over The Records editors need to be resolved within the course of this term.

The Past 50 Years of the Antioch Presidency, Part II (1985-1997)

By Marissa Geiger

[The first part of this articles was published last issue (Vol59/Issue18)-BS.]

The Man in White Came in Riding on a Horse

After a presidential search, the BOT chose Alan Guskin to replace William Birenbaum. Guskin’s presidency spanned from 1985 to 1997 and I split them up into two very distinctive periods: 1985-1990 were the calm years and 1990-1997 was when things started to get severely problematic. According to Guskin, when he arrived here, AC was an estimated 12 months from closing. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, in the first two years Guskin was here, in order to reverse a downward spiral, he had to fire some people, begin phasing out the Law School in D.C. and balance a budget some $800,000 in the red.

While Birenbaum named the University, Guskin sustained it at a very high level of prosperity for most of his tenure as an administrator. It is not until the period of 1990-1997 that you can see why he may be so controversial. Things started going sour when the Record investigated an administrator whom Guskin appointed without approval of any pre-established legitimate processes (AdCil various committees of the time). Michael Bassis was unilaterally hired in 1989, and just happened to be one of Guskin’s old University of Wisconsin colleagues (where he held a position previous to Antioch) and also created a position for him, AU Executive Vice President to assist Guskin with the College. This was a developing trend for Guskin, as he appointed many people who shared his interest to high-level authority positions. The Record unearthed that Bassis lied about the concentration of his PhD: it wasn’t in Sociology as he and Guskin adamantly proclaimed time and time again, but in Education. This raised serious questions about his qualifications for the job and honesty relating to his academic record. But Guskin shot back, “Mike Bassis will be here as long as I am”.

The Snowball Effect

The problems snowballed. That little lie set the stage for the rest of Guskin’s tenure. Guskin had been rearranging positions and departments since he got to campus, but nothing was as epochal as the restructuring of 1992, which stretched until 1994. This was often referred to as “decentralization”, or Guskin implementing his “federal model”, in which there was is autonomy but within a negotiated policy framework. According to Devine, who was also the Dean of Faculty a short while during Guskin’s tenure, “The federal model allowed the College its autonomy to have the governance that we have, to have the program that we have and provided the safe harbor to say ‘We had a bad year’ and we had some subsidies to help cover what we’re doing.”

The subsidies Devine mentioned refer to the other units of AC. It was at this time the position of AU Chancellor was created, to link all the other executive directors (i.e. presidents) of the other campuses. This decentralization was said to promise the reduction of the responsibility and workload of the central administration. It was at this time there were only five units under the AU (six if you count the AU administration as a separate entity): Antioch College, McGregor School, Seattle, Southern California, and New England (last four are adult campuses).

Instead of AC pumping money into the adult campuses, Guskin reversed the flow of resources and they turned into, in effect, the College’s endowment. Money flowed toward the AC from all the centers it birthed years ago. It usually added up to about $1 million from each center (this number fluxes depending on the source). Devine added, “Guskin was good at working a board. That’s what a CEO of a non-profit has to do. Love him or hate him, he did rebuild the finances of the place.”

Under Guskin’s model, the affected offices were Personnel, Business, Financial Aid, the University Registrar, and (at the time) possibly the 1993 equivalent of Tech Resources. The campus was assured that the consolidation of these departments would save money.

Administration for each unit would be central, but would report to the BOT through the Chancellor of the University, which made the relationship between campus administration and the Board a little more ambiguous. Denman calls Guskin as a loving parent and all the units his children, “Guskin fell into the trap of getting too close in his sense of identity to the College and its future so when he began to receive criticism after the romantic period was over (1985-1990), he withdrew periodically, began to see faculty and students as aliens. At times he tried. When it didn’t pay off for him, it was a reason for anger, and he would move back into the authoritative role. He loved Yellow Springs; his love affair was too great; love in the romantic sense. Love of one who could maintain own independence, and offer independence of College to itself. Its like the love of a parent and letting the child become an independent person that bewilders, disappoints but also achieves its own visions.”

The Crowfoot Dismissal

Guskin took the chance to become Chancellor of AU, thereby ending his dual presidency. After a presidential search (which also caused an uproar in the way it was conducted), Jim Crowfoot was chosen as the 18th President of AC. He only lasted one year (1995-1996). This particular year in our history is the reason the AIF was born and part of why some alumni feel so severed from the AC community.

The Crowfoot controversy is a complicated one and depending on who your sources are, can be entirely hearsay. According to a faculty compiled chronology of events, a new College budget came out on July 1st, accompanied with restrictions on the budget. Crowfoot left for planned vacation on the 22nd. The 23rd, the University imposed a freeze on spending and College could not authorize any spending. A memo given to faculty read Severe disciplinary action if procedures are not followed. Crowfoot was contacted and said a freeze may be helpful and that it is essential to cooperate.

On August 6th, Crowfoot flew home to attend an AdCil budget meeting and found that $600,000-800,000 deficit is why the University took over. It was announced the 13th that Crowfoot “resigned”. Guskin replied with “Sometimes you have to act.” Now, I have heard from some that Crowfoot was a terrible President and the campus culture didn’t mesh well with him.

Denman said “These climatic events, turning points… In the minds of some of us, we felt these were moments where it was established, or should’ve been established, that certain kinds of processes are legitimate here and other processes are not. It stands as a precedent that the University can’t get rid of a College President without consultation, without real involvement of the AC process for hiring and firing. It all goes back to the notion that we make decisions collaboratively at the College. We have normative processes that we should follow for making decisions.”

The dismissal of Crowfoot, was out of line with the College practice of due process, up until that point, that is. There was a flood of articles posted in every newspaper in 25-mile radius, and one thing resounded, the actions of the Executive Committee of the BOT were necessary and the stability at the top of the College hierarchy was the key consideration. Less than a week later one of the Board members, Malte von Matthiessen resigned, citing a lack of confidence in the leadership of AU Chancellor Al Guskin. Malte’s concern lay in the fact that Crowfoot wasn’t given the resources or the support to deal with the College’s problems and was not informed as to how severe they really were. It was doomed from the start merely from miscommunication.

Do you need clarification at this point?

From 1972-2002, the College had 16 different leaders. In the first ten years, 1972-82, enrollment dropped from 2,470 to around five or six hundred, where it has remained. I asked Bob Devine his what he thought of the stagnate admissions rate in the past 20 years and he replied, “You gotta meet 100% of financial need to compete. We need consistent financial aid and more people on the road promoting Antioch College.” Money is always the issue with this question. When we spike the money to be able to bring people here, we spike in admissions. There is a direct correlation between the two. All distractions aside, I set out to determine the root cause in our current crisis, and I believe it lies within the Dixon Network. Superfluous educational imperialism of the early days of the University set the precedent. But I should probably describe what I mean by the “current crisis”. Not really knowing who is really in charge compounds the effects of living within, as Devine calls it, a manufactured crisis. The Board made the decision to charge depreciation to the College’s budget (and every other unit) two years ago. “Depreciation is the $1 million worth of physical plant and it’s going to wear out in 10 years so you must show expenses of $100,000 each year. It originally showed up on AU’s budget (started in 1993, since it was required to have it)- depreciation as an expense, and endowment growth and revenue and they wash each other out.” Numerous consultants advised AU financial executives not to charge each unit for depreciation, claiming the College can’t take the hit.

It is a good strategy, since the money can be used to revitalizing dorms, inadvertently addressing issues of retention. However, it is taking a huge chunk out of the school’s budget for depreciation. At the same time that it was a shock there was no reserve funds set aside to counteract dilapidated conditions of the grounds, $1.8 million dollars was also wrenched from the College’s pockets at the same time when all the other units decide to stop paying the overhead they have been sending our way for years. Instead, the subsidies are called (money from adult campuses, because remember, they were thought to be our endowment) “allowable deficit”, meaning they will go away sooner or later if we get our finances in order. Glenn Watt’s attitude and the rest of the University is destructive, as both think it is time for all other satellites to concentrate on themselves, to better themselves with all their revenue, instead of pumping money into a black hole of a college. Devine responds, “The College is a black hole cause we don’t know what people do, and we don’t necessarily share the values.” But the University seems to forget that the College is a vital part of AU. The central administration is located here and without some of the resources we have (library, cafeteria, etc.), the other schools could not be accredited.

Adult campuses are the most important source of revenue for the University. Not only do they bring in more money, but the other branches of the University are growing amazingly fast, in comparison to the College, which is currently struggling to maintain its existing attendance figures, as it waxes and wanes like it always does, or has for 20 years. A liberal arts model of education is expensive and there are two ways of remedying it: large endowments, which we don’t have, and/or high enrollment rate, which we don’t have.

Again, the structure is questioned

“But when the autonomy goes away [supplied under Guskin’s federal model] and the subsidies go away then I question whether the College does not need its own BOT, its own structure.” which is Devine’s response to how he feels about the current AU/AC dichotomy. AU administration is putting us in a very difficult situation, as all our money is tied up in projects that should have happened a long time ago. It is really easy to fall into the trap of not seeing the end in sight when it comes to campus projects, since we have adopted the “band-aid fix” for many years now. I asked Denman for his opinion on AC/AU and he said, “I have been convinced that it would be good for the College to regain its independence, but I have concluded in the last four months that this is an impossibility, that the AIF was the last good try, that now the future of the College lies within the University and that we better do everything we possibly can to have the entire University system thrive with the College as a part of it. The trustees will never really entertain the question, let alone answer it favorably.” (In a Record from 1993, it said the Board will no longer entertain questions about whether the University should exist or not.)

I asked Pelakoudas the same question and he mentioned that other places had Board of Visitors and depending on how the BOT defines the BOV, they can be delegated whatever powers the want. He suggested, “Total abolishment of current hierarchy. The University is a holding company with five separately incorporated units. It’s a business model. It doesn’t produce anything. Make the University a non-operating unit, contrary to what we have across the street. The superstructure can exist, but while not running programs. Each unit can make decisions about assets and leadership as long as they are consistent with the holding company (AU) and the BOT. As long as AU owns the resources we cannot be successful. We must manage our own resources to be successful, if we have any chance. (And here is where Al and Connie agree) It may be that we are beyond the stage where anything will work. I hope not… but I don’t think we can work under the present structure.”

I ran into an article in a Record from 1985 titled Is the University good for the College? Professor of Co-operative Education Dan Hotaling responds with, “Accountability and sense of responsibility are so spread around that no one can get a handle on how to run the place. No one is in a position to make a significant difference. No one can truly lead here since advocacy for this campus clashes with subservience to the University’s administration. Who is in charge of AC and what can s/he really do?” I want to challenge and prove Guskin wrong when he says, “It is an academic truism that trying to change a University is like trying to rearrange a cemetery.” It doesn’t sound like Connie’s suggestion would be that painful.

Reports of linkage problems

Even if our ideas are not heard or just completely ignored, the current system should not go to waste or make us go to waste. We have a communication problem with the University and it is to our benefit to remedy it. I read in the NCA report from the last time the accreditation team was here in 1993. A serious fault they see within our system is the problem of linkage, connecting different departments, especially between AC and across the street. Duffy explained to me that, for a long time, Glenn Watts didn’t know the air condition was broken in the library. He told Duffy that no one had told him, to which replied to me during the interview, “Kettering Building might as well be in Mexico.” Although, I do know information slips through the cracks over there and irresponsibility cannot be blamed on workload. If that is the argument, a review is in order of the consolidations that occurred more than a decade ago. So…what?

This summer, I was blaming Joan, and then I convinced others and myself that it was the BOT. Recently, I think that it is we as a community. Richard Lapides, a trustee of nine years, resigned June 8th, 1995. He was interviewed in the Record and he had this to say about the “blame game”, “Sometimes people like to talk overmuch about leadership because it’s a way to avoid dealing with them. It’s a lot easier to hold a leader responsible for what’s good or bad, more often what’s bad, instead of looking to oneself and one’s own role. It’s ridiculous. It happens all the time. It’s human nature.” I don’t fully agree with that statement, but I do think he makes a valid point by singling community members out and telling them to take responsibility for their surroundings. Times have changed since 1995, and I wonder if any Trustees would agree with his statement while still recognizing how many times students voices and efforts have been quashed on this campus.

Which leads me to four criteria I found in a commentary I found in the Record by student Matthew Rick. 1) The people who control the money call all the shots. 2) Important decisions are made from the top down. 3) The people in control don’t have to apologize. 4) Protest is tolerated as long as it doesn’t change anything.

These were written in 1992 and I remember discussing these same issues in the days following Joan’s meeting with us. We protested about DOS restructuring and the blatant weakening of the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If you have noticed other parallels through out this report to what is going on now, do not be surprised. It all goes back to the Guskin era, at the start of his difficult years. Notice that Guskin created a position specifically for Bassis. We ran into that issue this past summer with how obvious some of the positions were designed and written. Some purposely excluded while others were inclusive. It was as if some of the positions were being molded around individuals. Also notice in Guskin’s decentralization/federal model how there was decentralization of less centralized power in one area (AHEM DOS) and this command came from above, namely the BOT, but implemented by President <enter name here>. The College Community has yet to see the Restructuring Committee notes that were compiled at numerous social settings and via email. Again, whom are we supposed to go to for it? I gather there is some hesitancy from up above Joan to release them, or she would have put them out by now. Or maybe not. The students don’t have the money to be able to call the shots, but we certainly have every other constituency beat by majority. And without us, there is no reason for the College to continue operating. “If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change.”

There are interesting parallels between the past and present. McGregor School merged with AU in 1995. Of course there was a lot of discussion on taking on such collaboration. At the same time, the Yellow Springs campus dwellers were in an uproar about the College renting out Units to McGregor. And here we are, in 2003, McGregor is threatening to leave, and we are negotiating with them to rent out Units (or maybe it was quashed by Housing). It was also the same time as racism/systematic oppression were active issues on campus. You would think the administration would have it down by now, right? We are moving in circles around a circle. It seems as if we keep asking the same questions over and over again, and they are the wrong ones every time because we don’t get the right answers. The question “Is AU good for AC” is becoming tedious and gets us nowhere close to achieving some sort of independence within the College.

We have been operating in the same cursed structure for 20-odd years. The fear that I mentioned before plays an important role in keeping us in this static position. Pelakoudas states, “An environment in which you feel squeezed by limited resources and constant economic constraints makes dealing with the other issues difficult (those of race, class, gender, etc.) It makes people angry and scared. It comes down to ownership of resources and the quality of life campus. If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change, and not just financial, governance side. It is also the ownership of assets, issues surrounding governance. If you really feel that [influence] working with colleagues, you can make a difference. If you don’t have that possibility, what is the point?”

I personally, do not feel like I am, or have been, influencing my environment. The resistance against that this summer was suffocating and culminated at one particular community meeting where two executive administrators began to tear up. THEY WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING FOR ONCE. And its not like they had a choice. There is no room for power hungry individuals in administration. Guskin is a member of the Renewal Commission. Check out and click on “Project on the Future of Higher Education”. Notice who is on it: Guskin, BASSIS, and a few other of his friends he appointed to administrative positions while President/Chancellor.

Should this scare you that he is once again a part of a crucial decision making process? I will leave that for you to decide. I am not placing blame on any one individual for all our current woes. However, it seems odd to me that we are tackling issues that have root in the Guskin era, and he is on the Commission. People say the Commission and its members have the best interest of the College in mind. But what they mean is the members have their own interest for the College in mind and in turn, come to the table wielding their own agenda.

I am not a proponent of this, it is merely an observation- I already pointed out that we, as students, have the majority, population wise. Students in 1973 took advantage of that and look at the damage they did. We are still recovering from it. I say we escape this perpetual victim mentality that comes along with living in an environment where we have no control. We are at another crucial bend in our cycle, where we could possibly break off. The Renewal Commission, restructuring of the DOS, presidential search- its all happened before, and all at the same time and Antioch College reacted the way we always do, with fear and trembling submission. I am going to take Duffy’s advice and “adopt” a trustee, alumni, or a member on a commission and open my heart to them totally so I can feed them so they can make the judgments by they know from me. I cannot accept “Nothing will ever change here”, because the means lie within all of us.

The Past 50 Years of the Antioch Presidency, Part 1 (1950s – 1980s)

By Marissa Geiger

[History will help us see our present circumstances and the future more clearly. This two-part series is presented thanks to several months of work from Marissa, researched through dozens of interviews and lengthy searches through Antiochiana and back issues of the Record. –MH]

“When an institution doesn’t have lax leadership, it becomes driven by law and finance and the result is it is a fear driven institution rather than a mission driven institution” -Bob Levin (as quoted by Bob Devine)

By now you have heard the horror stories from the summer, how the renegade administration took matters into their own hands to achieve efficiency, the unjust firings and demotions, and a stagnate air to campus starting the week our President Joan Straumanis gave us her the update on the Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting. Straumanis mentioned that the BOT is paying close attention to the College, even more so and has decided to create a Renewal Commission to revitalize every facet of the campus. She also told us there were plans for a restructuring of the Dean of Students (DOS) office. And then there was the Antioch Independence Fund (AIF), calling for the centralization of the College and moving it out of the University’s control while using $1.2 million (collected from like-minded alumni) to coax University administrators to comply with their demands.

It was at Joan’s meeting that I met some feisty alumni who worked closely with the AIF. That was the start of my mission to find out about the relationship between the University and the College, since Joan’s meeting had me near panicked tears. I was determined to eradicate this growing fear within me by discovering where the deepest root of our current crisis lies. I use the term crisis lightly, as we have been in much worse condition, as I hope to point out to you. I contended most of the summer that the cause to all our woes was merely a mismanagement issue. I began by asking the question, “Who is really in charge here?”

I think that question is integral to understanding the Antioch College (AC) and Antioch University (AU) relationship and I hope to show you where the line lies between the two. I apologize in advance for holes in my research/writing. As I am limited as a student for time and limited in terms of length, I have meticulously selected what I am discussing. I am hoping this will start a dialogue on campus about our history and I welcome any corrections/arguments against what I say here.

Summer wrap-up

If you haven’t heard about the summer’s course of events, allow me to clarify. The former DOS resigned in April. It was this and many other issues that led Joan to believe the position put too much responsibility and expected too much out of one individual. So goes the reasoning for the actual restructuring. People had issue, however, with how the new positions were being drafted in written form. Some people even believed certain positions were created for specific people. Joan called for a “DOS Restructuring Committee” who would pool together opinions and suggestions from the community. We held various forums and the Committee gladly accepted feedback from those off campus via email. The Committee was to report to join about their findings, and from there she was to make a decision.

The outcome is what we have in place today and it isn’t quite what the community at large suggested. But what you didn’t see, and what you don’t hear about today is that there was blood spilled along the way; people lost their jobs and others were demoted unfairly who were integral to the campus community and whom everyone loved. The AIF situation ended badly, and from the view of the community, was handled badly on all rungs of the Antioch hierarchy, starting with Joan and ending with the BOT. There were some stipulations to receiving the money collected by the AIF that seemed outright ridiculous and on the verge of blackmail, for example severing from the University, while others had been demanded since the birth of the University, for example College President would be ex-officio BOT member.

However, $1.2 million dollars is enough and a lot of community couldn’t get the bitter taste out of their mouth, thinking that more deliberation could have taken place (with the community involved) and that it appeared as if it was another situation were the Board was asserting its power. AIF gave a deadline to Antioch a few years ago that ended this past August, the money they raised being given to a bunch of secondary designations, mostly in Yellow Springs and other nonprofits.

The Dixon Years

James P. Dixon is credited with creating “the Network” (which eventually went on to become AU). Dixon’s presidency spanned 25+ years, starting in 1959 until 1975. In the early 1960’s, individual initiative caused many “centers” affiliated with Antioch to sprout up all over the country. The first established was the Putney school in Vermont (which is now a grad school known as Antioch School of New England). Less than four years later, Antioch had established 30-35 centers around the world (including a law school in DC and programs in Alaska). It was also during that time that those satellites created their own sub-satellites, as did they, and so on and so forth. There was inequity among the units, as it was difficult for Antioch College to manage an “empire” this enormous. Institutional control was virtually impossible, mainly because of geographical constraints. The College at the time had its own BOT, but when we started to expand to create the University, they had to divide their time. It was impossible to attend to all the centers, so they mainly focused on administration from centers and the College. Former Antioch Professor of Philosophy, Religion, and Law, Al Denman, says, “[Dixon] was willing to sacrifice the future of the College if we were to be true to our destiny as educational leaders. And if we were to be true to our destiny it didn’t matter if we survived cause we would be setting the pace, we’d be an example, we’d help others ride with the tides even though we might go under… the job of the administration was to enable those who were catching the visions of the future that were destined to be, not stand in the way.”

Establishing centers around the globe promoting all the values and ideals of Antioch was sound ideally, but not in practice, as it turned out. Connie Pelakoudas, who was Professor of Economics at the time stated, “There was interesting motivation [to establish the satellites]- take a program to less fortunate areas. It was not intended to be permanent. It was initially intended to empower the people in the community to take charge of their education that couldn’t otherwise attend a rural liberal arts college.”

Strike!

Meanwhile, back home in Yellow Springs, the campus was in the beginning stages of severe budget crisis. The bills eventually started to come in for the previous three years of expansion from all the satellites; we had overspent; all of our reserves were gone and we plummeted into great debt in a matter of months. As a historical note, the Vietnam War was raging as were campus uprisings all over the country speaking out against our involvement in Vietnam. Nixon took this personally and threatened to take away student grants.

Since most of the students here were supported by financial aid, and upon hearing the resounding threat from Nixon, the students demanded the administration promise that they would be financially supported through their four years here. Denman states, “The administration knew something they couldn’t actually tell everybody, namely they had already overspent everything (mainly on the Network), so there was no money for guarantee of student support and these messianic visionaries (the students/ faculty on strike) got together and shut down the school.” However, this was the second strike. As Stephen Duffy in the Library will tell you, the first strike was that of the newly established Union on campus. The totality of both strikes paralyzed the campus for weeks. The doors reopened, but with far fewer students than when they closed. Within a year, the enrollment plummeted from 2300 students to about 1600 students.

The BOT is AOK

Dixon was dismissed in 1974 mainly for mismanagement of the network and finances, and other controversies surrounding him and his associates. The BOT was urged to act the year before by many constituents, including students (via the Record) and faculty who claimed Dixon was incompetent as a leader, which, they concluded, clearly led to disintegration and degradation of the community (as reported in Dayton Daily News 09-23-73). The constituents also challenged the Board’s thoroughness when dealing with recent events, alluding to the possibility that they are completely ignorant about what goes on at the school. However, a commentary to the Record in 1974 by Prof. John Sparks, offers a retort and defends the position of the BOT.

He points out that, at the time, the College’s Charter states the president serves “at the pleasure of the Board”. Sparks continues by supplying evidence that Dixon did not comply with the Board and, in fact, filtered what he told them. Members of the Board mentioned in Sparks’ article stated that the President did not keep them sufficiently informed of developments for them to be able to do their job intelligently and responsibly and that they continually asked for information but were held off or ignored. Dixon acted on his own numerous times and even went to the extent of quashing AdCil’s rulings or avoiding AdCil all together.

The Wrestler Comes to Antioch

Insufficient attention was paid to the 35 units, and they were financially mismanaged and poorly run which is a violation of the financial management responsibility of the Board. Putting this into the context of our current situation, the Board does not want it to happen again to the College and according to Denman, “they do feel a grave responsibility for it.” (Maybe this explains the tightening of the financial reigns in recent years?) The Board sought out a replacement for Dixon and landed William Birenbaum from Long Island, NY.

Birenbaum’s presidency spanned from 1976 until 1984 (the period between his entrance and Dixon’s exit was covered by a joint interim president wife/husband team, Bob and Kay Levin). This period is the most crucial of all three examined here, as Birenbaum was the creator of what we know now as Antioch University (AU). He had the distinguished job to do whatever it took to keep the College alive. He was hired to cut down Dixon’s Network, to whittle away things that were hemorrhaging, entering with an axe to chop away anything that would drag the rest of the institution down. However, Birenbaum did not like Yellow Springs nor Antioch from the beginning (his wife reportedly despised Ohio), so he moved the offices to New York City. His logic was he had more financial connection and could raise more money in NYC (even when factoring the cost of his travel twice a week back to campus). As Duffy pointed in an interview, “Absence does not make the heart grow fonder. He couldn’t know the actual problems unless he was here. He only knew what he was being fed. Who does the feeding? Who’s ever ego is involved.”

It was a big mistake on Birenbaum’s part to live far away from campus. How could he grasp what Antioch was all about, both in principle and practice? His mission clearly was not to make friends, but to straighten out the mess of the previous decades. He was known as a bully and when challenged in public forum (meetings, AdCil, etc) he would ask if they wanted to step outside and wrestle, as he was a wrestler in his undergrad years. The campus, at large, generally felt hostile towards him and fought back by writing letters to the Record or attending his few and far between public appearances. When it came to him paring down what was suffering the most financially, that is where he ran into problems. According to Pelakoudas, “We had a lot of issues getting out of certain programs. Legal issues were involved in the process of closing them down”.

The Infamous Name Change

In a resolution dated Fall 1977, Birenbaum proposed an amendment to be taken to the Board of Regents of the State of Ohio to change the name Antioch College to Antioch University, and included in this “university” was the remnants of Dixon’s Network: Antioch College, Yellow Springs; Antioch School of Law, Washington, DC; Antioch-East, Maryland; Antioch-West, San Francisco; and Antioch International also located in Yellow Springs. The reasoning was “by nature of its degree offerings and organization Antioch conforms to the definition of a ‘University’”. We were no longer a small liberal arts college; we were a part of a whole. But it wasn’t (and shouldn’t be) the College that managed the Networks. According to Birenbaum, as stated in YS News, “It should clarify what Antioch is to the public”. “College” is used to describe an institution that is exclusively or primarily undergrad in nature. Administrators saw what was Antioch, at the time, operating on a university model. In the next three years, there would be three Provosts (our equivalent to AC president) under Birenbaum as he continued business in NYC.

Worst Financial Crisis in the Late 1900’s

In 1979 there was the worst financial crisis in years. Faculty and staff both worked for free, called “pay-less paydays” for weeks. AU issued I.O.U’s and most workers went on welfare programs, such as food stamps. Duffy calls it “a creative gamble to get out of fiscal exigency”. There was a huge administration created by the AU expansion, and the newly incorporated campuses were expensive, namely AC and the Law School. However, Bob Devine states, “AC actually caused it to default. AC caused the default, which caused a bank to seize part of our endowment. The drop in enrollment [is the issue], not the University that took our endowment.” The campus went into survival mode. According to stories from Duffy, students, faculty and staff teamed up during the summer and worked on the campus grounds for little to no pay. Already two years after the name change, the finances crashed and the AC community lost the little faith they had in their administrators. As Denman put it, “The entire institution was insolvent, by that we mean that there was literally no money flowing either in nor out. Nobody was being paid, no bills were being paid and nothing was being purchased. The campus was on the verge of bankruptcy. There was a great doubt as to whether we would open in the fall.”

It was during this time that Birenbaum suggested to sell off what is now Antioch Commons to the town as a form of capital; we ended up buying it back years down the road when in decent financial standing.

Al Denman answers questions with legal backing

The severe budget crisis took a toll on the campus as a whole and people started to really question the college’s current system. Denman took the summer off to research his guide to “Legal Means for Separating Antioch College from Antioch University”. It outlines many issues that are strangely echoed today: AC has fundamental cultural and general differences with AU and its administration; capital assets (endowment, alumni, property, etc) that belong to AU actually belong to AC and were stolen from AC.; an attempt may be made to close AC to save the rest of the University; and the AU administration is incapable of superintending itself, let alone the rest of the units (and their budgets). “Antioch College” cannot have standing to sue in order to separate because it is not a separate legal entity and is not a “person” in the eyes of the law.

There are correlations to today’s problems, but the most dramatic was that, according to Denman, “Birenbaum felt that the College stood in the way of the University and that the College needed to either die or be sufficiently metamorphosed so that it was no longer the Antioch College that we know but would be a different kind of creature cause it needed to give up its life so that the life of the University should continue.” (This striking historical repetitiveness bears contemplation.) Birenbaum was in close contact with the BOT, especially Leo Drey, who has given millions of dollars over the years. Without him, our College would not be alive today. But it is contended that BOT waited too long to dismiss Birenbaum, as he hostilely severed himself from the campus, and it was noted by several interviewees that during his tenure here that his judgment got progressively more clouded. But, without Birenbaum, there would be no precedence set for the entering president who would, in the long run, build a equal exchange among the units of AU, and would illustrate how all the parts of the whole funded each other through troubled times.