A ‘vote of confidence’ for incoming President J. Bruce Harreld    

     A group of independent university business professionals would like to officially welcome President J. Bruce Harreld to the University of Iowa with an official “Vote of Confidence” in his selection.

      We understand the financial pressures put on the university as well as prior failures and inefficiencies that have resulted in numerous expensive fixes that may or may not have made any difference in future success. We also understand that some of the world’s greatest leaders may not have been born experts in their field or have CVs that are 150 pages long. Some transformers were simply guides putting together teams that achieved greatness on their own.

      Many faculty and staff are ready for a dramatic change. We’re ready for a different direction, one that perhaps is bold and innovative. A direction that may result in faculty and staff once again striving to be their best and create a new energy that translates into a greater institution. Bringing success that will trickle down to the very core students and patients that define our very existence.

       We understand that the overall faculty and student groups have condemned the process and hiring of Harreld. Well to that, we stand up and shout back, “Give the guy a chance. Pull up your britches, refocus your energies, put your pitchforks back in the garage, and let’s get to work to make the university great again.”

     Signed, the faculty and staff at the UI who want to give J. Bruce Harreld a chance to once again prove that he can turn something good into something great.

Brad Franzwa

Brian Hulke

Joshua Cook

Jeri Smith

      Et others (“et” provided to make us financial people more acceptable to the “academics”)

Personal responsibilities

     Actions have consequences. While college students understand that poor-quality essays earn failing grades, many fail to grasp that borrowing money requires repayment.

     On Sept. 2, an article arguing for government-supported tuition — titled “The ‘deals’ in American education” — ends with the author’s question: “Should I have to pay for these decisions [taking out student loans] 20 years down the line?” My answer is, emphatically, Yes.

     Proponents of government-supported tuition, such as Bernie Sanders, argue that rich people will pay. Their argument fundamentally relies on Marx’s ideal: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

     But what is a “need?” Do college students need to go to an out-of-state, four-year institution? Do they need to attend college right after high school? Neither of these are needs. Students can go to community colleges, learn online, and gain on-the-job experience. When students aren’t held responsible for their decisions, they will act irresponsibly. This is a tragedy of the commons, plain and simple.

     While I disagree with Marxist theory, I find greater fault in people who use the government to force their personal responsibility onto others. Those who relinquish their responsibility have a nebulous concept of the “other taxpayers” who pay — an inhuman abstraction that doesn’t have hopes, dreams, or a tight budget.

     No society — capitalist or communist — can survive if citizens don’t take responsibility for their own actions and ideals. Proponents of government-supported tuition can cooperate to privately raise money for scholarships, innovate cheaper alternatives to college, or change our current “culture of credentialism” that makes everyone believe a bachelor’s degree is necessary. No one is stopping them from peacefully bringing change.

     Individuals who want everyone to go to college should take responsibility for their actions and ideals instead of forcing others to pay.

Alex Boren

University as a business

      In its response to the Faculty Senate’s vote of no confidence, the state Board of Regents accused them of “resisting change” and maintaining “the status quo.” What exactly they mean by “status quo,” they don’t say.

     But I do: the unsustainable status quo right now is that: a) the undergrads pay way too much in tuition, and b) the grad students who do two-thirds of the teaching are paid way too little. Is this the status quo the regents intend to change? Their recent tuition hikes at ISU and UNI indicate no to a), while their stubborn fight against COGS last year indicates no to b). So let’s be clear here: The regents are not seeking to change the status quo but only new ways to maintain it. It is actually the faculty who are fighting fiercely for change.

     Look, do you want to run this university like a business? Fine, then let’s put this in the starkest business terms possible: The customers are being overcharged and underserved. If the regents believe that this is the most sustainable model, then we have far larger problems than Bruce Harreld.

Jacob Bender