Reported Faculty Senate Email Sheds Light on Attitude Toward FBS Move
We’re posting this one with a whole range of caveats. According to a message board post, the Speaker of the JMU Faculty Senate emailed his colleagues in the Faculty Senate in some sort of attempt to encourage them to hold-off on weighing on on the JMU to FBS move until after they’ve examined the Carr Report. We have not done any research to determine the validity of this supposed email. It may be a complete hoax for all we know.
With that being said, if it is legitimate, there are multiple ways you could view it. You could choose to believe that its the smoking gun that proves the Faculty Senate is colluding to prevent JMU from jumping to FBS. Or you could argue that it’s a case of the Speaker of the Faculty Senate attempting to encourage his peers to be patient and weigh the facts before making a decision. And how you view the message as whole, probably comes down to how you interpret the following excerpt.
I think the Faculty Senate can make better, more well-reasoned arguments if we can look at the data in the consultant’s report before we take any action. I think doing so will make us look better – it will make us look as though we’ve based our conclusion on the evidence, rather than on a knee-jerk, “we-hate-football” attitude.
Hmm. That’s an interesting message that could lead to hours of shall we say, spirited debate. Again, it could simply be a faculty member who is encouraging his colleagues to hold off and examine the facts before deciding if they think JMU should go FBS, while at the same time acknowledging that he knows most are leaning against a move. Or it could be a faculty member encouraging his colleagues to hold off on speaking out against said move until after the facts are presented, purely to give the false impression that the conclusion was based on the facts presented in the Carr report.
If legit, this email is certainly interesting. But it might not be particularly important or revealing. For one thing, the JMU faculty isn’t going to decide if JMU goes FBS or not. The Board of Visitors (BOV) is. And as the supposed email indicates, the BOV is comprised of members who are going to weigh the facts and determine if a move to FBS is in the university’s long-term best interest. Also, it’s really not a surprise that the Faculty Senate, a group of individuals who’ve dedicated their lives to academics, might be reluctant to see JMU make a move that would require greater investment in athletics.
Here is the full text of the supposed email (as taken from the message board).
Senators,
I’m writing to you because of the unprecedented amount of feedback I am hearing on the issue of whether JMU should consider changing its football conference. Over the past week, I’ve been receiving email messages literally every day, as well as being stopped on my walks across campus by concerned faculty. I have not seen such an expression of faculty sentiment on any issue since I’ve been an officer of the Senate. I want to do the best I can to communicate faculty perspectives up to the administration, and to keep faculty informed of what the administration is doing, so I want to reiterate what I believe to be the current status of this issue and explain my rationale for my proposed path forward.
Many of the communications I have received from the faculty have expressed the view that the administration has already made a decision on this question, and that the Board of Visitors will be voting on it at their next meeting on October 4, and therefore this is an issue of extreme urgency. I do not believe that this is the case.
I am convinced that the President has not made a decision on this issue. From my conversations with him, I know that he is hearing a lot of opinions on all sides of the issue from various constituent groups, and I believe he really wants to keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence and opinions before he makes up his mind. I have been assured that the administration does not plan to ask the BOV for any action on this matter at the October 4 meeting (while the BOV technically can take action on anything they choose, in practice, our BOV almost never does anything but to vote on issues presented to them by the JMU administration). I am confident in stating that I consider it extremely unlikely that any action will be taken on October 4.
As you know, the Board of Visitors has commissioned a consultant to study the matter, and that Report will be presented to the BOV on October 4 (and it will then be made public). Some have expressed the view that in business, one never commissions a consultant’s report except to justify a decision that has already been made. I do not believe this is true in this case. As you know, I attend the BOV meetings (except closed executive sessions), including the retreat in Williamsburg in June where the members of the BOV had more chance to talk informally. I feel I’ve gotten to know many of them, and have a sense of how they make decisions. The BOV does have a very vocal member who has been active in arguing that we should move to NCAA I-A. However, from my observation, I think he is alone in his passion. The rest of the BOV are (for the most part) business people who are cautious and fiscally conservative, and want to be persuaded that something is in the long-term best interest of the University before moving ahead with it. At the moment, I think they remain unconvinced on this issue, and are not interested in making that move unless it makes sound business sense. I’m not saying they would never vote “yes,” on this issue, but I don’t think they would do so unless President Alger requested it and unless they were persuaded it made good financial sense.
I think the Faculty Senate can make better, more well-reasoned arguments if we can look at the data in the consultant’s report before we take any action. I think doing so will make us look better – it will make us look as though we’ve based our conclusion on the evidence, rather than on a knee-jerk, “we-hate-football” attitude. I think waiting until after October 4 will allow us to present a stronger case, and give us more credibility with the President and the BOV. As a practical matter, I suspect the Senate will take a position against going to NCAA I-A either way, but I would rather have us try to approach the issue with open minds, look at the evidence, make a rational decision, then work to make a persuasive case to the administration.
We are in the process of planning a special meeting of the Faculty Senate on October 17 to address only this issue. We’re still deciding the format for that meeting, but I think that’s the perfect time for the Senate to tackle this issue (pun intended). The next meeting of the BOV after that is January 17. I believe this will give us ample time to try to persuade the administration, and ultimately make our case to the BOV if necessary, before any decision is made.
David
David K. McGraw, Esq.
Professor, Department of Integrated Science & Technology
James Madison University
It’s an interesting insight into the decision-making process, but it probably isn’t enough to speculate with. In general, I tend to doubt that the faculty holds much sway over the direction of JMU athletics, or that their disapproval for expansion is anything new. In my experience the overwhelming majority of JMU faculty held some degree of resentment towards the size and prominence of JMU athletics. I doubt they were in favor of the Bridgeforth expansion while their pay was frozen, although I guess I don’t know. I’ll be interested to see what further MACtion is taken on this matter.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of this (if it is indeed a real communication) is appalling. The faculty senate shamelessly working a political angle to strengthen their own selfish desires at the expense of the best interests of the University that they serve.
FWIW, UMass faculty complained night and day against the move, after the fact. The university had made a commitment to FBS football, and therefore the UMass faculty’s complaints where just that… complaints. They carried no weight at the end of the day.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if President Alger shakes in his boots at threats from his faculty, he’ll be further alienating alumni, donors and fans for decades to come.
I don’t see any arrogance or hypocrisy in this. If the faculty opposes it, why shouldn’t they organize their efforts to do so? It’s not obvious that D-1A football is in the best interest of the university, that’s what the whole debate is about.
I can understand frustration and unhappiness among faculty who see a spending focus on athletics and see a relation to a freeze on faculty salary raises that only recently ended. I’m told Alger has a plan in place to redress this, but it’s an open question as to how much follow-through there will be on this; do they trust the new president, or not? As was pointed out on the boards, if JMU froze or lowered its student fees (which pay for athletics) and increased its tuition (which help pay for salaries) it could remain at it’s current cost.
I don’t know if my perspective would matter or not to the faculty who think like this, but I think I’m not alone. I was proud of my JMU education but apart from looking at scores I wasn’t involved. However, when the Bridgeforth expansion began, I got interested and started attending games and donating to the Duke Club. I’ve since started donating to academics. Athletics led me to alumni involvement and donations to academics. I think it can be a tool to bring back other uninvolved alumni as well.
I had several classes with Dr. McGraw – he is taking the angle that he wants the senate to be informed. I haven’t talked to him about this matter but just from knowing him I know that is the approach he’s going for here.