Flawed APP process lacks humanity, keeps community in the dark
This is the Our View, prepared for by the Editorial Board and should be considered the institutional voice of The Record.
Throughout the Fall, The Record reported on various releases and recommendations from Provost Richard Ice’s Academic Program Prioritization (APP) plan. Following these recommendations and the Joint Faculty Senate’s recommendations, President Brian Bruess and the Boards of Trustees will both vote on these recommendations to determine the expansion, reduction and closure of academic departments at CSB+SJU. Though The Record Editorial Board has not released an opinion on the APP to date, the Boards of Trustees’ upcoming February meetings warrants a thorough response.
First, hard truths central to the APP conversation need to be recognized. Spring 2022 was the first time that CSB+SJU’s combined enrollment fell below 3,000 students since 1973. These concerns have persisted in the new academic year, as current CSB first-year enrollment–329 students–lags 78 students behind the fall 2021 number. Likewise, SJU first-year enrollment–394 students–is 44 fewer students than Fall 2021 total. With an already low student to faculty ratio, our institutions cannot maintain the current volume of class offerings and academic departments without change.
A sound student to faculty ratio is one of the key metrics to CSB+SJU’s reputation and status as a small, liberal arts, Benedictine college in rural Minnesota. An imbalance in student enrollment or faculty employment can jeopardize the campus’s future. This said, transparency from the Provost and President could have–and if correctly addressed, still can–improve campus opinion about the APP. Hiding behind the wall of “process” and data collection is inhumane and an invalid argument for a decision impacting the employment of 28 or more faculty members.
From the start, the Provost’s management of the APP has left students, faculty and other important campus stakeholders in the dark. At the Sept. 21 Joint Student Senate meeting, when questioned on how current students could provide feedback on the APP, the Provost stated–with exception to the current meeting–he had nothing scheduled at the time. His failure to announce his attendance at the meeting with advanced notice made it impossible for students to weigh in or be aware of the implementation of his plan.
This uncertainty has left community members uninformed, allowing rumors to spread widely and negatively impacting faculty and staff morale. We can only imagine how the Provost would have felt if the APP was being implemented 15 years ago when he was a professor in the communication department. Additionally, the incentivized retirement plan for faculty wasn’t announced until winter break–nearly four months after the APP was initially reported on in The Record. This delay is indefensible; a more effective action would have been to release the plan concurrently with the start of the APP process, giving faculty enough time to evaluate the situation and make an informed decision. The Record plans to cover the details of the incentivized retirement plan in the News section next week.
So far, the Bruess Presidency has been marked by a number of successes: the hiring and promotion of women and women of color, a tangible public presence and an uncommon partnership at the top between Carol and Brian. However, the mishandling of the APP process and lack of public communication (particularly after five emails from President Bruess to the campus community throughout the fall) from the President’s office is inexcusable. Although the Provost may be carrying out the plan, the buck stops with the president–Bruess is no different.
It’s time for more transparency on this topic that affects the immediate and long-term future of these schools. Academic administrators, start consulting and listening to us students, and ensure that professors can speak freely about this with their students. This is a defining moment for our colleges, and to leave hundreds of people intimately close to the issue in the dark just doesn’t make sense.
APP is inevitable, but the way it’s been handled undermines the credibility of the institutions and deserves significant, valid criticism. The process has been murky and unclear for everyone, particularly students, of whom the changes impact incredibly significantly. Perhaps most unexplainable of all is the line of thinking that has led the President and the Provost to make these recommendations without direct student feedback. It is ridiculous to claim that the APP process is in the best interests of future students of CSB and SJU while simultaneously refusing to seek out the thoughts and opinions of the best experts on the student experience – current students.