LAUSDeanLong: It is a real honor, Kasey, to continue our tradition of dialogues between the LAUS Dean and the President of the LAUC with you today. The dialogues are intended to open a space of mature and honest communication with students in which we can address issues of central concern to the College and the University. There is, of course, no more pressing issue of concern today than the recent release of the Freeh Report.
The report outlines the failures of senior leaders in the university to act on behalf of the safety and welfare of child victims of a sexual predator, and of a university culture of deference to authority that prevented reports of crimes to flow to proper authorities (14, 127ff). It designates the transformation of this culture as the most challenging task facing the Penn State community (18).
As a member of the faculty, an administrator, a husband and a father, I want very much to contribute to the transformation that we need to accomplish together, but I must admit, I feel tremendously saddened, disappointed and even disheartened as I read through this report. I wonder about the students; how are you feeling?
KaseyOKeefe: I would say the vast majority of students share that disappointment and sadness you mentioned, Dean Long. We came to Penn State trusting those in power, and expecting them to live up to the upstanding reputation that we were proud to become a part of. We felt let down in November, when it felt like the rug was being pulled out from under us, and I believe that feeling returned today, reading a summary of everything that went wrong over the course of many years. Further, as young adults and simply as human beings, it is extremely upsetting to see people we respected put children’s lives in jeopardy for the sake of careers and reputations.
Along with these uneasy feelings, however, comes a strong sense of unity and promise of hope for the future of Penn State. Many students have been tweeting or posting on Facebook all day the reasons why they are proud to be Penn Staters, and they have been urging others not to blame the whole University for the actions of few. Additionally, as you mentioned, the report calls for a transformation, and students are also looking forward to being involved in that process. A group of student leaders released a statement this morning, which assured us that they “will do the best [they] can to ensure that our institution diligently reviews and considers the recommendations laid out in the Freeh report.” I believe we students ultimately expect to see these changes made by our administration, want to continue placing the victims and their well-being as a priority, and look forward to carrying ourselves in ways that will restore and reinforce Penn State’s good name.
LAUSDeanLong: Throughout this process, Kasey, I have been impressed by the thoughtful manner in which most Penn State students, and particularly our students in the College of the Liberal Arts, have responded to the crisis. We will need your best talents as students of ethics and psychology, of political science and sociology, of history and communication, to navigate a way to the “values- and ethics-centered community” of which the Freeh report speaks (129). Can we think together here, and perhaps ask students to think with us in the comments below, about what we can do in concrete terms to create a culture of accountability and ethical decision making?
KaseyOKeefe: I think the main way that we can help create this culture is ongoing communication and discussion among all members of the Penn State community. Since November, Penn State students, faculty, and alumni have begun asking more questions and actively seeking out information of our decision making bodies. I believe the way we encourage accountability and ethical decision making is to continue these actions, such as following the Board of Trustees meetings and not letting them slip to the back of our minds again. We should also continue to push for student voices to be heard among administrators, allowing these meetings to have a mix of perspectives and opinions. Finally, we can promote open and constructive discussions among students and faculty. For example, these LAUS blog posts can provide a platform for non-threatening dialogue between students, faculty and administrators in the College of the Liberal Arts. I would like to encourage anyone to comment below and add to this discussion with your thoughts and suggestions about the topic.
LAUSDeanLong: The voices of students will be critical to our ability to move toward a more open and self-critical community. In that spirit, let’s open our discussion to others and invite comments and reflections below about how we can best cultivate a renewed culture of accountability at Penn State.
@kittenplans, I think every day about the role I play as an administrator at Penn State in establishing an institutional culture in which individuals feel empowered to bring issues of injustice, abuse or inappropriate behavior to the attention of administrators and others in authority to address them.
Although the events concerning the headship of Mitchell Aboulafia occurred just as I was being hired at Penn State, rather than being covered up, they were fully investigated by the University Office of Affirmative Action and the results reported to the department.
The graduate school and the college were involved with the circumstances surrounding Ms. Rawls’ experience in the department and, of course, I can’t comment on the specifics of her case. I am happy to report that, partly as a result of that situation, the Graduate Council has endorsed guidelines recommended to the Dean of the Graduate School that allow graduate assistants to take a medical leave under specified conditions without losing their stipend or health insurance coverage. These guidelines can be found on the Graduate School web site at:
http://www.gradsch.psu.edu/policies/student/paidLeaves.html
If you are interested in talking further about these issues, I would be happy to meet with you.
“Subordinates at the University feel uncomfortable bringing bad news or institutional problems to their superiors. Employees think it is more in their interest to stay quiet than to attempt change.”
This seems like a particularly pointed issue for students/staff of the LA college. I’ve had a comment deleted on this blog for pointing out the issue of Mitch Aboulafia’s firing — which firing was a clear case of the fear of retribution for reporting wrongdoing coming to active fruition. This debate will continue to be unfruitful until the LA college itself comes clean about its own dirty history in re suppression of free speech & reportage of wrongdoing. A recent article [http://www.alternet.org/story/156154/one_woman%27s_account_of_how_abuse%2C_corruption_and_silence_at_penn_state_perpetuate_a_poisonous_culture] points out similarly aggressive wagon-circling behavior on Dr. Long’s part as well (I think it’s patently obvious who the “graduate director who… has since been promoted to a deanship.” Ms. Rawls is referring to is.). As a LA student, it’s alarming, if not surprising, that everyone in the LA college is scrupulously avoiding the issue of their own personal histories w/ this matter, & is doing whatever possible to cover up their tracks. Somehow I doubt that this comment will be seen either, but I’m going to write openly as if it were. So, Dr. Long: how do you suppose the process of righting the institutional ills outlined in the Freeh Report can take place if you will not acknowledge the crucial part that yourself, Dean Welch & others have played in promoting this culture?
Respectfully, you misinterpret what I’m saying. It seems prudent to wait until August, when the students return to campus, to have a forum with College admins, especially the Dean. Also, my comment was pretty limited in scope to what I believe is a good initial step that CLA can take to engage in an open (in-person) discussion. I certainly am not asserting that one forum (or other forums around the Univ.) should be the whole process. Just a part of it. (Note: I am solely making a comment with respect to what I think CLA could do at the college level to engage students transparently and candidly in an effort to make the culture more open.)
I am surprised, GLH, that you think we can afford to wait until the end of August to take action. I would disagree.
Forums and open dialogue are a part of any good process like this. In fact, they are one of the few ways to make sure that the process will work. But I think we would be doing ourselves and a Penn State colleagues a disservice if we made them the whole process.
As always, I appreciate this space to hold reasonable discussions and meaning dialogue. I am unaware of anything else like this at UP between students and administrators, so I personally think this is already a good first step for transparency and open communication.
Sam, you raise some salient points, but for the moment I am going to largely ignore them. I think Kasey and other LAUC members would be best served by reading and responding.
I’ve pondered the questions that Chris and Kasey raise — along with many other things over the past five days or so — and I think that a desire for a more “open” culture begins at the — to steal from politics — ‘local’ level. In this case, ‘local’ is the College of the Liberal Arts. One suggestion I have, is for LAUC and the LAUS office to begin working now on a roundtable discussion for the first week of the semester. By the time late August roles around there will be a need for updates and information, especially if the University begins implementing FR recommendations. I do think students will have questions. Deans and Associate Deans should prioritize open dialogue with students — 121 Sparks seems like a good venue for this. Dr. Erickson and the other VP’s aren’t the only ones who can hold student forums. Substantive, open, uninhibited conversation and access to College admins will set the tone for students; it is also a good chance to reinforce to message conveyed by Damon Sims to students yesterday: students can be beacons of light for our University in a period of darkness. The College should be a beacon for others, and a model for, substantive, open dialogue. Start the first week and go from there.
I am pleased to see this issue tackled in such a thoughtful and deliberative way. The dialogues are important.
There are a number of points I’d like to make. These are echoes of points I have made to others in recent days, and I hope that by telling enough people I will eventually spur some to act.
We would be well-served to identify 10-15 critical issues that this crisis has brought out. Some that come to mind:
– Subordinates at the University feel uncomfortable bringing bad news or institutional problems to their superiors. Employees think it is more in their interest to stay quiet than to attempt change.
– High school juniors and seniors who would make excellent Penn Staters are likely questioning whether they want to attend the school. They are receiving limited information from a variety of sources.
I would rate both of those very high on the “things that must change” list. As I mentioned, there may be a dozen or so more. We must succinctly identify these publicly.
Then we must publicly solicit feedback for how to address those issues. We will need to prepare ourselves for hostility. Such is the nature of public debate in 2012. We will use that feedback to create a set of concrete changes and steps that we must take to address each of the critical issues.
Depending on the issues involved, I think different personnel should take the lead in managing reforms. For example, in dealing with high school students, I think CCSG and UPUA would be best suited to lead a University-wide solution. If there any students left in those organizations with the serious and dedicated disposition to handle it, I mean.
Throughout the reform process, the University will continue to be battered by the media and others. This is not entirely undeserved, but it will make reform difficult. That’s why planning is so critical. When you have your map in place, it is easier to ignore the distractions if they aren’t helpful.
I know that I haven’t precisely answered your question about accountability above, but I think the conversation is actually much broader, which is why I’ve described what I did.
I am willing to lend my time to anyone that’s serious about pursuing what I’ve laid out above. My advice to students and the leaders of administrative units: don’t wait for Old Main to do this. They will, if no one else does. But, act now: this is an opportunity for you to work with them instead of for them.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Kasey, during a difficult time. And thank you for including the statement from the University’s student leaders. We’re lucky to have all of you in our midst.