Seems to be some problems for IU President.

[ButlerHoosier]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/04/16/indiana-university-faculty-vote-no-confidence-in-president-provost/?sh=738a8d573c93

Don't know where to put this but thought I would add it! Seems like IU President is trying to be in trouble. 

[FKIM01]

On the surface, this goes to my past posts about institutional rot and the damage it's doing to IU.  It appears that the president is attempting to pull IU back from the abyss.  What I've read thus far, I don't think the president is any more the problem at IU than Woody is.  It's a much bigger issue as evidenced by the vote of no confidence.

For now, I'll resist the urge to say more.

[iuswingman]

The complaints against Whitten seem pretty valid to me.

Abuse due to political bias should be wrong regardless of what side of the aisle 

Edited April 18 by iuswingman

[btownqb]

The IDS article (per usual) sucks. 

Those look to be the weakest grouping of reasons needed to hold a "vote". 

Academia is full of p******. 

[ForHumanity]

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

The IDS article (per usual) sucks. 

Those look to be the weakest grouping of reasons needed to hold a "vote". 

Academia is full of p******. 

Totally agree. Most of them are wrapped around a political stance that most people could care-a-less about. The Palestinian thing, I imagine 95% of the public has no clue what is going on over there.  The Kinsey Institute I can see spinning off because that place was based on all lies to support a theory out of some freaks head. 

[Seeking6]

9 hours ago, ButlerHoosier said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/04/16/indiana-university-faculty-vote-no-confidence-in-president-provost/?sh=738a8d573c93

Don't know where to put this but thought I would add it! Seems like IU President is trying to be in trouble. 

I'll just say this. Campuses are filled by ideologies and Bloomington is no different. Sometimes a President comes in and doesn't believe those. I FULLY support President Whitten and that's all I'll say on this one.

[HoosierFaithful]

We will let this thread run, but everyone is fairly warned - you know this is a charged topic.  Please be mindful of the rules.

[iuswingman]

24 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I'll just say this. Campuses are filled by ideologies and Bloomington is no different. Sometimes a President comes in and doesn't believe those. I FULLY support President Whitten and that's all I'll say on this one.

So it was ok to cancel the exhibit because of her ideology?   And here I have been led to believe canceling people was wrong. 

If roles were reversed, then I would wager the people defending her would be taking an opposite stance.

Between that and failing to support the Dr that was attacked by rokita, she deserved the vote of no confidence.  

[tdhoosier]

The article lead off with divisive political decisions as a reason for the vote of no confidence. However, buried in the middle.....

The reasons for no-confidence votes vary from institution to institution. The most common scenario behind such votes recently has been faculty displeasure with large-scale academic restructuring and budget reductions directed by presidents, provosts and boards of trustees.

Seems about right in this news climate. Get people hyped up on political emotions and then drop a seemingly important footnote later in the article.  

[iuswingman]

Although it does says that it is a common scenario in these types of votes, not that it was the reason this time or that it was just referring to IU only.

 

That may have just been contrasting the reasonsing for Whitten's vote of no confidence verses what most vote of no confidences are about.

[thirdgenhoosier]

1 hour ago, iuswingman said:

So it was ok to cancel the exhibit because of her ideology?   And here I have been led to believe canceling people was wrong. 

If roles were reversed, then I would wager the people defending her would be taking an opposite stance.

Between that and failing to support the Dr that was attacked by rokita, she deserved the vote of no confidence.  

Are you assuming the exhibit was canceled solely based on ideology?  The IDS article leads one to make that assumption but it’s fair to ask what else there is to that story.  Has anyone asked what was in the exhibit?  Has anyone asked what was in the social media posts that the person putting on the exhibit had posted?  I, for one, would like more context before I reach a full conclusion.  I’m not saying you’re wrong.  I just don’t think we have enough information.  Or at least I haven’t seen that information.

Edited April 18 by thirdgenhoosier

[IUALUM03]

She is just in a rock and hard place.  Indiana is very much a conservative run state that and the university has a lot of liberal thinking throughout.  It is a balancing act to keep the funding flowing from the state, but not impose restrictions on free thinking.  Many of the issues are no-win situations no matter who is in charge.  

[iuswingman]

20 minutes ago, thirdgenhoosier said:

Are you assuming the exhibit was canceled solely based on ideology?  The IDS article leads one to make that assumption but it’s fair to ask what else there is to that story.  Has anyone asked what was in the exhibit?  Has anyone asked what was in the social media posts that the person putting on the exhibit had posted?  I, for one, would like more context before I reach a full conclusion.  I’m not saying you’re wrong.  I just don’t think we have enough information.

True, our opinions are based on incomplete information but if pro-Palestinian was an accurate generalization then I don't see how the exhibit should have been cancelled.  Those that were offended could just boycott it.  It would have to move towards antisemitism or saying Israel deserved to be attacked for it to move to towards that line of being cancel worthy imo.   Anyone who complains about becoming a nation of cancelling people for their views should see this in that same light based on what little is known.

But if those posts come to light and are much worse than expected then of course my opinion may change so put an asterisk next to it for now.

I've heard quite a bit of people complaining of liberal bias in universities.  If that is an issue then conservative bias should be just as much an issue.

Edited April 18 by iuswingman

[Zlinedavid]

My take on the specifics:

Quote

Cancelling an art exhibit at IU’s Eskenazi Museum of Art by Palestinian artist Samia Halaby over concerns about the artist’s pro-Palestinian social media posts regarding the Israel-Gaza war;

Not a needle mover for me either way.  There has been war in the middle east for literally millennia at this point, and I have no dog in that fight.  Not a reason for a vote of no confidence though.

Quote

Suspending political science faculty member Abdulkader Sinno for misrepresenting a Palestine Solidarity Committee event on a room reservation form and for conducting the event without university authorization;

Reprimanding a faculty member for lying on a form and conducting an event without university authorization.  Isn't that what a president should be doing?

Quote

Attempting to spin off the Kinsey Institute from IU, a move that was ultimately not pursued;

From a financial standpoint, I don't have a problem with this.  A president wants to investigate the possibility of selling off an asset for potential financial gain for the university? Again, kind of sounds like what a president should be doing. Not trying to liquidate it at all costs because they want to get rid of it.  Not scratching and clawing to keep it.  Investigating the possibility.   Also, notice the lack of commentary about what the Kinsey Institute is in my statement.  That's intentional. 

Quote

Refusing to publicly support IU faculty member Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist who had provided an abortion for a ten-year old rape victim and was then the target of inflammatory comments by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita;

That's a very strategically worded statement.  "Refusing to publicly support....".  Did the president also refuse to publicly admonish the act? IE, remaining neutral/issuing a no comment? If so, good, that's what a president should be doing in this instance.  They're trying to spin this up into an issue whether the university as a whole is pro- or anti-abortion, which doesn't need to be done.

Quote

Disregarding a 2022 faculty vote in support of unionization efforts by graduate student workers; and

This is an issue I'd need to research further before commenting on. 

Quote

The administration failing to “proactively and effectively stand against the Indiana legislature's violations of academic freedom and faculty protections.”

My response to this would be....ok, fine.  Provide examples of just what the hell you're talking about.  That's like being charged with a crime that's defined as "conspiracy to commit wrongdoing".  What's the wrongdoing? Graffiti? Jaywalking? Murder? High Treason? Big range of things that isn't described. 

 

So there's a few items that I'd need clarification on, a few that I'd side with the president on and a few that look like someone trying to push their political agenda.  There's no misappropriation of funds, no blatant association with known hate groups.....nothing I can see that would warrant a VONC. 

[iuswingman]

1 minute ago, IUALUM03 said:

She is just in a rock and hard place.  Indiana is very much a conservative run state that and the university has a lot of liberal thinking throughout.  It is a balancing act to keep the funding flowing from the state, but not impose restrictions on free thinking.  Many of the issues are no-win situations no matter who is in charge.  

True.  

Although it is probably generally better to be more hands off in that situation vs rocking the boat with a heavy stick.

[IUALUM03]

1 hour ago, iuswingman said:

True.  

Although it is probably generally better to be more hands off in that situation vs rocking the boat with a heavy stick.

Oh, i agree, but it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't on several of those issues and in the end you are still a state employee.  Abortion and Palestine/Israel is a loser no matter which way you go in this state, although the percentages would generally tell you otherwise.  Not going say what those percentages are though lol.   Although, blocking free speech is never the way to go imo. 

Edited April 18 by IUALUM03

[Zlinedavid]

Just now, iuswingman said:

Although it is probably generally better to be more hands off in that situation vs rocking the boat with a heavy stick.

And that's the issue most people have.  Unless you're on their side carrying the torches and pitchforks, you're the enemy.  Neutrality/moderation isn't allowed anymore, I guess. 

[13th&Jackson]

19 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

True, our opinions are based on incomplete information but if pro-Palestinian was an accurate generalization then I don't see how the exhibit should have been cancelled.  Those that were offended could just boycott it.  It would have to move towards antisemitism or saying Israel deserved to be attacked for it to move to towards that line of being cancel worthy imo.   Anyone who complains about becoming a nation of cancelling people for their views should see this in that same light based on what little is known.

But if those posts come to light and are much worse than expected then of course my opinion may change so put an asterisk next to it for now.

I've heard quite a bit of people complaining of liberal bias in universities.  If that is an issue then conservative bias should be just as much an issue.

Just a very quick search of Halaby's comments:

What are your thoughts on the Palestinian situation now?
Growing anger. Something has to change. Israel has to be dismantled and disarmed. They are endangering the entire globe. 

Knowing a little about the Eskanazi family, I suspect if the exhibit had not been canceled, the museum would have gotten a stern request to return the $15M the Eskanazis gifted for its renovation. Not even mentioning all of the other millions they've donated to IU. 

 

[Euroclydon]

Faculty running wild and not happy when someone says no. 

[Zlinedavid]

Just now, Euroclydon said:

Faculty running wild and not happy when someone says no. 

What'cha gonna do.....when the faculty runs wild on you....brother!

[BobSaccamanno]

I had been a backer of hers but mainly because the last president was incompetent.  However, and I don’t have any dogs in these fights, I do know enough about large business and leadership to know that this isn’t good leadership.  Good leadership  can find compromise and creative solutions to resolve competing interests particularly in a university where exchange of thought is critical.  This will bear watching but I wouldn’t call this a ringing endorsement of her ability.  We will see if she recovers.  

Edited April 18 by BobSaccamanno

[FKIM01]

I don't know if it reached a vote of no confidence, but I recall the Purdue faculty, or the least a pretty substantial minority being unhappy with Mitch Daniels.  I didn't pay enough attention to observe how that played out and I don't know if there were any other parallels to the IU dissension.  Sounds like the majority of the IU faculty didn't even participate in the vote so this may be a case of a vocal minority trying to rule.

[cosmicpowers]

1 hour ago, IUALUM03 said:

She is just in a rock and hard place.  Indiana is very much a conservative run state that and the university has a lot of liberal thinking throughout.  It is a balancing act to keep the funding flowing from the state, but not impose restrictions on free thinking.  Many of the issues are no-win situations no matter who is in charge.  

I just heard a news story about this yesterday, I think, though I can't find it.  This same battle is happening between public universities and conservative legislatures across the country.  Indiana isn't mentioned by name here, so maybe it's not even that contentious of a fight 🙂  But you can see some of the same points mentioned here (e.g., the grad students organizing).

https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-political-interference-higher-education

Edited April 18 by cosmicpowers

[Zlinedavid]

18 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

I don't know if it reached a vote of no confidence, but I recall the Purdue faculty, or the least a pretty substantial minority being unhappy with Mitch Daniels.

I don't think it ever reached a VONC.  For the most part, Daniels is a pretty well liked figure in West La-la-land.  I'm sure there were some faculty that had some kind of gripe (justified or not) at some point, there always will be.  But the biggest source of controversy surrounding Daniels was his election to the position.  He had appointed 8 of the 10 board members during his time as governor, although they did rule that a conflict of interest didn't exist. 

[Muddy River]

40 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Good leadership  can find compromise

Unfortunately in today’s climate, there are growing numbers on both sides of any issue that will refuse any compromise.