News
Issue News Back Next

News

Planning discussed by GF

by Brian H. Pitts

President Nancy Dye encountered opposition Tuesday as she lobbied in support of the findings of "Broad Directions for Oberlin's Future," a 90 page report on Oberlin's long-range planning process at the General Faculty (GF) meeting. The GF will vote on adoption of the report May 20.

Dye said faculty affirmation of the document will give her, "ammunition with the board, alumni, development... with setting out more specifically laid goals that we need to move forward."

Some faculty members expressed reservations to endorse the report. They questioned the meaning of a vote of affirmation and the priority of recommendations in the report. Some professors introduced the concern that social sciences and humanities departments were not given the same attention in the planning process as the arts and the sciences.

Professor of Economics David Cleeton said in the meeting he could not vote to endorse the document. "It fails to articulate academic excellence at this institution," he said.

Dye said in response, "This entire document deals with academic excellence."

"I view the Broad Directions for Oberlin's Future to be little more than a publicity document to demonstrate that the college community has spent a large amount of time and effort brainstorming about what they like, want, and hope to see," Cleeton said after the meeting.

Cleeton said that many parts of the document are, "fundamentally flawed... I know others on the faculty share my views."

Senator sophomore Chuckie Kamm also raised doubts about the impact of affirming the document. "It seems like a wishy-washy Nirvana document. It's not convincing to me. Until we have a 'where we go from here,' I do not feel comfortable voting for the document."

Many faculty members noted that the document did not specify priorities for the recommendations of the report and tough decisions must be made. Cleeton said, "Strategic planning requires making difficult choices in an environment informed of the tradeoffs we face. We have not done that in this document."

Dye was careful to present the document, "Not as a blueprint - that indeed this does provide a solid and good platform from which to continue to work," she said.

Others said this report was not the stage to be overly concerned with specific priorities.

"How could we have priorities when the purpose of this document is to bring under two covers different reports with different [planning] teams?" said Professor of Art William Hood.

Some professors did praise the document. Professor of Religion Grover Zinn said, "This is a remarkable first attempt for this faculty. We have gotten a lot of issues out on the table. This is our first community effort - not to legislate - to have a discussion about what we really feel."

Cleeton said he could accept the report as a "background document in shaping the development of a capital campaign."

Professor of English Dewey Ganzel proposed an additional option on the vote to "receive and note" the document as a completed work instead of endorsing it. There was a general sense of approval when this was mentioned.

"Any vote to either recognize, accept ot affirm the document will move the process forward," Assistant to the President Diana Roose said.

Professor of Politics Ronald Kahn also voiced discontent that the social sciences and the humanities may have been overlooked in the long-range planing process. He urged his colleagues to think about the future of these divisions of the college. "I would argue we have become a residual category," Kahn said.

Dye attempted to reassure Kahn, saying Oberlin would not ignore any of its departments. She said the Arts and Science departments are at turning points in their histories and the special attention they are receiving is a result of long-range discussions in the fall.

The report on the long-range planning process is a compilation of the work of 14 planning committees formed this winter. The planning teams developed their focus from campus focus groups and dorm meetings held in the fall. Town meetings were held in March by planning teams to elicit community input.


Oberlin

Copyright © 1997, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 125, Number 24, May 9, 1997

Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.