The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 03-19-04 09:34

If any college leader has been in the hot seat lately, it is Elizabeth Hoffman, president of the University of Colorado System. Over the last two months, the university's Boulder campus has been beset by a host of allegations, primarily that sex and alcohol were key ingredients in the football team's recruiting strategy. In the midst of the scandal, Ms. Hoffman has been the university's public face, speaking at news conferences, appearing before Congress, responding to the state governor's criticism, placing the football coach on leave. Has the university's response so far been sufficient? Do college presidents have enough control over their athletics programs? If not, what should they do differently? What are the most important steps a campus leader can take to navigate such a crisis? Should college presidents be trained in crisis management? Read more ...

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Jonathan Morse, U. of Hawaii
Date: 03-22-04 15:22

"Do college presidents have enough control over their athletics programs? If not, what should they do differently?"

Week after week, The Chronicle's sports section demonstrates that the answer to the first question is a loud No. As to the second question: some twenty years ago, serious criminal activity in the basketball program at the University of San Francisco prompted the president of the university to shut the whole program down. To do less, he said (and I think my memory of this quotation from _Sports Illustrated_ is approximately right), would be "naive, hypocritical, or duplicitous."

The program stayed shut down for a good long time, and I don't think I've heard a word of scandal about USF since. But of course that brave gesture didn't do anything about the systemic problem. One of the worst criminals in the USF scandal kept right on playing college basketball -- for my own institution.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: RR Assoc Prof Northwood Univ
Date: 03-22-04 20:37

I think that most people with any understanding of the academy and big time athletics likely feel that U presidents know more about what is going on than they (the presidents) let on. How much have we heard from the University of Oklahoma (e.g.) about the 0% graduation rate for their basketball team over the past few years. And if I recall, Cincinnati has been in the teens for grad rate for years.

But as long as these programs bring in (or have the potential to bring in) the millions of dollars in revenue, nothing will change. The athletes will continue to earn huge sum of money for their schools and coaching staffs. They will continue to provide the labor for all the non-revenue sports. And they will continue to be forgotten and tossed aside when their four years of eligibility are exhausted. Meanwhile, the coaches still will be pulling down high 6 figure to 7 figure salaries, and 90% of those non-revenue scholarship athletes will have graduated and be earning a decent living.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Stan Dura, Instructor/Zayed U.
Date: 03-23-04 01:59

While I believe it can hardly be argued that college sports is not beset with problems, we have to realize that there is hardly in existence today a governing system of equal scale that is not likewise afflicted with its own problems. As a former supervisor of mine once said to me, human beings are historically irrational and error prone entities, so why should we expect the systems they create or the organizations they manage to be any different?

Mixing with this "human factor," there are a host of cultural value systems and expectations interacting here, such as those related to educational professionalism, athletic professionalism, male identity, team/program unity, economic gain and stability, political security and personal affiliation just to name a few. Thus we cannot dichotomize the issue and attempt to say the university's response has been sufficient or not, or that college presidents have enough control or not, and such. Control over it is an illusion, and any set of responses can be (and likely will be!) criticized from at least one perspective. After all, we respond from differing sets of values and expectations as well.

The issue is just too complex, subtle, and unpredictable; we cannot simply treat it like we're grading an essay and marking grammar. What we can do is respect its complexity and work through the slow methodical process of identifying the systems in play, understanding their interactions, and work collaboratively to leverage the positive aspects and cut, repair, or otherwise remedy the cancerous aspects. I believe Dr. Hoffman is doing just this, and I applaud this sensibility of hers.

Much of the accusation that the university has not responded sufficiently enough stems from the suspension of the football coach rather than terminating his contract. I admit the comments he made were inexcusable and entirely unprofessional and reprehensible. And I admit that not firing the coach can be interpreted as implying a level of complicity on the part of the administration. But like I said, there is no winning response; every alternative action could be criticized one way or another. I doubt many of us have ever experienced half of the level of stress and frustration the coach was experiencing prior to his comments or those that Dr. Hoffman is currently experiencing. Given that, and the fact that it is possible the investigation could reveal relevant information, I believe Dr. Hoffman's decision to suspend him pending the investigation was a thoughtful and measured decision.

I expect that in due time, there will be a rather stern accounting for the coach's statements, which I would welcome. And I am hopeful that the investigation will provide useful information and evidence that will enable Dr. Hoffman and all the parties involved to make informed and responsible decisions regarding the future structure and scope of the system's athletic program.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: rhandelsman/LSHS
Date: 03-24-04 07:33

Do like Europe: separate sports (not athletics) from education. Have the professional leagues sponsor their own farm sysems, as baseball does now, and limit sports in college to clubs and intramurals. Only in the USA does the conflict between sports and academics even arise, because elsewhere, the two systems are separate. Actually,t he conflict begins earlier, in high- and middle- schools. Start the solution in in middle schools: turn all sports and funding over to state Parks and Recreation Departments; do not use education $$ to pay for coaching supplements, football stadiums, equipment, etc. Let conditioning and intramurals, not inter-school competition, be the basis of physical education in the public schools. And, as the state does with students working, limit the hours of practice to far less than the three-four hours a day secondary students presently practice.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Southeast Community College
Date: 03-24-04 09:29

I agree with rhandelsman/LSHS. The academy should concentrate on shaping minds and the athletic booster clubs should start their own farm teams to provide talent for the professionals. The academy could profit from the leasing of team names and facilities and not have any of the current headaches. The cost of intramural sports could be covered by student fees, as they are now.

The Winter 2004 issue of National Crosstalk magazine has an article written by Don Campbell entitled "Can Athletics and Academics Coexist?" In this article, Mr. Campbell states (on page 8), "There are statistics showing that 57 universities in Division 1 have not graduated a single black male basketball player in the past ten years." If true, this is shocking and sad.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Stan Dura, Instructor, Zayed U
Date: 03-25-04 09:04

Not to get off subject I hope, but again, I emphasize we cannot dichotimize the issue.

What problems would still exist if sports were separated? What would not exist, and what new ones would appear?

Intuitively, I suspect there would still be exceedingly low graduation rates. Colleges are certainly not the sole root of that problem. Since public educational institutions compete with other government entities, such as Parks and Rec, I suspect funding would still be an issue, particularly in times of state budget crunches. Due to political and economic pressures that would probably carry over to a P&R system, it is feasible, perhaps likely, funding for that would become a greater priority over public colleges and universities. I also imagine a whole slew of new legislative and lobbying problems would emerge as colleges and universities lobby for funds, encourage laws to regulate the P&R program so that it did not compete with student's educational efforts, etc.

That competition has the potential to become a forked road for high school graduates, either going to college or professional sports prep. There is also the very hot issue of diversity and creating greater access to education to all socio-economic levels of our society. A number of underprepared students, who happen to be superb athletes and may or may not be superb students, might never integrate higher education into their short term or long term goals given a split system. These issues might be in direct contradiction to the mission of Higher Education in the US. Admittedly, the low graduation rates already noted are also contradictory to this. However, the opposite of an error is not always a success.

That said, we should not allow ourselves to accept the more convenient idea of splitting the program without first accepting the mental challenge and taking the time to fully understand the intracices of the issue (and the proposed solutions) before taking action. Personally, I see the solution of splitting the program as a lawn that is certainly just as brown on the other side of the fence. And I do not believe higher education and our regulative bodies have adequatly analyzed and assessed the strengths and weaknesses of our current system. Perhaps politics makes that unlikely. Perhaps our own collective sense of avoidance makes that unlikely. True, but it is necessary. For, if we do not, we'll find ourselves complaining about the new lawn, too, and all of our efforts will have been for naught.

Another case of twisted wording

Author: Patrick Jung
Date: 03-25-04 23:37

As usual, I have a problem with the way The Chronicle has worded the introduction to this colloquy. What is the issue: is how presidents handle crises...ANY crises; or just crises involving athletics? An answer is not possible from the way the introduction is worded:

"Do college presidents have enough control over their athletics programs? If not, what should they do differently? What are the most important steps a campus leader can take to navigate such a crisis? Should college presidents be trained in crisis management?"

I was a journalism major for one year in college, and I can see the sloppy thinking inherent in this wording, so I would imagine people with more journalistic talent than me would able to as well.

The first issue is that of athletics. Most colleges and universities have athletics programs, and I think it is safe to assume the vast majority operate within what is considered standard ethical guidelines. Of course, the guidelines themselves may be questionable, but that is yet another issue. When NCAA issues guidelines, even questionable ones, they are still guidelines, and programs that follow them should be held to no other standard. Just as important is the fact that the vast majority of programs are NCAA Division II and III; they are populated by true student athletes who are students first, athletes second. The real issue is the larger programs, and only those larger programs that break the rules. Even then, most large programs (NCAA Division I) also follow the rules. Thus, we are really dealing with only the bad apples, and while they may be the ones we all hear about, we never hear about the ones who follow the rules to the letter. These, of course, are the vast majority of big programs. Again, the rules themselves may be questionable, but as long as the rule are the way they are, it would be unfair to hold any program to a higher standard.

However, the real issue is not athletics but crises, and crises in athletic programs are just a fraction of the crises any president faces. Recently, the issue of selling body parts arose at UCLA. To me, that seems infinitely worse than plying potential athletes with alchol. Why is that crisis not mentioned? College and university presidents face a wide range of crises concerning money, student behavior, plagiarism, etc. Athletics is one part of the whole picture.

As far as Elizabeth Hoffman, I have followed the story and I do not know what else she could have done given the circumstances. Obviously, it is difficult to prevent all problems before they happen. Hoffman has not tried to ignore the problem or sweep it under the rug, so I do not think she handled it poorly.

I would like to see this colloquy focus on a broader range of problems that just athletics.

Re: How presidents handle campus crises

Author: Ferris State Univ. Student
Date: 04-21-04 19:21

As a public relations major at Ferris State University in my senior year, I would say that "Most definitely, presidents of colleges need trained in dealing with crisis situations." A plan of action needs to be available for them to follow in the event of such emergencies.

At Ferris, our new president, David Eisler meets with the faculty and the students and takes the time to hear our views on various issues. He is becoming a familiar face on our campus and one that is most certainly appreciated for his communication with the students, faculty and community.

If you have open communication with all the publics on your campus, you will have a better chance of making it through a crisis without a bad reputation. The first 24 hours of a crisis are the critical hours, what you do and how you respond to these events will determine how the organization is viewed and perceived by the public both internally and externally.

If your campus doesnt have a public relations professional located on campus, then perhaps you should seek an Accredited Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) member. These professionals are trained in crisis communications and strategic planning. They can offer advice to the organization on how to handle situations and develop a plan for the president and faculty on campus to follow. It is best to have a plan, even though there will be no guarantee that the plan will work as it was developed to, but the organization would be worse off not having one.

Communication is essential, if done from the top to the bottom and vice versa, it is the most effective tool to solving any potential or current problems, but it will not work if the organization is not open minded enough to handle the views of the publics they serve and the internal ones.

For more information about PRSA, go to http://www.prsa.org and learn more about crisis communiations and planning or to seek a professionals advice contact the PRSA Chapter nearest to you.