ANARCHY 101
It's fast becoming the right of spring -- like the tree swallows twittering their return, and the streams swelling with melting mountain snows.
The Goddard College community is trying to get rid of another president.
The latest defender of the Goddard sensibility, Richard E. Greene, has been president only since July 1994. But he's already being charged with "threatening the very soul of Goddard," as the faculty put it it's vote of no confidence in the president last Friday.
Long-time observers of the Goddard scene should see in the current crisis a predictable pattern. A new president comes on-campus; for a while the faculty is content to "dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect"; the president tries to get something done; the faculty resisted change; the president persists; the students, at the instigation of the aggrieved faculty, protests; last, but certainly not least, someone alerts the media.
At a recent demonstration, students pounded the Community Center walls, encouraged by a faculty member brandishing a baseball bat. So much for seeking consensus. Perhaps someone should tell the faculty that education is no longer synonymous with education.
This sort of thing may have played well 30 years ago. But in today's economic climate, how many parents will be willing to fork over $20,140 a year to have their offspring misbehave?
Greene's crimes may, in fact, be as severe as some faculty claim. After all, he has been seen on-campus wearing a tie. And he may have refused to sit in a circle to share his feelings with the staff. Worse still, he may have made some decisions on his own.
Those who believe that Greene is the devil incarnate should try to explain how the Board of Trustees (with the help of campus representatives) could have been so inept in selecting him. Those to deplore Greene as an utterly conventional college president should ask whether the Board may in selecting him precisely because of his relatively traditional approach.
The Board, chaired by Jane O'Meara Sanders, would seem to be committed to progressive education. Who would dare to suggest that Sanders, who is married to Vermont's independent (some would say socialist) Congressman, Bernie Sanders, is not progressive enough?
Although many traditional Goddard students, faculty and alumni may hate to admit, higher education has become a big business. And a board has charged Greene with raising the endowment and boosting enrollment -- even by the dreaded means of telemarketing, if necessary.
As one reads the faculty's tribunal's long list of complaints against Greene, it's important to note that he is only the latest in a long line of recent presidents who has run afoul of a community that revels in disorder. Of course, it's possible that Greene really is the problem. Just like Jackson Kytle was. Or Victor LaFoulette. Or Jack Lindquist. Or Richard Gramm. Or Jerry Witherspoon. Or Tim Pitkin.
To a more neutral observer, a little historical perspective might suggest that Goddard has become an ungovernable institution. In deciding whether or not to back Greene's efforts, the trustees must now decide whether to surrender the college once and for all to the academic anarchists.
If Goddard's tuition and enrollment stay level, layouts will be needed to cope with rising costs. Actually, getting rid of a few faculty members might not be a bad idea.
Some of the more grizzled Jacobins on staff may soon suffer the same guillotining they have inflicted on many of past president. After all, encouraging rebellion has its price. And it's too late to complain when the tumbrel's at the door.
Perhaps, when all is done, the ruckus at Goddard may teach students some of life's harsher realities: Even the groves of academe conceal their share of serpents, and places that pretend to be devoted to the free exchange ideas can also feature this sort of backbiting treachery that would make Richard III proud.
Who knows? A Goddard College education may not be as esoteric as some people think.
