CAMPUS MOOD IS OPPRESSIVE
I read with great dismay The Times Argus editorial entitled "Anarchy 101." It was both uninformed and ill-advised. Caring may not be a '90s kind of thing, but there are people who do care and they have every right to express their concern. Or was it the '60s style -- the group protest -- that you found offensive? There is a tendency for many places to be heard, whereas one voice often falls upon dead ears. Godard College had an interim president named Victor Leoffleth-Ehly. He was appointed when Goddard was in transition and seriously downsizing (it was called retrenchment back then). I was the staff representative on the Board of Trustees. It was a bleak time for Goddard. Victor was chosen by the board from within the Goddard community because he was known and well-liked. He had the shortest reign of any Goddard president; he was elected to ease the transition to Jack Lindquist while the college sold off its nonresident programs and laid off its employees. The Board of Trustees was a presence on-campus at this time. There were open meetings with the community held on campus to address their concerns.
Lindquist, whatever failings he had, was also an educator and committed to the concept of progressive education on which Goddard was founded. Since that time, Goddard has had businessmen at the helm: not educators, not progressive thinkers, not community members. They don't know the institution. While it is true that if you don't take care of business, you soon will not have a business to take care of, Goddard is a very unique and non-traditional business and it requires a corresponding approach in its operation. I agree with the statement in Chris Mattson's commentary (April 30) that Goddard could do without a president. It could be administered by a competent management team. If its corporate structure requires a president, it should be a person from within the institution who has a grasp of what Goddard is all about. The president's job would be promoting the college by virtue of his or her involvement and commitment.
"Board members cannot make a judgment on the current situation without spending some time on the campus."
I have also been following the controversy in the Washington West Supervisory Union regarding the negotiated resignation of the district superintendent. Do Times Argus editors read their own paper? There are many parallels here, but I have noticed no vicious editorials. A representative of the board has stated that the board felt it was "entitled to respect, collegiality, and the implementation of policies it set." The statement from the board said that "at first slowly, then with nearly every interaction, he became abundantly clear that a bad match existed. It also became frustratingly obvious that the continuation of this relationship posed a significant continuing risk of severe adverse consequences for the district. This was a risk which could not be taken." If you substitute the word "college" for the word "district" in that quote, you have a statement very much like those coming from the faculty, staff, students and alumni of Goddard College. Whose voice is missing?
All other constituencies have been heard from -- loud and clear -- but the board has remained virtually silent. Jane Sanders was on-campus briefly and said the board would not get involved. It seems quite clear that Goddard is in crisis; there has been a very clear cry for help. The board is ultimately responsible for the health of the institution. Board members cannot make a judgment on the current situation without spending some time on the campus. The feeling you get when you are on the campus is disheartening and oppressive. It is not indicative of a healthy learning or working environment. It is the board's responsibility to get involved.
Cathy Chodorkoff-Smith lives in Marshfield.
