CAN GODDARD LEARN?
It's time to engrave yet another name on that already crowded plaque of Goddard College presidents: "Richard E. Greene."
Unless the trustees took collective leave of their senses when they hired Greene, one must think he was brought to campus to do exactly what he has done: make the tough choices and restore some semblance of economic order to the college.
Given his house-cleaning experience at St. Thomas University in Miami, Greene knew another reclamation project, would be hard. And it was.
Despite being an experienced administrator, Greene could not have been fully prepared for the virulence of the opposition that greeted him at Goddard. It seems that faculty members with light teaching loads have too much time on their hands.
Although battling with the latest administration may be the Goddard community's idea of "practicing democratic principles," it isn't exactly the kind of curriculum most parents have in mind for their children when they fork over all that tuition.
The current economics of higher education seem stark enough: There, are too many colleges and too few students. This means, among other things, that low student-professor ratios have become harder and harder to justify.
At many colleges, bloated staffs are getting svelte very quickly. Rather than rail against needed change, Goddard's faculty should be happy to teach slightly larger classes to help the college survive these tough financial times.
Goddard can still carve out a niche for itself as an institution that values and teaches democratic principles. But first it must overcome its reputation as a place devoted to self-indulgence and radical chic. The fact that Goddard has had to pay out big bucks to settle a sexual harassment suit suggests the job of reform Greene began is far from complete.
Of the many wonders in the most recent Goddard controversy, none is more wonderful than this: Not one of Greene's critics seems to have grasped that the Goddard community's own lack of self-discipline made his presidency possible - if not inevitable.
Many of Greene's opponents might view his departure as a signal to squelch the impetus for change that the trustees began when they hired Greene. That would be a mistake.
The trustees now face a clear choice. They can hire a president who will complete Greene's work, so that the administration can handle the day-to-day operations of the college and leave teaching to the professors. Or they can hire yet another appeaser-type, and condemn themselves to an eternity of resume reading, job interviewing and emergency telephone conference calling.
Management by consensus is a wonderful goal, in the abstract. But there will always be instances (as Samuel Johnson advised) "where something must be done, and where little can be said." That's why Goddard will continue to need a president.
The Goddard community must realize that the problem that afflicts the college did not arrive with Greene, nor will it leave with him. Only when Goddard learns that lesson will the college's future rest secure.
