Chancellor’s Report to the Board of Trustees (misc 05)

Chancellor’s Report to the Board of Trustees (misc 05)

↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library

CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
TO THE
ANTIOCH
UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BACKGROUND MATERIALS
OCTOBER, 1995

Chancellor’s Report to the Board of Trustees
October 20, 1995
Table of Contents
Section I. Overview and Discussion of New University
Organizational Structure
A. The meaning and value of the University’s new federal
organizational structure
B. The Board’s role in strengthening the federal organizational model
C. Background Material
Excerpts from “A Renewed Organizational Life for a Visionary
Institution” (from Chapter IX of the Final Draft of the book
Recapturing A Legacy: The Rebuilding of a Visionary
Colle~e
by
Alan Guskin), 16 pages.
D. Background Material
Relationship between the Board, system chief executive and
campus chief executive in the University of Wisconsin System
and the University of North Carolina System . Statutes from both
systems are presented.
Section 11. University Financial Data
A. Annual Financial Operations
Table I: Final Operating Results by Campus After Transfers to
Campus Carry Forward Reserves:
1990-
1995
Table
11:
Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves:
1990-
1995
Table
I11
Final Operating Results by Campus Before Transfers to
Campus Carry Forward Reserves: 1990- 1995

Table IV Breakout of Operating Results for University
Administration and University Operations:
1990-
1995
B. Campus Reserves and Endowment
Table V Campus Carry Forward Reserves, Endowment and
Deferred Gifts by Campus: 6130195
Table VI Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves and
Endowment: 1986,
1990-
1995
Graph
Via
Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves and
Endowment: 1986,
1990-
1995
C. Debt Service and Lease Payments
Table VII Debt, Debt Service, and Lease Payments by Campus: 1995
D.
Student Costs and Student Revenue
Table VIII Campus Dollar Support for Instruction and Plant
Maintenancement
as % of Total Expenditures: 1995 & 1996
Diagram
Villa
Campus Dollar Support for Instruction and Plant
Maintenancement
as % of Total Expenditures: 1995
(For Each Campus)
Table IX Comparison of Cost per Student and Revenue per Student:
By Campus, 1995
Graph
IXa
Comparison of Cost per Student and Revenue per Student:
By Campus, 1995
Chart X Antioch College: Sources of College Revenue to Meet Cost
per Student, 1995
E. University Subsidies and Overhead Rebates to College
Table XI University Subsidies and Overhead Rebates to College:
1993-
1996
Footnotes to Table XI

Section I11 University Enrollment Data
A. Enrollment Data
Table I.
FTE
Enrollment by Campus, 1986-1995
Graph
la:
Comparison of Enrollment FTE across Campuses, 1986-1995
Table
I1
Headcount Enrollment , 1992- 1995
Table
I11
Total Graduates at Each Campus,
1993-
1995
Graph
Ilia
Total Graduates at Each Campus, 1993-1995
Table IV Percentage of Graduate and Undergraduate Students (FTE) at
each Campus, 1995
Table V Students of Color Enrollment by Campus, Fall, 1992-1993
B. Tuition Data
Table VI Tuition at Antioch Campuses,
1990-
1995
Table VII Percentage Annual Tuition Increases by Campus, 199 1 – 1996
From New York Times: National Averages of Tuition Increases at Private
and Public Universities Compared to Inflation (CPI), 1987- 1995
Section IV: Academic Program Information 56
A. Educational Delivery Systems at Adult Campuses
B. Academic Programs Offered on Each Campus, 1995
C. Faculty Salaries by Campus, 1995
D. Percent of Core Faculty of Color and Gender Balance by Campus,
Fall Term, 199 1 – 1993

Section V: Major Issues in Antioch’s Future
A. Understanding Demographic Realities
National Chart on Percentage of Adults with Bachelor’s
~e~rees
by State
National Chart on Percentage of Student of College Age 1995-2005
by State
B. Dealing With Likely College Enrollment and Faculty Size
C. Facing the Educational Realities of the late 1990s and early 21st Century
Section VI: Appendix–Antioch’s Values as a Guiding Force 7 1
A. Year 2000 Vision Statement: Approved by the Board, February, 1991
B. Excerpts from “Organization Building and Recapturing the Antioch
Legacy: The Interdependency,” Chapter VI of the Final Draft of the book
Recapturing A
Legacy:
The Rebuilding of a Visionary College by
Alan Guskin), 7 pages.

Section I
Discussion of New University Organizational Structure
A. The meaning and value of the University’s new federal organizational
structure. The federal structure emphasizes the following:
1. Maximizes campus autonomy while encouraging
interdependence;
2. Reduces significantly need for centralized administrative
costs while maintaining necessary monitoring functions and
“reserve powers” to intercede when required;
3. Enhances Antiochian values while emphasizing
responsiveness to student markets;
4. Enhances likelihood of University-wide cooperation in new
ventures because it maintains clarity about campus boundaries;
5. Enhances likelihood of identification of campus people with
University as a whole while enhancing local identification with
a campus;
6. Encourages strong campus leadership while encouraging
University Chancellor as a partner and collaborator;
7. Emphasizes University wide academic programming and
technological integration;
8. Primary administrative costs are at campus level and are
subject to accountability to local campus constituencies, which
encourages less rather than more administration;
9. The federal model emphasizes that there can be no winners
if there are losers among the campuses; the problem resolution
emphasized is negotiation between the Chancellor and a
carnpus/campuses
or between the campuses themselves.
B. The Board’s role in strengthening federal organizational model
1. Need for Board to emphasize its continuing commitment to the success and vitality
of all five campuses. Given the Board’s membership and history, there is concern about the strength
of the Board’s interest in the adult campuses. Allaying these concerns will enhance the commitment
of the adult campus faculty to the University as a whole as well as emphasizing the need for the
College faculty to work as partners with their colleagues throughout the University. These actions
will increase the integration and strength of the whole University and all the campuses the capability
to deal better with a difficult future.

2. Maintaining the strength–or strengthening–the role of the University Chancellor. 1
The Chancellor does not need to have the type of overt authority that is required of the campus chief
executives, but helshe must be seen as–and be–influential with the Board. Such upward influence
enables the Chancellor to persuade and facilitate
hislher
work with the campus leaders individually,
and through the Ur iversity Policy Council.
The Chancellor has only two constituencies, the Board and the campus chief
executives. To make the Chancellor’s role effective the campus chief executives must know that the
other constituency–the Board–will ultimately support the Chancellor as long as what helshe is
proposing is reasonable. If there is disagreement between the Chancellor and the Board, then there
must be a good deal of discussion between the Chancellor and the Board Chair, and if necessary the
Executive Committee. The Chancellor is the Board’s chief executive officer and helshe must be able
to work together with the Board following a common agenda.
3. The need to emphasize the six basic princivles of a federal organizational
structure:(from
Bennis and
O’Toole)
a. non-centralization–real day-to-day power to deal
with the key issues of the enterprise resides in the
semi-autonomous five campuses.
b. negotiation–negotiation and bargaining within the
context of University priorities is the basis for
resolving differences.
c. constitutionalism–a covenant (written and unwritten)
binds the allegiances of the campuses to the whole
University within the context of a common
commitment to the basic mission and values of
Antioch.
This covenant–much of it
written-
represents the commitments made by the Board
and the campus and University leadership to each
other over the last few years.
d. territoriality-a federal organization assumes that
there are distinct boundaries between the campuses
e. balance of power–there is a need to have balance
between the University administration and the
campuses as well as between the campuses;
e.g.,
the
Chancellor cannot intervene into a campus as long
as the balance–University policy and/or interests–
is not violated, whether or not
helshe
agrees with
the local campus decision or policy. The same
holds true for the relationship between campuses.
f. autonomy–each campus is free to experiment and be
self governing to the extent that they do not violate
the fundamental principles of the University or
clear University policies,
e.g.,
every campus must
have an annual balanced budget.
4. To auote Bob Krinskv: “Nose in. fingers out.”–While the Board must be
knowledgeable about important issues on each campus and the University, it should allow the senior

administrative leadership of the University (including the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, College
President and Provosts) as a group to struggle through difficult issues, especially as it relates to
financial and management issues. This will strengthen the Chancellor’s ability to resolve sensitive
matters, will strengthen the ability of the senior leadership group of the University to manage the
institution, and avoid having the Board micro-manage the University.

Section I
Discussion of New University Organizational Structure
C. Background Material
The following document is an excerpt from the conclusion of a book I am
completing on the period 1985-1994 at Antioch University. The tentative title of the book
is Recapturing A Legacy: The Rebuilding of a Visionary College. The book deals with the
many events that transpired at Antioch University during those nine years, with a special
focus on the College.
The excerpts included here focus on the new federal organizational structure that we
have been operating under since July, 1994, and why and how we got there. I am
including this material in this presentation to the Board because I believe it will give
Trustees a context for understanding what is happening at the University, especially in
regard to University-wide matters and the role of the Chancellor. I expect that the material
will help a good many Board members who were not Trustees during the period
1991-
1994 to understand some of what occurred during that period.
The excerpts focus on two main matters: the restructuring of the University and the
underlying conception of the new organizational structure implemented in July, 1994.
I do hope that Board members will read this material, as I will be using some of it
for part of my presentation during the Chancellor’s Report on Friday morning, October 20.
Of course, I would appreciate any comments you have.

CHAPTER IX(Excerpts)
CONCLUSION
A RENEWED ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE FOR A
VISIONARY INSTITUTION
Ultimately, I think, a leader should love the
organization enough to help create a self-activating life
for it. He or she has to love it enough to try to turn it
into an environment in which others can understand and
care for it, even in difficult times. A leader has to care
enough about the organization to want it to be
autonomous, able to function very nicely without him
or her.
Warren
Bennis
in An Invented Life
In late 1991 it became clear that the successful work we had done since 1985 could be
undermined if
Antioch’s
organizational structure was not significantly altered. In 1985-1987,
most of the administrative services structure of the College was merged into the University
administration to provide the support
necessary~without
the
costs~to
rebuild the College and,
at the same time, intensified the centralized controls of the University to deal with the chaotic
financial practices of the campuses and the University itself. The merger led to tremendous
gains for the College, but in the mid-1990s this arrangement had the potential for strangling the
College’s development, because it made the College dependent on the University and undercut
the
College’s
sense of autonomy and integrity.
At the same time, this mid-1980s organizational strategy had changed the University so
much that nine years later we were working within a very different institutional context:
in 1985 there were seven adult campuses the largest of which had 400
students, in 1994 there were four adult campuses which ranged in size
from 700 to over 1200 students;
the size of the core faculty at the remaining four University adult
campuses and the College had together more than doubled in this
period, with a substantial increase in prior university experience and
quality of the faculty hired;
the operating budget of the University doubled to $40 million, the
University was financially healthy and the College had recently
completed a $50 million fund raising campaign;
and, as a result of the success of the financial discipline–originally
imposed by the University administration–and the growing size of
the campuses and their administrative staff, it became apparent that
we needed to fully empower the local administrators, who managed
these changes, to take charge of the local processes that produced the
fiscal responsibility.

Not insignificantly, the College’s continued development depended upon the University’s
allocation of a $1 million annual subsidy, which the adult campuses would not be able to
continue to generate without significant reductions in other University-wide expenses
incurred by each campus.
Waiting to make the leadership and organizational changes beyond 1994 would, I
believe, have seriously destabilized both the College and University. The College needed
new focused energy devoted solely to its future; the University adult campuses needed a
reduction in the University overhead charges and a University leader devoted solely to the
interests of the University as a whole. Both the College and the adult campuses needed the
organizational integrity created by greater middle level administrative autonomy.
Furthermore, the University as a whole needed to face squarely its organizational,
educational, technological and financial future: from the sharing of intellectual and human
resources in the academic and administrative areas, to more sophisticated financial systems
and planning, and to communication vehicles that integrate the University. And, it needed
this to occur without the never-ending questions of whether the President is more interested
in the College than other units, or people wondering whether a decision is based on
university-wide or College interests.
The Trustees reviewed, discussed and consulted about the changes in the leadership
structure of the University at Board meetings and in a retreat over a 14 month period in 1992
and 1993. Beginning in the summer, 1990, almost two years before these Trustee
discussions began, the senior leadership of the University–President, Executive Vice
President and Provosts–acting through the University Policy Council, discussed, struggled
with and, then, planned a major restructuring of the University administration including the
downsizing, decentralization and integration of the administrative structure of the University.
Major decisions on the new leadership structure were made by the Board of Trustees in
October, 1992 and June, 1993. The University Policy Council made the major decisions on
the University administrative reorganization in June, 1992 and December, 1992.
Expectations were that I would continue on in my dual role as President until July,
1995. I requested a change first to January, 1995 and, then, in June 1993, that I complete
the transition to the new University Chancellor role by July, 1994. The Trustees established
a search and screen process for a College President in June and October, 1993; James
Crowfoot was chosen as the 18th President of Antioch College on May 15, 1994 and
assumed office on August 1, 1994. I became the first Chancellor of Antioch University on
July 1, 1994.
In two difficult and painful meetings in July, 1992 and February, 1993, the staff of
the University administration were informed that the University was being reorganized, all
day-to-day administrative services were going to be decentralized to the campuses, and the
staff reduced by two-thirds. The changes were concluded in December, 1993 and June,
1994. The new organizational systems were put into effect by July, 1994 and the integrated
computer systems for finance have been operational since June, 1995; other integrated
administrative systems will follow in the ensuing 18 months.
The transition, in late 1994, is reaching its final stages, but not without the normal
stresses and strains inherent in such major organizational changes, computer systems that
didn’t work as advertised, individuals leaving at inopportune times, and resistance in one or
another quarter that had to be forcefully overcome …

Restructurin~ the University Administration
In mid-1995, we have nearly completed the major restructuring of the central
administration of the University, which has significantly reduced the administrative overhead
costs and, after accounting for increases in a new decentralized system, will save the
institution about $700,0001 year in 1995, and considerably more in the years ahead. The
total budget for the University is about 40 million dollars and the central administration’s
budget in 1993, prior to the full scale implementation of this change, was $3.3 million.
Projections were that the central administration as structured would continue its 5% annual
growth and by 1996-97 would have a budget of $4.1 million. While
Antioch
is now
financially in good shape, the overhead costs needed to support the central administration had
become burdensome to the campuses, especially the four adult campuses. At the same time,
the central administration, which dealt very effectively with past problems, was based on a
hierarchical and centralized organizational culture–what some have called command and
control.
We were determined to reduce the overhead costs and change the command and
control culture by decentralizing many centralized functions to the five campuses, most of
which already had staffed up to deal with their increased size. We initially approached this
change incrementally: that is, we started out to decrease costs by reducing the size of the
central administration department by department. It took over a year to attempt the first
departmental change and it became clear rather quickly that the staffs resistance and collusion
would make it impossible to accomplish the entire central administrative change envisioned
within a reasonable period of time, if ever. Also, the University’s computer center was not
up to the task. We realized that incremental change would not work and that a strategy
focused on making basic structural changes was necessary.
In the summer, 199 1, we decided to spend about a year developing a consensus
among the senior administrative leadership of each campus and the president regarding the
need to restructure the entire central administration. As we did this, we concluded that the
only way we could accomplish our goal of significant reductions in university overhead
expenses and decentralization to the campuses of all day to day activities was literally by
starting over, and building a conception of a central administration based on a new culture
and philosophy of collaboration and partnership. And, that’s just what we did.
We made two key policy decisions at the senior administrative level of the University:
first, that we would close down the central administration and build a new one and that once
started we would not turn back–as someone once said, you can only leap over a large chasm
in one jump, you can’t stop in the middle. All the senior administrators were aware of this
when we made our decision. Second, we would create a highly collaborative implementation
process: technical resource groups for each major administrative area made up of middle level
managers from each campus were created
(e.g.,
chief fiscal officers, registrars), along with a
central
planningltransition
group. These groups were responsible for recommending
operational policies for each area to the senior leadership group of the University, the
University Policy Council, made up of the chief administrator of each campus and the
president, which made all the final decisions. The major requirement was that all operational
policies had to follow an overall time-table and the computer systems design.
As of the summer, 1995, the restructuring of the central administration’s work had
been completed, about three years after we began implementation and over four years after
we initiated discussions about full scale decentralization of the central administration. All the
administrators in the new central administration have different responsibilities than in the old
one, including the chief executive officer (University Chancellor) and, especially, the chief
financial officer of the University. In turn, each of the five campuses will perform all the day

to day administrative functions, many of which were previously performed centrally with a
great deal of duplication on the campuses.
The savings will be a 60% reduction in the present central administration personnel–
a cut of 14 people– and a 40-45% reduction in projected costs at the central administration
level (a cut of about 1.6 million dollars). When all increases to accommodate the new
decentralized structure at the five campuses are taken into account, the total annual savings
will be over 20% of the total projected costs of the old central administration. Moreover, as
the resources of the University increase and the central administration does not, the savings
will continually grow. Most significantly, the culture of the University administration has
been radically altered.
What has impressed me more than anything else is not our success, which is
considerable, but how much effort and continuous vigilance it has taken. And, how
absolutely critical is the metaphor (and conception) that we’re closing down one central
administration and starting a new one. I was also impressed with how the implementation
effort evolved over time and that we could not fully predict all the many outcomes, a fact that
made some people uncomfortable with our level of planning …
One fascinating aspect of the entire planning effort is the paradoxical nature of the
process which, at times, has been unnerving to people. A powerful hierarchical decision had
to be made in order to move from a command and control to a collaborative,
partnership-
oriented administrative culture; a centralized decision was required to decentralize; the
decentralization of the University administrative structure has led to the increased integration
of the University …
In brief, the reorganization of the University administration had a number of essential
goals which are being achieved:
significantly reduce the costs of operating a University
administration, thereby reducing University overhead and increasing
local campus resources;
rebuilding the culture of the University administration to a collaborative
decision making structure;
decentralizing to the local campuses all day-today administrative
matters while the University monitors fiscal and administrative
matters;
creating a full service administration at the College and reduce by
nearly 213 the size of the University administration, many of whom
spent a considerable amount of time working on College matters;
creating integrated University functions that support a decentralized
administrative structure based on common standards and procedures,
but local decision making following Board approved policies;
build a new University-wide leadership structure that could plan and
realize the potential inherent in the diversity of the University
campuses and the values and conceptual commonality of the
University.. .

But, it is instructive that while the savings over the next 5-10 years created by
restructuring the central administration will be considerable, it will probably still not be enough
to deal with the need to reduce the high levels of student costs and institutional expenses.
Therefore, in the next three-four years, we will probably face continuing restructuring in the
administrative areas throughout the University and begin the most challenging task of all,
restructuring the role of faculty.
Restructurin~ – the Leadership of the University and Colle~e
. At the Board retreat in October, 1992, the Trustees tentatively decided to create two
positions–the College President and University Chancellor–and to change the
University-
campus relationship from a hierarchical to a collaborative structure. This meant that the chief
executives of each campus would report to the Board through the University Chancellor rather
than report to the University President, who in turn would be the only one reporting directly to
the Board.
This “reporting through” structure is common in some public university systems, but
can be confusing to those not familiar with its operations. Basically, this means–and was
delineated in Board documents–that the campus leaders are delegated by the Board
responsibility for all day-to-day functioning of the campus, but are expected to work with the
Chancellor and their colleagues from other campuses, on all University-wide issues, policy
development, annual budget guidelines and budget development. While the College President
and the Provosts have access to the Board through reports and informal interaction, it is only in
extraordinary circumstances that they would formally make proposals directly to the Board.
The Chancellor’s primary responsibilities are to
cany
out Board policies and to make
sure each campus does so, to monitor the major developments on each campus, especially in
the finance and personnel areas, to lead and facilitate the senior administrative group, the
University Policy Council, in developing recommendations for Board action, in working out
differences among the campuses, and in providing general oversight to University
administrative operations. As is probably obvious, I strongly supported the Board’s action.
Following the October, 1992 retreat a special
Trusteelsenior
administrative ad
hoc
committee was charged by the Board with visiting and consulting with faculty and
administrators on each campus regarding the tentative decision. Except for the College, the
campuses were supportive of the Board’s decision. At the College, some of the older and anti-
university faculty were suspicious; they felt the benefits received from having the university
President serve simultaneously as College President would be lost. They also felt that the
creation of a College President would put them on the same level as the other campuses, no
longer holding a special role in the University they so disliked. Discussions with them only
partially assuaged their concerns. The major positive issue for them was that the College
President would have a reporting line to the Board and that the Chancellor-College
President-
Provost relationship was based on a partnership rather than a hierarchy. But, the ambiguity
remained unsettling.
What is most interesting is that the College faculty had forgotten their experience under
my two predecessors. After a while, both rejected the College and focused their efforts on the
adult campuses and the Law School. The major underlying rationale for creating a separate
College President was to have a chief executive concerned solely with the needs of the College.
In effect, the new leadership structure takes away the option that both my predecessors and I
had to decide whether or not to spend time and energy on the College or some other part of the
University. A good number of Trustees and I felt that the new leadership arrangement
structurally protected the College from presidential disinterest in its needs.

In June, 1993, the Board finalized their decision and approved in principle the report
of the Ad
Hoc
Committee, which outlined the new structure. At the same meeting, they
established a search and screen process for a College President. The new College President
began his work on August 1, 1994. The Chancellor’s office moved out of the President’s
offices in the College’s Main building in the third week of July to temporary and very
spartan
offices awaiting renovation of new University administrative offices, which weren’t completed
until the last few days of December.
These University administrative offices are on the first floor of a building on the edge
of the Yellow Springs campus, the Kettering Laboratory Building, and next to the building that
houses the
McGregor
School. There are 12 permanent employees in four University offices
who manage the central University administration for an institution of over 4000 students on
five campuses in four states.
A New University Organizational Design
The new leadership and administrative organization of Antioch University has evolved
from near chaos in 1985, in which some of the strongest units–New England and Seattle–
were preparing to spin off on their own if the University failed, to a University with highly
centrally controlled processes operating as a single unit on almost all major administrative
matters except each campus’ educational programs, to a new federal University structure.
This new organizational form is growing in use, especially in the business world, to
deal with the paradoxes and uncertainties of the mid-to-late 1990s. It is wonderfully described
in a recent (1994) book by Charles Handy, The
Aee
of Paradox. Referring to it as federalism
or federation, Handy writes the following:
Federalism is an old idea, but its time may have come
again … Federalism seeks to be both big in some things
and small in others, to be centralized in some respects
and decentralized in others … It endeavors to maximize
independence provided there is a necessary inter-
dependence; to encourage difference, but within limits
it needs to maintain a strong center, but one devoted to
the service of its parts; it can, and should, be led from
that center but has to be managed by the parts. (p. 1 10)
…( F)ederalism is an exercise in the balancing of power.
The federal idea is an example of the second curve
[i.e.,
self-renewing processes], but one which too few
institutions or societies develop until they are forced to.
It is a very different, and very uncomfortable, way of thinking
about organizations. It is messy, untidy, and always a
little out of control. Its only justification is that
there is no real alternative in a complicated world.
No one person, or group, or executive, is so
all-
wise and so all-sensitive to be able to balance the
paradoxes on their own, or run the place from the
center, even if people were prepared to allow them
We have to allow space for the small and the local.
(p. 1 1 1, emphasis added)
Like their colleague Handy,
O’Toole
and Bennis in their article on “Our Federation: The
Leadership Imperative,” discuss the issues involved in the development of a federal

organizational structure. They outline the characteristics of federalism that “have remained
constant since they were first described by Madison in the late Eighteenth century, and thus
appear to possess almost universal validity: I’
Non-centralization. In federations, power resides in many semi-
autonomous constituent centers, deliberately diffused for the
purpose of safeguarding the freedom and vitality of those units …[ A]
true federal system is contractual and power cannot be rescinded
unilaterally or arbitrarily by the central government (or central
headquarters.). . .
Negotiationism. In federations, decisions are made in an
ongoing process of bargaining between the units and the central
authority–and often, between the units themselves …
Constitutionalism. In federations, there is a written
(occasionally, unwritten) convenant that binds the allegiance of the
units to the basic purpose, mission, philosophy, and principles of
the overarching
institution.
Territorialitv. In federations, there are distinct boundaries
between the constituent units.
Balance of Power. Federations seek balance not only between
the central authority and the units, but between the units as well.
Autonomy. In a federation, the units are free to experiment and be
self-governing to the extent they do not violate the fundamental
principles necessary for the maintenance of the union. Of all the
characteristics of federation, this is the most difficult to achieve and
maintain.
We have been undertaking the development of a federation with a strong sense of
common purpose, with a center that is built to lead the University and serve the major parts–
the campuses–while maintaining a great deal of autonomy for each. This organizational form
is well suited to our present needs and for dealing with the highly uncertain environment of
higher education in the mid-1990s and beyond. But, it a bit messy and it is not always easy
for people to understand the non-hierarchical nature of a federation.
The New Challenge: 1994 and Beyond
Ambiguity and tension are inherent in the new federal organizational model we’ve
created and in its potentially conflicting processes; localized, decentralized decision making and
common university-wide policies and integrated functions; Board delegated campus-based
leadership and University-wide Board delegated integrated policy development with monitoring
of campus activities.
Many of the key elements of our future success can be seen in Charles Handy’s
discussion of what makes such a federation work:
… Federalism is fraught with difficulty because it is trying
to manage [societal] paradox [and uncertainty]. Twin
citizenship makes [federalism work]. If there is a sense

of belonging to something bigger as well as something
smaller we can accept some restrictions on our local
independence if it helps the larger whole. Sovereignty is
not ceded but shared. The larger unit is not only “them” but
also “us.”
… The life of the federal president in a large organization
tends to be one long teach-in …
[But,] twin citizenship needs more than flags, national
anthems, and articulate visible leaders. It is lubricated by
cross-fertilization, by moving people between parts and the
center. In that way more people are exposed to more of the
bigger reality; they not only grow themselves, but their
vision and understanding of the total organization grows
with them … (p. 122)
Creating and operating a federal organization is not a recipe for peace and tranquillity,
nor is any other organization model. It is a complex system of relationships that must be
continually developed and maintained; administrative systems must be continuously monitored.
O’Toole
and Bennis, like their colleague Handy, discuss the difficulties of leading a federation:
While we have stressed the advantages of federalism, the
managerial difficulties inherent in the system are legion …
Such structurally endemic problems as “free-riding,” high
transaction costs, absence of accountability, and a dozen
other centrifugal forces cause most [federations] to fly apart.
Leadership is the key to success in any federal system.
O’Toole
and Bennis continue:
Indeed, when we describe the emerging leadership
relationship in today’s federal organizations we come closest
when we speak of leaders of leaders. In these organizations,
senior leaders are followed willingly by other leaders by
virtue of the formers’ vision, integrity, and courage (and not
just by the organizational equivalent of a yank of the crook or
the nipping of a sheep dog at the heels). Importantly,
because people at all levels are leaders in their own right,
there is little of the resistance to change that characterizes the
middle ranks of most hierarchical organizations headed by a
single commander-in-chief and staffed by layers of resentful
sheep. In the emerging leadership relationship, it is
far from easy for the outsider to identify the
leader. (emphasis added)
In the successful federal organization, a central — perhaps
the central — task of the leader of leaders thus becomes the
development of other leaders … Thus, federalism does not
obviate the need for leadership; instead, it focuses and
redefines the task of the leader.
Indeed, federalism may be a necessity for achieving true
empowerment in large, complex systems. Because it
stresses interdependence over independence and autonomy

over dependence, it substitutes healthy self-control for the
command and control of a hierarchy. And, if anything has
been learned about human behavior in organizations and
society, it is that interdependence leads to healthy
cooperation, and that dependency is neither healthy or
effective.
In essence, federalism allows nations and corporations to
have their organizational cake and eat it, too. Given proper
leadership, the new federalism … illustrates that it is
possible to pursue innovation, self-govemance, and
autonomy, while at the same time enjoying the advantages of
effective coordination, economies-of-scale, and the
protection of cherished freedoms that only pluralism can
provide. Even granting that federalism is a difficult
structural form to manage – perhaps the most
difficult – it might still recommend itself on the
grounds that, like democracy, it is simply better
than the alternatives. (86-89. emphasis added)
Finally, referring back to Handy’s analysis of the role of the central unit of a federal
organization: j
The center’s role is to orchestrate the broad strategic vision,
develop the shared administrative and organizational
infrastructure, and create the central glue which can create
synergies
…(p.
135)
Small the center should be, and partially dispersed, but it must
be strong and well informed. After all, the center carries the
ultimate responsibility for the whole … Only those at the center
have a view of the whole … The center’s principal task is to be
the trustee of the future, but it needs to be sure that the present
does not run out before the future arrives. (p. 137,138)
I believe, as Handy and O’Toole and Bennis do, that the ambiguity and tension created
by the federation model can be creative. But, those who are aware of what happened at
Antioch in the late
1960s,
the 1970s and early
1980s,
understand that a federal model that is
poorly managed and without strong integrating forces can be tom apart by the strong
centrifugal forces at work. Under such circumstances, the inherent tension in a federal model
is negative, not creative. The reason for
Antioch’s
problems are directly related, I believe, to
its inability to hold in a dynamic balance strong centrifugal forces–territoriality, autonomy, lack
of commitment to the institution as a whole–with equally powerful centripetal forces such as
strong central leadership, strong integrating administrative systems, and accountability and
commitment to the whole institution.
But, the tension inherent in a federation organizational model can be creative, if at times
it is difficult and messy. In a well functioning integrated federation, leadership of the
University’s center is critical and different than leading a specific unit or campus. Central
leadership is focused much more on a partnership, facilitation and negotiation than on directive
leadership; it is much more a “leader of leaders” without the implicit or explicit authority
inherent in a campus leader role. Yet, this central leader always has the capability to invoke the
written or unwritten convenant that “binds the allegiance of the units to the basic purpose,
mission, philosophy and principles of the overarching institution.”

Integrating mechanisms are essential, especially at the major administrative and
technological levels. There are also other important forces for integration in more efficient and
cost saving electronic educational tools; in the interaction of key middle level managers and
faculty leaders in collaborative University structures; and there is a great deal of learning’ that
can occur across campuses as the leaders at all levels become colleagues and partners rather
than competitors.
Along with the complexities involved in
making
a federal organizational model work
are the many benefits. At Antioch University, the potential can be seen in the following
examples that have occurred as we evolved to the new structure over the last few years or have
the possibility of occurring in the future:
*Smaller units are closer to the student markets and can have
administrative functions that are focused directly on the
students to be served.
Numerous programs on the adult campuses are
examples of this entreprenurial perspective.
*The central function can have the technological sophistication
and integrated technology that would be difficult to have
within each part.
Examples are
Antioch’s
integrated management
information system and electronic network, and
the expertise to manage these systems.
*Human and program resources from different units that successfully
implemented new and different programs can be shared, thereby
avoiding the pitfalls common to new ventures.
This cross-fertilization has occurred in the
development of the education certification programs–
between New England and Seattle and from Seattle
to the
McGregorICollege
joint program; it has also
occurred in environmental and international programs
between New England and the College. This
interaction and learning across campuses has been
especially noticeable recently in developments in
such administrative areas as finance, human
resources and the registrars. In fact, the registrarial
system in Seattle has been adopted by Los Angeles
and Santa Barbara.
*Because the University is dispersed in four different regions,
it is not dependent on a single student market.
This is especially important given the demographics
of the different regions, Southern California and the
state of Washington will experience major growth in
traditional student age markets in the next decade, the
Mid-West minor growth in traditional student
markets and greater potential in the adult student

market; New England will experience moderate
growth. This dispersion also enhances the transfer
of new practices learned as a result of responding to
local markets, state regulations, etc.
*The potential to create University-wide programs that build upon the
diversity inherent in five campuses in four different geographical
regions of the country;
e.g.,
management, education, psychology,
environment, technology in education.
*Each campus and the University as a whole has a clarity regarding
commonly held values, which provides sustenance and sense of
purpose to all the parts as well as the whole.
As we began the implementation of an integrated federal organizational structure on
July 1, 1994, we placed major emphases on making the University Policy Council (UPC) a
strong integrative group that reflects the strengths and leadership needs of a federation, as well
as focusing on building the financial integration and accountability of the University through
modem technology. We also focused on integrating the University through the interaction of
middle-level managers from each of the campuses in official University-wide work groups
responsible for policy development and implementation along with informal support and
information sharing;
e.g.,chief
fiscal officers, registrars, human resource directors, financial
aid officers.
As the most powerful administrative integrating force of the new University structure,
the University Policy Council, whose general authority and responsibility is outlined in the
Board’s by-laws, is composed of the five chief executives from each campus, the chief
executive officer and chief financial officer of the University. Twice each year in retreat
meetings, the chief academic officers of each campus are added to the UPC; these academic
officers also constitute an academic sub-committee of the UPC chaired by the University
Chancellor. Once each year, at the annual budget review meeting, the chief financial officers of
the campuses are added to the UPC; like their academic counterparts, these finance officers
constitute a
sub-committee
of the UPC and meet at other times during the year with the
University Vice
ChancellorIChief
Financial Officer. In all the UPC meets six times a year, the
three meetings just listed, which last from 2-3 days, and for one day prior to the three Board
meetings.
Prior to July 1, 1994, the UPC was advisory to the University President; on that date it
became a formal part of the governance structure of the University. The UPC is chaired by the
University Chancellor, who can add members beyond the campus chief executives and Vice
Chancellor as necessary. The Chancellor is expected to assure the collaboration of the campus
CEOs
with each other and with the Chancellor.
On December 2-4, 1994, the UPC met in San Francisco, almost nine years to the day
following the December 11-12, 1985 meeting, in which key decisions were made by the
President regarding the future financial discipline and integrity of the University. In 1994, the
meeting was a retreat of the leaders of the University discussing Charles Handy’s book
Aee
of Paradox and dealing with the implementation of the new federal structure. The three
days of discussions emphasized both the paradoxes of the 1994-95 environment and the
messiness and tensions of the federal model:
*having just achieved in 1993-94 the best fiscal year at
Antioch
in three decades, in 1994-95 we were struggling

with enrollments at three of the four adult campuses as well
as the College;
*the tension between the recent successful implementation of
new academic programs and the realization that the
academic program array that got us where we are may not
be able to keep us there;
*the surprise and struggle of the new College President who
found a College which has seen incredible development in
the past nine years, but which is in need of major academic
and administrative adjustments, as well as community
building;
*the tension between the College and the adult campuses
over resources and equitable treatment by the Trustees;
*the tension between choosing a new financial software
package that will produce the information, reports and
auditing capability needed after a false start with a previous
program, and the realization that the expense of the new
highly rated system is too costly for the software to reside
on each campus, which means that it must be housed
centrally with local access and decision making control.
The tension emanates from the anxiety about
telecommunicating over long distances and potential down
time and the concern–or trust–about whether or not the
central location means the possible re-emergence of central
control.
All these factors–the benefits of a federal model where units are empowered, the need
to manage the integration of the institution and the complexities of dealing with the tensions
in the organization and the paradoxes of the societal environment–are part of the balancing of
campus-based centrifugal forces inherent in the federal model (and in most other
organizations as well) with strong centripetal forces of integration and common purpose.
The balancing act becomes creative as it enhances the likelihood that people throughout the
institution will be concerned with the health of the whole and, therefore, make local decisions
that will enhance both their own campus and the University.
This balancing act, which I have called creative tension, requires the chief executive
of each campus and the University to function as leaders in the midst of a good deal of
uncertainty. Significant issues cannot always be “locked down” as in a hierarchical structure,
negotiation is the mode of operation with the Chancellor as facilitator and mediator. Because
campus leaders report to the Board through the
Chancellor,relations
between campus leaders
and the Board of Trustees also become more complex.
The complexity of this federal system requires the Board Chair and Chancellor to
work closely together to maintain the creative balance. Given that the
Antioch
University
Board is composed of about 85% College graduates, the tests will be many and the wisdom
of the Board’s leadership will be challenged as their emotional heart feels the tug of powerful
feelings for the College and its meanings in their lives. The need for Trustee vigilance about
their role is as critical as that for the Chancellor-campus chief executive relationship. As one

Trustee recently stated, their role is “to keep their nose in and their fingers out” of campus
and University management matters.
But the benefits for the College and each of the adult campuses will prove to
be
many
and outweigh the new tensions, especially given the history and complexity of Antioch. For,
Antioch University, which is in actuality an integrated system of campuses, provides the
College and the adult campuses with the maximum amount of autonomy while maintaining
the interdependence of financial resources, a common set of values that are mutually
necessary for the future of each, and the potential for future sharing of human resources and
new programs to the benefit of all.
Conclusion
The new organizational structure of Antioch University based on a federal model
represents a bold venture to come to terms with the special needs of the institution and the
uncertain and paradoxical nature of the societal environment of the late 1990s. In creating
this new structure, we have made clear our continuing–and for us essential–commitment to
Antioch’s legacy. Doing so follows in spirit the words attributed to Thomas Masaryk,
philosopher President of pre-World War I1 Czechoslovakia:
You see how it is: The method must be
absolutely practical, reasonable and realistic,
but the whole, the conception is an eternal poem.
The methods are the integrating organizational structures and the many processes developed
to make Antioch successful. But, the purposes and direction of these methods follow
Antioch’s legacy and values, Antioch’s eternal poem.
A federal model of organization is messy! So, too, is an institution that attempts to
live by its values. But, we are asking the right questions. We are balancing our budgets.
We are continuing to increase our academic quality. And, we are creatively planning our
future, not fretting about our past …

D. Background Material
Relationship between the Board, system chief executive and
campus chief executive in the University of Wisconsin System
and the University of North Carolina System
The following material is from the legal structures of the University of Wisconsin System
and the University of North Carolina System. While these are both large public university systems,
they do deal with the relationship between campus chief executives, the system chief executive and
the Board. Both systems are considered to be well run and among the best in the country. In both
cases, the system chief executive is called a president and the campus chief executive is called a
chancellor.
The most relevant material in these legal structures have been given special emphasis. It
should be noted that the relationships between the system chief executive, campus chief executive
and the Board in the University of Wisconsin System is quite similar to how Antioch University is
presently organized, while these relationships in North Carolina are more similar to Antioch
University prior to July 1, 1994. In Wisconsin, the campus chief executive is delegated by the
Board responsibility to lead
hisher
campus following Board policy and under the “coordinating
direction” of the system chief executive. In North Carolina, the campus chief executive reports
directly to the system chief executive (“subject to the direction of the President” and “The Chancellor
shall be responsible to the President for the administration of the institution”), and is expected “to
keep the President, and through him the Board of Governors, fully informed concerning the
operations and needs of the institution.”
While these large public systems of higher education are quite different from Antioch
University, they must deal with some of the same problems in the relationship between the board,
system chief executive and campus chief executive.
WISCONSIN STATUES
CHAPTER 36. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
(2) The president. The president [system chief executive] shall be president of all the faculties
and shall be vested with the responsibility of administering the system under board policies
and shall direct a central administration which shall assist the board and the
president in establishing system-wide policies in monitoring, reviewing and
evaluating these polices, in coordinating program development and operation
among institutions, in planning the programmatic, financial and physical
development of the system, in maintaining fiscal control and compiling and
recommending educational programs, operating budgets and building programs for
the board. The president shall appoint each vice president, associate vice president and assistant
vice president of the system. The president shall fix the term of office for each vice president,
associate vice president and assistant vice president of the system.
(3) The chancellors [campus chief executives]. (a) The chancellors shall be the executive of their
respective faculties and institutions and shall be vested with the responsibility of administering
board policies under the coordinating direction of the president and be accountable
and report to the president and the board on the operation and administration of
their institutions. Subject to board policy the chancellors of the institutions in consultation with
their faculties shall be responsible for designing curricula and setting degree requirements;
determining academic standards and establishing grading systems; defining and administering

institutional standards for faculty peer evaluation and screening candidates for appointment,
promotion and tenure; recommending individual merit increases; administering associated auxiliary
services; and administering all funds, from whatever source, allocated, generated or intended for use
of their institutions.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHAPTER 1244 OF THE 197 1 SESSION LAWS
Section 50 1. President of the University
501 A. General Authority.
The President of The University of North Carolina shall be the chief administrative
and executive officer of the University. He shall have complete authority to manage
the affairs and execute the policies of The University of North Carolina and its constituent
institutions, subject to the direction and control of the Board of Governors and the provisions of the
Code.
501 B. Relation of the President to the Board of Governors.
(1) The President, as chief executive officer of the University, shall perform all duties prescribed by
the Board of Governors.
(2) The President shall make recommendations to the Board of Governors with respect to the
adoption, modification, revision or reversal of policies, rules and regulations applicable to The
University of North Carolina and any or all of its constituent institutions.
(7) The President shall establish administrative organizations to carry out the policies of the
University.
Section 502. Chancellors of Constituent Institutions.
502 A. General Authority
The administrative and executive head of each constituent institution shall be the
Chancellor, who shall exercise complete executive authority therein, subject to the
direction of the President. He shall be responsible for carrying out policies of the Board of
Governors and of the Board of Trustees.
502 B. Relation of the Chancellor to the Board of Governors and the President
(1) It shall be the duty of the Chancellor to keep the President, and through him the
Board of Governors, fully informed concerning the operations and needs of the institution.
Upon request, the Chancellor shall be available to confer with the President or with the Board of
Governors concerning matters that pertain to the institution.
(3) The Chancellor shall be responsible to the President for the administration of
the institution, including the enforcement of the decisions, actions, policies and regulations of the
Board of Governors.
502 C. Relation of the Chancellor to the Board of Trustees.
(1) It shall be the duty of the Chancellor to attend all meetings of the Board of Trustees and to be
responsible for keeping the Board of Trustees fully informed on the operation of the institution and
its needs. The Board of Trustees may convene in executive session, consistent with State law and
policy.
502 D. Relation of the Chancellor to the Constituent Institution.

(1) Subject to policies established by the Board of Governors, the Board of
Trustees or the President, the Chancellor shall be the leader of and the official spokesman for
the institution; he shall promote the educational excellence and general development and welfare of
the institution; he shall define the scope of authority of faculties, councils, committees and officers of
the institution; and all projects, programs and institutional reports to be undertaken on behalf of the
institution shall be subject to his authorization and approval.

Section 11. University Financial Data
A. Annual Financial Operations
Table I: Final Operating Results by Campus After Transfers to
Campus Carry Forward Reserves:
1990-
1995
Table
11:
Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves:
1990-
1995
Table
I11
Final Operating Results by Campus Before Transfers to
Campus Carry Forward Reserves:
1990-
1995
Table IV Breakout of Operating Results for University
Administration and University Operations:
1990-
1995
B. Campus Reserves and Endowment
Table V Campus Carry Forward Reserves, Endowment and
Deferred Gifts by Campus: 6130195
Table VI Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves and
Endowment: 1986, 1990-1995
Graph
Via
Accumulated Campus Carry Forward Reserves and
Endowment: 1986, 1990-1995
C. Debt Service and Lease Payments
Table VII Debt, Debt Service, and Lease Payments by Campus: 1995
D. Student Costs and Student Revenue
Table VIII Campus Dollar Support for Instruction and Plant
MaintenanceIRent
as % of Total Expenditures: 1995 & 1996
Diagram
VIIIa
Campus Dollar Support for Instruction and Plant
MaintenanceRent
as % of Total Expenditures: 1995
(For Each Campus)
Table IX Comparison of Cost per Student and Revenue per Student:
By Campus, 1995

Graph IXa Comparison of Cost per Student and Revenue per Student:
By Campus, 1995
Chart X Antioch College: Sources of College Revenue to Meet Cost
per Student, 1995
E. University Subsidies and Overhead Rebates to College
Table XI University Subsidies and Overhead Rebates to College:
1993-1996
Footnotes to Table XI

I
TABLE I
I I1 I I I I I I
Final
After
I , , , 1 I I I
Total -282,1231 1 662,2801 347,1381 486,2351 512,521 1 -1,024.0241 702,027
I I I I I I I I
I
ANll0CH UNIVERSITY 1
Operating Results by Campus
Transfers to Campus Reserves
1990 – 1995
Year
–
College
–
I I I I I I I I
4
Note: These are the operating results reported to the Board of Trustees in October of each year. They reflect the final operating results after
transfers to reserves. See Table Ill for results prior to transfers to reserves.
** Includes Central Admin, University Operations, Antioch Review, Glen Helen and WYSO
The College final includes a $500,000 bequest in probate at 6130195. Expected receipt 12/95. Reserves utilized to cover this amount.
I I I I
New England
—-
I
Seattle
—-
Southern Cat
—-
McGregor
—-
Unlv Admln
& Unlv Opera”
—-
Total University
—-

looo’zo 1 lw’99 1
869’26
89fr’69
1′
1
fr98009
€czS9
9 1 189
~€90
fr9L1frO2
E90L92
OLEOS 1
966~-
000062
SEE
~09E
OOOSO
~29’86
899’96
0626
1E
166OE
0000fr
1-
OOOOfr 1
0
966 1
fr66 1
€ 1

Year
—
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
Total 90-95
Trans to Reserves
Contributed
to the Univ
College
—
-81 ,I 24
-1 13.1 41
-73,705
-17,397
142,458
-1 39.21 4
-282,123
0
-282,123
Note: This table represents the actual surpluses and deficits by cam
New England
—
144,573
204,970
191,376
243,711
328.752
106,219
1,219,601
557,321
662.280
us in the operating budgets
*’ See Table XI of thin section for details of University subsidies to College. 1
1 TABLE Ill
ANll0CH UNIVERSITY
Final Operating
Seattle
—
88,942
108,257
104,588
21 1,534
99,794
11,984
625,099
277,961
347.1 38
1
.
Total Unlverslty
—
-267,816
74,455
775.749
631.333
1,422,025
143,589
2,779,335
2,077,308
Direct Dollar Support
to Collega Budget”
—
300,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
425.000
1,525,000
3,300,000
Results by Campus, Before
1990 – 1995
Southern Cal
—
59,771
316,920 1992~-~~~-~~~~ 282,109
80,015
302,527
-4,003
1,037,339
551,104
486,235
—
Transfers to
McGregor
—
227,241
14,282
202,606
275,370
286,201
231,018
1,236,718
724.1 97
512,521
Reserves*
Unlv Admln
& Unlv Opera
—
-707,219
-456,833
68,776
-161,900
262,293
-62.41 5
-1,057.299
-33,274

I 1 I I I I I
I I ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY
Breakout of University Administration
and University Operations
1 1990 – 1995 1
Central Dlscontlnued Auxiliary Units
Year Admlnlstratlor Development*’ Operations (WSYO, Review, Glen) Total
— —- —- —- —- —-
198911 990 439.020 -435.020 -673.1 78 -38.041 -707.21 9
1994 736,244 -474,075 0 124 262,293
199411
995 49,098 0 0 -1 11,513 -62,415
Total 2,803,515 -2,693,760 -773,250 -393,803 -1,057,299
* In 1990 – .1994, Central Administration included Offices fo the University President (including Exective VP), Vice
President for Finance (Personnel, Business, Financial Aid, Student Loan), University Registrar, University Computer
—
** Development includes the operations of the Office of the VP for Development and Alumni Affairs which was solely
devoted to College fund raising and alumni affairs. It does not include the expenses for the capital campaign which had an
accumulated total of over $2,000,000 for 1987 – 1994 and are listed in a separate fund. The development office
budget was cut from $1,200,000 to $800,000 during 1993-94 to reflect the end of the capital campaign and
transferred to the Colleae on Julv 1. 1994. The transfer to the Colleae included a
subsidy
of $250.000.

Carry Forward Reserves College
– Funded -0-
Total Carry Forward
Reserves
Endowment (only includes
dollar investments) &
Restricted ~eserves
Total Campus Reserves
&Endowment
Deferred Gifts
Unrestricted
Restricted
Total Reserves
Endowment & Deferred
Gifts
Table V
Carry Forward Campus Reserves, Endowment &
~eferred~ifts by Campus
New England
$ 294,547
484,337
782,884
$782,884
-0-
-0-
$782,884
Seattle So.Calif. McGregor
$98,605 $285,004 $42 1,763
179,356
362,29
1 307,434
277,96 1 647,295 724,197
Total
$1,099,9 19
1,332,418
2,432,337

Accumulated Campus Reserves & Endowment:
1986, 1990-95

Table VII
Debt, Debt Service and Annual Lease Payments by Campus
June 30,1995
College New England Seattle So. California Me Gregor University WYSO Total
Operations
Total Debt
$2,616,373 $5,530,000 0 0 0 $2,105,692 $190,327 $10,442,392
Debt
Service Paid 4 18,28 1 494,3 12
by Unit
146,622 University 1,189,215
Long Term
Lease
Payments 0 0 503,154 943,869 0 0 0 1,447,023
by Campus

Table VIII
Campus Dollar Support for Instruction and Plant
MaintenanceIRent
as Percent of Total Expenditures*
Total Total Percent Percent Plant
Instruction Budget* of Instruction
MaintenanceIRent
Antioch College
1995 4,014,049 10,601,247** 38% 13.4% [I 1.1%]***
1996 (approved) 4,063,741 10,657,297** 38.1% 11% [8.3%] ***
Antioch New England
1995 3,790,502 7,489,815
1996 (approved) 3,904,895 7,794,734
Antioch Seattle
1995 2,903,802 5,734,754
1996 (Approved) 3.1 16,699 6,082,406
Antioch So. California
1995 3,136,118 7,539,242 41.6%
1996 (Approved) 3,434,950 8,048, 065 42.7%
The McGregor School
1995 1,933,986 3,904,393
1996 (Approved) 2,245,166 4,544,06 1
*The total expenditure budget does =include auxiliary enterprises, capital expenditures or retirement of debt. The College figures also do not include
AEA.
**These figures include the $1,525,000 University subsidylrebates in 1995 and $1,664,000 in 1996.
***These percentages are based on subtracting from the College plant maintenance, the annual McGregor subsidy to the College and utilizing those figures
in calculating
McGregor’s
plant costs. McGregor subsidy was $250,000 in 1995 and $289,000 in 1996.

% of Campus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
MaintenanceIRent
College: 1 995
13.40% /
Plant Maintenance
% of Campus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
MaintenanceIRent
McGregor
School: 1995

8.40% Subsidy to College

S of Campus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
HaintenancejRent
Antioch
New England Graduate School:
1995
10% Plant Maintenance
% of Campus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
Maintenanceht
Seattle: 1995
% of Campus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
HaintenancelRent
Southern
California: 1995

% of Lampus Budget Spent on Instruction & Plant
nint enance/Rent

Table IX
Comparison of Cost/Student and Revenuelstudent by Campus, 1995
Antioch College
(FTE = 551)
CostIStudent per CosVS tudent per
Instructional Budget Total Budget *
Antioch New England
(FTE = 898) 4,22 I
Antioch Seattle
(FTE = 624)
Antioch So. Calif.
(FTE = 844)
McGregor School
(FTE = 6 1 6)
Income per
Student**
*These figures do not include auxiliary enterprises, capital expenditures or retirement of debt. The College figures do not include AEA.
**Income per student at the adult campuses where there are minimal tuition discounts is computed by dividing FTE into tuition & fee revenue at the College.
The tuition and fees revenue is reduced by the tuition discount and is then divided by the FTE.

Comparison of Cost/Student & RevenueiStudent for Each Campus 1994-95
Cost/Student = Total Budget for Each CampusIFTE Student
IncomeIStudent = Total RevenueIFTE Students
Cost per Student
@ Income per Student
College New England Seattle So. California McGregor School
mn

Antioch College:
Sources of Income to Meet Cost Per Student: 1995 .
Endowment & Other ‘
dy & Rebate
/
Cost per Student at 551 FTE = $19,250
40

Table XI
University Subsidies and Overhead Rebates to College
Direct Dollar Allocations & Equivalents [in parentheses]
1992193-199516
Subsidy
1. College Fund
2. Development Subsidy —- —– $250,000 $250,000
3. McGregor Subsidy
to College $150,000 $175,000 $250,000 $289,000
4. College Pres.
Office
Assume Exec. [$180,000 $225,000 $225,000
V.P.costs
equivalent] (includes $75,000 from
McG)**
[$180,000
equivalent]
5. Publications and P.R. In kind; by covered by $125,000 $125,000
Univ. adm. Univ. adm. (for 1994- 1996 only)
offices offices
6. Maximum liability agreed to by
UPC
if College FTE less than 568
$100,000
(1995-6 only)
Total Dollar Subsidy $350,000 $375,000 $975,000 $1,114,000
Overhead Rebate
7. Univ. Adm. Services: In kind; by covered by $550,000 $550,000
Business/Personnel/ Univ. adm. Univ. adm.
ComputerIFin
Aid offices offices
Financial Aid Offset
8. SEOG offset [$150,000] [ $150,0001 [$I 50,0001 [$I 50,0001
Other
9. Special Univ. Pres. $50,000 $50,000
Contingency Acct. for College
Total Cash
Total Equivalents $330,000 $330,000 $150,000 $150,000
Total Cash Subsidies
and Equivalents $730,000 $725,000 $1, 675,000 $1,814,000**
*Footnotes and explanations for items 1-9 are on next three pages
**These totals have been adjusted for the $75,000 double entry under College Pres. Office in #3 and 4.

FOOTNOTES
1. The College Fund: This subsidy was established in the 1986 University financial plan to
support the College and is a direct formula-based allocation from the adult campuses to the general
operating fund of the College. (All the other items listed below are allocated from the University
overhead account, unless otherwise noted.) This was approved as Board policy in 1993.
2. Development Subsidy: This subsidy did not include the costs for the capital campaign which
were to be met by the unrestricted gifts raised during the campaign. The capital campaign costs
ended on June 30, 1994 and, effective July 1,1994, the development office operating expenses were
reduced from $1.2 million to the present $800,000 with a primary focus on the annual fund and
planned giving. It was assumed that the College would utilize a combination of the $250,000
University subsidy, annual fund gifts and unrestricted bequests to meet these Development office
operating costs. It was also understood that this University subsidy for Development would not
increase. The underlying rationale was that since the College keeps 100% of the money raised, the
other campuses should not be underwriting the generation of these funds beyond the $250,000
subsidy. This was approved as Board policy in 1993.
3. McGregor Subsidy to the College: This fund was established in 1989-90 and was
arbitrarily increased by the University President based on
McGregor’s
capabilities until a formula
was established in 1993-94. The formula is set at 7% of student derived revenue and includes within
it a sum of $75,000 to support the College President’s Office. This was approved as Board policy in
1994, with the formula taking full effect on July 1, 1995.
4. College President’s Office: From 1987 to 1994, the functions of the College President were
carried out by the Office of the University President, which included the Executive Vice President.
Prior to July, 1987, the College had a Provost who was responsible for the College campus; from
July, 1987 to January, 1989, the University President acted alone. In October, 1988 the Board and
the President made a decision that the President could not do both jobs without major support, so an
Executive Vice President position was created. Michael
Bassis
filled the role in February, 1989. In
the University restructuring which created a University Chancellor and College President, the
Executive Vice President position was eliminated.
While it is difficult to disentangle the expenses within the University President’s office, it would
seem appropriate to use the full expenses of the University Executive Vice President’s function as a
base-line, including his assistant and support, to estimate the College President activities in the
University President’s office. These costs were about $180,000.
Creating a University allocation for the College President’s office was necessitated by the fact that
the resources that were used to fund the College Provost’s office had been reallocated to other
College areas and that the University had been covering the general expenses of the College
President’s office. The $225,000 allocation was based on an estimate of the costs of a President’s
office in a small liberal arts college of less than 700 students . The resources for this allocation were
handled by allocating $75,000 from the 1994-95 increase in the McGregor subsidy and $150,000
from the University overhead account. This was approved as Board policy in 1993.
5. Publications and Public Relations: This was one of the most difficult issues in the
restructuring. Originally, it was decided that this would remain an office of the University
administration that would, for a modest fee, serve the needs of the College and the McGregor School
as well as the University as a whole. While there was some unease among the Provosts regarding
the degree of service they would receive, this became the plan. In June, 1994, after Crowfoot was
appointed College President, he and the University President talked about this issue and he felt rather

funds like every other campus of the University. In the case of the personnel area, a new College
Director of Personnel felt that they needed an additional staff person, so they negotiated with the
McGregor School a contract for services which enabled the College to hire the additional position.
The general underlying rationale has been that until the College tuition generated
revenue
is large
enough to afford the needed services, the University should assure the College has adequate
administrative services to deal with its type of institution within the context of Antioch University
and University-wide resources. The allocation was to be in the form of a rebate from University
overhead. This was where the notion of “being held harmless” came from. There was a great deal
of discussion in the
UPC
about the level of overhead rebate support that the College should receive
for the administrative services area, and it was decided to support the proposal as submitted by the
College Dean of Financial and Administrative Affairs.
It should be noted that this support for College administrative services is not considered a subsidy in
the same sense as items 1-5. Rather, it is part of the overhead rebate policy approved by the UPC to
support the decentralization of University-wide administrative services at the College and all the adult
campuses. (It should ne noted that all of the adult campuses had to add or upgrade positions to deal
with the new decentralized operations and role of the University administration.) The assumption of
this policy is that over time the significantly reduced costs of the University administration–which is
basically on track, will lead to a reduction of University overhead from 13.75% to about 8%, thereby
enabling the College to pay for its own administrative services from its own resources (and for other
campuses to allocate these resources for their pressing needs). This would mean the College would
have to enroll about 700 full time students. The rebate policy also asumes that until the College
generates enough overhead dollars to fully fund this $550,000 University allocation, based on a
reduction of the University overhead rate from 13.75% to 8%, the University will continue to
provide the full $550,000. The impact of this rebate policy on the other campuses is that the College
allocation of
$550,000
has first call on the rebate pool. (The rebate pool is defined as University
overhead @ 13.75% of student derived revenue minus the costs for operating the University
administration and related University-wide expenses). Hence, if the rebate pool has $2,000,000, the
College receives
$550,000
and the other four campuses are allocated the remaining
$1,450,000
based on their percentage contribution to University overhead.
8. SEOG Offset: This refers to the campus-based federal student financial aid allocated to the
University. This $150,000 was originally allocated to other campuses, but as part of the 1986
University financial plan it was reallocated to the College thereby reducing dollar for dollar the
Antioch
grantltuition
discount needs of the College. This a direct loss for the students at the adult
campuses and a cash gain for the College. The $150,000 represents about a quarter of the total
SEOG received by the University. With this allocation, the entire amount of SEOG received by the
University was allocated to the College. This decision to reallocate the $150,000 was approved as
Board policy in 1993.
9. University President’s Special Contingency Account for the College: This account
existed for only two years and was an attempt to help the College with some one-year special costs.
Given the other changes and allocations,
e.g.,
the new
McGregor
School formula, this fund ended in
1994. It was felt that it would be inappropriate for the University Chancellor to have such an
account and that no other campus was treated by the University administration in this manner.

Section I11 University Enrollment Data
A. Enrollment Data
Table I. FTE Enrollment by Campus, 1986- 1995
Graph
la:
Comparison of Enrollment FTE across Campuses, 1986-1995
Table
I1
Headcount Enrollment by , 1992- 1995
Table
I11
Total Graduates at Each Campus, 1993-1995
Graph
Ilia
Total Graduates at Each Campus, 1993-1995
Table IV Percentage of Graduate and Undergraduate Students (FTE) at
each Campus, 1995
Table V Students of Color Enrollment by Campus, Fall, 1992- 1993
B. Tuition Data
Table VI Tuition at
Antioch
Campuses, 1990-1995
Table VII Percentage Annual Tuition Increases by Campus, 199 1 – 1996
From New York Times: National Averages of Tuition Increases at Private
and Public Universities Compared to Inflation (CPI), 1987-1995

Table I
FTE Enrollment by Campus
1986- 1995
Percent Changes
85/86 87 88 89 90 9 1 92 93 94 95 (89-94) (85-94)
College 425 46 1 50 1 553 554 525 554 570 592 55 1 0% 30%
New England 443 439 525 563 575 675 764 785 888 898 60% 103%
Seattle 287 326 316 375 406 443 493 563 596 624 66% 117%
Southern Calif. 443 440 436 543 543 658 756 805 887 844 55% 91%
McGregor
(SAEL) – * – * – * 418 493 454 393 462 498 616 47%
Totals – – – 2452 257 1 2755 2988 3185 346 1 3533 44%
*McGregor (SAEL) was created in 1988. The data for the two programs joined together (Weekend College and the MA) were reported separately prior
to 1988189.

Enrollment FTE by Campus 1 986-1 995
—
—
– College
– New England
– Seattle
– So. California
– McGregor School
I I 1 I I I
I

Table I1
Antioch College
Antioch New
England
Antioch Seattle
Antioch So. Calif.
McGregor
School
TOTAL
Headcoun t
(FTE)
Headcount Enrollment by Campus
199 1192- 1994195

Table I11
College
New England
Seattle
So. California
McGregor
Totals
Total Graduates for each Campus
199213- 199415

Total Graduates for Each Campus
1993-1 995
College New Seattle So. McGregor
England California School

Table IV
Graduate and Undergraduate Student FTE Enrollments
by Campus, 1995
Graduate FTE % Undergrad FTE %
College 0 0
(551 FTE)
New England 898 100%
(898 FTE)
Seattle 514 82% 110 18%
(624 FTE)
So. Calif. 541 64% 303 36%
(844 FTE)
McGregor 386 63% 230 37%
(616 FTE)
University
Totals 2,339 66% 1,190 34%
(3,533 FTE)

Table V
Students of Color* Enrollment
By Campus; Fall 1991 – 1994
College 11.4 % 12.7% 15.7% 14.3%
New England 1% -8 % 2.14% 3.39%
Seattle 10% 3.9% 8.1% 9%
So. California
Santa Barbara 6% 8% 9.6% 7.8%
Los Angeles 11% 14% 17% 17%
McGreeor 13.3% 10.8% 13.16% 12.4%
* Includes African Americans, Asians, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Native
Amercians.

Table VI
Antioch College
Published Tuition
(includes medical fee) $1 1,200
Antioch New
England
Average Masters only $ 5,840
Antioch Seattle
BA Completion $ 6,300
Average Masters $ 6,525
Tuition at Antioch Campuses
1989190 – 1995196
Antioch Southern
California
(includes LA & SB)
Avg.BA
Completion $ 6,150 $ 6,698 $ 7,125 $ 7,650 $ 8,175 $ 8,560 $ 8,715
Avg.Masters $ 6,150 $ 6,790 $ 7,300 $ 7,800 $ 8,300 $ 8,622 $ 8,640
McGregor School
BA Completion $ 4,140 $ 5,580 $ 6,120 $ 6,300 $ 6,480 $ 6,660 $ 6,840
Avg. Masters** – – $ 9,000** $ 7,245** $ 6,665 $ 6,921 $ 6,940
*An academic calendar year = 3 quarters or 2 semesters. Full-time in all MA programs is assumed to be 12 creditslquarter or semester. .
BA Completion full-time = 12 credits per quarter.
**Includes only
Mmanagement
in 1991192;
Mmanagement & IMA Conflict Resolution in 1992193; does not include IMA Classic Tuition.

College
New
England
Masters
Only
Seattle
B A
Ave. Masters
So. Calif.
BA
Ave. Masters
McGregor
B A
Ave. Masters
Table VII
Percentage Annual Tuition Increases by Campus
* 1991 represents the 1990191 academic year. As in all the Tables, the year listed represents the ending year
of the academic or fiscal year,
e.g.,
1991=
199011991
**~hese
figures do not include the IMA Classic for the McGregor School; other graduate programs added
in 1991- 1994. Because of the number and differences in programs that came on line from 1991- 1994,
comparisons
intuition
from year to year for graduate programs at McGregor are not helpful until 1994.

college Tuition and Fees Increase by 6 ~Zent c5 7hhJj
By WILLIAM H. HONAN
College tuition and fees have risen
by about 6 percent in this school
year, according to an annual survey
released on Thursday by the College
Board. As a result, the annual cost at
elite colleges and universities is ap-
proaching $30,000.
“When taken together with the ex-
pectation that Congress will reduce
student grant and loan programs,
many young people in our society
face a deeply mortgaged future,”
said Donald M. Stewart, president of
the College Board, a nonprofit asso-
ciation of 3,000 schools, colleges and
universities.
Undergraduates must pay about 6
percent’more
this year than last for
tuition and fees at four-year institu-
tions, and 4 percent to 6 percent
more at two-year institutions, The
cost of room and board is also rising
2 percent to 4 percent, the survey
says.
‘Despite these increases, the fact
remains that college is still afford-
able for most students,” Mr. Stewart
said. “Students and families must
keep college costs in perspective and
not focus on the relatively small
number of high-priced institutions.”
That view was seconded by Terry
Hartle, a vice president of the Amer-
ican Council on Education, a re-
search and lobbying
assockttion.
“I don’t want to say that college
costs aren’t a tremendous strain for
many people,” Mr. Hartle said, “but
we should remember that in 1993-94,
61 percent of all American college
students spent less than $3,000 in
tuition and fees. There are some
tremendous bargains out there.”
In fact, Mr. Hartle said, college
costs have averaged 2 percentage
points above inflation throughout
this century. “It was an aberration
when college costs were less than
that rate during the
70’s
and when
they were higher than that rate in
the
80’s.
What we’re seeing today is a
growth rate that’s back to normal.”
Among the colleges that Mr.
Har-
tie
singled out as relative bargains is
College Costs Rise Faster Than Inflation 1
Average annual increase in tuition and fees
at four-year colleges compared with the
annual increase in the consumer price index. hbNi c.,egm ;
I
’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 1
Sources The College Board. Census Bureau ‘Data not available. 1
I
the University of Texas system,
which enrolls 118,000 students and
charges $1,623 for tuition and fees.
Another example, he said, is the
State University of New York
system, which enrolls 156,000 stu-
dents in its four-year colleges. SUNY
increased its tuition this year by
$750, but an in-state student could
still pay, on average, $3,900 for tu-
ition and fees.
Among private institutions, he
cited Rice University, where the full
tuition is $17,013, but various dis-
counts are offered; the average Rice
student pays $9,855. In contrast, tu-
ition
andfees
this year at Yale Uni-
versity can total nearly $28,000, with-
out financial assistance.
Experts point. to several reasons
for the inexorable rise of college
costs.
The first is what economists call
the productivity problem. Although
the salaries or professors and ad-
ministrators continue to rise, the
number of students does not.
Second, advanced laboratories
and scholarly materials that many
students need have become surpris-
ingly costly. A subscription to Chem-
ical Abstracts, for example, would
costa college $16,800 a year, and it is
not uncommon for other journals to
cost $3,000 annually.
Third, as state legislatures cut
their budgets and devote more of
their resources to building prisons
and coping with the steady increase
in me cost of programs like Medic-
aid, they reduce their contributions
to higher education – which mostly
go to public institutions – and pass
an ever-larger share of college costs
on to students and their families.
Finally, in pursuit of an increas-
ingly diverse student body, colleges
are devoting more resources to stu-
dent aid based on need.

Section IV: Academic Program Information
/
A. Educational Delivery Systems at Adult Campuses
B. Academic Programs Offered on Each Campus, 1995
C. Faculty Salaries by Campus, 1995
D. Percent of Core Faculty of Color and Gender Balance by Campus,
Fall Term, 199
1-
1993

Educational Delivery Systems at Adult Campuses*
New England Seattle So.Calif McGregor
Course-Based Course-Based Course-Based IMA
One day+Wkend Evening/Metro&
Weekend for
Commuters
Course-Based
One
day+Wkend
PROGRAM
Psych1
MA
Course-Based Cohort/
Wkend
Course-Based Cohort/
One
Day+Wkend
WeekendMo.
Multiple Sites Hi Tech
Education
Certification Cohort/2 day
per week
Course-Based Cohort/2 day
1 112 Day+ Wkend per week
Individualized
Multiple
SitesICohort
One
Day+Summer
Environ
MS
MA
PhD
Whole System
Design/MA
–OSR
1 112 + Wkend
IMAIIntensive
Residency
Cohort/Wkend+Hi
Tech
Summer Intensive
Cohort/
WeekendMo.
–Individualized Course-Based
Conflict
Resolution/IMA Cohort/Intensive
Residency
Intercultural
RelationsIMA Cohort/Intensive
Residency
BA Degree
Completion Course & LAlCourse One Day
Committee-based
SBlCommittee
* See next page for explanation of these educational delivery systems

Key for Educational Delivery Systems
Course Based:
This refers to a program of study that is offered through courses as compared to an
intensive workshop format or individualized study.
Cohort:
This refers to a program of study where the students enter as a group and stay
together throughout their graduate program. Within this cohort, the instruction may utilize courses,
and/or teams
working
together,
and/or
an intensive workshop format on the weekend or during the
summer. As in the case of the teacher certification programs in Seattle and McGregor, cohorts may
meet a few times each week during the year; in the management programs at these campuses they
meet as cohorts on the weekend. In some cases, as in the Conflict Resolution program, students
come to campus for a two to three week intensive program once a year.
Intensive Residency:
This refers to a 1-3 week long intensive course of study as part of the programs
overall interaction with the student. This sometimes occurs during the year, sometimes in the
summer.
Committee-based:
This refers to a course of study that is highly individualized with the student and
faculty adviser
working
closely together on the student’s course of study; the student may take a
number of courses at the campus or elsewhere. The overall degree plan and work of the student is
approved by a committee. There have been a number of variants of this model. It was originally
developed at
Antioch
in the 1970s and in the last ten years has evolved with more core courses
offered.
One Day:
This refers to a program that meets intensively for one day and offers courses from
early morning to early evening. In New England, this occurs throughout the week; at McGregor it
is on Saturday, hence the name the Weekend College.
Hi Tech:
This refers to a program utilizing computer technology for the interaction between
student and faculty and among students in a computer conferencing format. These programs have
intensive face-to-face interaction on a monthly or less frequent basis and have continuous interaction
between students and faculty in between meetings. The words Hi Tech means that there is a much
more extensive use of computer interaction beyond e-mail, which is becoming more common
throughout all the academic programs.
IMA:
This refers to the Individualized Masters of Arts program operated by the McGregor
School, which includes a one week intensive in Yellow Springs for orientation and the development
of degree plans and a one week intensive for development of thesis proposals. Beyond these
meetings, the students work with mentors in their local area, may take courses at other institutions
as well as their own individual study, and write a thesis–all under the general supervision and
approval of a McGregor faculty member. There arc a number of major programs within the IMA
that have developed a more intensive residency format–Conflict Resolution, Intercultural Relations,
Environment and Community. Within the IMA Classic format described here there are tracks in
Psychology, Creative Writing, and Education.

B. Academic Programs offered on Each Campus
Antioch College
B.A. and B.S. Degrees with majors offered in the following areas–as of Fall, 1996:
Social and Global Studies
Self, Society and Culture
Physical Sciences
Environmental and Life Sciences
Literature, Language and Culture
Critical Humanities
The Arts
Cultural and Interdisciplinary Studies a
Self Designed Majors
All students must complete a minimum of five four month co-op work assignments
I
Non-degree Programs–can be part of Antioch College student’s studies ..
Antioch Education Abroad: Buddhist Studies; Brazilian Ecosystems;; European Academic
Term; Antioch Germany; Women’s Studies in Europe; Development Studies in
Thai1and;Exchange
Program with Kyoto
Seika
University, Japan.
Calendar: Tri-Semester as of Fall, 1996
Antioch Southern California–Los Angeles and Santa Barbara
Degrees:
B.A. in Liberal Studies–Santa Barbara, Individualized/Committee-based Program
B.A. in Liberal
Studies–Los
Angeles with Concentrations in
Psychology
Gerontology
Human Development
Liberal Studies
M.A. in Organizational Management–Santa Barbara
M.A. in Organizational
Management–Los
Angeles, with concentrations in
Human Resource Development
Business
ManagernentlEntrepreneurship
Organizational Behavior
Joint
BA/MAOM
M.A. in Clinical
Psychology–Santa
Barbara
M.A. in Clinical
Psychology–Los
Angeles
M. A. in Psychology –Individualized
Calendar: Four quarter per calendar year

Antioch Seattle
Degrees:
B.A. in Liberal Studies
Core Competencies in Communicating, Thinking, Understanding Self,
Understanding Society, Integrating Theory and Practice
Psychology
M.A. in Psychology
Counseling
Human Resource Development
Individualized Track
Concentrated Studies (for students outside Seattle and in the Pacific
Northwest and Western Canada)
Education
M.A. in Education –Individualized Program
M.A. in Education with Teacher Certification
Teacher Certification Program–Elementary Education
Whole Systems Design
M.A. in Whole System Design–Individualized Program
M.A. in Whole System Design–Organization Systems Renewal Program
Management
Non-Degree programs:
Heritage Institute (for continuing education of teachers)
Calendar: Four Quarters per calendar year

The McGregor School of Antioch University
Degrees:
B.A. Degree Completion with Majors in
Liberal Studies
Management
Human Development
M.A. in Management
Individualized M.A. in
Conflict Resolution (Cohort Model)
Intercultural Relations (Cohort Model)
Environment and Community (Cohort Model)
Classic (Individualized) with tracks in Psychology, Creative Writing,
Education and self designed
Teacher’s Certification Program
Other Programs: George
Meany
Center for Labor Studies, in
Silver Spring, MD. (est. 1973)
Non-Degree Programs
Summer Continuing Education Program for Teachers
Calendar: Quarters–four for Weekend College and Teacher Certification, three for MA in
Management, IMA is an annual individualized program.

C. Faculty Salaries by Campus, 1995
Over the years, there have been requests for looking at a comparison of faculty salaries across the
campuses. While this would seem a simple exercise, it isn’t because of the different calendars
and practices on the different campuses. Nevertheless, I have tried to undertake such a review
and the tables that follow show such a comparison. But, there are some explanations needed in
advance of reviewing these tables.
First, three of the adult campuses–Southem California, Seattle and McGregor–operate on a year
around quarter calendar. Faculty are assumed to have a month vacation during the 12 month
period, but the campuses do not treat the vacation time in the same way, although all are moving
in the same direction. Also, because of the different types of delivery systems within Seattle and
McGregor,
faculty in different programs take their vacation in different ways. The best estimate,
however, is that these three campuses have an 1 1 month work year with one month of vacation.
In the following tables, this arrangement is called a calendar year.
Second, The New England Graduate School operates a semester system, made up of three
semesters, within a 10 112 month calendar. Therefore, each faculty member has a six week
vacation.
Third, the College operates on a three quarter academic year calendar for 10 months. Therefore,
faculty have a two months vacation.
In order to make the faculty salary data comparable across campuses, the salaries were converted
to monthly salaries;
i.e.,
the total faculty salary was divided by the number of months of work–
not including annual vacations, 11 months for three adult campuses, 10 112 months for New
England and 10 months for the College. Following this, the monthly salaries were then
multiplied by 11 to get a comparison of salaries based on a calendar work year and by 10 for a
comparison based on a 10 month academic year.
Three Tables are presented: Table I includes the actual salaries, calendar year equivalents, and 10
month equivalents campus by campus. Table II presents only the calendar year equivalents
campus by campus; and Table III presents only the 10 month academic year equivalents campus
by campus.

Campus
Table I
Faculty Salary Ranges by Campus-1995
(Actual and Adjusted)
Average
Salary
Salary Range
Low High
1. Southern Calif. (Calendar Yr.*)
Calendar Yr. $49,810 $40,917 to $62,433
10 mo. equiv. $45,280 $37,190 to $56,750
2. College (10 mo. yr.)
Calendar. Yr. equiv. $42,40 9 $33,000 to $71,181
10 molactual $38,581 $30,000 to $64,710
Includes teaching and co-op faculty, does not include librarians
3. New England (10 112 mo. yr.)
Actual $40,312 $30,750 to $55,445
Calendar Yr. equiv. $4 2,2 2 9 $32,208 to $58,080
10 mo. equiv. $38,390 $29,280 to $52,800
4. McGregor (Calendar Yr.*)
Calendar Yr. $40,900 $35,000 to $55,157
10 mo. equiv. $37,810 $31,810 to $50,140
5. Seattle (Calendar Yr.*)
Calendar Yr. $37,697 $28,236 to $52,254
10 mo. equiv. $34,270 $25,670 to $47,500
*Calendar Year means faculty work all year around and usually take vacation between
quarters or one month a year. In order to make data comparable, a calendar year was
assumed to be 11 months of work and one months vacation. The College and New England
calendars were assumed not to have vacations built in. The conversions were computed by
converting to a monthly salaries and multiplying by either 10 or 11 to reach the 10 month
year or calendar year respectively.

Campus
Table I1
Faculty Salary Ranges by Campus-1995
(Adjusted to 11 month calendar year equivalent)
Average
Salary
Salary Range
Low High
1. Southern Calif. (Calendar Yr.)
Calendar Yr. . $49,810 $40,917. to $62,433
2. Collepe (10 mo. yr.)
Calendar. Yr. Equiv. $42,409 $33,000 to $71,181
3. McGreyor (Calendar Yr.)
Calendar Yr. $40,900
4. New England (10 112 mo. yr.)
Calendar Yr. Equiv. $42,229
5. Seattle (Calendar Yr.)
Calendar Yr.
*Calendar Year means faculty work all year around and usually take vacation between
quarters or one month a year. In order to make data comparable, a calendar year was
assumed to be 11 months of work and one months vacation. The College and New England
calendars were assumed not to have vacations built in. The conversions were computed by
converting to a monthly salaries and multiplying by either 10 or 11 to reach the 10 month
year or calendar year respectively.

Table I11
Faculty Salary Ranges by Campus–1995
(Adjusted to 10 month academic year equivalent)
Campus Average Salary Range
Salary Low to Hiph
1. Southern Calif. (Calendar Yr.)
10 mo. equiv. $45,280 $37,190 to $56,750
2. Colle~e (10 mo. yr.)
10 mo/actual $38,581 $30,000 to $64,710
(Includes teaching and co-op faculty, does not include librarians)
3. McGre~or (Calendar Yr.)
10 mo. equiv. $37,810
4. New Enpland (10 112 mo. yr.)
10 mo. equiv. $38,390
5. Seattle (Calendar Yr.)
10 mo. equiv. $34,270
*Calendar Year means faculty work all year around and usually take vacation between
quarters or one month a year. In order to make data comparable, a calendar year was
assumed to be 11 months of work and one month vacation. The College and New England
calendars were assumed not to have vacations built in. The conversions were computed by
converting to a monthly salaries and multiplying by either 10 or 11 to reach the 10 month
year or calendar year respectively.

Percent of Core Faculty of Color* and Gender Balance
By Campus; Fall Term, 1991-1993
Core Faculty of Color Core Faculty Gender Balance
1991 1992 1993
College 15% 10% 15%
England 2% 1% 1% 54/46 55/45 53/47
Seattle 9% 6% 3% 7 1/29 6913 1 63/37
So. Calif.
Santa Barb. 5% 12% 9%
Los Angeles 7% 11% 10%
* Includes African Americans, Asians, Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Native
Amercians.

Section V
Major Issues in Antioch’s Future
A. Demographic Realities: The demographic and market realities must be understood
and utilized to plan the future. The enclosed charts from the Chronicle of Higher Education
indicate that among the states having the greatest enrollment increases for 18-30 year olds in
the next decade are two of the states in which we presently operate –California and
Washington. The explosion of this age group in these two states is almost as great as in the
baby boom period. There is no way that these states can handle this growth in the public
sector given the economy and other pressures. How will we respond to a strong market?
Ohio has among the lowest percentage of adults without Bachelor’s Degrees. Given
the cutbacks in the state systems, and our capability to serve adult students in non-residential
and limited term residencies, how can we serve these markets? How can we creatively utilize
electronic technologies to provide high quality, low cost education to adults in Ohio? How
can we utilize the adult learning and content area expertise of the
McGregor
School faculty,
the content area expertise of the College faculty, the physical facilities of the College as well
as the new technology to serve this and other markets?

Proportion of Adults With a Bachelor’s
or Higher Degree, 1990
SOURCE: Census Bur-
Projected Change in the Number
of High-School Graduates, 1995-96 to 200546

B. College Enrollment and Faculty Size: There is a need to deal directly with
the College’s likely enrollment over the next 3-5 years and size of its faculty . This
should be done without placing undue strain on the ability of the College to achieve
the desired results and the adult campuses ability to sustain the costs.
C. There is a need for the University to face the educational realities of the
late 1990s and the 2 1 st centurv
1. cost issues–ability of people to afford our tuition levels
2. us in^ new technologies as an integral part of the
educational process.
3. need for all campuses to be responsive to student markets
by being entrepreneurial in what and how we offer
our academic programs and to whom and where.
4. we must ask ourselves whether the educational delivery
systems developed at the College in the 1920s-1950s
and at the adult campuses in the 1970s will serve us
well into the beginning of the 21st
centurv.
What
kind of adjustments and restructuring is necessary in
our educational delivery systems given the changes
in the society; given the profound changes in
technology; given the growing institutional costs and
the unwillingness of the public to pay for them?
How can
Antioch
keep its core educational values–
the focus of the whole person and the actives student
learner–and deal with the changing environment?

Note: These are excerpts from Chapter VI of Recapturin~ A Lepacv: The
rebuild in^ of a Visionary College by Alan Guskin. This book is in its final draft.
Please do not duplicate without permission.
CHAPTER VI (EXCERPTS)
ORGANIZATION BUILDING AND RECAPTURING THE
ANTIOCH LEGACY: THE INTERDEPENDENCY
You see how it is: The method must be
absolutely practical, reasonable and realistic,
but the whole, the conception is an eternal poem.
Thomas
Masaryk,
philosopher-President
of pre-World War I1 Czechoslovakia
Value driven institutions, especially colleges and universities, struggle with their
integrity and the degree to which they are acting consistently with their values. Too often,
people in these organizations are tempted to reject the material concerns of organizational
functioning in favor of solely expressing and acting on their values. Yet, organizations of
people, no less than individuals, need food and shelter, and even more than that, if they are
to thrive.
Antioch in the 1960s and 1970s tried to decouple acting on its values from concerns
for organizational functioning and in so doing flirted with the death of the institution. From
1985 onward, the underlying core focus of the Antioch rebuilding effort has been to
recapture Antioch’s legacy by inextricably linking organizational functioning with its
values. Put somewhat metaphorically, only by creating a strong vessel are we able to hold
the legacy and enable it to grow and flourish.
Making the vessel strong required an intense focus in 1985-1988 on the fiscal and
administrative structures and processes of the institution; it meant that we were going to be
fiscally conservative and demand adherence to responsible organizational policies, and to
continue to do so even after Antioch was out of any danger financially. In Chapters II, HI
and IV on the College and Chapter V on the University as a whole, the financial and
organizational focuses in the rebuilding process were reviewed in some depth.
These actions reflect not only the need to operate effectively and efficiently but to
face the reality that the values and educational philosophy of Antioch often represent forces
that can either tear at the fabric of the institution or increase the level of integration in it.
With a strong organization in place–that is, one that is well
run
financially and
administratively–the risks inherent in Antioch’s values can be acted upon without unduly
compromising the future of the institution. This is what the Board of Trustees had come to
expect in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of strong administrative leadership for many
years. It is also what made Antioch vulnerable to the excesses of the late 1960s when the
organizational structure was weakened by the loss of the three major vice presidents who

had run the institution for two decades under three presidents. The administration and
Board failed to adequately respond under the new circumstances.
A major part of the organizational building effort from 1985-1994 has been
focusing on rebuilding the College and strengthening the adult campuses. As discussed, in
Chapter V, this led to the closing of three campuses. Another essential component of the
effort was managing the leadership transitions throughout the University. These transitions
reflected a concern for both the effectiveness of each campus organizationally and the
maintenance and revitalization of Antioch’s values.
We received many plaudits for the organizational rebuilding efforts, but there was
criticism by some, especially as the immediate danger subsided. Were these administrators
more concerned with finances than academic matters? Did they really believe in Antioch’s
values and educational philosophy? The natural suspicion at Antioch of authority and
administrators led some to wonder aloud about “professional administrators,” said with a
sneer. Given Antioch’s values and history, it was important not to give in to this criticism
even as it hurt some of those who had devoted themselves so deeply to rebuilding the
College and strengthening the University.
The Values that Form the Legacy: Honoring the Bright-Side and Surviving
the Dark-Side of Antioch’s Values
As we reflect on Antioch’s history, we know that there were–and remain–strong
centrifugal forces that emerge from the legacy and that when these values are followed to an
extreme they can cause the institution to spin out of control; rather than being powerful
centripetal, integrating forces, the practice of these values became strong centrifugal forces
that created havoc. For, when these values are seriously and intently followed, they have a
radiant bright-side, but also a deep dark-side which contains the seeds of the institution’s
destruction.
A commitment to express one’s values, to test them, and then to develop them
further, sometimes produces an environment that is turbulent and a cauldron of ferment
about these values. Hence there is an essential paradox at Antioch and other visionary
colleges and universities: In striving for the expression–in both words and deeds–of
progressive values, often the students (and sometimes faculty and others) reject or damage
the very structures and processes that hold, protect and enhance the viability of acting on
the institution’s values.
Three basic Antioch values represent the
bright/dark-side
paradox:
*Focus on the student as an active learner, whole person education;
*Commitment to social justice, and a commitment
to act on these values;
*Egalitarianism.
Student as Active Learner, Whole Person Education: A focus on the
student as an active learner is an important component in the development of life-long
learners. The bright-side of the active learner is that this value creates a powerful context
for learning; students assert themselves, learning becomes more enjoyable and has more
impact on the students’ personal and intellectual development. Each Antioch campus
emphasizes that student learning can occur in many places–inside and outside the
classroom, in groups and individually–and respects the different styles of learning to
which students arc predisposed. Such an education can stimulate all aspects of a student’s
potential; the intellectual, emotional and spiritual.

In short, a focus on the student as active learner is a commitment to the education of
the whole person, a commitment that goes back to the earliest days of Antioch’s history.
This focus forms the core of Antioch’s educational philosophy which has fostered many of
the creative and innovative programs for which Antioch is well-known and which led
tp
its
influence on many colleges and universities. Examples of these are the emphasis on
integrating experiential learning and academic learning
(e.g.,
the co-op program, credits for
prior learning), a focus on challenging students’ values and encouraging them to act on
them, the use of narrative evaluations rather than grades, and an emphasis on community,
participatory governance. This whole person perspective is presented in great depth in
Epilogue: Part II, The Meaning of an Antioch Education.
The dark-side of this value is that the focus on the individual becomes interpreted,
especially by young students, to mean the primacy of individual freedom. A sense of one’s
membership in a campus community and the responsibilities to such a community become
subordinated to wholesale freedom. As one student at the College recently stated, he
believes each College student is like a “nation-state.”
The campus can become a highly volatile environment with students demanding,
among other things, one personlone vote and a license to act without boundaries. As
DeTocqueville
wrote about Americans generally, self expression sometimes becomes
self-
absorption.
At the College, the focus on students creates a special turbulence. Because 18-22
year olds are at a particularly volatile stage of their lives, focusing on them tends to create
an institutional climate that reflects the pushes and pulls of their life struggles. When this
personal volatility is combined with the movement on and off campus resulting from the
co-op program, the College environment loses some of the stability common to other
campuses. Furthermore, each time students reappear at the College campus they want and
expect to be involved in key decisions and do not necessarily respect what their peers
accomplished in the previous quarter. At almost all other colleges and universities, the
focus is on faculty, who are much more emotionally secure and tend to have a long term
stake in the institution who, therefore, produce a much less volatile environment.
Focusing on the student as an active learner needs to be balanced with the equally
important commitment to a sense of community and group responsibility. This is
especially true when dealing with 18-25 year olds who are usually focused solely on their
own development; older students at the adult campuses have many other life commitments–
job and family–and the maturity that naturally limits the institutional excesses inherent in a
central focus on the active student learner.
Balancing this focus on the active student learner in a residential college setting is
easier said than done, but the history of the late
1960’s
and
1970’s
at Antioch, and other
visionary colleges, attest to its importance if the institution is to thrive. No doubt many
colleges and universities experienced disruptions in that period, but such actions usually
were limited in scope by the much stronger countervailing forces of traditional institutional
controls and of many students and faculty members who were uninterested in such
activism. At Antioch such countervailing forces didn’t exist or were ineffective.
Social Justice and Acting on Values: A second value, the commitment to
social justice, encourages students and faculty to assert their social values and to act upon
them. This is especially important for Antioch and colleges that arc known for their
socially progressive values. Institutional integrity, at all Antioch University campuses,

strongly encourages these commitments, so do the recruitment and retention of students,
faculty and administrators.
However, what sometimes happened in the past was that one or another small
group of highly articulate and vocal faculty or students became a dominant force,
converting the educational context of this social value into a blatant political or radical social
value. Non-believers, who themselves either share a broader set of progressive values or
are struggling with inclinations in that direction, are rejected or intimidated into silence.
When this occurred, especially in the late
1960’s
and early
1970’s,
the College campus
moved to radical political positions and actual or implied truth tests regarding one’s
ideological perspective. One result of such an unchecked orthodoxy was that some parts of
the institution began to act as if it were itself a political organization pursuing a cause as a
social change agent.
In such situations, it became too easy for the College to cross the line from an
educational institution, where all perspectives are legitimate and where exploration is the
goal, to a political institution with an assumed social and political agenda in which
indoctrination may be permissible. Acceptance of a narrow set of beliefs as the only
legitimate perspective could, in effect, lead to the imposition of one group’s beliefs on the
conscience of all students and faculty. Moving in this direction can undermine the integrity
of an institution and threaten its existence; good faculty are encouraged or forced to leave,
good students who are not the “right” students are discouraged from attending.
While encouraging people to assert and act upon their social values is very
important, so too is establishing a learning context based on an understanding that Antioch
is an educational institution whose responsibility is to educate students who will be
challenged to create a more just society, that is to educate students who will be agents of
change. In the past, these complex values and perspectives were fostered by the creation of
a democratic community within the campus; one that emphasized a respect for different
perspectives, for due process, for the rights of minority interests and for the exploration of
new perspectives. This type of community enabled the College to balance a commitment to
Antioch’s values with maintaining institutional viability.
However, creating such a community within an educational institution accepts some
significant limitations. Students are only members of the institution for a short period and
they come to learn and develop, not to reside as would be true of a geographically-based
community. Hence, they must accept the limitations set by the
Antioch’s
legacy and the
faculty. Such a democratic community in a college or university has to balance
individual freedom with group responsibility and the limitations of an educational
institution, and the assertion of values with respecting differences. This is a very sensitive
issue with which Antioch since 1965 has had great difficulty. Especially problematic is the
difficulty that free-spirited younger and older Antioch students have accepting boundaries
on their beliefs and behaviors.
Egalitarianism: The third major value, which also has a bright and dark side, is a
basic commitment to an egalitarian perspective that asserts that all people of whatever status
are inherently equal as individuals, no matter what their role. The difficulty that emerges
here is that an egalitarian perspective cannot apply to all areas of an educational institution.
To do so effectively questions the legitimacy of the expertise and professional skills of
faculty members who provide the education and educational context for which students
come to college in the first place. It also makes problematic any serious leadership roles,
many of which are essential for maintaining the institution’s viability and integrity.

Yet, an egalitarian perspective is appropriate and important in the treatment of
students as human beings. This can be reflected in practice by the involvement of students,
along with faculty members and administrators, in the campus governance structure. It
also can be emphasized in the informality of interpersonal interaction across role and status.
Such a sense of egalitarianism not only deals with basic human values, but has
important
implications for the education of students to take responsibility for their actions. It is part
of Antioch’s focus on the student as active learner.
Students, like faculty members and others, expect to be treated as respected
individuals with integrity, as equal human beings even if different in terms of expertise and
skill.
Clearly, distinguishing the appropriate expertise and
skills
of the faculty, who
implement the primary functions of an institution, from the equality and integrity of
students as individuals, is important in providing the context for understanding the proper
role of egalitarianism at an educational institution. This is especially so at non-traditional
institutions like Antioch which focus on the student as an active participant in their
institution as well as in their education.
However, to provide a proper balance for the excesses of egalitarianism requires
great clarity of purpose and goals for an educational institution. The resulting educational
context and institutional legacy that such clarity produces, enables all community members
to realize the appropriateness of expertise and professional skills. In effect, the purposes
and goals when well articulated, clarify the human and educational boundaries of the
institution. Conversely, without such articulation and boundaries, egalitarianism can be
carried to extremes that undermine the primary educational functions and legacy of the
institution.
Visionary educational institutions like Antioch do contain the seeds of turmoil and
even destruction. More than other types of colleges and universities, such institutions need
to be clear about the competing interests of different values and even the conflict between
them. While all colleges and universities have strong centrifugal pressures that tear at the
fabric of their institution, Antioch and similar institutions are particularly susceptible to
such forces and need even greater clarity about their goals, purposes and institutional
histories.
The vitality of Antioch’s values that emanate from its legacy are an essential part of
its past, present and future success. But the expression of these values requires
maintaining a creative tension that balances a sense of stability and predictability with the
commitment of each person to be true to their values. This requires a sensitive
understanding of the bright and dark side of our value commitments.
Maintaining the balance between Antioch’s values and the need to maintain a viable
organization is a prime leadership issue in this visionary educational institution. Doing so
requires leaders who are pragmatic idealists and who have a good sense of humor that
enables them to poke fun at their own serious and intense focus on Antioch’s vision and
legacy.
Leadershin Transitions
While many of the major accomplishments of the years 1985-1994 can be outlined
in concrete and substantive terms, among the most significant, difficult and important
activities have been the necessity to successfully complete a series of senior administrative
transitions. Large scale institutional changes are often marked by major symbols — new
curricula, enrollment goals, restored and new buildings. For those who lead and manage
the continuous change necessary in rebuilding a significant institution like Antioch, one of

the greatest challenges is dealing with the complex, uncertain and often painful transitions
of people in major organizational positions. For, it is these individuals who lead others in
the day-to-day changes required for success.
Leaders create direction and
context~at
the top of an institution and in each major
part of it. Successful development of new curricula or any other major activity require
leadership skills to set and maintain the general direction and context as well as carry out
day-to-day decision-making. Changes in leaders at any organizational level can undermine
context, predictability and consistency, thereby leading people to wonder about the wisdom
of taking any risks. People throughout an organization can do good work, but the constant
unpredictability of people in leadership roles and their interests can be demoralizing.
Transitions being what they are–rupturing emotional and professional attachments,
many people feel badly for the individual leaving, even if they chose to leave. There is also
a grieving process that occurs; a sense of loss, at times the guilt at encouraging someone to
leave, and at other times the anger that those leaving have left them behind to deal with the
problems. Endings are difficult and as a society we are not good at accepting the emotion
inherent in these events. When someone dies, grieving makes sense; when someone leaves
a position, it is just a job–the
king
is dead, long live the king.
There is also the uncertainty felt by many individuals in each of the offices
involved. The incumbents might have been, at times, difficult to deal with, but at least they
were known and predictable. Further, abrupt transitions in high level positions produce
interim arrangements while awaiting the recruitment and arrival of a new person. These
arrangements are problematic at best.
When a new person arrives she is, obviously, different from her predecessor.
Since the change is often based on the need for new directions and a desire for a new style
and configuration of skills, the new senior administrator will have new expectations for
everyone’s job, including her own. When the new person begins, there is often a
heightened sense of vitality, new attachments and new job demands. But each individual
once again must figure out how to deal with this new administrator, the likely outcome of
requests they make and risks they should take–a new perspective eventually emerges based
on the behavior, expectations and aspirations of the new senior administrator.
At a value-based university like Antioch, transitions are particularly sensitive
because new leaders at any level in the organization, but especially near the top, need to
understand the special culture and history. As decision makers who are expected to create
context for others, it is essential that they intuitively understand the legacy of the institution.
Yet, it is difficult for newcomers to fully appreciate the legacy–the overt values and the
more subtle stories and history that provide the substance of and direction to these values.
It is for example easy for someone to understand the words “focus on the student as
an active learner,” but these take on a profound new meaning in the context of the
integration of experiential and academic learning and participatory community governance
processes. At the College, for example, student involvement in all key governance
structures was not developed for political reasons, but was a decision of the faculty based
on the educational philosophy of the institution; namely, if students were to be active and
responsible learners on their work assignments around the country and in the classroom
then, it was reasoned, that active learning could and should occur from responsible
participation in the governance of the community in which they live and learn.
Therefore, a focus on the student as an active learner, emphasizes that education
occurs in many different parts of the institution, not only in the classroom. Student

activism on and off the campus, then, is not just about politics but should be mined for its
educational value. Complex and emotional events become teachable moments, not
difficulties to be overcome. These are important matters for leaders to deal with in the
subtle and sometimes crude forms in which they occur.