↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
Summary of the Campus Presidents’ and Ph.D. Program Director’s
Reflections Regarding the Separation of the CoUege from the University
January 2008
The primary relationship of the campuses to the College has been an historical one,
drawing on its values, mission, founding and venerable past. The result is a proud shared
name that it is imperative to maintain. The campuses were born and infused with the
values of the College as represented in this name and it is instantly recognizable not only
as the brand of the College but as the heart of eoch campus and program within the
University; this point cannot be lost in our planning.
Many faculty, administrators and students express sadness by the course of events. They
came to these campuses and their programs because of Antioch and the deep values for
which it stands. To un-bundle the Yellow Springs site from the University’s structure
and future can be done, but it is acknowledged as difficult stemming as much from the
“spiritual” level as the organizational and financial levels. Antioch, however, is not just
one location, and for the thousands of alumni and community members who have been
served over the past several decades across the county, it is not just Yellow Springs.
More than ever, the chasm between the University and the College has come to the
forefront in a most disheartening manner. Over thirty years of distrust, paranoia, blame,
and anger toward “the University” are now publicly surfaced and openly discussed
among the College alumni. National and local press over the last several months have
negatively affected the public’s perception and opinion of the University, its campuses
and the College, including local donors and national foundations.
The damage that has occurred publicly points toward two significant realizations: (l) if
the negotiations with ACCC fail, it may be fairly impossible for the University to bring
back the College if we think we are solely dependent upon major College alumni donors
in its revival. Among many in leadership, there is a feeling that the original plan to close
and reopen the College was the best option and remains the single best solution at this
time. There are numerous options open to the University in rebuilding Antioch College,
albeit most likely not the same envisioned by ACCC or the Alumni Board; and, (2) no
matter the outcome, a full-court press with our PR is essential to clean up the aftermath of
destruction of our public image and establish a clear understanding on the part of the
public as to the distinction between the College and the University. There is, however, a
positive potential outcome.
The University, on its own, has the opportunity to create a unique brand and to build solid
programs based on research, excellence in teaching, and our mission to serve others.
Once the College finds its own footing again, there is every opportunity to join together
in unique and powerful ways. We have a shared history that is too valuable to ignore; but
until then, the University should be allowed to forge its own destiny. The current state of
affairs with the constant turmoil and the prospect for continued distrust and blame in the
future threaten to destroy both the University and the College.
A clear and final resolution of the College’s relationship to the University will be very
helpful to the campuses in the recruitment of students as well as future local Board
members. The greatest direct impact on enrollment appears to have taken place at
McGregor. However, the other four campuses have experienced enrollment problems as
noted by the confusion on the part of students and donors regarding the closing of the
entire University as opposed to just the College. The impact on the morale of the faculty
at those campuses has also been a factor as they watch the College alumni websites and
blogs, which have not been complimentary toward the University, its campuses, and its
faculty. In some cases, local press and national publications mock the University at times
in taking “sides” with more vocal College supporters. The emotional strain on the
presidents has been great and extremely time consuming as they and the central
administration have put a number of initiatives on hold while dealing with College issues.
Financially, the impact would be both positive and negative. The positive would be the
ability of the campuses to be relieved of the $740,000 annual subsidy they pay to the
College; the opportunity to invest their funded reserves in their own campus initiatives
instead of covering the annual College deficits; and, the overhead paid to central
administration for services will instead be used solely for the oversight and strengthening
of the University as opposed to primarily providing services in HR, payroll, and budget
supervision of the College. Therefore, the campus presidents would have more money to
invest in their own operations, create realistic strategic plans for the future, and receive
better services from central administration.
Depending on the separation agreements, the negative effect could be the impact on the
bonds held by the University and the capability of the University to fulfill its goals of
acquiring permanent campuses in California as well as investing in better facilities in
Seattle and New England. In addition, the limitations on our debt capacity would prevent
the University from investing in itself by acquiring other entities or campuses.
Additionally, the University may incur added expenses with the separation regarding
library access issues.
Organizationally, the separation of the College from the University will most likely not
affect University-wide programming and initiatives. In reality, the College has never
made itself a part of the University. The College faculty have little if no interaction with
the other campus faculty and virtually few College students ever enroll in the graduate
programs at the other campuses. We have had a minimalist transactional relationship
with the College, colored by unaddressed distrust. potent hostility, competition for scarce
resources. and one based on great disparities and inequities. The graduate non-residential
campuses have been able to share and collaborate more with each other because their
programs are similar; typically the College has not been involved, by default or by
choice.
2
In fact, the separation will help to focus the University. It will force the University to
more clearly define its mission and adhere to high quality standards in its academic
programming across all campuses. It will require focus on a “new” branding image that
brings together like campuses. It will provide the opportunity to re-imagine academic
leadership and facuIty voice in the new university configuration. It will provide the
opportunity to change the business model to ensure adequate institutional infrastructure,
financial flexibility, and contingency reserves. It will provide greater clarification of the
relationship among the campuses and central administration, with the overall objective of
becoming a “real” University in thought, word, and deed. It will also require a strong,
centralized administration and governance structure to prevent a natural tendency for the
individual campuses to spin out and demand total autonomy. The University Leadership
Council shows a sense of excitement and willingness to embrace this future
wholeheartedly.
Antioch University has a special mission rooted in Antioch College’s historical mission
and values that, in many ways, is ideally positioned to address the pressing societal needs
of the 21″ century. It has a unique, geographically dispersed system of campuses with
tremendous unrealized potential for university-wide synergies and programs. It has
exceptional faculty expertise in adult learning and practice based teaching that can serve
the life-long learning needs to today’s and tomorrow’s knowledge workers. The
University, absent the College, now has the opportunity, and indeed the responsibility, to
capitalize on these strengths.
3
