The president is his own Title IX officer? Stunning, indeed (as Andrea says). It's also an indicator of exactly what you write about, Claire. Zero checks and balances. The moment a college president becomes "synonymous" with the institution he or she leads, alarm bells should blare throughout that institution. That is an unhealthy state of affairs for everyone concerned. That he should be so lauded that only one faculty member has the guts to warn him away from Epstein, that it should be acceptable for him to define himself as "too busy" to be aware of the screamingly obvious plight of the young women he encountered with Epstein, this is exactly the problem. Thanks for the clarity with which you make this case, Claire.
Yes, absolutely...and Boards of Trustees are notorious for being besotted by charismatic presidents, particularly ones who are genius fundraisers as Botstein was, and particularly at small, liberal arts colleges where Board members don't really identify with faculties. The President is wise and good; faculties are difficult and complain a lot. That is a huge problem at a lot of places.
You laid this out nicely, but I ask is the moral really about length of tenure? That Bard was not dependent on Epstein’s money even if it was open to Satan’s donations reveals it as cover for Botstein’s proclivities. I argue this would have happened with anyone with those same proclivities regardless of time in office. This Epstein revelation is just like the others in revealing the depth of social and institutional tolerance of those atrocities.
Comparing Bard to schools that are failing is not indicative of a lack of fundraising by those other schools. The New School's overextension of funds already procured and loans taken for an unneeded new university center at 63 Fifth Avenue as well as an unneeded overextension into a Parsons Paris location are just two. The New School’s existence was not dependent on those overextensions, and there is a direct line between that debt and the reductions being made today. Also Van Zandt was the worst TNS president ever in both temperament and cultural mismatch.
I think the level to which Botstein was given explicit information about Epstein, brushed it off, and said he was "too busy" to investigate is about tenure--in the sense that he had been fully in charge for a very long time and there were no checks and balances.
My comparison to the New School and Hampshire was about the collapse of progressive education--not about fiscal strategies.
And I think one might argue that the New School's existence was exactly dependent on what you are calling overextensions. Not being able to house students in a city where finding apartments is difficult and increasingly expensive. Classroom space is expensive to rent--particularly if you are tuition driven and need to fill chronic budget gaps with as many enrollments as possible. People no longer send their kids to schools that don't have attractive buildings and campus hubs, while international campuses were a lifeline for numerous other colleges (like Bard) and universities to enroll more students than their facilities could accommodate.
So I wouldn't pick these things out as "the problem." There were plenty of problems, plenty of bad decisions, to go around at my beloved New School.
Again you laid this out very well. Thank you for that. My point is there are no checks and balances due to the social and institutional tolerance of such proclivities so tenure doesn’t matter. My guess is the trustee who brought the evidence to Botstein was a woman.
I have it on good authority those overreaches are indeed are part of TNS’s woes. The build it and they will come model has bankrupted many institutions and companies. Add to that, TNS is very niche and without much of an endowment (next to nothing) among many options in NYC.
The detail of him being his own Title IX officer is new to me--and stunning.
Fabulous reporting Claire!
The president is his own Title IX officer? Stunning, indeed (as Andrea says). It's also an indicator of exactly what you write about, Claire. Zero checks and balances. The moment a college president becomes "synonymous" with the institution he or she leads, alarm bells should blare throughout that institution. That is an unhealthy state of affairs for everyone concerned. That he should be so lauded that only one faculty member has the guts to warn him away from Epstein, that it should be acceptable for him to define himself as "too busy" to be aware of the screamingly obvious plight of the young women he encountered with Epstein, this is exactly the problem. Thanks for the clarity with which you make this case, Claire.
Yes, absolutely...and Boards of Trustees are notorious for being besotted by charismatic presidents, particularly ones who are genius fundraisers as Botstein was, and particularly at small, liberal arts colleges where Board members don't really identify with faculties. The President is wise and good; faculties are difficult and complain a lot. That is a huge problem at a lot of places.
Absolutely. You might be surprised to know the same thing happens at independent high schools. Speaking for a friend ...
You laid this out nicely, but I ask is the moral really about length of tenure? That Bard was not dependent on Epstein’s money even if it was open to Satan’s donations reveals it as cover for Botstein’s proclivities. I argue this would have happened with anyone with those same proclivities regardless of time in office. This Epstein revelation is just like the others in revealing the depth of social and institutional tolerance of those atrocities.
Comparing Bard to schools that are failing is not indicative of a lack of fundraising by those other schools. The New School's overextension of funds already procured and loans taken for an unneeded new university center at 63 Fifth Avenue as well as an unneeded overextension into a Parsons Paris location are just two. The New School’s existence was not dependent on those overextensions, and there is a direct line between that debt and the reductions being made today. Also Van Zandt was the worst TNS president ever in both temperament and cultural mismatch.
I think the level to which Botstein was given explicit information about Epstein, brushed it off, and said he was "too busy" to investigate is about tenure--in the sense that he had been fully in charge for a very long time and there were no checks and balances.
My comparison to the New School and Hampshire was about the collapse of progressive education--not about fiscal strategies.
And I think one might argue that the New School's existence was exactly dependent on what you are calling overextensions. Not being able to house students in a city where finding apartments is difficult and increasingly expensive. Classroom space is expensive to rent--particularly if you are tuition driven and need to fill chronic budget gaps with as many enrollments as possible. People no longer send their kids to schools that don't have attractive buildings and campus hubs, while international campuses were a lifeline for numerous other colleges (like Bard) and universities to enroll more students than their facilities could accommodate.
So I wouldn't pick these things out as "the problem." There were plenty of problems, plenty of bad decisions, to go around at my beloved New School.
Again you laid this out very well. Thank you for that. My point is there are no checks and balances due to the social and institutional tolerance of such proclivities so tenure doesn’t matter. My guess is the trustee who brought the evidence to Botstein was a woman.
I have it on good authority those overreaches are indeed are part of TNS’s woes. The build it and they will come model has bankrupted many institutions and companies. Add to that, TNS is very niche and without much of an endowment (next to nothing) among many options in NYC.