Robert Birnbuum authored a piece for the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1989 titled “The Latent Organization Functions of the Academic Senate: Why Senates Do Not Work but Will Not Go Away.” Birnbuum documented the political role that faculty senates have had over the years. “In this model, the senate is seen as a forum for the articulation of interests and as the setting in which decisions on institutional policies and goals are reached through compromise, negotiation, and the formation of coalitions” and that “at best that they can provide a forum for the resolution of a wide range of issues involving the mission and operation of the institution.”

ISU’s shared governance system attempted to expand the role of the faculty senate to a bureaucratic entity. With this revised model, according to Birnbuum, “the faculty senate is either explicitly or metaphorically identified in bureaucratic terms, as they would ‘deal with the full range of academic and administrative matters (Camegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1983), and their purpose ‘approximates that of the college‘s management.’ (Keller, 1983).”

Birnbuum cites the academic research validating the fact that the faculty senate “exists at the pleasure of the administration and board of trustees,” and that because of this fact, their very existence is “tenuous.” He further explicates that the very existence of a faculty senate is acknowledgement by faculty members that they “recognize and accept the ultimate legal authority of the administration and board.” When faculty politics prevent cooperation with the ultimate authorities of a university, the faculty senate can, and should, be dissolved, as happened earlier this year.

Over the past few years we have witnessed the inevitable outcome when the administration and the faculty senate’s vision of a university and its governance diverge. Especially in light of recent challenges, it’s critical for all of us, especially ISU faculty and students, to acknowledge where the ultimate accountability for the university resides. The president is accountable to the State Board of Education, which is accountable to the state legislative and executive branches, which are in turn accountable to the citizens and taxpayers of the state. While it may be appealing to think of a democratic process governing our university, the reality is that it is a top-down management structure, and he who is most accountable in a public institution is who makes decisions at the top.

The transition to a research institution has obviously been painful and somewhat challenging to some faculty. But it is arguably the most logical move for the university since we are neither the Land Grant school for the state (University of Idaho) nor the most visible school nestled in the state capital (Boise State University). The efforts by the faculty with Vailas’ leadership have earned the university the designation of a Research High university by the prestigious Carnegie Foundation for The Advancement of Education. This designation places ISU in an elite group of fewer than 100 of the nation’s 4,400 institutions of higher education.

With public resources continuing to decline, a review of the role and mission of the university was critical not only for continued excellence at the university, but for its very survival. The transition to a research school by President Vailas is a brilliant means to increase the diversification of revenue streams to the university, as exemplified by the $100 million partnership announced last week with Scan Tech. Such partnerships become increasingly critical to not only replace lost state funding but to prevent the cost of attending the university from rising to levels which would preclude many from attending. As state revenue has declined, the proportionate share of the costs of operations have been shifted primarily to students in the form of fees and tuition. With higher education inflation at over 7%, the cost of attending a university in the future will become increasingly limited to those who have the means. This is totally contrary to the role of a public university.

I am not privy to all the internal machinations and politics between the administration and the faculty senate. But as an alumnus, a product of, and a zealous supporter of ISU, the conflict between the faculty and the administration appears very self-serving on the part of the senate to retain more governing authority than is perhaps logical or warranted and resistant to the mission change. The vision of President Vailas, while disconcerting to faculty preferring to maintain the status quo, is critical to the future survival and growth of the most important component of the Pocatello economy, and one of the most significant in the state.

To validate that claim, the university employs over 2,100 of our friends and neighbors, has over 14,000 students enrolled, and has a direct impact of over $300 million on the local economy. And based on a 2010 study by candidates in the MBA program at ISU, the “productivity” effect on payrolls and economic impact is over $873 million annually. Clearly the university is critical to the state and Eastern Idaho in particular.

While I find myself sympathetic to the faculty senate and find merit in some of their publicly stated grievances, it seems apparent to me that at the root is an obdurate and unyielding adherence to the status quo, rather than a willingness to make the necessary adjustments and compromises to be “on board” with the new research focus and restructuring of the university. Have there been missteps by the administration in this transition? Undoubtedly. Have there been missteps by the faculty senate? Obviously, as the State Board of Education disbanded them for their recalcitrance.

In the context of these growth pains, one of Abraham Lincoln’s bold statements, a reference to the synoptic gospels, has perfect applicability. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” he declared. One of those aphoristic truths, the message seems clear as it relates to the future of Idaho State University. For the sake of the internal climate on campus, and the public perception, which has been tarnished, it behooves all parties to embrace the new research mission and governance structure. Unified, there is virtually no limit to the future greatness and impact, economically and culturally, that ISU can have on the state.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/09/11

Details of an elaborate and odious conspiracy by the administration to manufacture a crisis continue to surface. Their conspiracy, aided and facilitated by high level Justice Department officials is known by the operational name used by the department, “Fast and Furious.” 

We now know by evidence produced internally by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and by government whistle-blowers, that the ATF was “gun running” illegal weapons into Mexico. From the fall of 2009 to the fall of 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agents and ATF agents were told by their superiors to “look the other way” as over 2,000 guns, including 50 caliber and AK-47 type assault rifles, were sold by government agents to illegal arms traffickers and smugglers who turned around and sold them to Mexican criminal organizations and drug cartels.

In a letter addressed to congressmen this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the operation was “fundamentally flawed” and that “regrettably, its effects will be felt for years to come as weapons that should have been interdicted, but were not, continue to show up at crime scenes in this country and Mexico."

And show up they have. As of last month, the weapons have been traced to over 200 crime scenes in Mexico, most of which were violent and resulted in fatal shootings. Ironically it’s the ATF’s own eTrace program, which tracks serial numbers of weapons, that identified the weapons involved.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down in December, 2009 in Arizona, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata was killed in February of this year by criminal elements using the contraband guns. AFT whistleblowers Vince Cefalu, Larry Alt, and John Dodson have all been either reassigned or terminated.

Those are the fundamental facts and events as chronicled by primary sources. Which brings us to the political element. First stop is Attorney General Holder himself, who in May told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had just learned “in recent weeks” about the now infamous operation. Yet two months earlier Holder had been sent a letter by congressional Republicans seeking his response to questions regarding the details of the operation. A month before that CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson shocked the nation when she exposed the details of Fast and Furious and revealed the early stages of the administration cover-up. To many of us, the fact that someone in mainstream media was actually delving into a scandal involving the Obama administration was as shocking as the operation itself.

But here’s the real kicker as it relates to Holder. From documents just released by Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Darrell Issa, Holder perjured himself in his May testimony. Those documents identified five different briefings that Michael Walther, Director of the National Drug Intelligence Center provided to Holder, starting in July of last year. In other words, the top law enforcement officer in the land perfidiously lied to congress about this illegal operation that he had known about for nearly a year from detailed briefings!

Two major questions are begging to be answered truthfully. First, how high in the administration does knowledge of this operation go? The higher it goes, the more complicit the entire Obama administration is in funneling contraband weaponry directly into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Holder knew, and we now know from Grassley’s and Issa’s documents that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel knew as well. They have blood on their hands.

Secondly, what was the intended purpose of the operation? The administration claims they wanted the guns smuggled “into Mexico and put them in the hands of cartel members, who were then to be arrested.” We know this isn’t true since the Border Patrol and ATF agents covering the area were told to “stand down” and not pursue the gun smugglers or the buyers.

The truth is implicitly revealed in Holder’s letter to congress this week when he told lawmakers that they should focus on “fixing loopholes in our laws that facilitate the staggering flow of guns each year across our border." The White House obviously wanted to make the assault weapons they were selling to Mexican thugs such a problem that it would justify implementing much more stringent gun control. After all Obama has said many times, “We need to make the assault weapon ban permanent.”

Fast and Furious was an administration-manufactured crisis. We must remember that this administration believes they should “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” And if there isn’t one already, they will create one for their ideological agenda.

For obvious reasons, Holder denouncing the “staggering flow of guns across our border” is eerily similar to Obama’s denunciation of deficit spending! They create crises and blame others for them.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/02/11

Sometimes a slight diversion from the troubles and concerns of the world is warranted, and to me, this is one such week. With ISU Homecoming week has come ample time for me to reflect on the immense contributions Idaho State University has made to my life, and the role it’s played in shaping my intellectual, cultural, and social composition.

Writing this piece before the Homecoming game with Portland State, I’ve no way of knowing how the game will turn out, but I hope victoriously for the Bengals. There seems to be a new attitude among the Bengal faithful, and the team, that is somewhat reminiscent of the attitude and atmosphere on campus in the 1980 season when Dave Kragthorpe brought a new game plan and a new batch of student athletes on campus. Those elements turned the nations longest losing streak of 17 games into a winning program in one year, and into national champions by 1981.

Sometimes football, and athletics in general, can be more than just games. They often provide a window into the character and courage of the participants. Their performances on and off the field can provide inspiration and examples of courage and determination that extend far beyond the fields of play, and their influence felt far beyond their season.

For example, I reflect back on the 1996 season when a stellar Bengal cornerback, Marcus Jackson, made a massive hit on an opposing player. So massive, in fact, that Marcus was paralyzed from the impact of the tackle. The Dome fell silent in the moments that followed, as thousands of prayers were undoubtedly uttered for that courageous young man.

Yet even today, Marcus Jackson stands as an example of character, optimism, and courage as he has dealt with his physical challenges, and that example has made a memorable impact on all who knew him then and all who know him now. ISU inducted Marcus into the Bengal Hall of Fame in 2005, and his jersey number 25 has been worn by Bengal players who manifest the courage, determination, and tenacity that Marcus displayed as a player and as a man after his football career. Not surprisingly, considering his determination and character, Marcus returned to ISU as a quadriplegic and finished his degree.

A teammate of Marcus’ was Telly Lockette. An outstanding linebacker from Miami, Telly was expected to make a huge contribution to ISU’s defense. All those expectations were thrown into doubt when he went home to Miami for the summer after his freshman year where he was struck in the back of his head when a fight broke out at a club. Telly suffered a fractured skull from the melee and he remained in a coma for four days. Subsequently he went through two major surgeries to place metal plates in his skull. He returned to ISU football, and became a two-time All Conference linebacker. Glenn Alford, former ISU Sports Information Director said Telly was “Perhaps the best true leader in ISU sports. Other players would follow after him like chicks behind a mama duck.” After graduating from ISU, Telly was a Florida State Championship-winning high school football coach in Miami, and was recently hired as a head coach at a university in Louisiana.

Glenn Alford and ISU Track Coach, Dave Nielsen, this week reminded me of Nicole Dudek from Littleton, CO who was a multi-event track and field athlete at ISU. In 1991, her senior year, she was expected to win the heptathlon, but came in third in horribly stormy weather at the Conference Championship meet in Bozeman. As disappointed as she was in her performance, she was determined to do more to help the team in scoring. Although she had very little experience in the intermediate hurdles, she entered, and subsequently won the Conference Championship in that event. A little-known fact about Nicole makes this feat even more amazing: Nicole competed with a pacemaker in her chest! Coach Nielsen said that performance, and all her years at ISU, were characteristic of her mental and physical strength and determination.

Sports can sometimes bring out the best, or the worst, in competitors and spectators alike. But these examples, and many more from ISU that I have insufficient room to mention, stand as testaments to the indomitability of the human spirit, and as monuments to the courage, tenacity, and determination of many of our student athletes. Long after the cheers of the game have faded away, and the euphoria of victory has subsided, these men and women of courage will remind us of the human component of athletic competition and the caliber of young people that compete at Idaho State University.