The Roanoke Times offered an editorial today disagreeing with the Radford University Faculty Senate decision to create an ad hoc committee that would investigate what the Times calls “nebulous, unspecified allegations against the administration.”
The Times takes a narrow and short-sighted view of the situation by first insinuating that that the committee was formed as some sort of reaction to RU President Penelope Kyle. The motion to form the investigative committee does not single out Kyle, and those close to the situation say that the investigation will not focus only on the RU president.
The allegations toward the administration (and not just Kyle) remain unspecified at this time because those who brought forth the motion to form the committee did not want to add fuel to a fire that seems to rage a little more each day. As the Times mentions, the committee could find nothing amiss. If that is the case, then why enumerate a laundry list of possible indiscretions and rumors?
But some of those rumors may prove to have legs. Such a committee may uncover systemic problems in communication and internal governance that, once examined, can be explored for possible resolutions. Such a committee may find contradictions in policy and procedure that, once found, might be cleared up for the good of the entire university. And such a committee could even find instances of malfeasance or ethical breeches. Even if the committee doesn’t have the teeth to really do anything about major findings, isn’t it better to be proactive and try to find the truth rather than sitting silent and stewing about a perceived state of the university?
The Times states in its editorial that “There are serious questions about how Kyle has run things lately.” Then why isn’t it a good idea to establish exactly what falls under the umbrella of “how Kyle has run things lately” and suggest better ways of running RU?
Perhaps in the end, the forming of such a committee may be much ado about nothing. Or perhaps it could uncover substantial wrongdoing on the part of some administrators.
At one time journalists felt it was their responsibility to be a watchdog in society. It is therefore ironic for the Times to disparage the RU Faculty Senate for doing the job that journalists should be doing: keeping watch over an institution and trying to protect it from corruption and greed.
Tim W. Jackson is Editor of the New River Voice and would like to see journalism return to its watchdog role.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Kathy Kelly // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:23 am
Yes! Perhaps this should be submitted to the RT as rebuttal!
2 The Man Who Snarls // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:42 am
Tim: in no uncertain terms, you’re top dog.
That’s all.
3 Frank // Apr 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm
As a member of the administration I am thankful that something if finally being done about the management of this great institution. It is long overdue. Ego-driven induced fear is no way to run a university.
4 ktsummers1 // Apr 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm
So what questions is the Voice asking as a watch dog?
5 student // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:04 pm
At least we know New River Voice isn’t corrupt…
The Faculty Senate is doing what students and faculty cannot do, be heard. Students and faculty are being threatened to even mention these issues. I didn’t know till these recent events how corrupt the politics of SouthWest VA really are.
The Faculty Senate is speaking for those who have been silenced, thank you.
6 The Beat Goes On // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:13 am
ITA, Tim. I had to laugh at one quote from the article: “A more formal investigation, conducted through existing grievance procedures or, better, initiated by the board of visitors would have a much better chance of finding some explanations and shaping the school’s course forward.”
Expecting the BOV to help is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
7 Frank // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:55 am
Agreed. The BOV are being led and not serving as the leaders they were put in place to be. There are a number of “cozy” relationships that are protecting our dear Penny from criticism, constructive or otherwise. She basically has a license to manipulate, micro-manage and use fear as a blunt weapon. It is really unfortunate for those of us who 1) love RU and 2) really need this job. The good news is that nothing is forever and presidential changes usually bring in folks that are the polar opposite of their predesessor, which means that the next one will be nominated for sainthood!
Leave a Comment