Under the heading, “Staff talk about integrity,” the Guilford College website quotes President Kent Chabotar as saying, “Guilford College believes in holding everyone accountable for results. Decision making is transparent and we usually get an avalanche of information. Myths and rumors do not last very long here.”We fully support the values promoted here-transparency and accountability. Moreover, we acknowledge that the administration has taken steps to implement these values by holding meetings and “open” forums, etc. But President Chabotar is overstating when he claims that such conditions already exist at Guilford.
Chabotar has committed the error common to many statements of value. He has conflated the “is” with the “ought.” While indeed decision making ought to be transparent, more than one institutional practice suggests that it is not.
One such practice regards timing. We see a troubling pattern in the timing of controversial decisions at Guilford. The trend is simple: administrators at Guilford often make their most profound and difficult decisions when the broader community is most distracted, right before a break.
The following list of instances is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it strongly suggests the tendency on the part of Guilford to diverge from its stated respect for transparency. We do not mean to imply this practice is necessarily deliberate. We also do not mean to eliminate this possibility.
The effect, in either case, is the same. The choice by Guilford’s decision-makers to act when everyone is absent or distracted thwarts outright any community response to controversial decisions.
In the most example, the principal players of the “incident in Bryan Hall” received their judicial decisions on Feb. 28, during midterms, two days before spring break.
Eleanor Branch, assistant professor of English, and Shelini Harris, assistant professor of religious studies, received the latest reiterations of their dismissal from Guilford by the board of trustees on Feb. 28, during midterms, two days before spring break.
In Branch’s case, the pattern is obvious. On April 14, 2006, the Guilfordian reported her initial tenure denial, which took place on March 2, right before spring break. The tenure appeal board met in April and refused to overturn the decision as finals approached before summer.
Julius Chambers, the noted civil rights lawyer whom Chabotar hired to investigate Branch’s discrimination allegations, released his report in early September 2006 after the summer’s inquiry. Chabotar waited to make his decision to uphold the denial of tenure until October 11, 2006, during midterms, three days before fall break.
In mid Dec. 2006, during finals, the week before winter break, someone made the baffling decision to annihilate nearly every artificial structure in the woods and leave enormous piles of tetanus in their place.
The same week, campus life held an open forum regarding changes in their smoking, alcohol and social gathering policies. Huge turnout for that one.
Similarly, on March 17, 2006, the Guilfordian reported on Chabotar’s open forum discussing Guilford’s master plan, held during midterms, the week before spring break.
During fall 2005 and spring 2006, a contingent of students mobilized a proposal to introduce gender-blind housing options at Guilford. The proposal, supported by community senate, was turned down at the spring meeting of the Board of Trustees, which was . guess when . during midterms, right before spring break.
On May 12, 2005, SLRP committee held an open forum regarding the physical impact of the plan on our beloved campus. That’s days after graduation, more than a week before the summer term.
Such institutional practices are overtly paternalistic. They allow for claims to transparency while limiting the participation and input of many concerned parties. Open forums, for example, have low turnout because of poor scheduling choices. One is free, however, to attribute this to “apathy” and thereby to justify the elimination of such forums altogether. Ingenious, really, and pernicious.
It seems ridiculous that one must actually state that, despite the president’s claims, myths and rumors do indeed last at Guilford. No time, space, or point to listing them here. The important thing is that these rumors spread and maintain in large part because of Guilford’s own practices, and integrity requires that we examine these.