New Chancellor

[appbio91]

Considering that far more women than men now attend and graduate college, it stands to reason we should begin seeing more women emerge into leadership roles within the university system. Are guys less intelligent, or just lazy? Perhaps it's misplaced priorities on video games and sports, over academics. Maybe coincidence, but both UNC-CH and ASU now have their first female Chancellor.

There is nothing unique about this situation. There is a huge push in corporate America to increase the number of women in leadership roles as well. The only place where the boys club is not currently threatened is politics which is still dominated by whit males.

[asutrnr81]

Got to meet Dr. Everts and speak to Dr. Peacock yesterday. Peacock said he will do as much, or as little, as Dr. Everts wants him to do in terms of representing App. I don't know what kind of leader she will end up being for App, but my first impresssion of her was very favorable.

That is exactly what he said back in February when "no-one" knew the future Chancellor!

[9Steelman]

Met her Saturday at Alumni Conncil meeting, was also impressed with personality and vigor. I think she will be great even having to follow KP. Also am impressed with new Alumni Council President J K Reeves. He gave a very touching and humble speech on what ASU has meant and will mean to him forever. If you haven't done so, make a pledge/contribution to the APPALACHIAN FUND. Also MAY 1 is National App Day, All Alumni are required to wear App black and gold and/or fly your house and car flags. Any alumni got not displaying something, may be required to return their degree.

[The Annoying Peasant]

I get what you mean but it seems the majority of rabble rousers on the ASU campus come from the liberal arts side of things. At least she is coming in as one of their own and not some interloper with a business background who doesn't appreciate the real reason for attending college.

When the faculty gives the provost a no-confidence vote they aren't rabble rousers, they're a majority. And I have to imagine there were many who dislike the admin. but weren't willing to go as far as a no-confidence vote. I don't think you can pass off a majority of the faculty as liberals who don't get it without calling into question the value of ASU as an institution. This really is a mess. You're strategic vision isn't very serious when the faculty doesn't believe in it or you. Our new chancellor is going to have to reconcile these differences or clean house . . . she has some work cut out for her.

This bunch on the faculty senate is nothing but rabble rousers. The reality is the current faculty senate is controlled by a ultra liberal faction that does not represent the faculty as a whole.

Matthew Robinson and fellow Political Science partner in crime Andy Kotch are well known for their dislike of Ken Peacock and the direction ASU has taken under his leadership. They head a small vocal group which is vehemently anti athletics and have a desire to make ASU a strictly liberal arts institution. They look for ANY opportunity to embarrass the Chancellor and anyone connected to him.

This entire issue can be traced back to the Jamie Price situation. Mr. Robinson seized this opportunity and began circulating a petition calling for a vote of no confidence in Provost Lori Gonzalez claiming Ms Price was not afforded due process. Out of a faculty numbering roughly 870 full time and numerous part time members the petition garnered 88 signatures. Hardly a mandate for change. Still, Robinson presented it to the faculty senate as PROOF the faculty was unhappy with the university's leadership. The faculty senate voted 22-21 in favor of a vote of no confidence. But just when Robinson started breaking out the hip hip hooray cheers along comes a motion from the floor asking for a campus wide vote. Uh Oh.....

The faculty senate leadership knew they didn't have anywhere close to the support to win this vote. It would have been devastating to their agenda. We're talking a 100% egg on the face, total embarrassment, death nail blow event. So they did what any group in power does when they lack sufficient support for something. They denied the motion. Absolutely shelved a vote by the whole faculty and claimed victory using a symbolic - though utterly powerless - vote by a handpicked few. It was deceptive, dishonest, misleading and runs totally opposite to the process this crowd - especially the Poly Sci bunch - claims to hold so near and dear to their heart.

Matthew Robinson claimed some were "afraid to come forward" because of possible repercussions. Possibly when signing a petition is involved, but that doesn't explain why the motion for a vote of the complete faculty was denied. Such a vote would have been completely anonymous and no repercussions could have been possible. The ONLY reason they denied the request is because a vote by the entire faculty would have shown the faculty senate does not reflect the opinion of the overall faculty at ASU and exposed them for what they are. The truth of the matter is a majority of the faculty wanted a campus wide vote in order to show this faculty senate is not representative of the faculty.

Ken Peacock hand picked people who reflect his vision for Appalachian for the Board of Trustees. They chose the three finalists to replace him. Mr. Robinson and the faculty senate were not at all happy with the finalists. I feel quite confident saying Chancellor elect Everts is not what this bunch wanted. I can only imagine what they are scheming knowing ASU now will have a chancellor and provost who, in all likelihood, will not be agreeable with them.

[Watauga72]

I get what you mean but it seems the majority of rabble rousers on the ASU campus come from the liberal arts side of things. At least she is coming in as one of their own and not some interloper with a business background who doesn't appreciate the real reason for attending college.

When the faculty gives the provost a no-confidence vote they aren't rabble rousers, they're a majority. And I have to imagine there were many who dislike the admin. but weren't willing to go as far as a no-confidence vote. I don't think you can pass off a majority of the faculty as liberals who don't get it without calling into question the value of ASU as an institution. This really is a mess. You're strategic vision isn't very serious when the faculty doesn't believe in it or you. Our new chancellor is going to have to reconcile these differences or clean house . . . she has some work cut out for her.

This bunch on the faculty senate is nothing but rabble rousers. The reality is the current faculty senate is controlled by a ultra liberal faction that does not represent the faculty as a whole.

Matthew Robinson and fellow Political Science partner in crime Andy Kotch are well known for their dislike of Ken Peacock and the direction ASU has taken under his leadership. They head a small vocal group which is vehemently anti athletics and have a desire to make ASU a strictly liberal arts institution. They look for ANY opportunity to embarrass the Chancellor and anyone connected to him.

This entire issue can be traced back to the Jamie Price situation. Mr. Robinson seized this opportunity and began circulating a petition calling for a vote of no confidence in Provost Lori Gonzalez claiming Ms Price was not afforded due process. Out of a faculty numbering roughly 870 full time and numerous part time members the petition garnered 88 signatures. Hardly a mandate for change. Still, Robinson presented it to the faculty senate as PROOF the faculty was unhappy with the university's leadership. The faculty senate voted 22-21 in favor of a vote of no confidence. But just when Robinson started breaking out the hip hip hooray cheers along comes a motion from the floor asking for a campus wide vote. Uh Oh.....

The faculty senate leadership knew they didn't have anywhere close to the support to win this vote. It would have been devastating to their agenda. We're talking a 100% egg on the face, total embarrassment, death nail blow event. So they did what any group in power does when they lack sufficient support for something. They denied the motion. Absolutely shelved a vote by the whole faculty and claimed victory using a symbolic - though utterly powerless - vote by a handpicked few. It was deceptive, dishonest, misleading and runs totally opposite to the process this crowd - especially the Poly Sci bunch - claims to hold so near and dear to their heart.

Matthew Robinson claimed some were "afraid to come forward" because of possible repercussions. Possibly when signing a petition is involved, but that doesn't explain why the motion for a vote of the complete faculty was denied. Such a vote would have been completely anonymous and no repercussions could have been possible. The ONLY reason they denied the request is because a vote by the entire faculty would have shown the faculty senate does not reflect the opinion of the overall faculty at ASU and exposed them for what they are. The truth of the matter is a majority of the faculty wanted a campus wide vote in order to show this faculty senate is not representative of the faculty.

Ken Peacock hand picked people who reflect his vision for Appalachian for the Board of Trustees. They chose the three finalists to replace him. Mr. Robinson and the faculty senate were not at all happy with the finalists. I feel quite confident saying Chancellor elect Everts is not what this bunch wanted. I can only imagine what they are scheming knowing ASU now will have a chancellor and provost who, in all likelihood, will not be agreeable with them.

If this is true it is very embarrassing. Not saying you're making this up, just that these people seem very immature for professionals.

[asutrnr81]

This entire issue can be traced back to the Jamie Price situation.

...and this is the sad part about that. I continued after her admonishment.....The semester after this issue came up my son had her for class. I intentionally did not tell him what I knew. I let him tell me what he saw in class.

I ask regularly how classes were going as he was a freshman and still adjusting to school. He described a lady who obviously did not learn from her experience or was too arrogant to care.

Her treatment of athletes was clearly different in the class. It would be interesting to audit her grading practices and see if there was a bias. She continued to talk about athletes and athletics.

For fellow professionals to support that kind of behavior in my book is unacceptable.

[HeffnerIV]

I get what you mean but it seems the majority of rabble rousers on the ASU campus come from the liberal arts side of things. At least she is coming in as one of their own and not some interloper with a business background who doesn't appreciate the real reason for attending college.

When the faculty gives the provost a no-confidence vote they aren't rabble rousers, they're a majority. And I have to imagine there were many who dislike the admin. but weren't willing to go as far as a no-confidence vote. I don't think you can pass off a majority of the faculty as liberals who don't get it without calling into question the value of ASU as an institution. This really is a mess. You're strategic vision isn't very serious when the faculty doesn't believe in it or you. Our new chancellor is going to have to reconcile these differences or clean house . . . she has some work cut out for her.

This bunch on the faculty senate is nothing but rabble rousers. The reality is the current faculty senate is controlled by a ultra liberal faction that does not represent the faculty as a whole.

Matthew Robinson and fellow Political Science partner in crime Andy Kotch are well known for their dislike of Ken Peacock and the direction ASU has taken under his leadership. They head a small vocal group which is vehemently anti athletics and have a desire to make ASU a strictly liberal arts institution. They look for ANY opportunity to embarrass the Chancellor and anyone connected to him.

This entire issue can be traced back to the Jamie Price situation. Mr. Robinson seized this opportunity and began circulating a petition calling for a vote of no confidence in Provost Lori Gonzalez claiming Ms Price was not afforded due process. Out of a faculty numbering roughly 870 full time and numerous part time members the petition garnered 88 signatures. Hardly a mandate for change. Still, Robinson presented it to the faculty senate as PROOF the faculty was unhappy with the university's leadership. The faculty senate voted 22-21 in favor of a vote of no confidence. But just when Robinson started breaking out the hip hip hooray cheers along comes a motion from the floor asking for a campus wide vote. Uh Oh.....

The faculty senate leadership knew they didn't have anywhere close to the support to win this vote. It would have been devastating to their agenda. We're talking a 100% egg on the face, total embarrassment, death nail blow event. So they did what any group in power does when they lack sufficient support for something. They denied the motion. Absolutely shelved a vote by the whole faculty and claimed victory using a symbolic - though utterly powerless - vote by a handpicked few. It was deceptive, dishonest, misleading and runs totally opposite to the process this crowd - especially the Poly Sci bunch - claims to hold so near and dear to their heart.

Matthew Robinson claimed some were "afraid to come forward" because of possible repercussions. Possibly when signing a petition is involved, but that doesn't explain why the motion for a vote of the complete faculty was denied. Such a vote would have been completely anonymous and no repercussions could have been possible. The ONLY reason they denied the request is because a vote by the entire faculty would have shown the faculty senate does not reflect the opinion of the overall faculty at ASU and exposed them for what they are. The truth of the matter is a majority of the faculty wanted a campus wide vote in order to show this faculty senate is not representative of the faculty.

Ken Peacock hand picked people who reflect his vision for Appalachian for the Board of Trustees. They chose the three finalists to replace him. Mr. Robinson and the faculty senate were not at all happy with the finalists. I feel quite confident saying Chancellor elect Everts is not what this bunch wanted. I can only imagine what they are scheming knowing ASU now will have a chancellor and provost who, in all likelihood, will not be agreeable with them.

You seem to have a really intimate relationship to this situation. If true, this really gives a different view of what was reported.

I had Robinson for a course while in Boone. He was okay, but the type whose class was taught using, and based on, his own publishing's.

[MountainMan]

What The Annoying Peasant writes is for real.

The Faculty Senate does not generally reflect the real majority view of faculty -- not just with regard to the no confidence vote and/or the related Jamie Price issues, but probably in about 75% of the things that they consider. It does generally consist of rabble rousers that don't have anything more productive to do than go to Senate meetings and yammer on about whatever the complaint of the day is. Most folks on Faculty Senate view all administrators as "the enemy" regardless of the fact that the vast majority of administrators were faculty members before moving into administrative roles. Fortunately, the Faculty Senate is only capable of making suggestions, expressing opinions, and issuing statements. Most faculty members with a brain just stay away from this train wreck and hope that most of the nuttiest of resolutions and statements generated by the Faculty Senate wither and die without having an impact.

[DaphneUrquhart]

Met her Saturday at Alumni Conncil meeting, was also impressed with personality and vigor. I think she will be great even having to follow KP. Also am impressed with new Alumni Council President J K Reeves. He gave a very touching and humble speech on what ASU has meant and will mean to him forever. If you haven't done so, make a pledge/contribution to the APPALACHIAN FUND. Also MAY 1 is National App Day, All Alumni are required to wear App black and gold and/or fly your house and car flags. Any alumni got not displaying something, may be required to return their degree.

JK Reaves is one truly outstanding individual! The Alumni Council will certainly be well-led with JK as president.

Donations to the Appalachian Fund are crucial. My Appalachian Fund soapbox sounds a little like my Yosef soapbox. If every living alum gave $10, we'd have over $1,000,000. Every donation really does count.

[Rekdiver]

IF".......if we could get half of the alumni to give anything there is so much we could do........I appreciate the insights on the faculty senate....but it just validates what I thought. Dissenting views are healthy when there is a common goal. Unfortunately ,and I've said this repeatedly , life in the bubble of academia is often a break from reality and there is always a faction that is is so self absorbed that it poisons a campus.

[DaphneUrquhart]

IF".......if we could get half of the alumni to give anything there is so much we could do........I appreciate the insights on the faculty senate....but it just validates what I thought. Dissenting views are healthy when there is a common goal. Unfortunately ,and I've said this repeatedly , life in the bubble of academia is often a break from reality and there is always a faction that is is so self absorbed that it poisons a campus.

Oh, I know it's a big IF. It's always part of my sales pitch when I'm soliciting donations for App.

I'm loving all this conversation about the new chancellor. I recall my university getting a new chancellor while I was there. It didn't matter much since I'd never seen the old one and knew I'd never see the new one. His signature facsimile is on my diploma though.

[sonsofyosef]

I get what you mean but it seems the majority of rabble rousers on the ASU campus come from the liberal arts side of things. At least she is coming in as one of their own and not some interloper with a business background who doesn't appreciate the real reason for attending college.

When the faculty gives the provost a no-confidence vote they aren't rabble rousers, they're a majority. And I have to imagine there were many who dislike the admin. but weren't willing to go as far as a no-confidence vote. I don't think you can pass off a majority of the faculty as liberals who don't get it without calling into question the value of ASU as an institution. This really is a mess. You're strategic vision isn't very serious when the faculty doesn't believe in it or you. Our new chancellor is going to have to reconcile these differences or clean house . . . she has some work cut out for her.

This bunch on the faculty senate is nothing but rabble rousers. The reality is the current faculty senate is controlled by a ultra liberal faction that does not represent the faculty as a whole.

Matthew Robinson and fellow Political Science partner in crime Andy Kotch are well known for their dislike of Ken Peacock and the direction ASU has taken under his leadership. They head a small vocal group which is vehemently anti athletics and have a desire to make ASU a strictly liberal arts institution. They look for ANY opportunity to embarrass the Chancellor and anyone connected to him.

This entire issue can be traced back to the Jamie Price situation. Mr. Robinson seized this opportunity and began circulating a petition calling for a vote of no confidence in Provost Lori Gonzalez claiming Ms Price was not afforded due process. Out of a faculty numbering roughly 870 full time and numerous part time members the petition garnered 88 signatures. Hardly a mandate for change. Still, Robinson presented it to the faculty senate as PROOF the faculty was unhappy with the university's leadership. The faculty senate voted 22-21 in favor of a vote of no confidence. But just when Robinson started breaking out the hip hip hooray cheers along comes a motion from the floor asking for a campus wide vote. Uh Oh.....

The faculty senate leadership knew they didn't have anywhere close to the support to win this vote. It would have been devastating to their agenda. We're talking a 100% egg on the face, total embarrassment, death nail blow event. So they did what any group in power does when they lack sufficient support for something. They denied the motion. Absolutely shelved a vote by the whole faculty and claimed victory using a symbolic - though utterly powerless - vote by a handpicked few. It was deceptive, dishonest, misleading and runs totally opposite to the process this crowd - especially the Poly Sci bunch - claims to hold so near and dear to their heart.

Matthew Robinson claimed some were "afraid to come forward" because of possible repercussions. Possibly when signing a petition is involved, but that doesn't explain why the motion for a vote of the complete faculty was denied. Such a vote would have been completely anonymous and no repercussions could have been possible. The ONLY reason they denied the request is because a vote by the entire faculty would have shown the faculty senate does not reflect the opinion of the overall faculty at ASU and exposed them for what they are. The truth of the matter is a majority of the faculty wanted a campus wide vote in order to show this faculty senate is not representative of the faculty.

Ken Peacock hand picked people who reflect his vision for Appalachian for the Board of Trustees. They chose the three finalists to replace him. Mr. Robinson and the faculty senate were not at all happy with the finalists. I feel quite confident saying Chancellor elect Everts is not what this bunch wanted. I can only imagine what they are scheming knowing ASU now will have a chancellor and provost who, in all likelihood, will not be agreeable with them.

You think, then, that the "ultra-liberal rabble-rousers" didn't want to submit the vote of no confidence to a campus-wide vote for roughly the same reason the administration didn't want to submit the move to the SunBelt conference to a campus-wide vote?

[Rekdiver]

No I don't. I am surprised that Ms Price is still at ASU . I would have thought offers of jobs would have flooded in for her. Oh well. The campus wide vote regarding the move up to d1 will be held at the first football game this fall. I predict the student section will be standing room only.....All in favor......AYE!

[asutrnr81]

No I don't. I am surprised that Ms Price is still at ASU . I would have thought offers of jobs would have flooded in for her. Oh well. The campus wide vote regarding the move up to d1 will be held at the first football game this fall. I predict the student section will be standing room only.....All in favor......AYE!

AYE

[Gonzo]

You think, then, that the "ultra-liberal rabble-rousers" didn't want to submit the vote of no confidence to a campus-wide vote for roughly the same reason the administration didn't want to submit the move to the SunBelt conference to a campus-wide vote?

Athletic conference affiliation is never a decision made by a faculty consensus. Ousting an administrator typically is. Apples and Oranges. Hope your axe is good and sharp now.

AYE!!

[newtoasu]

I see that the President at Illinois State resigned on Saturday after only 7 months on the job. It appears to have nothing to do with Dr. Everts in any way shape or form and was very unexpected. So it looks like Illinois State will having to look for a President and Provost at the same time. Not an easy task and one that is fraught with unhappy possibilities.

(Link to ISU Presidents resignation: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014 ... estigation )

[fjblair]

You think, then, that the "ultra-liberal rabble-rousers" didn't want to submit the vote of no confidence to a campus-wide vote for roughly the same reason the administration didn't want to submit the move to the SunBelt conference to a campus-wide vote?

Apples and oranges of course but please continue...

[sonsofyosef]

You think, then, that the "ultra-liberal rabble-rousers" didn't want to submit the vote of no confidence to a campus-wide vote for roughly the same reason the administration didn't want to submit the move to the SunBelt conference to a campus-wide vote?

Athletic conference affiliation is never a decision made by a faculty consensus. Ousting an administrator typically is. Apples and Oranges. Hope your axe is good and sharp now.

AYE!!

Gonz, the Faculty Senate at App does not have the power to oust an administrator. Their vote is ultimately a recommendation to the Chancellor, and in this case, Ken Peacock chose to not take their recommendation.

As for Jammie Price...imagine App had a law school, and Professor Gonzo chose to teach on a real-world, present-day, on-campus issue. Let's say the Professor questioned the concept of the student-athlete as regards collegiate revenue sports, and went further to advocate that revenue-sport athletes at App should be paid beyond the value of their scholarship.
Should he be punished and effectively silenced just because athletes taking the class were made "uncomfortable"? Or if his teaching style made the administration "uncomfortable?

[asutrnr81]

As for Jammie Price...imagine App had a law school, and Professor Gonzo chose to teach on a real-world, present-day, on-campus issue. Let's say the Professor questioned the concept of the student-athlete as regards collegiate revenue sports, and went further to advocate that revenue-sport athletes at App should be paid beyond the value of their scholarship.
Should he be punished and effectively silenced just because athletes taking the class were made "uncomfortable"? Or if his teaching style made the administration "uncomfortable?

It went further than that it was uncomfortable for more than just athletes. .....actually beyond uncomfortable....I have no problem with my son being challenged in the class and his opinions and his beliefs stretched and questions brought to bear that make him think....but the inability to disagree in the class is inappropriate.

If she were afraid to speak her mind, she had the kids in the same boat.

Who is that a lesson for?