Valpo Strategic Plan

[valpopal]

However, the university president should exhibit higher scruples than a shady used car salesman trying to pull a fast one, and members of the university community also should expect nothing less than honorable behavior.

I get that the art sale makes you upset, but you're crossing the line here. You talk about "honorable behavior" but then make personal attacks that have no basis in fact. You actually weaken your argument when you reveal your bias against President Padilla.

mj: I was responding to FW's claim that it would be all right for the university president to conceal the sales from the incoming director of the museum, because there is "no obligation to disclose that information to any prospective employees," and his comment that Canning wasn't "guaranteed that the O'Keeffe and the other two paintings would always be part of the collection," as well as his assertion that this was fine as long as Canning got paid "the agreed amount." That is shady behavior.

[usc4valpo]

Honestly and unbiasedly, How many people visit the art museum weekly?

Also, Ruff and Brauer, two very respected dudes, are not on the Valpo payroll. They should not be part of the final decision. When they do after the decision is certainly their call, but Padilla and the board make the decision.

Valpo hired Padilla to do a job and his decisions will hopefully not result in "peace at all costs" resolutions. At a holistic level, Valparaiso University needs tough, effective solutions to stay afloat. At the end, I feel someone will be pissed off if a solid decision is made; if not, the decision is weak and ineffective.

[usc4valpo]

Pal - in the interview process, did Canning, who already had a prestigious job, ask about the status of the O'Keefe painting an other art?

I hate to see the art sold, but Padilla and the board have a big problem to solve and perhaps that should be respected.

[mj]

First, Canning is an employee of VU. He was hired as the museums director. He still gets to keep his job after the sale. It's not as though Valpo hired him and then 6 months later said we're closing the Brauer and you're fired. Circumstances in jobs change all the time. He's free to leave if he doesn't like it. And Valpo can use the savings to increase the salaries of professors.

Second, this whole thing boils down to "who gets to own the painting." It's superficial and materialistic. It's not as though the university is going to light the painting on fire. The Brauer could display a high quality picture or replica of the painting for teaching purposes. I fail to see why we need the real thing.

Finally, the money is going back into the university. If Valpo said it was going to donate the proceeds to Lutheran World Relief, would we see the same outrage? If Valpo was going to use the money to buy out Lottich's contract, then I could maybe see why people might be upset. But the money is being used to increase enrollment. Which is the purpose of the school.

[valpopal]

Pal - in the interview process, did Canning, who already had a prestigious job, ask about the status of the O'Keefe painting an other art?

You're kidding, right? The O'Keeffe painting was a major selling point used by Padilla and the hiring committee to entice Canning to the university from his prestigious job. It has been the centerpiece of the whole museum collection for more than 60 years. If you go to the museum's website, you will see a smiling Canning standing in front of the O"Keeffe for his first picture as the museum director. It was also used as the cover photograph for Valparaiso Magazine. Finally, as a professional curator, he would know to sell the O'Keeffe painting would be deemed unethical by accepted standards in the field. 

[usc4valpo]

No, I'm actually serious. Valpo, as well as many others, is a school that is financially strapped. He should have been aware of the environment in the interview, especially where he already had a decent job and was not desperate for employment.

BTW, not being Lutheran, if Valpo sold paintings for a Lutheran world relief fund, I would be protesting. I was protesting Meese, the master of bagging student loans, getting an honorary degree back in 1982.

[valpopal]

He should have been aware of the environment in the interview, especially where he already had a decent job and was not desperate for employment.

Canning was aware of the environment in the interview through the way it was portrayed to him by Padilla and the hiring committee. That is why members of the hiring committee, kept in the dark about the sale being contemplated, highlighted the O'Keeffe but now regretfully confess they inadvertently and unknowingly deceived him. They were offering him a valuable car not knowing the engine would be removed. They, like Canning, also knew no museum ethically could use its artwork as assets to fund projects outside the development of the collection.

[mj]

They, like Canning, also knew no museum ethically could use its artwork as assets to fund projects outside the development of the collection.

These ethics could lead to the school closing and the paintings being sold anyways.

[vu84v2]

I was reviewing a discussion on this topic on a different (I think, Lutheran affiliated) board. A professor of Theology at Valpo, Matt Becker, posted the following.

--------------------------------

The Sloan Trust agreement includes the signature of the person who was Valpo's board chairman back in 1953, when the agreement was signed. I believe O. P. Kretzmann also signed that agreement. That agreement is at the heart of the possible lawsuit. The agreement states that artwork can only be sold to purchase new artwork for the Brauer Museum.

--------------------------------
What I find very interesting is that this argument is not pressed by people advocating against the art sale. If I were building an argument against selling the art, I would show this document and use it as my hammer as it would be far more powerful and persuasive than any arguments associated with ethics and the importance of liberal arts. The ethics argument seems to be based on "rules" set by people in the art world who expect everyone to agree with them (the "art has infinite value" argument) and the importance of liberal arts argument rests on an extensive continuum (I personally think liberal arts is important, but feel that owning art is not core to Valpo's mission).

My point here is that, because no one has produced the document (wouldn't the Brauer Museum curator have a copy? wouldn't Brauer have a copy?), the document as summarized likely does not exist. As I said when this argument started, Valpo should not violate an agreement that was signed by duly appointed heads of Valpo - specifically the board chairman and/or the university President (no one else would have the authority to sign such an agreement for the university).

[DejaVU]

That agreement is at the heart of the possible lawsuit. The agreement states that artwork can only be sold to purchase new artwork for the Brauer Museum.

Maybe that is the reason Padilla is silent in the midst of this storm: because of pending litigation. Hopefully the litigation and the bad press won't cancel any benefit from the sell (if that ends up happening)


But, on a different point, as I said before I am not competent to actually judge the impact of the possible sell. Can someone though explain to me (like you would do for an art illiterate) what would happen in the following analogous scenario: say Louvre sells Mona Lisa. I am sure that would be a big deal and enough French people would start a revolution and raise a guillotine or two. But when the dust settles, how diminished would Louvre become? It's pretty big. How many people go there just to see Mona Lisa original? MOre importantly, aside from taking their entrance money, do art lovers in Paris should really cater to only those going there for Mona Lisa and ignoring the rest?


I am just trying to separate, on the anti-sale side, how much is emotion and how much is objective harm from the sale.

[crusader05]

The Sloan trust was mentioned early on and I believe it has taken a backseat over the ethics and "core resource" and just general attacks on the president. Padilla has indicated that they feels they are solid legal footing but that doesn't mean a court would see it the same way if someone sues. Has a suit been filed yet? If not I wonder why as it's been several weeks. It would have been better for all if this had stayed a legal matter vs becoming about pushing the negative PR strategy.

[crusader05]

I don't know that selling the Mona Lisa is analogous because that's the jewel of like art collections as a whole. 

I think the bigger question would be more along the lines of if they sold the best piece in a lesser collection. People would miss it and had probably take the time to see it but a majority of the people who keep coming to see the Mona Lisa would still come much as the belief in the Art is that while it has been nice and advantageous to have and a nice Perk it's not the main reason students choose to come or not to come to the university.

[David81]

That agreement is at the heart of the possible lawsuit. The agreement states that artwork can only be sold to purchase new artwork for the Brauer Museum.

Maybe that is the reason Padilla is silent in the midst of this storm: because of pending litigation. Hopefully the litigation and the bad press won't cancel any benefit from the sell (if that ends up happening)


But, on a different point, as I said before I am not competent to actually judge the impact of the possible sell. Can someone though explain to me (like you would do for an art illiterate) what would happen in the following analogous scenario: say Louvre sells Mona Lisa. I am sure that would be a big deal and enough French people would start a revolution and raise a guillotine or two. But when the dust settles, how diminished would Louvre become? It's pretty big. How many people go there just to see Mona Lisa original? MOre importantly, aside from taking their entrance money, do art lovers in Paris should really cater to only those going there for Mona Lisa and ignoring the rest?


I am just trying to separate, on the anti-sale side, how much is emotion and how much is objective harm from the sale.

A long-time, current member of the VU faculty remarked early on during this controversy that the art sale question would likely be settled in court. As a lawyer and law professor, I've come to dislike civil litigation intensely, as it can bring out the worst of everyone, especially when feelings are running hot even before any papers are filed.

President Padilla has experience as university general counsel. He knows how destructive an intramural lawsuit would be, regardless of the result. Now is the time to put that experience into good use, hopefully avoiding this situation becoming litigious.

[wh]

I have never seen a more tone deaf group of employees than these liberal arts faculty malcontents.

The organization that provides their means of existence is in dire straights. It has operated at a loss for 3 years and counting, despite multiple RIF's, program eliminations, and other painful cost reduction measures. Its credit rating has been downgraded. It is in a stranglehold of fixed costs that can no longer be supported by an outdated 9-month revenue model. It is liquidating assets in a desperate attempt to play catch-up with campus housing. Other facility needs - nursing and basketball venue - remain in limbo for lack of resources. Short of a miracle increase in revenues, additional cost cutting measures are inevitable. That means more program and people cuts ahead.

Typically during such periods, the workforce becomes shrouded in eerie silence, as employees hunker down in fear of becoming the next sacrificial lamb. But not with this brave group! They have a greater good much too important to be silenced, regardless of the damage it causes!

When the grim reaper comes again, and he will come again, I would not want to be anywhere near those who have chosen to take their president head on during the most critical time in the university's history, assassinating his character and exposing Valpo to national scorn and criticism.

Meanwhile, back to the more important things - like red herrings and straw men.

[David81]

I have never seen a more tone deaf group of employees than these liberal arts faculty malcontents.

The organization that provides their means of existence is in dire straights. It has operated at a loss for 3 years and counting, despite multiple RIF's, program eliminations, and other painful cost reduction measures. Its credit rating has been downgraded. It is in a stranglehold of fixed costs that can no longer be supported by an outdated 9-month revenue model. It is liquidating assets in a desperate attempt to play catch-up with campus housing. Other facility needs - nursing and basketball venue - remain in limbo for lack of resources. Short of a miracle increase in revenues, additional cost cutting measures are inevitable. That means more program and people cuts ahead.

Typically during such periods, the workforce becomes shrouded in eerie silence, as employees hunker down in fear of becoming the next sacrificial lamb. But not with this brave group! They have a greater good much too important to be silenced, regardless of the damage it causes!

When the grim reaper comes again, and he will come again, I would not want to be anywhere near those who have chosen to take their president head on during the most critical time in the university's history, assassinating his character and exposing Valpo to national scorn and criticism.

Meanwhile, back to the more important things - like red herrings and straw men.

WH, I don't quite get the hostility towards VU faculty who might disagree with you on this matter, to the point of slamming them with a very broad brush and issuing something of a taunt about the possibility of some losing their jobs.

First, if I recall correctly, those who have opposed the art sale include members of the business and engineering faculties, as well as arts & sciences. Let's at least be ecumenical about which faculty are "tone deaf."

Second, I'm not sure what "red herrings" and "straw men" happen to be present here. While conceding that such rhetorical devices are all too frequently deployed in controversial situations, I find that most of the debate on this topic has been pretty on point, reflecting honest, principled differences of opinion. That's what makes this hard. Both "sides" are sincere and raise important points.

Third, while I agree that some of the criticism has become personal, I don't see character "assassination" of President Padilla occurring here, and I don't see the institution becoming a lightning rod of widespread scorn. Yeah, Padilla is taking some public licks, and it's uncomfortable to see VU in the news like this, when otherwise it rarely gets national attention for the many good things going on there. However, what is being put out in public is an example of stark decisions facing universities like VU, in this case the selling off of precious assets being proposed as a fundraising approach. In that sense, it's newsworthy.

So, I'd just raise the possibility of dialing down the hostility and bad presumptions about a group of people who have already been through the ringer. It's not an easy time to be at Valpo right now, and there are few easy decisions to be made.

[ValpoDiaspora]

Wh, I imagine the context for this distrust of the administration is arising from a history of concerns about promises being reneged.

For people to respond in the way you're assuming would be logical (ie, stay quiet and try to avoid administrative ire, try to be cooperative for the sake of self preservation in dicey times), it would require some sense that being a compliant citizen actually garners some kind of safety. But that's just not how anything has worked in the murkiness and randomness and confusion of the mass layoffs and salary& benefit cuts during the last few years.

For instance, when Covid hit, many staff and faculty had worked at Valpo for pretty low pay for decades in order to be eligible for the tuition remission to send their kids to Valpo, .....but then they got cut while their dependents were halfway through college or just about to age into it in Fall of '20. As you can imagine, some of the facilities and secretarial workers etc were hardly wealthy (former Bosnian/Yugo refugees, black first-gen families, or just local white Midwestern staff trying to find a way to send their kids to college). So it was a terrible blow to staff and faculty to have not only their jobs cut but also their high school/college kids become suddenly ineligible. If I recall correctly, the Staff Council or Faculty Senate had a role in trying to get the administration to honor that.

And keep in mind most of  the Artsci departments, even if they weren't discontinued in toto, nonetheless lost some or all of their lecturer or tenure track colleagues (whom they may have been involved in hiring... a terrible feeling if you had been involved in search committees to bring them in, only to watch them to get cut.) So any impulse to duck and let the torpedo hits somebody else would come with a heavy dose of survivors guilt.

So in these and other cases, I think there  arose a deep doubt about whether Valpo board/ administration would care for anybody. For comparison, at other universities (like my current one) the top administrators took temporary 20% pay cuts in order to just get the community through the early days of Covid without having to do salary cuts or layoffs on the ordinary people, in order to buy time to figure out what was going on and reassess. But in addition to the mass layoffs, Valpo immediately cut all benefits and applied the same 5% paycuts whether you were a CFO making $250k+ or somebody lowly trying to raises family on 1/5 of that... and the loss of benefits like health care contribution and retirement match and tuition eligibility all hit families hard in different ways. These benefits wouldn't matter so much except that pay at Valpo tends to be so low that people really were  relying on the other stuff.

Now we're on the other side of Covid, but all this this was during one of the scariest and most uncertain times... so it seemed to many that the university was hanging people out to dry at their and the world's most vulnerable...It looked really bad to the whole campus community that during the pandemic, Valpo seemed to be reneging on everything, pulling the rug out from people in ways that made the pandemic so much harder on people.

Of course, this recent history from before Padilla's arrival isn't his fault, but my point is the mixed and heightened employee responses on the art issue should probably be understood in this larger context of low trust, where people still probably don't imagine there's much safety anyways... like, does it really help to hide under the desks in a nuclear attack?' As in the tuition remission issue, a lot of people had put in decades of quiet, loyal work in devotion to the institution..... and overnight it became clear that meant little to nothing, (unless somebody like Staff Council or Faculty Senate pushed back).


This is all to say, I don't think this opposition to the sale is necessarily a function of everybody being naive and self righteous about art. Maybe for some it is simply that. But people know the situation is bad, and for most it's probably much more complex than mere contrarian pettiness. Padilla inherited a verrry low trust environment and his time trying to earn back trust was very short before all this art stuff blew up.

[wh]

I have never seen a more tone deaf group of employees than these liberal arts faculty malcontents.

The organization that provides their means of existence is in dire straights. It has operated at a loss for 3 years and counting, despite multiple RIF's, program eliminations, and other painful cost reduction measures. Its credit rating has been downgraded. It is in a stranglehold of fixed costs that can no longer be supported by an outdated 9-month revenue model. It is liquidating assets in a desperate attempt to play catch-up with campus housing. Other facility needs - nursing and basketball venue - remain in limbo for lack of resources. Short of a miracle increase in revenues, additional cost cutting measures are inevitable. That means more program and people cuts ahead.

Typically during such periods, the workforce becomes shrouded in eerie silence, as employees hunker down in fear of becoming the next sacrificial lamb. But not with this brave group! They have a greater good much too important to be silenced, regardless of the damage it causes!

When the grim reaper comes again, and he will come again, I would not want to be anywhere near those who have chosen to take their president head on during the most critical time in the university's history, assassinating his character and exposing Valpo to national scorn and criticism.

Meanwhile, back to the more important things - like red herrings and straw men.

WH, I don't quite get the hostility towards VU faculty who might disagree with you on this matter, to the point of slamming them with a very broad brush and issuing something of a taunt about the possibility of some losing their jobs.

First, if I recall correctly, those who have opposed the art sale include members of the business and engineering faculties, as well as arts & sciences. Let's at least be ecumenical about which faculty are "tone deaf."

Second, I'm not sure what "red herrings" and "straw men" happen to be present here. While conceding that such rhetorical devices are all too frequently deployed in controversial situations, I find that most of the debate on this topic has been pretty on point, reflecting honest, principled differences of opinion. That's what makes this hard. Both "sides" are sincere and raise important points.

Third, while I agree that some of the criticism has become personal, I don't see character "assassination" of President Padilla occurring here, and I don't see the institution becoming a lightning rod of widespread scorn. Yeah, Padilla is taking some public licks, and it's uncomfortable to see VU in the news like this, when otherwise it rarely gets national attention for the many good things going on there. However, what is being put out in public is an example of stark decisions facing universities like VU, in this case the selling off of precious assets being proposed as a fundraising approach. In that sense, it's newsworthy.

So, I'd just raise the possibility of dialing down the hostility and bad presumptions about a group of people who have already been through the wringer. It's not an easy time to be at Valpo right now, and there are few easy decisions to be made.

President Padilla is taking "public licks" because employees who work under his leadership are doing everything in their power to sabotage his effort to sell 3 paintings to raise ten million critically needed freaking dollars. Do you understand that? They are not simply expressing disagreement, which I said in an earlier post they are welcome to do until the cows come home. They are working with contacts outside the confines of the university to turn this into a highly negative, embarrassing national news story. They are intentionally attempting to damage President Padilla's standing and reputation, portray him as insensitive and manipulative, and render him impotent to act unilaterally or on board approval alone. This is a dangerous faction of workforce laggards and losers (look up the term) that need to be stopped before they bring the house down. It is impossible to turn back the clock. The damage has been done.

Someone said they don't trust President Padilla. Let me assure you that Padilla will never trust this collective of backstabbers. This is not going to end well. Divisiveness never does.

Lastly, if you would be so kind, stop inaccurately reframing my contempt for these people as an overreaction to honorable people respectfully expressing their 1st amendment rights to express their opinion. You know full well the shenanigans this bunch is pulling and that any reasonable person could find contemptible. Thank you.

[David81]

I have never seen a more tone deaf group of employees than these liberal arts faculty malcontents.

The organization that provides their means of existence is in dire straights. It has operated at a loss for 3 years and counting, despite multiple RIF's, program eliminations, and other painful cost reduction measures. Its credit rating has been downgraded. It is in a stranglehold of fixed costs that can no longer be supported by an outdated 9-month revenue model. It is liquidating assets in a desperate attempt to play catch-up with campus housing. Other facility needs - nursing and basketball venue - remain in limbo for lack of resources. Short of a miracle increase in revenues, additional cost cutting measures are inevitable. That means more program and people cuts ahead.

Typically during such periods, the workforce becomes shrouded in eerie silence, as employees hunker down in fear of becoming the next sacrificial lamb. But not with this brave group! They have a greater good much too important to be silenced, regardless of the damage it causes!

When the grim reaper comes again, and he will come again, I would not want to be anywhere near those who have chosen to take their president head on during the most critical time in the university's history, assassinating his character and exposing Valpo to national scorn and criticism.

Meanwhile, back to the more important things - like red herrings and straw men.

WH, I don't quite get the hostility towards VU faculty who might disagree with you on this matter, to the point of slamming them with a very broad brush and issuing something of a taunt about the possibility of some losing their jobs.

First, if I recall correctly, those who have opposed the art sale include members of the business and engineering faculties, as well as arts & sciences. Let's at least be ecumenical about which faculty are "tone deaf."

Second, I'm not sure what "red herrings" and "straw men" happen to be present here. While conceding that such rhetorical devices are all too frequently deployed in controversial situations, I find that most of the debate on this topic has been pretty on point, reflecting honest, principled differences of opinion. That's what makes this hard. Both "sides" are sincere and raise important points.

Third, while I agree that some of the criticism has become personal, I don't see character "assassination" of President Padilla occurring here, and I don't see the institution becoming a lightning rod of widespread scorn. Yeah, Padilla is taking some public licks, and it's uncomfortable to see VU in the news like this, when otherwise it rarely gets national attention for the many good things going on there. However, what is being put out in public is an example of stark decisions facing universities like VU, in this case the selling off of precious assets being proposed as a fundraising approach. In that sense, it's newsworthy.

So, I'd just raise the possibility of dialing down the hostility and bad presumptions about a group of people who have already been through the wringer. It's not an easy time to be at Valpo right now, and there are few easy decisions to be made.

President Padilla is taking "public licks" because employees who work under his leadership are doing everything in their power to sabotage his effort to sell 3 paintings to raise ten million critically needed freaking dollars. Do you understand that? They are not simply expressing disagreement, which I said in an earlier post they are welcome to do until the cows come home. They are working with contacts outside the confines of the university to turn this into a highly negative, embarrassing national news story. They are intentionally attempting to damage President Padilla's standing and reputation, portray him as insensitive and manipulative, and render him impotent to act unilaterally or on board approval alone. This is a dangerous faction of workforce laggards and losers (look up the term) that need to be stopped before they bring the house down. It is impossible to turn back the clock. The damage has been done.

Someone said they don't trust President Padilla. Let me assure you that Padilla will never trust this collective of backstabbers. This is not going to end well. Divisiveness never does.

Lastly, if you would be so kind, stop inaccurately reframing my contempt for these people as an overreaction to honorable people respectfully expressing their 1st amendment rights to express their opinion. You know full well the shenanigans this bunch is pulling and that any reasonable person could find contemptible. Thank you.

Well WH, I guess this will have to be one of those agree to disagree things. I respect your right to have your opinions and interpretations about this situation. If a viable 3rd option appears, then there will be much more room for the parties to move towards reconciliation in the aftermath. But if either of the two options currently on the table is the outcome, then I agree that this is not going to end well.

[David81]

As a sidebar, I am reminded that it was roughly a century ago that Valparaiso was facing a major crisis that could be described as being at the existential level. By the 1920s, VU's "Harvard of the Midwest" meme had largely run its course, and the school was in dire financial circumstances. It had been rejected for accreditation. VU also had to remove a president whose sterling academic credentials and deep well of experience turned out to be overwhelmingly fabricated -- a sort of early George Santos of the academic world -- a discovery made largely by enterprising VU students who smelled something fishy about the guy.

By the mid-20s, the situation was sufficiently awful that VU's president at the time made a tentative deal with the devil, agreeing to sell VU to the Ku Klux Klan for some $340k and another $1m for an endowment fund. (For those unhappy over the media publicity about the art sale proposal, you ain't nothin' yet in terms of the national publicity generated by this possible purchase by the KKK!) Fortunately, the happy-go-lucky white hooded ones couldn't come up with the cash, and the deal fell through. Soon afterward, the Lutherans saw an opportunity and entered the picture. And that, as they say, is history.

***

In no way am I suggesting that VU circa 2023 is facing circumstances as dire as VU circa 1923. But it does say something about the resilience of the place that it overcame a terrible situation, in a way that would plant the seeds for the next, most significant incarnation of the University. The next major threat to VU came during WWII, when enlistments basically drained the campus of its young men. Thus, while O.P. Kretzmann managed to electrify the small campus with his 1940 installation speech painting a grand future for VU's role as an influential Christian university, he spent much of the war planning for a post-war VU, anticipating the return of those who had been in the armed forces and others who no longer would be called to serve.

Want to learn more? I strongly recommend the late Dr. Richard Baepler's history of the university running up to the turn of the century, Flame of Faith, Lamp of Learning (2002). It's one of the most well-written university histories among the many that I've read or at least closely skimmed.

[historyman]

By the mid-20s, the situation was sufficiently awful that VU's president at the time made a tentative deal with the devil, agreeing to sell VU to the Ku Klux Klan for some $340k and another $1m for an endowment fund. (For those unhappy over the media publicity about the art sale proposal, you ain't nothin' yet in terms of the national publicity generated by this possible purchase by the KKK!) Fortunately, the happy-go-lucky white hooded ones couldn't come up with the cash, and the deal fell through. Soon afterward, the Lutherans saw an opportunity and entered the picture. And that, as they say, is history.

I would say your history is a bit murky. The Klan at the time of the proposed purchase of VU by the Indiana Klan was all over civilized Indiana society.

https://www.wrtv.com/longform/the-ku-klux-klan-ran-indiana-once-could-it-happen-again

It was the fall of National Grand Dragon DC Stephenson that really was the end of the influence of the Klan in Indiana and the end of the Klan's attempt to make Valpo the size of Purdue and turn it into a Klan University. If they didn't have the money it was because DC Stephenson was going on trial for murder of a woman on a train and the Klan influence, including having the governor as a member, was dropping significantly and I assume the member numbers were down and the money in the Klan coffers were down too.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/murder-wasnt-very-pretty-the-rise-and-fall-of-dc-stephenson-18935042/

[DejaVU]

In no way am I suggesting that VU circa 2023 is facing circumstances as dire as VU circa 1923.

Actually, it may well be that dire, we shall see. And it if is, who's going to be the current version of Lutheran financial savior?

[vu84v2]

By the mid-20s, the situation was sufficiently awful that VU's president at the time made a tentative deal with the devil, agreeing to sell VU to the Ku Klux Klan for some $340k and another $1m for an endowment fund. (For those unhappy over the media publicity about the art sale proposal, you ain't nothin' yet in terms of the national publicity generated by this possible purchase by the KKK!) Fortunately, the happy-go-lucky white hooded ones couldn't come up with the cash, and the deal fell through. Soon afterward, the Lutherans saw an opportunity and entered the picture. And that, as they say, is history.

I would say your history is a bit murky. The Klan at the time of the proposed purchase of VU by the Indiana Klan was all over civilized Indiana society.

https://www.wrtv.com/longform/the-ku-klux-klan-ran-indiana-once-could-it-happen-again

It was the fall of National Grand Dragon DC Stephenson that really was the end of the influence of the Klan in Indiana and the end of the Klan's attempt to make Valpo the size of Purdue and turn it into a Klan University. If they didn't have the money it was because DC Stephenson was going on trial for murder of a woman on a train and the Klan influence, including having the governor as a member, was dropping significantly and I assume the member numbers were down and the money in the Klan coffers were down too.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/murder-wasnt-very-pretty-the-rise-and-fall-of-dc-stephenson-18935042/

Man, it sounds like you know your history.

[David81]

Several folks have posed variations of, is there a savior out there? Or, at the very least, are there some folks who can donate seven or eight figure amounts now, rather than an amount tucked away in a bequest?

An interesting question is whether VU has alums out there who have quietly (or not so quietly) earned a boatload of money during their lives and are now in a position to be very generous. I won't presume that the Forever Valpo fundraising campaign exhausted all of those possibilities. You just never know when folks are suddenly in a better position to offer a major gift.

[vu84v2]

Several folks have posed variations of, is there a savior out there? Or, at the very least, are there some folks who can donate seven or eight figure amounts now, rather than an amount tucked away in a bequest?

An interesting question is whether VU has alums out there who have quietly (or not so quietly) earned a boatload of money during their lives and are now in a position to be very generous. I won't presume that the Forever Valpo fundraising campaign exhausted all of those possibilities. You just never know when folks are suddenly in a better position to offer a major gift.

From what I understand, I do believe the Valpo's advancement people keep pretty close tabs on potential large donors.

I also think that it is very dangerous for people in a university to just assume that issues get solved by someone else. For a university, its biggest revenue source is tuition and related revenues like housing, etc. Faculty and staff can affect that greatly - not only by offering great learning value in their classrooms and developing great relationships with their students, but also by substantially engaging with prospective students and their families. From what I understand, Valpo may be relying too heavily on the admissions team and a central common message. Prospective students and their parents are making a decision to attend a premium pricing school and, thus, they need to see value in their desired area(s) of study. Any prospective student and his/her family should have the opportunity to meet with at least one faculty member in their desired discipline(s) - regardless of the discipline.

[David81]

Several folks have posed variations of, is there a savior out there? Or, at the very least, are there some folks who can donate seven or eight figure amounts now, rather than an amount tucked away in a bequest?

An interesting question is whether VU has alums out there who have quietly (or not so quietly) earned a boatload of money during their lives and are now in a position to be very generous. I won't presume that the Forever Valpo fundraising campaign exhausted all of those possibilities. You just never know when folks are suddenly in a better position to offer a major gift.

From what I understand, I do believe the Valpo's advancement people keep pretty close tabs on potential large donors.

I also think that it is very dangerous for people in a university to just assume that issues get solved by someone else. For a university, its biggest revenue source is tuition and related revenues like housing, etc. Faculty and staff can affect that greatly - not only by offering great learning value in their classrooms and developing great relationships with their students, but also by substantially engaging with prospective students and their families. From what I understand, Valpo may be relying too heavily on the admissions team and a central common message. Prospective students and their parents are making a decision to attend a premium pricing school and, thus, they need to see value in their desired area(s) of study. Any prospective student and his/her family should have the opportunity to meet with at least one faculty member in their desired discipline(s) - regardless of the discipline.

A coordinated admissions team should be able to set up these contact opportunities fairly easily, especially if there's a system that makes it easy. Plus, I assume that the University is back to doing face-to-face admissions open houses, which I recall from way back when typically included faculty from the various departments giving brief remarks about their offerings.