When I read an article titled “Syracuse’s Slide”, my initial thought was that this must be an article about some financial peril that the institution was facing. I was wrong. The article effectively was about the direction the University has taken during the tenure of Nancy Cantor and the dissatisfaction with that direction from some on campus.
Nancy Cantor has been the Chancellor of Syracuse University for seven years, and the article highlighted some things she has done in that time and her desire to have the institution be seen as “public good, not an ivory tower”. During her leadership, Syracuse has spent a great deal of money to help revitalize the city of Syracuse, New York by fixing up parks, purchasing abandoned buildings and renovating them for use by various academic programs. Additionally, Scholarship in Action was established to encourage professors and students to move off campus and into the city to conduct research. Finally, Ms. Cantor is passionate about social justice and increasing the diversity of the institution and promoting the attainability of higher education to underserved populations.
Those on campus who disagree with the direction the University is going, say that the Chancellor has “spent too little time and money on what goes on inside the university’s classrooms, laboratories, and libraries”. They also express deep concern over Syracuse’s decision to cease membership in the Association of American Universities, a prestigious organization of top research institutions in the U.S.
The sentiments expressed in the article opposing what Ms. Cantor has done during her tenure at Syracuse, seem like elitist drivel. One biology professor was quoted as saying, “my discipline is not the town of Syracuse…I’m an intellectual, and I have a community of scholarship all over the world”. In response to the University’s acceptance rate increasing by 10% to 60% in the last two years, one History professor said, “my fear is that the university is moving away from selective to inclusive”. What?! Comments like these completely befuddle me. How could any professor who has spent a number of years at an institution not feel a passionate connection to the community in which the institution lives? And, rather than fearing what inclusivity might bring, why not embrace the diversity that is coming? Inclusive does not mean inferior.
My work experience has included positions at an open enrollment community college, where all students are accepted, and at a private not-for-profit religiously affiliated institution. One thing that both institutions had in common was an understanding that they existed to provide educational opportunities to students, and that higher education is truly transformative. People come to us from all walks of life and situations and if we’re doing our jobs as educational institutions to the best of our abilities and making meaningful connections with students, they will leave us better than they arrived. That is the purpose of higher education; to raise people up, not to be exclusionary.
A wonderful example of a visionary leader.
ReplyDeleteMs Cantor is without doubt a leader who challenges the status quo, her actions speak to her passion about social justice and inclusiveness.
Moreover, her commitment to providing access to higher education for all students regardless of their origin is a top priority on her educational and professional agenda.
It is outrageous to hear comments from faculty members opposing Ms Cantors’ initiatives arguing that they are more concern with their intellectual and international reputation than providing educational opportunities to students from a wide variety of backgrounds.
Visionary and creative leaders such as Ms. Cantor are needed in the current and complex situation facing higher education institutions in the U.S.
I concur with Darcy: the purpose of higher education is “to raise people up, not to be exclusionary.”