While I appreciate all the responses on this
list, regarding the vote of No Confidence in President Cevallos, I feel that
we're straying from the original point of Kevin McCloskey's argument. His
dismay, and I share it completely, stems from the WAY in which this decision was
arrived at, and NOT at the message itself. As one of the elected Reps from
Speech Comm/Theatre, I feel left out of the process. I cannot answer the
questions my faculty have about this vote, or its reasons; I cannot answer
questions from friends outside of the university who read the Morning
Call front-page article. AND I'M AN ELECTED APSCUF REP FROM MY
DEPARTMENT??!!
Many of the respondents have indicated that
there are real issues, real problems facing KU that our president has not faced
and might in fact have caused, directly or indirectly. Many point to the
unilateral decision to close the ELC, the refusal to deal with teaching issues
in the "Academic Forum," the lack of an acceptable Gen Ed model, lots of
other things all suggesting a closed-door type of leadership. NONE of
these issues will now be solved. They all have been side-tracked by
the heat generated by Dr. Gambone's decision to call for this vote. As can
be discerned by both the complaints made and by the defenses mounted
by members on this list, the anger is directed at him, and NOT at
the real problems facing our university.
And since Pres. Cevallos has had his
contract renewed by the Board (I think), a vote of No Confidence seems merely a
rhetorical gesture, with little meaningful, practical repercussions. All
that is necessary to dismiss the complaints, therefore, is to write off
Dr. Gambone.
Tactically, this call for a vote
of No Confidence may serve to rouse the membership, but stragegically,
this is a bad plan that will reflect badly on all of APSCUF-KU.
Worse, our attention is now focused on a person and not on the problems that
have to be solved. Thus, we will continue to embitter
ourselves.
Respectfully,
Tree Shaton