Dr. Wheatly's interview

Dr. Michele Wheatly began her interview talking about her family, just as Thrasher did, but the discussion led to an accounting of the time she spent as a professor at UF, her research, her time as provost at UWV, and her skill set for this job. In response to questions, she discussed the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly collaboration among humanities and STEM fields; the importance of undergraduate research; the importance of a holistic education that includes the arts and humanities (based in large part on her own European education); the need to support graduate students (she noted that she was once a “penniless graduate student” but that doesn’t mean we should continue to exploit  grad students); the need to “get more money” (based on a story about her daughter—when she was six, she made a list of things she wanted, and the first thing on the list was ‘get more money’) but to also be accountable and to use resources wisely; the need to “get more money” from multiple funding sources, including grants, state and federal money, partnerships with sister institutions, private funding, donors, and the like, noting that “philanthropy is a team sport” and demonstrating her success in terms of raising funds from these different groups. She made it clear throughout the faculty forum that she is committed to shared governance, stating that she can’t imagine not including the faculty brain trust in decision-making. Above all, she said, is the need for integrity of leadership. I agree wholeheartedly. In order to achieve our ambitious goals, we need a leader with integrity who can increase our national and international reputation so that we may move forward, whether that is moving up in the rankings (of course, I recognize that rankings are problematic, but I also think moving up is a worthy goal), joining the AAU, and/or focusing on quality rather than merely quantity. We also need a leader who can make the campus a safe place for all communities.

I heard a few things from a few faculty members after her forums (which were not as well-attended as the forums the day before, unfortunately) that I wanted to note. I think any discussion of online education makes some folks uncomfortable, but especially because she seemed to be more than okay with for-profit companies that promote MOOCs, such as Coursera.  She did, however, make it clear that there’s a need for faculty involvement in selecting courses and a need for academic innovation and multiple modalities of teaching, research, and service. During the student forum, there was a discussion of the Salaita case.[1][2] People are quite passionate on both sides of the issue, and as a critical political economist and free speech and academic freedom advocate, any call for “civility,” as Wheatly made (and interestingly, Eric Barron very recently sent an email to Penn State constituencies regarding civility[3]), makes me very nervous as it can be read as code for “don’t say anything that appears to be controversial.” I agree that  discourse should not be reduced to cable news pundits yelling as others speak, and social media such as Twitter complicate what we mean by discourse, but just because I don’t like or agree with what someone says doesn’t mean I think they should be silenced. Quite the opposite. I also worry about the role of corporate donors silencing dissenting opinions.[4] I asked Wheatly about her answer during the reception, and we had a productive discussion about it.

A colleague sent me a note stating that like Thrasher, Wheatly also said that she’d need to consult with constituents before making decisions, so what’s the difference? Well, there’s an enormous difference. Wheatly explained how she has and how she would approach an issue, but, with her commitment to shared governance, she’d be foolish not to obtain faculty input before decisions are made. Thrasher needs to consult with constituents because he doesn’t know anything about the academy or what we do here because he’s never taught, researched, or served in a university setting. He did not have any ideas about how to approach issues, only that we need resources (without explaining how he’d do that, especially when he can’t legally lobby the legislature for two years[5]).

In all, I found Wheatly to be bold, honest, poised and authentic. She has a great sense of humor and can handle any room with any constituency with grace and confidence.  We need a leader who can motivate faculty and students to achieve even greater things, and I am absolutely convinced that Dr. Wheatly can do this.