Before going any further I'm going to just assume cutting tuition is off the table. That is going to be the last resort. I can see the case that it should happen, but if you think this conversation is ugly the consequences of that would be...something to see. Cost cutting in labor-intensive organizations is never pleasant.

Mike, completely agree with your question on whether the education is "validated". I think the question here is how to evaluate "validation". This is the age-old question of whether the value added from a university is the knowledge accumulated vs. signaling. I.e., are Princeton graduates successful because the kids who go there learn so much, or because by getting in they showed that they had the background and existing skills in the first place to be successful, and the degree is just a signal to employers that the school is a rich pool of talent? I'd argue that question is pretty unresolved by researchers, with some evidence that college prestige is really just a signal.

With that said, depending on which one is correct, what are the implications? Well, if it's knowledge added, the university needs to accumulate resources in teaching students what employers want. If it's signaling, well, then those kids already have the skills, but you have to attract them to attend by offering interesting resources in that area, and staffing up to make the courses available so kids will be able to major in them.

In either case, you build resources in the fields employers want and find kids talented in fields demanded by the economy. For the former I would be surprised if the Career Center wasn't soliciting feedback from larger employers on their students; if they aren't then the Office of the President is not doing its due diligence in proposing these changes. For the latter, I'll wave my hands and assume the university knows how to figure that out.

So to me "validating" the GW education means students being able and interested in (re)paying tuition without going into penury from lack of jobs afterward. In either case (knowledge or signaling) I think that means allocating more resources toward building the school's profile in STEM areas.

Dealing with all this would be really easy if the university had a huge endowment. Just flatline growth in less-attractive areas, build up the new stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if the university had already started doing that. Unfortunately, GW doesn't have that amount of free cash; to the people saying, "why not both?" this is why. 

Someone above mentioned that the payoffs for this only come years down the road. I agree. Replacing the subfloor in a house is never fun, and no one comments on it when they come over. But everyone notices if the floor sags under you with every step because the owner can't afford/doesn't understand they need to replace it.

Last edited by fidel (9/01/2020 11:44 am)

Deleo, I'm sure that building the new science/engineering building on spec has turned out to be a regrettable decision.  Build it now and worry about how to pay for it later is a risky endeavor.

Was going to start a new thread about this as the Student Senate has now officially called for LeBlanc's resignation.  As best I can tell, there are four issues which have contributed to this and several are very much inter-related.  

1) LeBlanc's vision for the school has been discussed here at length.  Reducing undergraduate admissions, becoming better known as a STEM school which in turn would better prepare more students for careers in today's world.  

2) Poor morale.  The pandemic has forced major personnel and expenditure cuts.  This would have been the case no matter what, but LeBlanc's plan also causes more departments to be abolished or substantially curtailed.  Professors who are still employed are grumbling, often to their students.  Whatever the opposite of Raise High is, that's what's happening to a large extent in Foggy Bottom right now.

3) LeBlanc's racially insensitive comment.  While apologies have been made for this, many have opted not to accept the apology.  In short, LeBlanc back in February was asked if he would close the school's regulatory center if enough students wanted this since many of the main funding sources for this are fossil fuel companies.  LeBlanc wanted to make the point that all decisions can not simply be made based on what the majority of students would like.  His unfortunate analogy was to ask whether we should shoot all black students on campus if that's what the majority of students would like.

4) The intent to hire Heather Swain as the school's new VP for Communications and Marketing.  While the school extended an offer which was accepted, more research indicated that while employed by Michigan State, Swain was directly involved in helping to protect sexual predator Larry Nasser.  After enough pressure had been applied, Swain agreed to not join the GW leadership team.

So, should LeBlanc resign, or be forced to do so?

I am going to say no and here's why:

First, LeBlanc's vision for the school "is what it is", which up until recently was a phrase without any real negative connotations.  You may not agree with it; in fact, you may hate it.  Nevertheless, there are very salient reasons to do this just as there are reasons not to do this.  It is by no means a fireable offense.  Next, major change often brings about poor morale as many are reluctant to change by nature.  Nobody wants to lose their job, or see family, colleagues and friends lose their jobs.  Unfortunately, we are enduring a period in our history where this is happening everywhere.  LeBlanc is trying to responsibly manage GW's balance sheet.  This was sure to ruffle some feathers but again, nothing about this ought to result in LeBlanc losing his job.

Now, things get to be a bit more dicey.  The racially insensitive remark was just that, racially insensitive.  However, I think it's very important to measure racist intent in someone's comments.  In this instance, what LeBlanc was actually saying is that OF COURSE WE WOULD NOT SHOOT BLACK PEOPLE even if this was what the majority of students would somehow want.  He was clearly making an analogy and was not at all suggesting anything negative towards black individuals.  As I said earlier, this was a very unfortunate choice of words, and he knows this.  However, given his true intent, he should not lose his job over this.

Finally, it's difficult to determine whether GW/LeBlanc really knew beforehand what Swain's role was regarding the Nasser story, or if it did know but chose to overlook this.  Clearly, more research and due diligence should have been implemented before a job offer was extended.  To the school's credit, it took swift action in rescinding the offer once a fuller picture was provided.  (I believe the school allowed Swain to publicly have second thoughts rather than indicate that the offer had been rescinded.)  

I don't believe that any of these individual incidents or situations rise to the point where LeBlanc should lose his job.   This leads to the question of whether the cumulative effect of all of this is enough to warrant a resignation.  Again, I'll say no.  It would be one thing if we were referring to a series of acts that followed  a distinct pattern.  Then, you can say that no one incident is glaring enough but when put all together, we can conclude that LeBlanc is a racist or a liar or whatever label you'd like to place on him.  However, we simply don't have this here.  Yes, several things have happened that are far less than ideal.  But, there isn't a takeaway that LeBlanc should lose his job because of this or that, or because he's a this or that.

I hope he survives this and stays.

LeBlanc is on thin ice, but probably weathers this for now. However:
Excusing his "shoot black people" faux pas as a "very unfortunate choice of words" is akin to excusing a pilot who flew a plane in to a mountain for his "very unfortunate choice of altitude". This incident was never going to cost LeBlanc his job, but it should earn him a reprimand and a lifetime of having to think before speaking.
The Swain hire was a blunder that should never have come close to happening. Were I interviewing her, I would have 100 percent asked about the sexual abuse case and vetted the answer before making any hiring decision. If a former ENRON or BCCI or Penn State official applied for a job, you´d want to find out how tainted or clean the person was before going to deep in to the hiring process, right? An accounting of how it happened should be made public, but knowing GW that will never happen.
Where LeBlanc goes in to open conflict is in the philosophical approach to GW´s mission and its finances. On the mission, this thread has provided a rich debate (waaaaaay better than that shitshow-- and I hope no one affiliated with GW had any major role in-- that the presidential candidate foisted on us the other night) on what academic fields GW should be focusing on; there is no right answer and LeBlanc´s position is one that many at GW are finding hard to accept. I don´t think he should be dumped for his point of view, but if he is not victorious in the policy tug-of-war he will be unable to hold on to his position.
As for the finances, SJT´s spending orgy combined with all the crap 2020 has burried us in has the school in a tight spot. LeBlanc cannot be blamed for the need to make adjustments, but how he goes about making them will be his responsibility.
Bottom line, the multi-pronged malaise does not bode well for his job security, but his run at GW is by no means over.
 

Last edited by GW Alum Abroad (10/01/2020 3:50 pm)