Herald blogs: Muckrakers

So, who can run UW: Day 3, R. Tim Mulcahy

As he walked up to the table centered in the Capitol View, Tim Mulcahy started off with a joke.

“I didn’t do it,” he said in front of the one microphone on the table, adding a smile. The initial impression was a good one — humor is always a good icebreaker. But for a man who was all-business in his approach and opening statements, it was easy to gather that student relations were farthest from his mind at that moment.

“The university needs to decide what it’s strategies and priorities are for the future, who we need to engage as stakeholders and establish partnerships.”

As Vice President of research at the University of Minnesota, it’s easy to see his focus is on fundraising, donations, funding, etc. But something else came up. Something that reminded me of the constant spectre of this university, Rep. Stephen Nass.

” I think, to be honest with you, there are going to be needs to look at what we currently do now and say, “do we need to be doing all the things we do now? Are there better ways for some of our programs to be delivered? Are these programs more appropriate at one of the other [UW] System schools?”

When I sat down with Mr. Nass earlier this year, he mentioned the fact that many UW System programs (especially teaching programs) were redundancies and could use some cutting throughout the UW System.

The difference here is that this man could be in charge of a campus where one can make the argument for having all these diverse areas of research and education under one roof. In fact, that is the very strength of the UW-Madison campus — it’s multi-faceted nature and strengths across many different disciplines.

I’d be in favor of having some fiscal responsibility around here, but I’m just unsure whether Mr. Mulcahy’s type of reevaluation would be appropriate for this university.

More accurately, I’m not sure Mulcahy himself would be appropriate for the university.

The student reception seemed to indicate as much. There’s a stark contrast between him and yesterday’s candidate, Carolyn “Biddy” Martin. The difference is that she started out by asking students about UW, whereas Mulcahy did the same, but didn’t actually seem that interested in their viewpoint.

Take for instance, his approach to Shared Governance:
He starts off by saying Minnesota is stronger because it has a unified student and faculty senate (which, wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually) and then says the following:

At some point someone has an obligation to make a decision…the Chancellor and senior leadership need to access those governance structures to get advice… I think, personally, It’s the responsibility of the Chancellor…is to hear from all the constituencies and be to be sure that decisions are based on input, where appropriate, from the right groups..

He says that he would try to allow students to distribute funds where appropriate, but there is a line that needs to be drawn where he may need to intervene.
To me, you don’t feel the need to mention that outright unless you plan on having to curb students from the outset.

But that wasn’t the biggest problem one student had with him. Dan Stuntebeck, a grad student in the Library/information studies and an activist for animal rights, asks him about releasing information to the public.

While Mulcahy gives a very cautious answer to that question and states that certain “faculty and staff need to be protected,” the start of his answer recognizes the need for “animal rights.”

It was very obvious that Mulcahy knew who this guy was. Perhaps it had to do with this website? Apparently, the search and screen committee had problems with the same student activists during their meetings.

Questions about diversity? Direct them elsewhere, because this guy had no clue about it. A bunch of vague remarks about “always looking for new strategies.” But here’s the biggest concern:

I don’t know if he didn’t know enough about it or just plain forgot it existed, but he repeated the phrase, “I haven’t thought of [Plan] 2008 in 2008.” His response about what to do with diversity initiative was a long rambling reply about reaching out to “representative learning groups of any type” and being “creative” with our solutions and not being afraid to borrow ideas from others. But I really have to stress this point with his summation: “The university has done a credible job, but not an incredible job.”

The fact that he was a faculty member here from 1985 to 2005 and an administrator for some of that time and cannot articulate any of the goals of Plan 2008 is absolutely pathetic.
If minorities on campus are looking for a champion, this guy probably isn’t it.

The litany of cringe worthy responses stretch on — when the subject of alcohol comes up, he mentions that he doesn’t want to “close down the bars” but thinks “we need to work with merchants” to stop underage access to alcohol. Sounds like him and CNI would be very happy together.

Oh, and Chapter 17/18 changes? Supports it:

“I think so, the point is you are a student of this university, a representative of this university and to the extent that you do things that you wouldn’t do or would prohibited on campus that are unlawful off campus I think there should be a consequence because it interacts with the community. Now, again, I don’t know the specifics of what the measures are…[it] runs everywhere from a warning to capital punishment…*nervous laughter*”

There’s far more to say that speaks against him, but let me put it this way.

If we’re to have a strong university, we need a chancellor that can really take it to the Legislature and fight for us, but also bring in funds from private sources and, in doing so, move toward more innovative uses of our resources. This guy may be a guard dog in getting funds, but I get that he would be far more authoritarian in every other aspect than John Wiley was. I see him limiting student government, sweeping our dearth of diversity under the carpet and being quite amenable to cutting back in certain areas in this university. It should be noted that I think that last part is not a bad idea if done correctly.

Basically, to me, he’s a harsher Wiley without the charm. Add to that the baggage of a whole new brand of emboldened activists (these ones who have been known to cause far more trouble than just a few protests) and it seems that you would have to think this man is going to be a money-making machine for this university if he is actually a strong contender. And according to this WSJ article, he has already done a lot for both UW and Minnesota in terms of rolling in the funds.

If that’s our number one priority, I say, fine, choose him. But don’t expect students to embrace him. Or for the entire faculty to throw their arms around him.

Because I didn’t see a vision.
Or a strategy.
Just a philosophy backed up with a “We’ve gotta roll up our sleeves” mentality and plan for more revenue.

Maybe that’s enough. We’ll have another day and candidate to help us decide.