Dear Commons Community,

Researchers with the American Council on Education’s Center for Policy Research and Strategy set out to gauge presidents’ perceptions and actions on issues of racial diversity. The researchers analyzed more than 550 anonymous responses from presidents of two- and four-year colleges.  As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

“Lorelle L. Espinosa, assistant vice president of the center, said that for the most part, presidents are more engaged with not only discussion but also action related to diversity on their campus, and they know they need to do more.

“I think the claim that campus leaders are out of touch is oversimplified, which is a lot of what the story has become in the media,” she said. “I don’t think some of that criticism is unwarranted. But this survey is showing us a level of engagement that we haven’t been shown yet.”

Below are a few takeaways from the survey results about how college and university presidents are responding to campus racial issues.

.Most presidents have met with student organizers more than once.

Protests have become common on many campuses: Forty-seven percent of presidents of four-year institutions said students had organized on campus around concerns of racial diversity, while 13 percent of presidents of two-year institutions acknowledged similar protests. That said, 86 percent of presidents at four-year institutions and 71 percent of presidents at two-year institutions said they had met with organizers on more than one occasion…

.Racial diversity has become more of a priority in the last three years.

Fifty-five percent of four-year and 44 percent of two-year college presidents said racial diversity had been more of a priority on their campus in the last three years. The survey asked presidents which actions their campuses had taken over the last five years, and 76 percent of respondents said they had taken steps to increase diversity among students, faculty, and staff, the response that ranked highest. Other common actions included adding support resources for minority students, resources for racial-diversity initiatives, and developing diversity-competency training…

.Presidents rely heavily on student-affairs officials to assist on issues of racial diversity.

About half of presidents at four-year institutions said they had a full-time administrator dedicated to student diversity. Yet even at institutions with such an official, presidents said they were more likely to rely on student-affairs officers to help handle issues of racial diversity.”

While American higher education has done a great deal to address racial diversity, this report verifies that our colleges and universities need to remain vigilant about the issue.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Another set of primaries were held yesterday with split victories among the nominees.  Hillary Clinton won Mississippi and Bernie Sanders won Michigan on the Democratic side.  Donald Trump won Mississippi, Michigan and Hawaii, and Ted Cruz won Idaho.  And the race goes on. 

New York Times columnist, David Brooks, evaluated the Republican prospects and offered that the GOP should be cautious especially about a Ted Cruz candidacy. 

“…before the current panic set in, Republicans understood that Ted Cruz would be a terrible general election candidate, at least as unelectable as Donald Trump and maybe more so. He is the single most conservative Republican in Congress, far adrift from the American mainstream. He’s been doing well in primaries because of the support of “extremely conservative” voters in very conservative states, and he really hasn’t broken out of that lane. His political profile is a slightly enlarged Rick Santorum but without the heart.

On policy grounds, he would be unacceptable to a large majority in this country. But his policy disadvantages are overshadowed by his public image ones. His rhetorical style will come across to young and independent voters as smarmy and oleaginous. In Congress, he had two accomplishments: the disastrous government shutdown and persuading all his colleagues to dislike him.

First, hit the pause button on the rush to Cruz.

Second, continue the Romneyesque assault on Trump. The results on Saturday, when late voters swung sharply against the Donald, suggest it may be working.

Third, work for a Marco Rubio miracle in Florida on March 15. Fourth, clear the field for John Kasich in Ohio. If Rubio and Kasich win their home states, Trump will need to take nearly 70 percent of the remaining delegates to secure a majority. That would be unlikely; he’s only winning 44 percent of the delegates now.

The party would go to the convention without a clear nominee. It would be bedlam for a few days, but a broadly acceptable new option might emerge. It would be better than going into the fall with Trump, which would be a moral error, or Cruz, who in November would manage to win several important counties in Mississippi.

The hour is late and the odds may be long. But there is still hope. It’s a moment for audacity, not settling for Ted Cruz simply because he’s the Titanic you know.”

The hour is indeed late and it seems that the Republican Party has a Herculean task ahead of itself as it tries to find a way out of its presidential primary morass.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, announced yesterday that he will not mount a third-party candidacy for president.  A month ago, he indicated that he was considering an independent run as part of a bid to stop Donald Trump on the Republican side and Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side.  As reported in various media:

“Bloomberg said that his candidacy could inadvertently help elect Trump or Cruz, the senator from Texas, both of whom he said were unpalatable options.

“As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz,” Bloomberg wrote. “That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.”

Bloomberg noted that while he and Trump are on “friendly terms,” he said the billionaire real-estate mogul “appeals to our worst impulses” as voters.

“He has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears,” Bloomberg wrote. “Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, appealed to our ‘better angels.’ Trump appeals to our worst impulses.”

Bloomberg continued:

“Threatening to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country is a direct assault on two of the core values that gave rise to our nation: religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. Attacking and promising to deport millions of Mexicans, feigning ignorance of white supremacists, and threatening China and Japan with a trade war are all dangerously wrong, too. These moves would divide us at home and compromise our moral leadership around the world. The end result would be to embolden our enemies, threaten the security of our allies, and put our own men and women in uniform at greater risk.”

Bloomberg put Cruz in the same extreme camp as Trump.

“Senator Cruz’s pandering on immigration may lack Trump’s rhetorical excess, but it is no less extreme,” Bloomberg wrote. “His refusal to oppose banning foreigners based on their religion may be less bombastic than Trump’s position, but it is no less divisive.”

This is a big win for the Hillary Clinton, the favorite right now to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.  

Thank you, Mr. Bloomberg!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went at each other a bit at last night’s Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan.  There were a lot of comments from the audience and the moderators regarding the disastrous water situation in Flint.  Major issues such as the Wall Street bailout, trade, gun control, and the candidates’ relationships with the African-American community were featured. Sanders especially criticized Clinton for her close ties with Wall Street while Clinton gave back that Sanders voted against the federal funding that saved the automobile industry.

“I voted to save the auto industry,” Clinton said at the CNN-hosted event. “He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry.”   

Sanders, a Vermont senator, then accused Clinton of allowing her “friends” on Wall Street to destroy the US economy.

“Well, if you are talking about the Wall Street bailout, where some of your friends destroyed this economy,” Sanders began.

Clinton starting speaking, but Sanders interjected.

“Excuse me, I’m talking,” he told her.

“If you’re going to talk, tell the whole story, Sen. Sanders,” the former secretary of state shot back.

“Let me tell my story, you tell yours,” Sanders replied.

They continued back and forth.

I was pleased to see that a mother from the audience as well as one of the moderators, Anderson Cooper, raised questions about public education.  Shaniqua Kent, who is suing Detroit Public Schools for a better education, asked how the candidates would hold education officials accountable for the kinds of deplorable conditions her daughter faces at school: rats, mold, water fountains that don’t work, and non-certified teachers.  I thought Hillary had more to say and relied on her relationship with the NEA and the AFT (both have endorsed her).  She went out of her way to praise the work that teachers do.  She also lamented that teachers have become scapegoats for government leaders and others who refuse to invest in and to correct social issues that impede education.  She also commented that she would fund and support public education SWAT teams to improve schools.  Sanders made the comment that the best way to judge a nation is by the way it treats its most vulnerable, and said America “should be ashamed” of itself on that front. Sanders also commented about funding pre-k and free public higher education.

While not as entertaining as the vicious, personal attack style at the Republican debates, both Clinton and Sanders generated some heat while talking about issues.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

There were several contests yesterday as we chug along in what seems like a never-ending presidential primary season.  On the Republican side, Donald Trump won Louisiana and Kentucky while Cruz had impressive wins in Kansas and Maine.  In the Democratic races, Clinton won Louisiana while Sanders won Nebraska and Kansas.  The camps of each of the winners can claim that they have the momentum to keep moving forward.  However, the subtlety of these outcomes bears noticing.

Hillary Clinton’s delegate lead over Bernie Sanders increased yesterday by winning Louisiana, the largest of the three state contests.  Sanders path to the Democratic nomination remains most difficult and unlikely.

Cruz’s two wins keep him viable as the “anti-Trump” for the Republicans.  He would need to maintain these types of results in the remaining primaries to deny Donald Trump a majority of the delegates before getting to the Republican convention in July.  Cruz commented on his victories as:

“I think what it represents is Republicans coalescing, saying it would be a disaster for Donald Trump to be our nominee and we’re going to stand behind the strongest conservative in the race,” Mr. Cruz told reporters in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, one of four states with Republican contests on Tuesday.

Boasting of his “breadth of support,” Mr. Cruz suggested that it was time for Mr. Rubio and Mr. Kasich to consider dropping out of the race.

“We’ll continue to amass delegates, but what needs to happen is the field needs to continue to narrow,” he said. “As long as the field remains divided, it gives Donald an advantage.”

The biggest loser yesterday was Marco Rubio who finished a distant third in Kansas, Kentucky and Louisiana, and was fourth in Maine.  He has little hope of moving forward in the future primaries with the exception of his home state of Florida although the poll’s suggest he will likely lose there also.

More primaries this Tuesday!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Chicago Public Schools announced on Thursday that all of its employees, including teachers, will take three unpaid furlough days this year, prompting the teachers union to warn that its members will all but certainly strike on April 1.  As reported in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“Schools chief Forrest Claypool already has threatened that he could at any time yank the 7 percent of 9 percent pension contribution CPS makes on the teachers’ behalf. And that led the CTU to ramp up their talk of walking off the job on April 1 in an unfair labor practice strike.

Late Thursday, Claypool wrote to all employees blaming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner who’s “more interested in forcing bankruptcy and taking over our schools than in addressing the unequal funding issues that hurt districts like ours across the state.

“We know we cannot cut our way to a solution,” Claypool said. “However, the governor’s inaction means we must continue to cut costs and ease our cash flow, so we can do what’s necessary to ensure our classrooms are protected and our students’ progress is uninterrupted.”

CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey denounced the cuts equivalent to about 1.6 percent pay cut, acknowledging that they’re legal under state law, but calling them ”outrageous, unilateral and unfair.”

“This is just a hardship on employees. and to make matters worse, it’s on top of a 7 percent unilateral pay cut coming April 1,” he continued. “The level of anger is getting to a point where people are going to start taking action. Right now there’s an action planned on April 1, and I think this all but assures there’s a walkout coming.”

…CPS has struggled all year to balance its budget and recently borrowed $725 million in bonds at high interest rates to keep school doors open for the remainder of the year. It has laid off 200 administrative employees and earlier this week, another 62 union workers including 17 teachers after cutting per pupil funding almost 5 percent.

Claypool had been banking on state legislators to close a $480 million gap, but the Democrat-led General Assembly and Republican governor have been deadlocked on the state budget for eight months.

CPS has furloughed staffers in recent years but only those not represented by unions. In 2010 and 2011, the district mandated 15 unpaid holidays, furloughs and shutdown days for all non-union staffers, and in 2009, those same employees took six unpaid days.”

A sad state of affairs for the Chicago schools!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I was at SUNY Albany yesterday at the invitation of Peter Shea, the Associate Provost for Online Education.   I was on a panel with colleagues Chuck Dziuban and Patsy Moskal.  The title of our presentation was Blended Learning:  Research-Informed Practice to Improve Student Engagement, Satisfaction, and Learning.    Our presentation drew heavily from our recently published book, Conducting Research in Online and Blended Learning Environments:  New Pedagogical Frontiers.  The audience of mostly faculty seemed interested and enthusiastic.  It was a pleasure meeting with them.

Good luck to Peter and his colleagues as they pursue initiatives in blended learning.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Coming on the heels of Mitt Romney’s take-down of Donald Trump yesterday, there was yet another Republican presidential candidates debate last night. It was tame compared to previous ones.  Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz went at it by getting personal with each other but their exchanges were not quite as nasty as earlier.  Here is the New York Times description of some of the action:

“Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, fighting for their political lives, relentlessly demeaned and baited Donald J. Trump at Thursday’s debate, all but pleading with Republicans to abandon a candidate with a long history of business failures, deep ties to the Democratic Party and a taste for personal insults.

Warning that Mr. Trump would lead the party to a historic defeat in November, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz delivered their attacks with urgency, as if trying to awaken voters who had fallen under Mr. Trump’s spell. Mr. Rubio derided Mr. Trump as untrustworthy and uncivil, while Mr. Cruz bashed him for donating money to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and to other Democrats. Mr. Trump looked on with disgust, but as in their 10 previous debates, he seemed impervious and perhaps unstoppable.

At times, the face-off in Detroit also deteriorated into the kind of junior high school taunts that have startled many Republican elders but have done little to dent Mr. Trump’s broad appeal.” 

In my opinion, Trump, Rubio, and Cruz are deeply-flawed candidates. John Kasich remains the only one who appears to have the qualifications to be the Republican nominee but this does not mean he can win the presidential election.   

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

In a speech (see full text below) at the University of Utah today, Mitt Romney called Donald Trump a “phony and  a “fraud”.  Here are some of his other comments.

“His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.”

“He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

“His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.”

The disdain for Trump in Romney’s comments are rare in any political discourse but to level them at a fellow Republican who is leading in the party’s presidential nomination race is unprecedented.

I am sure Romney knows that this means war!

Tony

————————————————————

Full Text of Mitt Romney’s his remarks.

I am not here to announce my candidacy for office. I am not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a “Time for Choosing.” He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I’m no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country.

I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world.

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

That doesn’t mean we don’t have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.

But if we make the right choices, America’s future will be even better than our past and better than our present.

On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.

Let me explain why.

First, the economy: If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.

A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.

But wait, you say, isn’t he a huge business success that knows what he’s talking about? No he isn’t. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.

Now not every policy Donald Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can’t punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.

I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump’s isn’t going to be stopped.

Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump’s bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.

Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.

I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.

Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country’s great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.

Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as “The Donald.” He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired.

Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven’t we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.

Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.

Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

On Hillary Clinton’s watch at the State Department, America’s interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.

For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.

A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.

There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.

We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn’t give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I’m right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.

Attacking me as he surely will won’t prove him any less of a phony. It’s entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn’t last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.

Dear Commons Community,

Earlier this week, Simon Newman resigned as president of Mt. St. Mary’s College in Maryland.  This ended a failed attempt by the College to bring in a president with no higher education experience but lots of business acumen.  As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

“With his resignation as president of Mount St. Mary’s University of Maryland, Simon P. Newman closed out a tenure that had become synonymous with an emerging brand of corporate-style college leadership.

Mr. Newman’s presidency reads as a failed experiment. Before he was hired, in late 2014, Mr. Newman had no experience in higher-education administration. But his background as a financier made Mr. Newman a plausible candidate to reinvigorate a small, tuition-dependent Roman Catholic college struggling to stay relevant in a crowded marketplace.

It didn’t work.

At a time when a good number of university trustees are looking for nontraditional leaders to shake things up, Mr. Newman’s turbulent ride at Mount St. Mary’s may well serve as a cautionary tale. For all of the fresh thinking and clear-eyed business sense that he brought to the job, professors say that Mr. Newman simply failed to appreciate the profound cultural divide between Wall Street and academe.

It was Mr. Newman’s blunt style, which played just fine in the high-octane investment world, that brought his university presidency to a point of crisis several weeks ago. Describing a novel retention plan that would encourage struggling students to drop out before they could be counted as failures under federal rules for measuring graduation rates, Mr. Newman purportedly used a graphic analogy that would come to define him.

“This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t,” Mr. Newman is alleged to have told a professor. “You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads.”

Colorful language aside, Mr. Newman has said he merely wanted to give students a chance to get their money back if they were unlikely to finish.

The comments shocked many, but such talk would not have been out of place in Mr. Newman’s former life. And a fuller look at his corporate background shows that he was probably a poor fit from the start for the church-affiliated liberal-arts college.

An expatriate from England, Mr. Newman settled in Los Angeles in the 1990s and became a player in private equity. In that high-risk realm of investing, managers like Mr. Newman arrange buyouts of companies and try to make them more profitable, sometimes by laying off people and cutting benefits. At Mount St. Mary’s, Mr. Newman employed the same tactics.”

The hiring of corporate leaders as presidents is a trend to watch.  Similar appointments have recently been made at Bowdoin College, Muhlenberg College, and the University of Iowa.  We need to see how these appointments play out. 

Tony