Gone with the wind

After it was announced on Sept. 2 that James Valentini would become the newest Dean of Columbia College, I remember feeling a mix of emotions. First off, I was proud, considering I was privileged to have Dean Valentini as a first year student in general chemistry, and I am confident the college will be in excellent hands under his caring direction. At the same time, I remember feeling restive, for in Dean Valentini’s first email to students, he stated that among students “is the desire for transparency in decision-making, and communication of information about the decision process.” After reading this, I wondered where the transparency was, since the University has been painstakingly silent about the Dean Moody-Adams fiasco.

Dean Moody-Adams’s resignation in many ways is reminiscent of Dean Austin Quigley’s temporary firing in 1997. According to a New York Times article, Dean Quigley was fired after he dissented with the University over the direction of the College. Quigley was quickly reinstated, though, after outcry from the student body. Later, in 2008, Dean Quigley sent an email of resignation saying: “deciding when to move on from a position of responsibility is always a challenge,” and he gave no specifics except that he would continue to teach. But recent events make me think that maybe Quigley’s ultimate departure was not as self-motivated as I first thought. Is it possible Quigley left to avoid having to compromise his duties as Dean? In her email to alumni, Moody-Adams mentioned that new structural changes would “compromise the College’s academic quality and financial health.” I feel that changes large enough to force out a two-year dean merit discussion of the college’s future academic life.

Although many may say it is premature, and even unfair, to speculate on Moody’s sudden departure, I say why not? Columbia is a place of intellectual discourse. Even Professor Valentini should agree, for he says in his email to students that “the best way to have good ideas is to have many ideas.” So, let us then entertain a few speculations.

The first has to deal with President Bollinger’s email on why Moody-Adams had to leave immediately. President Bollinger said he found it in the best interest of the College for Moody-Adams to resign immediately so “that an interim dean could be appointed and in place by the beginning of the academic year.” Would it not make more sense to let Moody-Adams finish her year as dean, while simultaneously searching for a new one? This could both avoid scandal and give the University enough time to adjust to a transition. My speculation is that Moody-Adams could have finished the academic year as Dean, but after her acerbic email to alumni became public, the University found it in its best interest to remove Moody-Adams without hesitation. There would have been too much conflict—or worse, student support­—if she had stayed and her specific objections became known. By disposing of Dean Moody-Adams prior to 2012, the University avoided uncomfortable conflicts.

Another very interesting idea resurfaced as I read a New York Times article linking the June resignation of Provost Claude Steele with that of Dean Moody-Adams. The departures may be unrelated, but it is very interesting that the resignation announcements were fewer than three months apart. Is it possible the two resigned for similar reasons? A third speculation was brought up by Sarah Darville in her Spectator news article. Darville writes that clashes between Dean Moody-Adams and the University sprang up over a report by McKinsey & Company. The report, according to sources, hoped to align the College more closely with the School of Arts and Sciences and to “cut costs in certain areas by placing more decision-making power within the larger Arts and Sciences umbrella.” Cutting costs of the college would aid the University in its expansionist plans for Harlem and would require ever more donations from alumni. Could this have been the tipping point for Moody-Adams’ resignation? This theory is an interesting one and we will have to wait for the McKinsey report to see if Moody-Adams’s concerns warrant scrutiny.

Unfortunately for Moody-Adams and the student body as a whole, resistance over the Dean’s tenure will not be as strong as it was for Dean Quigley. This is the because Moody-Adams was here for only two years, and her departure took place long before the upperclassmen arrived back to protest. In order to make our voices heard, the students of the College will need to rally for the principles our former dean conveyed in her email of resignation. We need to let the University know that the dean may be gone with the wind, but that the student body did not sit idly by and watch her blow away.

Jelani Harvey is a Columbia College senior majoring in history. He is currently the Residential Adviser on John Jay 13, a facility supervisor at the Dodge Fitness Center, and a member of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. The Niceties of Speculation runs alternate Fridays.