Silence would have been golden

Harsh remarks can have significant consequences. Michele Moody-Adams’ critical words about the future of Columbia College in her August 21st letter of resignation to alumni led directly to Dean Valentini assuming his interim position in Fall 2011, not 2012. While Moody-Adams stated in her letter that she would stay on as dean for the next year, effectively stepping down at the end of June 2012, President Bollinger released a statement the next day announcing her immediate resignation. Moody-Adams’ initial email and Bollinger’s reaction raise important questions about the role of the dean and his or her place in the realm of public opinion and criticism. Should the dean voice criticism of the University? While an opinionated and critical dean can be vital in bringing about important internal changes, the dean’s public voice should remain objective and unbiased.

President Bollinger seems to agree. When he asked Moody-Adams to immediately step down because of her critical email to alumni, Bollinger effectively declared that the dean ought not publicly vocalize criticisms of internal administrative matters—and he was right in doing so. The implications of having an active dean publicly at odds with the administrative majority opinion on the direction of the College are numerous, so Bollinger made a good judgment in asking for Moody-Adams’s immediate resignation. But the debate over a dean’s public expression of opinion does not and should not end at the resignation of Moody-Adams.

The responsibilities of the Columbia College dean primarily concern internal administrative matters and maintaining cohesion between professors, administrators, and students. Though the dean often releases public statements about campus happenings and concerns, it’s best for him or her to remain silent or objective on controversial issues. As many recall, during the ROTC debates this past spring, then-Dean Moody-Adams spoke out strongly in favor of welcoming ROTC back on campus, upsetting several campus organizations.

Naturally, at an event like an open forum on reinstating ROTC, the opinion of the Columbia College dean gets more attention than an individual student speaker. The dean’s public power is vitally important—the objective voice of a dean can be unifying in times of crisis on campus. However, on controversial issues intertwined with campus life, it is best for the dean to remain neutral. Moody-Adams even recognized this very public speaking barrier before crossing it with her ROTC comments. She said she came to the debate “wearing three hats,” as a Columbia dean, a philosopher, and an advocate of ROTC during her time at Cornell. She did not, however, recognize the important distinctions in power and importance between her “hats.” At a student body debate over a controversial campus issue, her role as Columbia dean trumped all others in importance and influence. She should not have spoken at the event.

Imagine if Dean Valentini were to comment on the now-cancelled CIRCA dinner with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arguing that the dinner should happen because he personally agreed with Ahmadinejad’s politics. It would be irresponsible for the dean to freely state his personal opinions. Merely identifying the different “hats,” or calling attention to the separation of his opinion as dean versus his personal opinion, is not a valid justification for public commentary on controversial campus issues. Consider the outrage that would ensue as a result of such a comment from the dean. The responsibility of the dean in terms of his public voice should be objectivity and unity.

President Bollinger was right in asking former Dean Moody-Adams to step down immediately because her public criticism of the university on an internally sensitive topic was not conducive to campus unity. The Columbia College dean has a powerful voice on campus, one that ought to be carefully used.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in environmental science with a concentration in sustainable development.