Barre Seid updates

Anyone with a lingering interest in Barre Seid's shenanigans will want to check out these articles regarding his funding of distribution of the anti-Muslim Obsession DVD in 2008.
1. The breakthrough article by Justin Elliott on Salon.com
2. Expert dissection by Richard Silverstein of the lies and dissemblings involved
3. Little bit o' Shimer-focused analysis by yours truly

Personally, what really ticks me off about this is how little Seid was willing to put into Shimer by comparison. Apparently education comes a distant second to wingnut demagoguery for him.

But then, given the people he chose to be his stooges on the Board of Trustees, I suppose that shouldn't come as a great surprise.

How Patrick Parker Gets His Way

I would like to begin by thanking Patrick Parker for finally making the text of the 2007 agreement between Shimer College and the Aequus Foundation available to the community, shortly before the recent excitement. Granted, it was a few weeks late, but it's the thought that counts!

Trustee Patrick Parker played a key role in engineering both Thomas Lindsay's hiring in 2008 and the adoption of Lindsay's slipshod mission statement in 2010. We in the external community now have enough information about how these events unfolded to draw some general conclusions about how Patrick Parker gets his way.

Of course, in drawing these conclusions, there are only two data points to work from. Thus, it is likely that some parts of this pattern are illusory. But the similarities between these two events are striking. Here is how it seems to work:

1. Patrick Parker identifies some legitimate concern to which he just happens to have a privileged connection.

In 2008, this was the concern that the "anonymous donor" (Barre Seid) might reconsider his donations if a substandard president were chosen. It's not clear whether Barre Seid even knew that his identity was being invoked in this way. However, since Parker was the only conduit of information between Seid and the Board, nobody was in a position to contradict him.

In 2010, Parker's legitimate concern was that a contract existed between Shimer and Aequus that required certain changes to the mission statement. Although we do not know exactly what was said in the Board meeting, Parker certainly managed to convey the impression that both President Bill Rice and the Dean of the College had been signatories to this contract. We now know that this contract was a vague and probably unenforceable agreement to which a Development Office assistant had signed as the "authorized officer" of Shimer . However, since Parker didn't have a copy of the agreement handy (and neither did anyone else, as he hadn't happened to mention it until just before the meeting), no substantive questions about the agreement could be asked or answered.

2. Parker exploits the uncertainty of this concern so that he can present some specific action linked to his personal agenda as the only workable solution.

Did it make sense that a donor concerned about executive qualifications would prefer a candidate (Tom Lindsay) who had not been properly vetted and had never run a college before? Of course not. But since only Parker could know what the "anonymous donor's" exact concerns were, nobody was in a position to question how Parker presented them. Did it make sense that an agreement never mentioned before would require the sudden adoption of a poorly-written mission statement that placed extraordinary emphasis on a couple weeks' worth of Soc 2 readings? Of course not -- but once again, since only Parker knew what was in the contract, nobody was in a position to question its relevance.

3. The vote is held, reasonable people do the only reasonable thing based on the available information...

... and Parker gets exactly what he wants.

Patrick Parker is clearly a talented boardroom manipulator. We could all learn a lot from him. It is a great tribute to the sharp and observant intellects on the Shimer Board that, despite such skillful manipulation, the vast majority of swayable Trustees voted against the Lindsay mission statement in February. An even greater tribute, of course, is the outcome of the recent meeting in which Tom Lindsay was, at long last, relieved of his duties.

Shimer College Fact Check: Wall Street Journal article

Here at SC&TF, we try not to give undue prominence to political hit pieces called in by Lindsay and his cronies. However, when a publication as prominent as The Wall Street Journal publishes a misleading, tendentious screed about the current events at Shimer, we believe it is necessary to respond. In what follows we address the more obviously false and misleading statements in the article. If you read that article, you will realize that the following list is far from complete. Please feel free to adapt, expand, and repost.

False: "The school's embattled president, Tom Lindsay, is facing ideological opposition from faculty and students. "
The opposition to Lindsay's mismanagement and abuse of power runs across the spectrum, including staff, students, and alumni of all political persuasions. Shimer's intellectually diverse faculty have been unanimous in condemning Lindsay's actions, which have included firing and threatening to fire anyone who stands in the path of his premeditated hostile takeover. [President Lindsay Threatens Faculty, They Firmly Declare Stance]

Opponents of Lindsay's actions also include many current and former Trustees, notably the distinguished former Chairman of the Board, Young Kim, who urged the community to support a vote of no confidence in Lindsay.

Misleading: 'The "family dispute" is over how to govern this great-books school.'
The problem is less the governance structure than what Lindsay and his cronies intend to do with it. Lindsay & Co. have already vandalized the school’s mission statement and threatened the jobs of staff and faculty. An analysis of Lindsay's speeches and writings indicates strongly that he, and presumably his backers, are also bent on reshaping the Shimer core curriculum according to their own political inclinations, trimming the diversity of ideas currently found there. The contempt that Lindsay & Company have demonstrated for dialogue and participation further suggests that Shimer's unique dialogical classes are also at risk. If we had any reason to believe that Lindsay and his cronies support the core ideals of Shimer, his arrogation of power would be less troubling -- but, unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to believe this.

False: "Is Shimer a Greek-style polis, as many Shimerians believe?"
Shimer has not operated this way in many years. If there are any Shimerians who think otherwise – and perhaps there are – they are seriously confused. Shimer has operated for decades as a nonprofit corporation with a chief executive whose power is tempered by community and Board oversight. Unfortunately, Thomas Lindsay and his cronies on the board have been working to gut that oversight, eliminating the College’s long-standing tradition of accountability. This is bad management and an abuse of the public trust, and has been decried as such by Rev. Don Moon, who served as president of Shimer for 26 years and arguably deserves the greatest credit for keeping the school alive.

Misleading: "At the time, Shimer faculty, staff and students were eager for Mr. Lindsay to join their tiny school, which enrolls about 100 students, and lead it to happier times."

No doubt, hope springs eternal at Shimer, and we in the alum community dearly hoped that Lindsay's appointment would work out. But the very manner by which he became president raised very serious issues. Lindsay had actually been rejected in the first round of the presidential search process, in favor of other candidates with more pertinent experience. Although the finalists had been narrowed to two excellent candidates in May 2008, Lindsay was suddenly pushed forward by his backer Patrick Parker, who successfully intimidated other trustees with the threat that “anonymous” donor Barre Seid would not approve of these nominees – even though the finalists had real experience at the helm of small colleges, while Lindsay had no experience as a No. 1 executive at all. [May 2008 board minutes]

Misleading: “Enter Mr. Lindsay, charged by Shimer's board—which includes faculty and students—with securing the college's future. “
Unbeknownst to the community, a majority had already been secured on the board by proxies for wealthy industrialist Barre Seid. This fact was only discovered in December 2009, thanks to the diligence of a concerned alumnus. Thus, Tom Lindsay was selected by a board that was already out of the school’s control. [Who’s Buying Shimer?] Confirming the reality of a hostile takeover, this covertly-assembled majority, led by operative Patrick Parker, has maneuvered to maintain its control by blocking the nominations of reputable alumni. [Promulgates 2/2010, page 4]

Misleading: " Less than two years later,"
Actually, objections to Lindsay's abuse of power became widespread less than eight months into his tenure. [Promulgates 2/2010, page 8] Even now he has been in office for only slightly more than a year (he was installed in late January 2009). It is certainly true, however, that 8 months is less than 2 years.

False: 'many of the same people who once cheered Mr. Lindsay's arrival now denounce him as a "conservative menace,"'
"The Conservative Menace" is the sensationalistic title of a Chicago Reader exposé. Newspapers like the Reader do what they must. However, no member of the Shimer community has been heard to use this term. Shimer's problem is not with Lindsay's political leanings, whatever they may be, but with his evident contempt for the unique ethos and mission of the college. Lindsay is definitely a menace, but his political inclinations are only incidental to this.

Misleading: "He fired the director of admissions, without consulting the assembly."
It would have been very unusual for Tom to consult the Assembly, which has not deliberated on specific personnel issues for decades. His responsibility, however, was to consult with the Administrative Committee. This responsibility is specified in the Board bylaws. Not only did Lindsay refuse to discuss his firing of the skilled, successful, and recently-hired Director of Admissions, but both the Admissions Director’s firing and Lindsay's subsequent hiring of a political crony to replace her were done over the express objections of the Administrative Committee and the college faculty. [Promulgates 2/2010]

So yes, Lindsay didn’t consult the Assembly, nor would anyone have expected him to; the breach of procedure was much more profound.

False: "As for the claim that the president ignored the tradition of self-governance at Shimer, in 2008 the college's board itself determined that matters of personnel, among others, would rest with the president."
The Board's own bylaws, as amended in 2008, require that the president consult with the Administrative Committee. This cannot be said to have occurred in any meaningful sense. The Board's bylaws also specify that the Board has the power to overturn any personnel decision by the president. However, the Board, which has been covertly packed with people owing their allegiance and funding to Lindsay's backer Barre Seid, has consistently failed to exercise this oversight. [Board bylaws]

Misleading: "What seems to be irking faculty and students are the president's classically liberal politics, which are out of tune on a campus that invited ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers to be a speaker in 2008."
Shimer has always welcomed speakers from across the political spectrum. This tradition dates back at least to the early 1960s, when the president of the American Nazi Party was invited to speak on campus. [Big Ideas] I fear that Ms Smith’s latching onto this point speaks more about what she and other members of Lindsay's circle imagine “liberty” to be. In this regard it is worth noting that even Tom Lindsay defended Ayers' right to speak on campus.

False: "When Mr. Lindsay shared the statement with students and faculty as part of an intended consultation process, the words "liberty" and "liberal" exploded like a bomb."
In fact, the actual statement drafted by Lindsay was never shared with the community, and was not even disclosed to the Board until a few days before it was voted on. Instead, Lindsay disclosed what he claimed were "guideposts", and rejected any specific criticism on the grounds that these guideposts were not, in fact, a mission statement proposal. The problems with the so-called “mission statement” and the manner of its adopting are detailed in the resolution passed by the February 28^th Assembly.

In closing, we believe it is prudent to mention that the WSJ appropriately classified the above-quoted piece as "Opinion," and that Emily Smith, who authored the piece, is not a Wall Street Journal reporter. Ms Smith is instead a "fellow" at the "Collegiate Network" operated by the Weekly Standard. The Collegiate Network, like approximately half of Shimer's current Board, has benefited from the generosity of Barre Seid, the "anonymous donor". Much like the members of the Board, Ms Smith apparently did not consider it necessary to disclose this information.