And now, a trip down memory lane

This takes me back:



Shimer's lucky thirteenth president has been working pretty hard lately to rehabilitate his incompetent, power-crazed, duplicitous, money-grubbing, incompetent problematic image. He may still have some work to do; the above screenshot was taken today.

Lawsuit settled &c.

Update: You can find a fuller explanation of the terms of the settlement on the Shimer Alumni Alliance blog.

According to an announcement made by Interim President Ed Noonan at the close of the Shimer College Assembly on Sunday, the Lindsay v. Shimer lawsuit has been settled by circulation of signatures among the parties. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed, but the terms of the settlement are said to include permanent bans on either Thomas Lindsay or Patrick Parker ever again holding office at Shimer College.

So much for the past.

Looking to the future, in his State of Academic Affairs address, Dean David Shiner mentioned that the next NCA visit will occur in 364 days. The faculty are working overtime (even more thean usual) to make sure that all aspects of Shimer academics, including assessment procedures, are in shape to once again pass muster with the accreditors. Of course, academics are only one part of the accreditation process, and are generally the part that Shimer passes with flying colors. More critical is that Shimer be on a demonstrably sound and sustainable footing, financially and administratively.

If, like some alumni, you have held off on making a recurring donation to Shimer because of the lingering uncertainty caused by the frivolous Lindsay-Parker lawsuit ... it's probably about time to make that donation, for whatever amount you can afford. Shimer has definitively turned the page on the ugly but mercifully brief Lindsay period, and is in as great need as ever of the support of its friends as it moves into the new era.

September song

Here's another little old roundup (most recent previous roundup here). Things have been pretty quiet in the external community, as far as I'm aware, so this is mostly limited to news from inside the bubble.

Recent happenings:

• As already noted on this very blog, the Board has added SEVEN NEW ALUM TRUSTEES!!!, each and every one of whom is an awesome human being. If this makes you feel good about the future of Shimer -- and it should -- please consider making a little financial vote of confidence in their honor.
  
• On that note, the Advancement Office has rolled out some new ways of donating to Shimer. For instance, you can donate your beat-up old car to Shimer. (Or your motorcycle. Or your steamroller, apparently -- if you happen to have an extra one lying around. Not sure about tanks.)
  
• Shimer-in-Oxford has checked in with a video blog by Adrian Nelson and richly illustrated reports from Stuart Patterson and Robert Carpenter. You may remember Robert as the Weekend students' intrepid representative on the Board this past year.
• First-year student Mohini Lal has posted some reflections on Shimer's smallness and vastness.
  
• The mills of the law grind exceeding slow, and Lindsay v. Shimer College continues to plod its ponderous way through Cook County Circuit Court. (No, not that Lindsay v. Shimer, and definitely not this one; this one.) The most recent event on the e-docket is a "stay of execution," a familiar theme in Shimer history. There is currently a lag of more than 15 days between the public case file and the actual motions filed in court; thus, it would seem that the only people who know exactly what has been stayed are those who were present in the courtroom. Still, you can view the case file up through 9/3/2010 here, or in a more organized format here. The motion to dismiss, by Shimer's counsel, is highly recommended for connoisseurs of the legal smackdown.
• The Shimer-Student-Union listserv, much-used in the recent crisis, has shown unexpected signs of life.
  

Upcoming events:

• Something called "Shimer Days" is happening soon (10/11 - 10/16), with all kinds of Shimer-y goings on. Of particular note, there is an open house for prospective students on Columbus Day, 10/11/2010.
• Further on the Admissions front, any prospective students who complete their applications before 10/15 will not only get an answer by Thanksgiving, but will also get their book fee waived for the first year. So if you know somebody who is or might be applying, you might want to give that somebody a nudge... (Incidentally, this page is a good one to watch for updates admissionary.)
  
• Shimer Days also marks the beginning of the fall lecture series, with a panel discussion on Shimer history led by Eileen Buchanan on 10/15.
  
• Something called "Life after Shimer Reading Group" is happening just after Shimer Days, on SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY 10/17 in Evanston. The reading is Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland.
• The next Assembly meeting will be November 14, 2010, at 4 PM in the Cinderella Lounge at Shimer.
  

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.

New Dawn A Success!

$50,000

That's how much we have raised so far, a little more than halfway through the first ever Shimer "money bomb" fundraising drive!

I can barely believe my eyes. When Sam and I put together the event we were wondering if our little ChipIn chart counting up to $5,000 would be too big, and make it look like we barely raised any money. Yet here we are, halfway through with more than ten times that amount!

And it's all thanks to you and your unwavering support. Together we have weathered one hell of a storm--the likes of which have left Shimer's halls empty once before--and now, not only are we still here, but we're bouncing back with a vengeance!

You all deserve a serious pat on the back for all the work and support you have put in to bring Shimer back to it's full potential, and I love you all for it. Several of you have even gone above and beyond the call, working tirelessly to speak with every alumn, to write our history and to organize our leaders. I think we should take a moment to reflect on the people who made this possible, and tell them how much we appreciate their efforts. Today's money bomb, and the Alumni Alliance as a whole, could not have been possible without

Sam Henderson
Erik Badger
Sarah Delezen
Noah Kippley-Ogman
Beth Matthews
Dan Merchan

And I want to give special thanks to Dan Shiner, who has labored so hard to keep Shimer afloat and is currently working the phones and emails like a madman to secure alumni contributions to the New Dawn Money Bomb. There is no way this event would have been anywhere near as successful as it has been without his efforts.

This is only a very partial list, it doesn't even come close to recognizing all the efforts of people involved, like Allie Peluso and her amazing research, or Bill Arnold for keeping a level head and forming a bridge between two rival camps, or Erik Graf and Chris McGlynn for their muckraking, Jon Timm and Heath Iverson for their leadership, and all the others who have worked so hard to keep this going.

With that being said, we've got a ton of work left to do my friends, so let's not let the momentum slack even for a moment! We've got a new administration, but plenty of old problems yet to solve. Today we show ourselves and the world what kind of future Shimer has in store for it, and tomorrow we work together to see it done!

Don't forget to take a moment and show your support by joining the Shimer's New Dawn cause on Facebook, and making a contribution if you are able (see the link below). Thank you all sooooo much for your support!

http://www.causes.com/causes/475198

Nate Lefebvre, Class of '08

Shimer President "Steps Down"

The following statement was released shortly before midnight on the 19th of April, and can be read in PDF at shimer.edu.

Lindsay's eagerly-awaited departure has also been noted by the Chicago Tribune and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

-----

Shimer College President Steps Down

Shimer College, the Great Books College of Chicago, has announced that its 13th president, Thomas K. Lindsay, will be stepping down effective immediately. Long-time trustee Edward Noonan, chairman of Chicago Associates Planners & Architects, has been named interim president until the college undertakes a search for a new president.

Mr. Lindsay accepted the Shimer presidency in June 2008 and assumed formal leadership of the college in January 2009. During his tenure, he brought fiscal responsibility to the college by insisting upon balanced annual budgets and eliminating the college’s trailing deficit. Chairman of the Board Christopher Nelson said, “We are grateful to Tom Lindsay for his financial leadership over the past year and a half and wish him well in his future endeavors.” When asked about the change in leadership, Mr. Nelson said “Shimer continues to face many challenges, but we are fortunate to have an experienced leader like Ed Noonan ready to step in and assist us through this transition.”

Former Chairman of the Board, Edward Noonan is a 20 year veteran of Shimer College and was named Trustee Emeritus in 2000. Said Mr. Nelson, “Ed Noonan is uniquely positioned both as someone who understands the long history of Shimer, but also as someone who understands the necessity of improving the administrative structures within the college. We look forward to Ed working with faculty & staff, alumni, students, and the Board of Trustees to continue the good efforts currently being undertaken by the college administration until we search for our next president.”

Through the years Mr. Noonan has been actively engaged in professional and civic activities at the University of Chicago and throughout the Chicago area. No stranger to the IIT campus, Edward Noonan conducted his graduate studies in architecture under Mies Van Der Rohe. Now a renowned Chicago architect, Mr. Noonan currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Chicago Associates Planners & Architects where he has most recently overseen innovative and eco-friendly development projects for Tryon Farm.

Mr. Noonan is now charged with continuing his recent efforts to strengthen internal structures, reach out to the Chicago community and college supporters, and respond to the new energy of Shimer alumni. “I’m grateful to once again have the opportunity to serve Shimer College. I am looking forward to helping an institution with such a unique and noble educational mission,” said Mr. Noonan.

-----

Now is the time for all Shimerians to come to the aid of their college.

Acts of the Special Assembly of April 18th

This document is a redaction of the acts of the meeting. Complete minutes will be publicly available after they are approved by the Assembly.


THE ASSEMBLY OF SHIMER COLLEGE

ACTS OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2010

I Motion:
The resolution of no confidence from the meeting of February 28, 2010, is taken from the table.

The motion carried, after a vote by secret ballot, by 57 votes in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention.

The count of the ballots was witnessed by visitor Susanne Sklar.


II Resolution (as amended):
Whereas the Presidency of Thomas Lindsay has imperiled the very existence of the College, the Assembly declares that it has no confidence in the ability of President Lindsay to lead Shimer College.

The resolution was adopted, after a vote by secret ballot, by 60 votes in favor, none opposed, and 3 abstentions. The count of the ballots was witnessed by visitor Susanne Sklar.


III Motion:
The Assembly instructs the Speaker to address and disseminate resolutions and motions adopted or passed on this day to all the constituencies of Shimer College, including Trustees and alumni.

The motion was passed unanimously.

Letter to the Assembly by Owen Brugh

The following letter was addressed to the Shimer College Assembly of April 18th, 2010, by alumnus Owen Brugh (2006).

Dear Fellow Shimerians,

Unfortunately, the recent birth of my daughter prevents me from attending Sunday. Please know that I stand firmly with the faculty, staff, and current students in whatever course of action the Assembly chooses to pursue. I trust the Assembly.

I write to advocate that the Assembly unanimously adopt the tabled resolution expressing no confidence in the leadership of President Lindsay.

I will spare the Assembly the bill of particulars against President Lindsay. We are all too familiar with his unwavering quest to gut the very institutions that have given Shimer its strength during decades of adversity and poverty.

Fundamentally, the Assembly should take this step today because President Lindsay has shown himself to be un-Shimerian. His actions show he is unwilling to consider other points of view and unable to abide the consensus-building exercise that is the Assembly. Just as we would with a fellow student or new faculty member suffering a difficult adjustment to Shimer, countless community members have tried to help President Lindsay understand our beloved College and its ways. Unfortunately, such efforts have proved fruitless.

After such efforts, were President Lindsay a student, his grades would reflect his behavior, and he might be formally reprimanded. Were President Lindsey a faculty member, the Academic Planning Committee would not renew his contract. As college President, however, the Assembly has little choice but to repudiate his “leadership” and reprimand him in the strongest terms possible. President Lindsay’s complete and total failure to adhere to the policies, ethos, and folkways of Shimer represents a clear danger to the viability of the College.

Most of all, I urge that the Assembly take unanimous action on this issue for two reasons.

First, action of this magnitude calls for consensus. As I recall some said at the February 28 Assembly, this action could imperil the College’s continued existence. Because of the profound impact this resolution could have on every member of the Shimer community, I urge every member of the Assembly to consider the objections of any community member and do all that is practical to mitigate those concerns. From past experience, I trust this will occur.

Second, and more importantly, the Assembly is most powerful when it is most unified. Just as our faculty’s brave actions are amplified by the lack of abstention or opposition, so is the Assembly strongest when it speaks with one voice. (Conversely, I would argue that the Board of Trustees’ voice on the mission statement was weakened by the deep divisions evident from the vote total.) For this action to have the desired result, the Assembly must be at its strongest, and that requires unanimity.

I trust the Assembly to move forward wisely, and I will support whatever steps the Assembly takes. Despite the actions of the present administration, I remain forever proud to be Shimerian.

Respectfully,

Owen Robert Brugh

Class of 2006

Agenda for the Special Assembly of April 18th

The next meeting of the Assembly will be held in the Cinderella Lounge at Shimer College, 3424 S State Street in Chicago, at 4 PM on Sunday April 18th. All constituencies of the College are welcome, including alumni, although alumni cannot vote.

======

THE ASSEMBLY OF SHIMER COLLEGE

AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2010


I Procedural motion, motivated by the Agenda Committee:

The Assembly rule of open voting is suspended, so as to allow for secret ballots at the discretion of the Assembly, for the duration of the present meeting or until such time as the Assembly votes to end the suspension, whichever comes sooner.

§

This motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 majority to pass.



II Motion, motivated by Bob Carpenter, Heath Iverson, and Katy Martin-Seaver:

The resolution of no confidence from the meeting of February 28, 2010, is taken from the table.

§

The resolution in question, originally motivated by the Agenda Committee, is as follows:

The Assembly declares that it has no confidence in the ability of President Thomas Lindsay to lead Shimer College.

If the motion carries, the Assembly will proceed to consideration of the resolution.




III Motion motivated by the Agenda Committee:

The Assembly instructs the Speaker to address and disseminate resolutions and motions adopted or passed on this day to all the constituencies of Shimer College, including Trustees and alumni.


IV Announcements

======

Sunday’s meeting of the Assembly will be webcast, at http://shimer.na5.acrobat.com/assembly418/ . A password is not required. Please bear in mind that, according to the Constitution of the Assembly, only members present may address the Assembly, vote, or introduce motions.

Unanimous Resolution of the Faculty of Shimer College

The following statement was adopted by the Shimer College faculty at their Tuesday meeting (4/13). The vote was unanimous with no abstentions.

Whereas Thomas Lindsay’s unilateral approach to the management of Shimer College has sapped morale and created a climate of fear and mistrust that now pervades the College;

Whereas he has consistently shown a lack of understanding of and respect for Shimer College’s history, traditions, culture, identity, and academic mission;

Whereas he has increasingly acted in opposition to structures of the College, including committees and procedures, written policies, and handbooks;

Whereas his inability or unwillingness to communicate and work with Shimer College’s constituencies is demonstrated by his making major decisions and attempting major changes in the face of overwhelming opposition;

And whereas he has given no credible indication that he will desist from the conduct described or cease attempting to transform the College according to his own plans and without broad support;

The Faculty declares that Thomas Lindsay has done grave harm to Shimer College and imperils its very existence; and, therefore,

The Faculty resolves that it has no confidence in Thomas Lindsay as President of Shimer College.

Columbia Chronicle article

Thanks to Stephanie Saviola of the Columbia Chronicle for shedding a bit of public sunlight on the events at Shimer.


It's good to see Nate Lefebvre and Allie Peluso getting some well-deserved media coverage.

“[The mission statement] did need to evolve and the school and community acknowledged that, but we were worried because we weren’t getting the whole picture,” Lefebvre said. “They had this secret contract about the statement and we weren’t told the stipulations.”

Allie Peluso, a second-year student at Shimer, discovered the identity of the anonymous donor through her own research of public records.“I’ve done a lot of research and looked into donations and money the school has received,” Peluso said. “I identified this man as Barre Seid through 990s [a tax form].”

The unwillingness -- or inability -- of Lindsay and his ilk to defend their actions speaks volumes.

Numerous attempts were made by The Chronicle to get in touch with Lindsay, but he could not be reached for comment.

Several messages were left for Joe Bast, board of trustee member and president of Heartland Institute, 19 S. LaSalle St., but no calls were returned to The Chronicle.

Read the whole thing.

"I signed up for Shimer College not the Thomas Lindsay Reading Club."

Recent alum Byron Keys recounts the initial reaction of the Shimer College community to Thomas Lindsay.

I was a student member of the Board of Trustees in 2007-08. I was also the secretary of Administrative Committee and a member of the Agenda Committee during the same school year. In retrospect, we know now that the change in the responsibilities of the Administrative Committee and the foisting of Tom Lindsay on the college appear to be steps in a carefully orchestrated plan to take over the college. I know that some of you refuse to believe this and think that the Lindsayites have the best interest of the school at heart. I would argue to you that this is not the case.

By now, you have heard from many students, alums and employees of the college as to why Tom Lindsay must resign immediately to begin to return the college back to normal. I would offer you a number of voices from the past, of students, staff and faculty, that were sent to the board after Tom Lindsay’s May 28, 2008 visit to campus, prior to the vote on the presidency. It is amazing how, with this much documented opposition Tom Lindsay was still able to garner three quarters of the trustees in order to be confirmed. I will let these voices speak now, I will not identify the writer for a couple of reasons. I have not asked the writer’s permission and I fear Tom Lindsay would retaliate against some of the people who have commented, especially those in admin or academic positions at the college. So, listen to the voices of opposition that were raised at the end of May 2008. In retrospect, some of the comments seem very prophetic.

One commenter, whose remarks were the voicing of the secret fears of many Shimerians at the time said, “I have concerns about the candidate and his thoughts about the direction of the school and curriculum. I am concerned about his possible pushing in a direction that takes Shimer away from its roots.” Tom Lindsay’s visit at the end of May was a disaster, meeting and talking to him caused one Shimerian to post the following; “He believes in the centrality of certain outdated and dangerous narratives. And I do not mean the great books themselves (hahaha). Rather he holds ideologically loaded beliefs regarding what ‘questions we should be asking.’ This is important because he believes he is being objective when he says that race, class and gender are not important academic topics. He is a cultural imperialist and a staunch opponent of ‘multiculturalism.’ It would not be as upsetting to me had he not made it explicit that these were the fundamentals of (h)is crusade. He wants to implement these dogmatic jingoistic beliefs and make us into ‘proper American citizens.’ That last quote offended me. He also called all of continental philosophy (excluding Heidegger) derivative and not as worthy of our curriculum. His favorites ‘The Founding Fathers,’ whatever that means, however are excluded from criticism. He believes we should all identify with, what I call but he would never claim is, the dominant ideology of this country and that in fact the dominant ideology itself is a good litmus test for what is important to read. I think this sort of agenda-driven approach is harmful and will probably alienate a lot of students who are diametrically opposed to all of it. I signed up for Shimer College not the Thomas Lindsay Reading Club.”

Remember that Tom Lindsay submitted a CV for the original job opening, but was not chosen for a campus visit by the committee. A committee headed by Patrick Parker. However, after his chat with Barre Seid, in which Seid handed him a check for $75,000, he came to the May 8 board meeting with the purpose of extending the search. Actually, not extending the search, but bringing in Tom Lindsay and force feeding him down everyone’s throat. This should sound familiar to people who were on the Administrative Committee when Amy Pitts was rammed down their throats. One community member commented of Tom Lindsay’s visit, “Although I liked his ideas, I disagreed with his methods. I would prefer overall candidate #3 (I believe Mark Tierno) for Shimer. Not only did Mark connect more easily with Shimer students than Tom (at least from what I saw), he was also willing to listen and work things out before putting out his own ideas. I respect that. (Sorry for the dual evaluation.. but I didn't get a chance to fill out Mark's form!)” The favorite was Mark Tierno, who still serves as president of Cazenovia College in New York. Tierno’s visit was enlightening, he seemed to really be excited at the prospect of turning the colleges around and is an experienced and proven fundraiser. Tom Lindsay either avoided or obfuscated questions relating to his fundraising experience. One community member commented, “Very limited administrative experience - academic for sure, but little beyond that. He did not come across as a real leader to me - so I really wonder how this would play itself out. Little evidence of a sense of humor. Not clear if he is committed to diversity - in terms of the curriculum, student body etc. in any way, shape, or manner.”

One of the ways that Tom Lindsay rubbed me wrong was his body language and not giving direct answers to direct questions. This was noticed by other people who met him that day as well, as evidenced by the following comments, “Lindsay does not seem open to views that are different from his own. He tends to label any intellectual approach that differs from his own as ‘ideology’ and dismisses it as not worthy of liberal education. Shimer has served itself well by staying out of the cultures wars; Lindsay is a stauch cultural warrior and I fear he will drag our institution into this tiresome debate. He does not provide straight answers to questions but repeats the same ideas about a liberal education to most direct questions. We all agreed before the search process that what Shimer needs is someone who can be an effective fundraiser; Lindsay evaded questions about this aspect of the job. The one direct answer he gave was that when he believes in a cause, such as liberal education, he doesn't mind asking for money. We need a president who is less ideolgical and more interested in raising money for the College.” When we needed a man who was like our interim president, Ron Champagne, what we got was an ideologically compromised candidate who was in the pocket of and had marching orders from Barre Seid and Patrick Parker. Lindsay’s writings were printed and circulated at the college during May 08. One Shimerian said of them, “I discovered his writings online just as many others in our community did. Some of them scared me.”

Anyone who thinks that Tom Lindsay came on board with universal acclaim is mistaken. There was opposition to him before he ever set foot on campus when his sexist, racist and misogynistic writing was discovered. I offer these voices from the past to ensure you that he faced a lot of opposition early on. I believe this opposition will continue until Tom Lindsay is fired or resigns. Perhaps the presidency of COTUS would be suited for him.

Why Thomas Lindsay Must Go

Please sign the petition.

General Summary of President Lindsay’s Tenure

Thomas Lindsay assumed the presidency of Shimer College in January 2009.[1] Lindsay was not among the three candidates recommended by the search committee, and there are no public records as to the process by which he was chosen.[2] Since taking office, Lindsay has repeatedly violated the administrative procedures of the school in order to advance a his own agenda and place his associates in positions of importance.[3] In order to preserve their narrow majority, Lindsay's allies on the Board, who for the most part lack any connection to Shimer College, have blocked the candidacy of qualified alumni.[4] The most recent transgression by Lindsay and his allies has been the abrupt, wholesale alteration of the College's mission statement, over the unanimous objections of the faculty.[5] There is abundant reason to believe that the faculty and curriculum of Shimer College are in serious peril. [6]

Primary Issues of Concern:

Stacking the Board

For all his many faults, Lindsay would not pose a credible threat to the College if he did not enjoy the support of a majority on the Board of Trustees. At the moment that majority is quite narrow: Lindsay's mission statement passed by only two votes in the February meeting of the Board. This narrow majority was only obtained by flooding the Board with new members over the past two years. Almost none of these new members have any prior connection to the college. The impression of a hostile takeover is confirmed by the refusal of the Nominating Committee, on which these new members now hold a majority, to confirm any of the six eligible alumni candidates who have been put forward.

Mission

Lindsay and his appointees on the Board have used their narrow majority to push through an ideologically-loaded rewrite of the mission statement. This was done under false pretenses and against the express, nearly unanimous disapproval of the faculty and student bodies. Approximately half of the student body came out on a freezing Saturday morning, in February, in Chicago, in order to calmly and peacefully express their objections to the Board's planned action.

Curriculum

Lindsay has expressed a desire to remove what he views as "political correctness" from the curriculum. This suggests that he will press to remove the many works by women and persons of color that are currently included in the Core. It may also suggest a desire to remove non-canonical works, keeping only the historical Great Books. Furthermore, by unilaterally removing "citizenship" from the mission statement of the College, Lindsay has stricken out one of the three pillars of Great Books education as articulated by Robert Maynard Hutchins. This bodes extremely poorly for his future intentions, which remain in shadow.

Intimidation

Lindsay has threatened faculty [6] and members of the Board with removal if they do not support his agenda.

Personnel

President Lindsay has fired skilled, professional staff members – notably Elaine Vincent, who modernized Shimer's admissions and achieved impressive gains in enrollment – in order to hire people he knows will support him. In this instance, he went against the express will of the committees that normally oversee personnel issues. Lindsay subsequently refused to discuss the rationale for his highly suspect firing of Ms. Vincent, even after a formal request by the faculty that he explain himself. [1] Elaine Vincent was replaced by a remarkably under-qualified Director of Admissions, Amy Pritts. In flagrant disregard of Shimer hiring procedures, Mrs. Pritts was re-inserted into the pool of applicants after three rounds of selection by the Administrative Committee per Lindsay’s directive. Mrs. Pritts had previously worked at the University of Dallas in a non-managerial capacity, further heightening suspicions of cronyism.

Governance

Lindsay's actions disregard the established, documented administrative institutions and procedures of Shimer College. His actions are most flagrantly in violation of the model of self-governance – reaffirmed by the Board as recently as 2008 – that has kept the college alive for so long against such incredible odds. But they also violate basic principles of sound management; Lindsay has made no effort to keep the community on board, or even to keep key stakeholders informed of his planned actions. In the process he has done the nearly impossible: united the Shimer community.

Security

Lindsay’s tenure has resulted in an atmosphere of suspicion and acrimony, wherein faculty and staff are saddled with justified and deep concerns for their jobs and students for the future of their education at Shimer College. These have grown to include the very tenability of Shimer College as an institution. It is difficult to see this as an ambiance in which education can proceed, let alone flourish.

Please sign the petition.

Please fill out the form.

1. "Inauguration of 13th President of Shimer College". http://alumni.shimer.edu/s/1028/index.aspx?calcid=772&calpgid=61&cid=933&crid=0&ecid=933&gid=1&pgid=252&sid=1028.
2. "Shimer College Presidential Search Finalist Candidates", http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0ck2awuCGvlZmU1MWFlZGQtNDdlMy00ZTM2LTk4NmUtZDkyYzhiODBiOGNj.
3. "Growing Suspicion Pits President and Several Trustees Against The Rest of Shimer's Community", Eugene Lim, February 2010 Promulgates, page 8 et seq. http://www.mediafire.com/?nzxjfdidynj.
4. In what is believed to be an unprecedented action, the Nominating Committee in January voted to table 6 eligible Shimer graduates who had been nominated to the Board, thus effectively turning away both money and support. The group that was tabled included former members of the Board, and others who had made substantial contributions to the college. "For First Time in Recent Shimer History, 6 Nominees to Board of Trustees 'Indefinitely Tabled'", Dan Merchan, February 2010 Promulgates, page 4. http://www.mediafire.com/?nzxjfdidynj.
5. Faculty statement: https://acrobat.com/#d=PMxWWeia*tueKCe9NgV86Q. Assembly resolution: https://acrobat.com/#d=PMxWWeia*tueKCe9NgV86Q.
6. The statement adopted by the faculty in February reads in part "[Lindsay] has indicated to us that if the Board adopts his statement, he would ask us individually to confirm our support of it. The implied alternative was to seek employment elsewhere." Personnel decisions by the President are subject to review and reversal under the Article V Paragraph 4 of the Board bylaws. However, the Executive Committee of the Board has recently claimed that the President has always had the simple authority to hire and fire faculty. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B788E5miKgPCMmI2ZGI4NjEtOTcwYS00MWRkLTlhYmUtYWZhMTAwMzBlN2Yx.

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.

Resolutions of 2/28 Assembly

In the emergency Assembly of 2/28, the community voted to reject president Thomas Lindsay's so-called "mission statement."

The vote of no confidence in the so-called president was tabled for the time being.

In addition, it was resolved to seek a mission statement enjoying broad support from all constituencies, this process concluding no later than March 21st.

The text of the adopted resolutions follows.

I.Resolved:

Whereas the Board of Trustees adopted a statement called a “mission statement,” written by President Thomas Lindsay, on February 20, 2010;

Whereas this statement is without the express support of the faculty, the students, the administrative staff, or the vast majority of alumni who have addressed it, and is upheld only by 18 out of 34 Trustees;

Whereas the Assembly by overwhelming majority and the Faculty unanimously have voted to retain the current mission statement at least for the time being;

Whereas the statement approved by the Board is not consistent with the criterion of the College’s academic accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, that “Understanding of and support of the mission pervade the organization” (Accreditation Criterion 1c);

Whereas the statement, unlike all other mission statement proposals, was never submitted to the Self-Study Group, or brought to the Assembly, but was sent exclusively to Trustees, and only five days before they were to vote on it;

Whereas the statement was approved by the Board after a major donor said, one day before the Board plenary, that funding would cease if a new mission statement were not adopted;

Whereas shortly before the Board plenary President Lindsay urged the Trustees on the Executive Committee to resign if they would not vote for his statement, and told another Trustee that he would “have to go” or words to that effect if he did not vote for his statement; and,

Whereas the statement was voted on by the Board without the customary notification of a vote in the meeting agenda, after only 75 minutes of consideration, and without observance of equal time for those opposed;

Therefore,

The Assembly of Shimer College does not recognize the legitimacy or authority of this so-called “mission statement.”

(Adopted by a vote of 69 for, 1 against, and 2 abstentions)

II.The Assembly will endeavor to provide a mission statement enjoying broad support from the community, including the board, staff, faculty, students and alumni of Shimer College by March 21, 2010.

(Motion passed by 59 for, 1 against, and 2 abstentions)