If to be Shimer's president you're inclined, you must answer first these questions nine

To ensure that the candidates in Shimer's ongoing presidential search were evaluated on a fair and uniform basis, the same 9 questions were asked in each videoconference interview:

1.What do you particularly enjoy about your present position or a past position that might have some similarities to being President of Shimer?

2. Tell us about one success you have had in your past work, and describe how you achieved it.

3. Based on your current understanding of Shimer, what do you consider the greatest challenge facing the college? (Followup) Have you had experience dealing with this sort of challenge? (If yes) Describe one such situation and tell us how you handled it.

4. What do you see the value of a Shimer-style "great books" education in today's world? (Followup) How would you make this case to a potential donor, a prospective parent or student, or the public at large? Do you think that making this case involves a change in Shimer’s “branding”?

5. Our next President will need to be a collaborative leader. How would you define “collaborative leadership?” (Followup) When thinking about collaborative leadership at Shimer, how would you undertake planning so as to include students, employees, and other stakeholders as partners (rather than simply advisors), and to also make sure that essential tasks are accomplished well and in a timely manner?

6. Have you had much experience working with a governing board(s) as a non-board member? (Followup) What do you view as the proper relationship between the President and the Board, and what sorts of expectations would you as President of Shimer have of the Board?

7. Please tell us about one situation in which you failed and what you learned from the experience.

8. Who have been your models, positive and negative, from among the leaders with whom you have worked? What were the main characteristics and achievements that they modeled?

9. What questions do you have for us?

(source)

Finalists are expected to visit the campus in late January.

The Problem with "Good" Administrators as Shimer Presidents

The process of selecting the next president of Shimer College remains on hold until the problems with the Board are resolved. In the meantime, it appears that Ed Noonan is providing outstanding and much-needed leadership. That said, it is certainly not too early to reflect on the factors that have led to Shimer's best and worst presidencies, and how these might best guide the selection of the next president.


In the history of Shimer, there have been three presidents who served for twenty years or more: Frances Shimer, William Parker McKee and Don Moon. Shimer's enrollment more than doubled (arguably tripled) under each of these presidents, and each of them effectively built a campus from scratch: the 4-building 25-acre Seminary campus under Mrs Shimer, the 12-building Junior College campus under Dean McKee, and the 12-building Waukegan campus under President Moon. As Shimer once again finds itself in need of a figure who can lead us to renewed expansion -- and once again in need of a campus -- it is worth looking at what attributes these three figures share.

Shimer has had thirteen full (non-"interim") presidents in its history. These can be roughly graded according to their qualifications as administrators of higher education. Some were extremely highly qualified, in both education and experience: Floyd Wilcox, Raymond Culver, Aaron Brumbaugh, Robert Long, Tom Lindsay. Others had substantial qualifications and experience, though of a less sterling character: Albin Bro, F.J. Mullin, Milburn Akers, Ralph Conant, Bill Rice. And there were three who had no obvious qualifications or experience in running anything larger than a classroom or a congregation: Frances Shimer, William Parker McKee, and Don Moon. (All three were accomplished in their chosen fields, but juding from the available records, none appears to have had prior experience administering an institution of any size.)

I do not think it is a coincidence that the least superficially qualified presidents in Shimer's history have also been the most successful. Nor is it a coincidence that of the three presidencies that ended in unmitigated disaster, two were led by figures of unquestioned qualifications (Long and Lindsay).

Shimer has gone through many transformations in its history, but certain things have remained constant: Shimer has always been small, has always been unusual, and has never been a terribly glamorous place to be president. As such, it has little to command the attention or respect of the career administrator. No one whose qualifications would pass muster with a search committee would want to spend their career as the president of Shimer College. Thus, judging from the record, the best that we can hope for is that a qualified administrator will leave quietly after a short time, as Wilcox did in 1935, Brumbaugh in 1953, and Rice in 2006. Alternatively, unless they die early (Culver, Akers), such figures seem invariably to leave the college in disarray, if not chaos (Lindsay) or bankruptcy (Long).

On behalf of 157 years of hard-learned lessons, then, I make this request to the Board of Trustees: for our next president, please do not hire anyone who is "qualified" for the position. Instead, if you can, hire someone intelligent and accomplished in their field, someone who demonstrably cares about Shimer and about education... and who has never set foot in educational administration before.

"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.