Don’t fire CU President Mark Kennedy just yet
The Boulder Faculty Assembly voted 35 to 20 to formally reprimand Mark Kennedy for his lack of leadership. It does not call for him to be fired, that is for the Board of Regents to decide.
Clearly, there’s great concern about Kennedy’s leadership. Therefore, it’s time for the University of Colorado Board of Regents to be held accountable and to conduct a comprehensive, not just the regular annual, evaluation of him. His unpopularity among many students, faculty, staff and board members has created an atmosphere as acrimonious as President Judith Albino’s chaotic reign during the 1990s.
That fight tore apart the university for years. I saw this up close since I was on the board at that time. Albino lost the confidence of the deans of the faculty, and that put the university through anguish, extreme polarization and infighting.
Unfortunately, history may repeat itself because of controversy surrounding Kennedy, who started out on a rocky basis with a split 5-4 Board of Regents hiring decision, as well as a $1 million salary that angered some observers. He hasn’t fully recovered from that inauspicious start.
Imagine trying to run an organization like CU — which has an annual budget of over $4.5 billion, 67,000 students and 35,000 employees — without full board support.
Students and faculty are exasperated that the regents forced Kennedy’s hire down their throats and because they don’t care for his inaction or missteps on critical issues.
A Republican majority was in charge of the board and their minds already were made up to appoint Kennedy. So they held sham listening sessions on individual campuses but failed to acknowledge any meaningful input, choosing Kennedy as president without any bipartisanship support.
He may become the flashpoint for this battle to go on and on ad nauseam. That would pit board members against each other and undermine the confidence that Colorado citizens have in their flagship university.
Boulder-based CU students already have censured Kennedy. Their resolution claimed that, “President Mark Kennedy has failed at his responsibility to uphold the pillars of the CU system, including justice, diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Unlike in business, the model of a well-run university is not found in top-down leadership, but instead with shared governance that flows upward from faculty, students and staff. It’s crucial for a president to have the full confidence of the faculty.
Kennedy has been criticized for his lack of good-faith shared governance, specifically in diversity, equity and inclusion. He often times ignores ideas that disagree with his beliefs. Some other examples cited by stakeholders include:
He failed to lead the university’s support to endorse Proposition CC, the effort to end TABOR refunds that would have sent money directly to state colleges.
He never took a strong public stance against Betsy DeVos’ position that enabled colleges and universities to make it harder for sexual assault victims to be heard.
He didn’t take a strong position against the federal government’s attempt to censor scientific research, particularly on climate change.
He showed a lack of leadership on a “black lives matter” resolution, introduced by Regent Jack Kroll.
He omitted from the agenda the planned revocation of visas for new and potential international students.
His lack of good faith commitment to Native Americans in recognition of their land-acknowledgement issue.
Now is an opportunity to examine the performance of, and the confidence in, the CU president. It will enable the regents to make an informed decision about whether or not to renew his contract, which ends in May 2022.
For guidance, the board should consult the Regents Laws and Policies, specifically Section 3.F.2: Comprehensive Evaluations.
The regents need to conduct a transparent evaluation of Kennedy’s work. Unlike an annual evaluation, a comprehensive one includes consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. These include faculty, students, staff, donors, alumni, friends of the university, legislators, civic and business leaders, and others who love CU.
Nobody should go into this with any foregone conclusions.
The board must emphasize the seriousness of its purpose and keep their minds open. This is an opportunity to evaluate Kennedy’s credibility and overall performance.
The evaluation should be a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessments of his performance in a standard format.
Kennedy’s office should not supervise this effort. An independent committee or outside advisor should be engaged to work on behalf of the board, which is the client.
So let’s quickly end this turmoil. We don’t want the university or Colorado citizens to suffer in the coming months because of a lack of confidence in its leader and because of the inevitable internecine regents’ warfare.
Enough of this dysfunction between Republican and Democratic regents. The whole state will be watching the board and expects it to act in the best interests of the University of Colorado system.