Chicago Town Hall Meeting
11-14-06
Report by Peter Bunder, Father of Molly Bunder, '08

What does it tell us that they held this R-MWC meeting in a men's racquet club on Chicago's Gold Coast? (Loved the mouthwash dispensers.)

My favorite quote of the night was from another husband/father who asked the president to consider resigning. The president and board having failed at their given mission, he said, rather than retiring, have decided to change the mission. Further, he said (and I paraphrase), I'm not a religious man, but if you were a church and were finding Jesus a hard sell, would you try and find another deity?

My compliments to Sheri Carroll for her excellent work.

The president and the trustees are not very impressive. Underqualified? The mea culpas include an admission that she/they were unfamiliar with the ways of academia (e.g. any faculty review) and they refer over and over to the strategic plan as being a "work of the board." Other stakeholders? Did Skip Kughn and /or past presidents recruit them in the hope that women who had married rich or inherited money would support the college financially?

Who are these people? What is at work here? Age? Class? Wealth? Regionalism? Why did they all look alike? How could there not be any dissent? What is their emotional reward ?

Would any other institution, particularly a philanthropic one, not stop for a moment until it had considered the source of the resistance it was meeting?

They have determined Randolph-Macon is "fragile." The word is used repeatedly. The beauty in "fragile" trumped by the weakness of "fragile." There is an emergency. I disagree. I have read Newsweek. One of my daughters will look at Stephens.

But even given the point, I work for a "fragile" not-for-profit. The Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis has a very large endowment, plenty of elegant buildings, several odd "co-operating ministries" from violin competitions to a half way house for women prisoners, (equivalent to stables and galleries). . . and fewer people today are attracted to the church. (Some say because a woman is now in charge.)

I sit on our "Board of Directors." I chair our Property Committee. We push Chase/ J.P.Morgan to manage the endowments aggressively. We sell three pieces of property for every one we buy. The clergy pay more for health coverage every year. Congregational closures are done reluctantly with transparency and sympathy. Serious objections? Then we stop and listen some more. We have time. Having overcome other difficulties -- like the Civil War -- we expect to be in business for another 200 years. We believe in our mission. We are committed to the ministry. We are quite sure the work could be done differently (we could fire the woman), but not more faithfully, not better.

To quote Dr. Spivey: "Crucial for the decision, does the mission of the College, one dedicated to the education of women, continue? If the mission is accomplished, then the way is open for coeducation. If not, and I judge that such is not the case, I know of no better place and community -- by temperament, by facilities, by tradition, by faculty, student and staff excellence -- to work for the best possible undergraduate education for women."

My career has been to develop character in young adults. What can anyone take away from this save that economic realities are the only realities; that the economy is infallible. Is that so?

Finally, as to the original purpose of this listserve . . .

They do seem to dislike the Reading program. The cost obivously, but the case builds this way -"the trimester program is difficult for us";"no 17 year old wants to spend a whole year in England"; "it's undersubscribed"; (?) "people want to go to several different places".

Which could of course be put this way: "WOW, we have a YEAR LONG program abroad IN A SAFE PLACE that allows you to meet women from other US campuses and to tour while having an experience in a trimester educational program."