Friday, March 17, 2006

AMC Redux - Monaghan's wrecking machine now running on all cylinders to break up AMSOL in Michigan

Dear Friends, Alumni, Students, Faculty, and Staff of Ave Maria School of Law,

We have now reached the point that so many of us feared for our beloved school - the point where Tom Monaghan decides to break up another thriving educational institution that he is the main funder of. As was done to AMC, there are several methods employed by Monaghan and his "yes men" to accomplish this goal.

First, COMPLETE CONTROL over every facet of the school and the eventual move to Florida. This includes, as we will see, the complete stifling of dissent.
Second, BUYING OUT THE GOVERNING BOARD so that it LACKS INDEPENDENCE.
Third, a campaign of REVISIONIST HISTORY, LIES, and MANIPULATION


We will attempt to lay out most of the events of the last week since the Board of Governors voted to conduct a feasibility study of the Florida site. We will demonstate, beyond a doubt, that the move to Florida is already a fait accompli, at least in the minds of the Dean, Monaghan, and many board members.
We will be adding to our case as new facts and documentation presents itself. For now, here are some of the new key developments:

1. After the Board Vote last week, the tenured faculty of the school
were given a letter saying that Dean Bernard Dobranski had been appointed to a committee to review the tenure policy at the school and the changes would be discussed after the results of the feasibility study were in.


So what egregious attempt to "undo" tenure mean? Two things.
One, the timing is such that no decision will be made on who or who may not remain (or become) tenured until after the feasibility study is complete, at which time the Board will likely vote to move to Florida. So this is a move to shut up the faculty, especially the founding faculty, who it should be noted contributed $100K each of their own money to start up the school.
Second, this is a device for Monaghan and the Dean to get rid of faculty that they don't like, or who speak out against a move to Florida. It has been reported before that Monaghan does not care whether the founding faculty moves to Florida or not- he sees them and every other professor as completely replaceable at any point.

2. The Board of Governors can no longer claim to be unbiased and independent, due to two factors. One is the fact that at least 5 members on the board - Monaghan, Dobranski, Fessio, George, and Kuhn currently serve (or have served) on the Board of Ave Maria University. This is such an obvious and fundamental conflict of interest which still has not been addressed by the Board (probably because they know they have no defense of the fact that these Board members continue to push for and vote on items that would directly enhance AMU's interests. Not to mention that Monaghan would be the chief economic beneficiary of such a move, yet has not excused himself from any votes on anything to pertaining to Florida.
The second factor that undermines the independence of the AMSOL board is that fact that so many of its members belong to organizations that receive substantial contributions from Tom Monaghan. This will be documented further as time goes on.
This all having been said, there is word of a small revolt against Monaghan and the Dean by some other members of the Board, although some Board members have privately admitted that Monaghan has promised to pull out all of his funding immediately if the Board does not vote to move to Florida.

3. The Dean is not even pretending to take a neutral, "wait and see approach" on Florida anymore. At a meeting held this past week with students, one student questioned the need to move the school from Michigan, as it is thriving there and there were no guarantees for what might happen in Florida. The Dean replied that, as long as AMSOL remains in Michigan, it will always only be the second best law school in the state. Additionally, the Dean made comments to staff members at a meeting with them, in response to a question about transitioning to Florida, that even though the Board had not decided anything yet, he could speak for them in promising all current staff that they would be welcome to move to down to Florida. Additionally, he said that he knew that Monaghan was of the same mind regarding a transition of AMSOL to Florida as he was for AMC, with the implication being that it would be handled in a similar manner. Finally, the Dean stated that he would still be open to voting for a move, even if it meant a bump down to provisional accreditation.
But hey, nothing has been decided yet...

4. The desire for COMPLETE CONTROL and the crackdown on dissent continues. In what is becoming frightenly reminiscent of '1984', the administration continues its all-out-assault on basic freedoms at the school. As reported here before, the school previously implemented a new electronic discovery system that would allow it to monitor emails more easily. After that the Dean torpedoed any attempt for the AMSOL staff to unionize by calling a meeting without the organizer present and telling staff that joining a union was against the mission of the school and could result in retaliatory measures.
In the last week, this administration has suspended an outspoken student's email account (although no violation of the school's email policy could be found), has threatened a lawsuit against another current student for copyright infringement of the school's logo, and has effectively silenced the faculty with the "revisting tenure" shenanigan.

5. The school just sent out a new issue of the Advocate which has only one purpose - to glorify the Dean and Monaghan. We will devote a separate post to this shameful piece of propaganda, but we should note that it takes great pains to present a history of the school that completely cuts out any mention of the founding faculty and makes the Dean and Monaghan appear to be the oldest of friends and the two people who came up with the whole idea of starting the school.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF EQUATING THE MISSION OF AN INSTITUTION WITH THE CHARACTER OF ITS LEADERSHIP. AMC, AMSOL, AND AMU DO PROMOTE AN "ORTHODOX" CATHOLIC MISSION. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THEIR GOVERNORS AND ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND SIMPLE ETHICS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SUCH A MISSION. NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP TO OUR "LEADERS" OR FOREVER LOSE OUR BELOVED LAW SCHOOL.

8 Comments:

At 12:49 AM, Blogger Thomas Peters said...

this has classic earmarks of stage 2 TM/cronies tactics.

Stage 3 will be massive changes done during the SUMMER MONTHS since students/facult are decentralized (out of touch, out of state, etc.)

This spring stuff is just positioning. Expect to come back to a very different school next fall.

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

It's important ro realize that there are two goals here. In no particular order: (1) establish the/a law school in Florida and (2) delete the law school in AA. There are lots of reasons to think goal (1) will not be acheived. Goal (2), however, the deletion of AMSoL from AA, is a lot easier to accomplish. Say what you will about Mr. Monaghan, he has an outstanding track record of closing down academic institutions. I don't really give a damn about goal (1); it's goal (2) I care about, and I fear the powers that be are quite capable of realizing AMSol AA's deletion.

 
At 9:22 AM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

I cross-posted this at fumare; I'd love to see it commented upon:

Speaking of our beloved alma mater, I just saw the USNews top grad schools 2007(?!) edition last night. The news is not good. Fourth tier. What's really bad, though, is that, although we can reason away poor scores for us from the legal community (due to our being relatively new and unknown, and perhaps even due to some hostility to our mission), the other stats (except for our 100% bar passage rate-way to go, guys!) support our low ranking. The GPAs and LSATs of the entering class (we accepted two-thirds of all applicants, by far the highest acceptance rate in the country-the next highest was around 45%) were terrible. I remember when our LSATs put us near the top of the second tier. Lo, how the mighty have fallen!

I'd love to know why. Why do we accept so many applicants? Why the lowering of standards? Is the school okay with being fourth-tier? Is this about money? Is the cheapening of our JDs and, worse, the downfall of our school (and this is quite a comedown-those charts they gave us showing the school's stats compared with other schools are no longer worth the paper they're printed on), a result of the whole Florida fiasco? I'd like to know more about why Dean Kenney, who recruited some outstanding classes, left for ND.

The University of Iowa, if I recall, remains at 18.

 
At 9:57 AM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

I saw the USNewsODT (that's my secret code to let people know I'm a neo-con) at a Borders in Harrisburg, PA last night. No idea how long it's been out.

So much for: "Yeah, I'm applying to Merton College, Oxford and the Sorbonne. Harvard is my safety school." Looks like we're everybody's safety school,, and it looks like we're keeping it pretty safe.

 
At 11:49 AM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

Mr. Brooks,

I see your point. I almost added to my last post, and add now:

Nothing against the student body. We all have different strengths, different gifts we can bring to a community (like AMSoL); nothing wrong with not being a spectacularly gifted standardized test taker. (I feel particularly sensitive about this, because I am quite good at standardized tests, but also very aware of my weaknesses in so many other areas.)

My problem is with the administration. It's not "Who let these people in?", because I'm sure we've got some great students. Rather, it's "Who let in a class with this overall composition?"

Back when we had the need for ABA accredidation hanging over our heads, the school made sure to admit a student body that had impressive credentials. Having impressive credentials doesn't get you into heaven, but it does matter when you're trying to get a job after law school, or when you're trying to attract good students.

I think the school was better off when we had the need to impress the ABA. That kept us on our toes.

Also, Mr. Brooks, this is not about whether these students are teachable. It's about a few very specific, quantifiable (and quantified) credentials. Either you got 'em or you don't. Having students with high GPAs and LSATs is important to the success of a law school. AMSoL used to care about that. It's important to score well in the (well-publicized) USNews categories. The law school scoring well in those categories makes it easier for her graduates to feed their families. So really, Mr. Brooks, your two middle paragraphs are irrelevant to the point being discussed here. Be nice to people. Yeah, okay, I've heard that before. Thanks. Admit incoming classes with outstanding credentials. That's what we're talking about here and I've also heard that before. My problem is that apparently that hasn't been said in the ad wing recently.

 
At 2:15 PM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

I've got a big attitude problem, Mr. Brooks. (I have no interest in getting your cutesy nickname "right", as I have little verging on no respect for someone who calls me out by name while hiding behind a pseudonym.)

I've often found your comments to be insightful and informative, because you've apparently gone through the crisis at AMC, which is similar to the one at AMSoL. That said, these are two different institutions. The Law School's battle is different from (although similar and connected to) AMC's. We're talking about AMSoL's battle here. Sometimes your comments elucidate AMSoL's problems; sometimes they obscure them. Here, I believe your comments obscure the issue. Your second response to me confirms my impression that you either missed my point or are wilfully trying to change the subject.

I understand and agree with what you've said about a teacher's relationship to his students. The teachers here have not chosen their students, and no doubt should treat them as you say.

My point goes to those who've chosen to admit this particular class of students to AMSoL. They blew it. While the teachers need to teach them well, the rest of us can try to identify what went wrong (and that begins by pointing out that something indeed has gone wrong) and figure out ways to rectify the situation.

Little Leaguer's comment is precisely the kind of contribution that advances the ball. Did AMSol admit a class with subpar stats because of the proposed move to Florida? I think the answer is probably yes. The Florida crisis may well be scaring away top students and diverting resources, fiscal and otherwise, from their recruitment.

No one is saying stats are the only important thing or even the most important thing. The point is that AMSoL has been ranked by USNews as a fourth-tier school and, sadly, the stats printed by USNews next to the AMSoL name are indeed those of a fourth-tier institution. The USNews rankings are important: they affect the alumni's ability to land jobs and the school's ability to attract top-notch students. AMSoL used to understand that and act accordingly.

Mr. Brooks, you've made your point about how teachers should treat their students once they've got them. If you've got any comments about how the school can improve upon its fourth-tier ranking, I'm open to hearing them. If all you want to do is cry over AMC, tell us all what a great teacher you are, and insult me while hiding behind a cutesy name, maybe you should just butt the hell out.

How dare you patronize us with your "Easy there, guys and gals" and insult me by name while hiding behind a pseudonym?!

Charles C. Pavlick
AMSol '05
ccpavlick@alumni.avemarialaw.edu

 
At 5:05 PM, Blogger Boko Fittleworth said...

Mr. Brooks,

I apologize for my harshness. I really am very upset about this whole thing. I loved the whole AMSoL concept, the school itself was just what I needed when I needed it, and the administration, staff, faculty, and (most of the) students are very important to me. I was treated so well there; it really made me a better person (if you doubt that based on recent experience, you should have met me before).

The money quote from my above post was:

"No one is saying stats are the only important thing or even the most important thing. The point is that AMSoL has been ranked by USNews as a fourth-tier school and, sadly, the stats printed by USNews next to the AMSoL name are indeed those of a fourth-tier institution. The USNews rankings are important: they affect the alumni's ability to land jobs and the school's ability to attract top-notch students. AMSoL used to understand that and act accordingly."

All I can say is, in the legal community, the USNews rankings matter. A lot. The need to impress USNews and the ABA is why the law school got off to such a great start. We've got full ABA accreditation now, and apparently are no longer as concerned with USNews-type stats. That's bad news for AMSoL. I don't think it can be stressed enough how having the need for ABA accreditation hanging over our heads dictated what was done at the school. Now, something (or someone-guess who?) else is doing the dictating.

 
At 9:29 PM, Blogger AMSOL Pioneer said...

I spoke with the Dean today about the ranking and he shared some important informatin with me. The USN&WR rankings were based on a number of criteria. Two of the heaviest-weighted criteria have to do with reputation in the legal community / peer review, and "selectiveness".

On the peer review point, we suffer from the disadvantage of being new. It's not so much that we were "dissed" by the deans, legal scholars and judges who were polled about us, but rather that they simply didn't know us or enough about us. This is a natural hurdle with new schools.

As regards selectivity, the Dean admitted we are weak. This criterion is made up of three subparts: incoming LSAT scores (we are good there), incoming GPA (we're weak there), and % of applicants admitted (we're weak there, too, but this is also a function of our youth as a school and our strong mission & identity).

These two critera together account for 65% of the ranking. The Dean said that he was more disappointed that we were ranked at all, so soon after receiving accreditation, but that he rathe rexpected we'd be low: third or fourth tier. That's the slanted way these rankings work.

Mind you, I'm not commenting on our alma mater's admissions policies. Just relating what I was told. It offers perhaps some small comfort.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home