Natasha Zaretsky comments before the Dec BOT meeting

My name is Natasha Zaretsky, and I am a member of the History Department. I want to begin by thanking the Board of Trustees for all of your hard work on behalf of SIU. I am not only a professor. I also sit on a board myself—for Carbondale Elementary School District 95—and I know how demanding the work can be. So I truly appreciate all of your efforts.

In recent weeks, the public has voiced concerns about Chancellor Montemagno’s restructuring proposal for our campus. I imagine that there might be a temptation to dismiss those concerns as coming from a small band of disgruntled faculty or from those who have their heads in the sand or who are simply resistant to change or who don’t understand the direness of the situation facing our campus. But nothing could be further from the truth. Our deeply committed faculty and staff know that adaptation is necessary for the survival of our institution, which I happily have called my home for almost twenty years. We all recognize that SIUC is confronting what can only be described as an existential crisis. As a faculty member, I am afraid for my job. But even more, I am afraid for the future of my university, my town, and for the Southern Illinois region. And I need to add that it pains me deeply to hear the Chancellor compare SIUC to a junk car. That is such a disservice to me and my fellow educators, as well as to all of the wonderful students I have taught over the years, including Joel Sambursky (hi Joel!).

At times of acute crisis, thinking critically and collaboratively becomes more vital. The Chancellor’s restructuring proposal raises a number of elemental questions: What are the models for this restructuring? Where has this model been implemented, and has it been successful? What evidence is there that the dissolution of forty-two departments and the creation of schools will address—and indeed not exacerbate--our enrollment crisis? And what evidence do we have that a lack of synergy in our current programs is the factor that is preventing students from coming here? These are not complex questions. Anyone who cares about the future of the institution should be asking them. The problem is that, at least to date, the Chancellor has not been able to answer these questions. He has provided no data, no evidence, no models, and no best practices that he can cite to back up his plan. Yesterday, when asked about the USG’s opposition to his plan to dissolve all departments, the Chancellor answered that “students don’t understand.” Yet he is banking on future students being so attracted to his vision of synergy that they come here in droves. Both of these things cannot be true at the same time.

In light of the considerable confusion, we are trying to answer these questions for ourselves. A group of us has launched a Coordinating Committee for Change, which aims to gather data, exchange information, and promote an inclusive community dialogue about the best ways to bring constructive change to our campus. We’ve launched a website where we can compile relevant research, and we’re conducting our own survey to assess the level of support for the proposal and to find out whether various constituency groups are being included in the restructuring process. We are doing this because we care deeply about SIUC. We are eager for change, but we want change to be thoughtful and deliberative. At the level of national politics, we have all seen the complete catastrophe that can ensue when a radical disruption and upending of the status quo is celebrated for its own sake. We do not want to see that happen here.