A Win for Mount St. Mary's

Simon Newman, the president of Mount St. Mary's University, just resigned his post, effective immediately.   This is a big win for Mount St. Mary's.   

It's also a win for people fighting the corporatization of the modern university.

For the non-DMV folks, a wee bit of background.  The Mount, as its students, teachers, and alumni call it, is a small, Catholic, liberal arts institution in rural Maryland.  Like many liberal arts colleges, the Mount is suffering from multiple pressures affecting higher ed--declining enrollments, rising costs, increased competition, calls to modernize the curriculum, etc.

In 2015 the Board hired Mr. Newman, a former CEO of a private equity firm, to 'turn around' the institution.  The idea that the Mount needed to turn around suggests that it was somehow failing at its core mission rather than facing pressures affecting higher ed more widely.  But, even if we accept the premise, it's still unclear why a Catholic institution of higher learning would hire someone from the corporate world to engineer a 'turn around.'  But, that's what they did.

And in short order, Mr. Newman brought his corporate values to the university:

1. He cut professors' pensions
2. He hatched a plan to game the university's retention rate data by getting rid of struggling students before the benchmark count begins (usually in October).  
3. He told professors who opposed the plan to stop treating struggling students like "cuddly bunnies...You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads.”  
4. He fired 2 tenured professors who spoke against the plan to the student newspaper.
5. He helped engineer a student petition of support that required students to sign using their student ID numbers. 
6. He called people who disagreed him disloyal to the university and suggested they were living in the past. 

These moves work in corporate America.  In fact, squashing dissent, cutting costs, gaming stats, and throwing people under the bus will often lead to a promotion in the corporate world, and sometimes a rise in the company's stock price.

Unfortunately, lots of people think these moves will work in academia too.  Just ask George Will or others of his ilk who are convinced that the modern academy is run by bra-burning, pitchfork wielding, science-loving communists who can only be reigned in by a Daddy Warbucks figure.

These folks are wrong.  Dead wrong. 

Of course universities need to operate in the black, but increasing the bottom line is not their ultimate goal, nor should it be.  The goal of Higher Ed is to produce students who know how to write, engage in problem solving in their chosen field, and think outside of the box. It's hard to 'produce' these students when your goal is driven by the bottom line and lacks even basic empathy for the students themselves.

Just ask the brilliant students with depression how he would feel being labeled a bunny in need of drowning.  That student may get better and graduate, but the lack of respect and support means he's not likely to donate money to the college once he graduates, nor is he likely to send his kids there in the future.

Or, you could take a stroll into a classroom staffed by an adjunct who teaches 4 classes at 4 different universities and ask her how much time she has to update her lectures, write letters of recommendation, or otherwise sell the university off-campus.  She's got very little time for any of that, even on good days.  

The big question for Mount St. Mary's is what comes next.  After scandals like this it's common to hear people talk about 'healing.'  The interim president has already used this language and so have members of the board.

Unfortunately, healing won't happen just because the rot at the top is gone.  Healing can only happen after some amends-making occurs.  And here, I'm thinking about the college's board.  They vigorously defended Mr. Newman up until he resigned and used similar language as Mr. Newman did to describe his detractors.  They also appear to have been behind the student petition to help save Newman.  It is, therefore, hard to imagine this board being in charge of the healing, let alone the next steps the university makes.  None of that can happen before they first make amends.  And, for some of them, that might mean stepping down just as their hired henchman did.       

Ten Signs the Pope is Coming to Town

Ten Signs the Pope is coming to the DMV:

1. Fox 5 News has started playing religious sounding music before segments about the Pope's visit.
2. News coverage about the Pope is focused on the traffic nightmares his visit will cause.   
3. DC motorcades will finally get some style (the Popemobile is neat-o mosquito.  The black SUV not so much).   
4. Federal workers get a day off to 'work' from home
5. No one who lives here will actually get to see the Pope.
6. Republican hardliners in Congress can't believe the Holy Father is gonna bust in on their media time right before a potential government shutdown.  Doesn't the Pope know Obama is a 'Kenyan Muslim Saul Alinksy-lovin' terrorist?'
7. People are placing bets on who will get a stern talking-to in a Pope speech, but the odds in Vegas are all over the map.  There are a LOT of people here who need a stern talking-to.  
8. All ten of the city's fashionistas are breathing easy.  It was hard to compete with the last Pope's bling.  The new guy's a piece of cake.     
9. The National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is all like "The National Cathedral who?"
10. Everyone wants to know what's going to happen to the guy who's been protesting the church's handling of child sexual abuse at the corner of 34th and Massachusetts for over a decade. 

Random MOCO Pic of the Day--A Reminder that It's Been a Violent Summer in the DMV

I saw this car sign while I was out and about yesterday and it reminded me what a violent summer it's been in the DMV.

Things are especially bad in DC where the total number of murders, 106 as of September 5th, just surpassed the total number of murders for all of 2014.

Things are better in MOCO, but the trend lines are worrying.  In 2013 Montgomery County recorded 8 murders.  In 2014 the number of murders increased 137% to 19.  As of September 5th, the county has recorded 12 murders.

We don't know if these increases are short term aberrations or the beginning of something more substantial.  Either way, it's been a long, hard summer for too many DMV families.    

Tips for Knowing Whether that Blue Crab is from Maryland and Virginia

It's official.  Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe thinks Maryland's blue crabs should be called Virginia crabs.      

Yup, that's right, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is not only making a play for Washington's football team (which plays in Largo, Maryland); he's now claiming bragging rights to the delicacy on which we Marylanders put our old bay.

How dare he?

Ok, he's Terry McAuliffe.  That's a dumb question.

A better question is how the purist Marylander can you tell if his or her blue crab is from Virginian?

Based on my misspent youth in Virginia, I've put together a handy dandy list of sure-fire signs your crab is from the Old Dominion.

A Virginia crab would...

1. Like grits and think you're a communist for putting anything besides salt and butter on them.
2. Expect the ice tea to be sweet
3. Confuse paprika for Old Bay
4. Re-enact the War Between the Crabs on the weekends.
5. Drive like a maniac and blame it on Maryland and DC residents
6. Brag about low taxes while complaining about the horrible condition of state roads
7. Love Jesus and liquor
8. Make you feel guilty for not loving Jesus enough
9. Say 'bless your heart' instead of 'F*&K you! 
10. Cast votes that confuse the heck out of the rest of the country

But never fear, Maryland and Virginia crabs will always set aside their differences to hate on West Virginia Catfish.      

Let's Talk about Gentrification and Race

In the last month the Washington Post has published 3 stories about race and gentrification.

The first detailed a man who put up anti-gentrification signs in his Brightwood yard.  When a Washington Post reporter asked him why he put the sings up he explained, "I don’t want people to come in and diminish the affordable housing stock for black Americans, because [black Americans] have nowhere else to go,   There are plenty of places for white Americans to go.”

The second detailed the changing demographics of DC's Chinatownn neighborhood.  Basically, Chinatown isn't very Chinese anymore.  Only 300 Chinese people live in the neighborhood, down from 3,000.  And, the last building still housing a significant number of Chinese people--many of them low income tenants--is up for sale.   

The third was a column in yesterday's paper by metro columnist Courtland Milloy.  Milloy observed that there is something vital missing from the revitalization of 14th Street--black people.

Although I usually avoid the comments sections on anything posted on the internet, the comments in these articles tell us a lot about how ordinary citizens view gentrification.

Some people don't want to acknowledge that gentrification involves racial change at all.  It's all about the money, they say.

Others think black folks are being whiny.  One commentator dismissed Milloy's article by saying "It [14th Street] was a complete sewer" before the millennials arrived.  Others think black folks are being racist--"Racism on public display" said one commenter on the Brightwood article.  

Still others look for the bright side.  Sure, black folks often end up leaving gentrifying areas, but they profit handsomely when they sell their houses for millions of dollars.  

Then, there are the people who come at it from left field.  A reader of the Chinatown article applauded the declining Chinese population as a sign of diversity--"We are seeing here the realization of President Obama's dream to integrate neighborhoods. Washington is becoming more diverse.  We should all celebrate that."

What should we make of all of this?  Or, put another way, what are the unspoken rules that govern how we can talk about gentrification?  From the comments sections of these three articles I see 3 informal rules in play:  First, most people acknowledge gentrification involves racial change (in DC that means a growing white population and a declining black one).  Second, black people shouldn't talk about it.  Third, if they do talk about it, they'll be sanctioned politely (e.g. by being reminded that they sold their houses for a profit) or impolitely (e.g. by being reminded what a mess their old neighborhood was before the white millennials arrived). In short, we can talk about gentrification, but we can't talk about gentrification and race. 

I think this is silly and unfair.  

People form attachments to place.  Black people do this.  White people do this.  So do Asians and Hispanics.  We all do it.  

My mom still lives in the house I grew up in.  There's been a lot of turnover in her neighborhood, but I still look at every house and remember the kid who lived in it when I was young.  Three houses down is "Benny's house."  Across the street from Benny is "Lawrence's house."  It doesn't matter that Benny and Lawrence moved out of the neighborhood before I graduated high school.  That's how I see those houses. 

The couple who owned the house my husband and I bought in Silver Spring once had the previous owner stop by for a visit.  The woman wanted to see what her old house looked like inside.  She'd loved the house and wanted to make sure it was still being taken care of.  

People fall in love with places--rooms, houses, streets, entire neighborhoods.  They become a map of our heart.  The place you had your first kiss, or the place you started a family.  So, we shouldn't be surprised that black people who grew up in, or lived in neighborhoods that used to be predominantly black feel vertigo, sadness, and even anger that their neighborhood isn't the same anymore.  

We also shouldn't be surprised that newcomers aren't always welcome.  The racial shifts that occur with gentrification don't happen in a void.  Gentrification isn't a random, value-neutral resorting of the population.  Historically, black people concentrated in cities (or certain neighborhoods in them) because they had little choice.  Redlining, landlord bias, and limited resources meant their housing choices were circumscribed.  These neighborhoods might not have been the places their residents would choose in a perfect world, but that's where they ended up. And, overtime, they made those places their own.  So, when the newcomers arrive, the 'old-timers' often feel like they're back to square one.  The place they made their own is suddenly no longer theirs.  They can't afford the higher rent their landlord wants to charge.  Or, they can't cover the new, higher property taxes.  Or, they can afford to stay but now feel out of place.     

Instead of ignoring, scolding, or deriding people unhappy with gentrification, we should have some empathy.  We've all felt a connection to a place.  Gentrification often rips that apart.  I know empathy alone won't solve the problems that accompany gentrification, but it's not a bad place to start.  Based on the comments sections of these three articles, it is in short supply.

Random MOCO Pic of the Day--Enfant Terrible

For the MOCO workers whose job it is to paint over graffiti, it probably feels a lot like weeding a garden this time of year.  No matter how many weeds you pull up, they always come back, sometimes overnight.  I'll give it to our county workers, though--they don't let fresh graffiti stay up long in our neighborhood.  

That said, I was happy to see this enfant terrible shining through county's paint yesterday.  Graffiti is frequently ugly and unimaginative, but sometimes it makes you laugh.  I hope this terrible infant's parent will be back. 

Enfant terrible, 495 underpass, Sligo Creek Trail at Forest Glenn

Winning Badly--DC and The DC United Stadium Deal

When you win, there's no need to rub the loser's face in it.  You won after all.

Apparently, the District Government  never learned that lesson.  Instead, they pulled a proverbial Christian Laettner.  Scoring the win, and still stomping the competition in the face.

The back story:  DC United has been trying to get a new stadium built in DC for a long time.  In 2007 it came close to a deal with former Mayor Adrian Fenty only to see it fall apart.  Seven years later the team was back at the negotiating table with Mayor Vincent Gray, and in the waning days of his administration, the team struck a deal with the city.  Unfortunately, Gray's successor (Muriel Bowser) was slow to put it in motion.  Although Bowser supported the deal, six months into her mayorship she still hadn't acquired a contested parcel of land necessary for construction to begin.     

After little progress with Bowser's administration, it's no wonder DC United started to question the sincerity of the District's support for the stadium.  The new mayor's promises weren't matched by actions.

So, in swoops Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.  Ever the salesman, he pitched a location in Loudon County for the team.  Then, word of the meetings between team officials and Virginia officials leaked to the press.

So, how did the District react?  In front of the cameras and in interviews with the press they were blase.  Behind the scene, someone clearly lit a fire under Bowser's well-tailored pant-suit. 

A few days later, on June 9th, the District held a news conference to announce it had 'sealed' the deal.  Leaving aside the obvious question--wasn't the deal already 'sealed'?--how did the city comport itself during the announcement?

With unwarranted (and slightly wacky) braggadocio.  

According to Phil Mendelson, the chairman of the city council, the deal was a win because the proposed site in DC didn't look like a cornfield.  Fortunately, council member Jack Evans clarified for people wondering what corn had to do with soccer by pointing to the DC blueprints on a nearby easel--"it certainly doesn't look like Loudoun County."

Not sure when Loudoun County started growing corn--isn't that where all the rich people and their horses live?--or when it became a mild invective. 

Full disclosure--I would also prefer the new stadium be in DC rather than Loudoun.  However...the proper reaction from the city was contrition not chest-pounding.  DC United fans have been waiting a long time for their stadium--a lot longer than the city's baseball fans waited for theirs.  And, the deal still isn't done.  Bowser promised to have the land parcel secured by September, and I hope she manages it.  But, it ain't time to stick a fork in it just yet. 

Vamos United wherever you land!